The Supreme Court, in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh, ruled that a person converting to Christianity cannot claim Scheduled Caste (SC) status, upholding the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which bars SC status for those professing a religion different from Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism. The Court stated that conversion to a non-listed religion results in immediate and complete loss of SC status, regardless of birth. It also laid down a three-condition threshold for "reconversion" to Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism, requiring proof of original SC group belonging, credible evidence of bona fide reconversion, and acceptance by the original caste/community. For Scheduled Tribes (STs), however, no religion-based exclusion applies, with status depending on the retention of tribal identity and community recognition.
- The Supreme Court ruled that conversion to Christianity leads to an immediate loss of Scheduled Caste (SC) status, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
- The Order specifies that SC status is limited to those professing Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism.
- For "reconversion" to a listed religion, the Court established a three-part test: proof of original SC belonging, credible evidence of bona fide reconversion, and acceptance by the original community.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed amidst public outcry and protests from LGBTQIA+ communities, raising concerns about the democratic process. Critics argue the Bill applies a heteronormative lens, failing to address complex gender identity issues comprehensively. It shifts focus to mandatory biological markers instead of self-identification, potentially limiting existing protections and conflating sex and gender. Stakeholders suggest the government should adopt a collaborative, rights-based approach with transparent consultation to ensure equality and dignity for all, rather than creating new problems.
- The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, was passed despite significant protests and concerns from LGBTQIA+ communities.
- Critics argue the Bill uses a heteronormative lens and fails to adequately address the complexities of gender identity and human dignity.
- The Bill shifts the focus from self-identification to mandatory biological markers, potentially limiting rights established by previous judicial precedents like NALSA vs Union of India.
The National Medical Commission (NMC) has issued an advisory declaring stem cell therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as illegal. This move, in compliance with a Supreme Court order, aims to curb illegal practices by private clinics in metropolitan and tier-2 cities that falsely claim to treat autism and cerebral palsy using stem cell therapy. According to the advisory, based on ICMR recommendations, stem cell therapy is now approved only for 32 specific diseases.
- The National Medical Commission has declared stem cell therapy for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) illegal.
- This decision aligns with a Supreme Court order and aims to prevent unproven treatments offered by private clinics.
- Stem cell therapy is now approved for only 32 specific diseases, based on ICMR recommendations.
The article emphasizes the critical need for a "living will" (advance directive) to ensure dignified end-of-life care, preventing prolonged suffering for patients and their families. A living will is a legal document outlining an individual's treatment preferences for terminal or irreversible conditions, thereby relieving relatives and doctors from difficult decisions. Without one, patients may endure unwanted treatments, and families face emotional conflict. The Supreme Court legally recognized advance directives in the Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) case. It clarifies that a living will applies only to irreversible conditions, not routine illnesses, and helps reduce unnecessary medical interventions and expenses, benefiting young adults as well.
- A living will is crucial for ensuring dignified end-of-life care and preventing prolonged suffering for patients with terminal or irreversible conditions.
- It is a legal document that specifies treatment preferences, such as withholding ventilators or feeding tubes, relieving family and doctors of difficult decisions.
- The Supreme Court legally recognized "advance directives" in the Common Cause vs. Union of India (2018) case.
Around 140 lawyers and women's rights activists have urged President Droupadi Murmu not to grant assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, citing "constitutional violations" and "procedural infirmities." The letter, from groups like ALIFA and NAJAR, criticized the undue haste in passing the Bill and the lack of public consultation. They argue that the Bill violates the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment (2014) by removing the right to self-perceived gender identity and introducing medical board scrutiny, which infringes on bodily integrity and privacy. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons also resigned in protest.
- Lawyers and activists have urged the President not to assent to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, citing constitutional and procedural flaws.
- The Bill is criticized for being passed with undue haste and without adequate public and stakeholder consultation.
- Activists argue the Bill violates the Supreme Court's NALSA judgment (2014) by undermining the right to self-perceived gender identity.
The Union Home Ministry, through the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), issued an average of 290 takedown notices daily for suspicious online content, totaling 1,11,185 blocks under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act from March 2024 to March 2025. Social media platforms are mandated to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving an order. Separately, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) reported a sharp increase in cybersecurity incidents, reaching 29.44 lakh in 2025, up from 20.41 lakh in 2024.
- The Home Ministry's I4C issued an average of 290 takedown notices daily, blocking 1,11,185 pieces of suspicious online content under IT Act Section 79(3)(b) from March 2024 to March 2025.
- Social media intermediaries are required to remove unlawful content within three hours of receiving a competent order.
- Cybersecurity incidents reported to CERT-In significantly increased, from 20.41 lakh in 2024 to 29.44 lakh in 2025.
A discussion explores the need for formal paternity leave in India, following a Supreme Court ruling that emphasized the child's right to access both parents as caregivers. Ashwini Deshpande highlights that Indian women spend ten times more hours on domestic work and childcare, leading to a "motherhood penalty" in wages and limiting work opportunities. Sanjoy Ghose points out that existing maternity laws cover only 10% of the formal workforce and discrimination persists. Both agree on the need for "parental leave" instead of just maternity/paternity, with a non-transferable component for fathers, accompanied by a shift in societal norms. Challenges include the informal sector, small enterprises, and patriarchal mindsets.
- The Supreme Court highlighted the child's right to access both parents, prompting a debate on formal paternity leave in India.
- Indian women disproportionately bear childcare responsibilities, leading to a "motherhood penalty" and limiting their participation in the workforce.
- Existing maternity benefits cover only a small fraction of the workforce, and discrimination against women persists in the formal sector.
An opinion piece argues against the Chief Justice of India's (CJI) characterization of the Supreme Court Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes as "technical" and "Harvard-oriented." Released in 2023, the handbook aims to identify and replace gender-stereotyping language in judicial reasoning, highlight incorrect reasoning patterns, and compile relevant Supreme Court precedents. The author contends the handbook is firmly grounded in Indian realities and precedent, not foreign concepts. While acknowledging the need for improvement and practical training for judges, the article emphasizes that the handbook is a crucial institutional acknowledgment of how language can perpetuate or dismantle inequality, and its significance should not be diminished.
- The Supreme Court Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, released in 2023, aims to eliminate gender-stereotyping language in judicial reasoning.
- The author argues that the handbook is rooted in Indian precedent and courtroom realities, not "Harvard-oriented" as suggested by the CJI.
- The handbook provides alternative language, explains incorrect reasoning patterns, and compiles Supreme Court decisions rejecting stereotypes.
The Supreme Court reiterated its long-held principle that Scheduled Caste (SC) protections and special provisions are available only to those practicing Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. This judgment arose from a Christian pastor's plea for SC/ST Act protection. The Court affirmed that an SC member converting out of these three religions ceases to be an SC. Historically, SC definition initially included only Hindus, later extended to Sikhs (1956) and Buddhists (1990). The editorial notes that while theological and constitutional arguments support this distinction, the exclusion of Christian and Muslim converts, who still face discrimination, remains a contested and politically surcharged issue, currently under review by a commission.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Scheduled Caste benefits are limited to those practicing Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism.
- Conversion out of these specified religions results in the loss of SC status, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
- The original SC definition for Hindus was extended to Sikhs in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990, reflecting historical and political realities.
A Supreme Court-constituted Advisory Committee, headed by former Delhi High Court judge Justice Asha Menon, has recommended to the Government of India that the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, be withdrawn. The committee stated that the Bill's proposal to "deny self-identification" of gender goes against the Supreme Court's 2014 NALSA verdict. The chairperson called the amendment a "great shock" and a "tremendous setback" to efforts to mainstream transgender communities, as it removes the right to self-perceived gender identity and introduces a medical board's nod for certificates.
- A Supreme Court-constituted Advisory Committee has recommended withdrawing the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026.
- The committee argues that the Bill's denial of "self-identification" of gender contradicts the 2014 NALSA v. Union of India Supreme Court verdict.
- The Bill proposes to remove the right to a self-perceived gender identity and mandates a medical board's approval for transgender certificates.
The Supreme Court stated that the Union Home Ministry's January 28 guidelines on playing the National Song Vande Mataram are merely an advisory and not a "threat to conform" or a violation of constitutional freedoms. The court clarified that non-compliance would not lead to penal or adverse action. However, the petitioner argued that even without legal sanction, refusing to sing or stand up for the song imposes a "huge burden" on individuals. The Chief Justice questioned if patriotism could not be compelled even for the National Anthem, while the Solicitor General emphasized the organic nature of respect for the National Song.
- The Supreme Court views the Union Home Ministry's guidelines on Vande Mataram as an advisory, not a mandatory directive infringing on constitutional freedoms.
- The court clarified that there would be no penal or adverse action for not playing or singing the National Song.
- The petitioner argued that even an advisory creates a "huge burden" on individuals who choose not to participate due to conscience.
The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Bill, 2026, is criticized for narrowing the definition of "transgender person" and removing the right to self-perceived gender identity. The Bill mandates medical board approval for certificates and requires hospitals to report surgeries, raising privacy concerns. It conflates intersex and transgender identities, ignoring international standards, and perpetuates exploitative structures like the hijra jamath-gharana system. The article argues the Bill lacks intersectionality, failing to address issues of caste, disability, poverty, or civil rights like marriage and adoption, thus undermining human rights and failing to provide a scientific, culturally grounded approach.
- The Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026, narrows the definition of "transgender person" and removes the right to self-perceived gender identity.
- The Bill mandates medical board approval for transgender certificates and requires hospitals to report surgeries, raising privacy concerns.
- It is criticized for conflating intersex and transgender identities, violating international standards, and failing to address the specific needs of intersex individuals.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused himself from hearing petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner appointment law, citing "conflict of interest." This law replaced the CJI with a Union Minister on the selection panel for CEC appointments. The recusal raises questions about judicial conflict of interest, the doctrine of necessity, and the limits of pre-emptive judicial direction. The CJI's oral direction to exclude judges in the line of succession from the replacement bench is problematic, as recusal is an individual conscience matter and cannot be mandated prospectively. India lacks a statute governing judicial recusal, a binding code of conduct, or a mechanism to review recusal decisions, highlighting an urgent need for codification.
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant recused himself from a case challenging the CEC appointment law, citing a "conflict of interest."
- The new law replaces the CJI with a Union Minister on the selection panel for Chief Election Commissioner appointments.
- The recusal and the CJI's subsequent direction to exclude judges in the line of succession from the replacement bench raise questions about judicial impartiality and pre-emptive judicial direction.
Harish Rana, who had been in a persistent vegetative state for 13 years, passed away at AIIMS, Delhi, days after the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH). This judgment was the first of its kind in India, permitting passive euthanasia in specific circumstances. Rana, 32, had sustained 100% quadriplegic disability after a fall in 2013. His family, who had welcomed the court's decision, stating that no parent wanted to see their son suffer, donated his corneas and heart valves after his death. The case highlights the legal and ethical complexities surrounding end-of-life care and the right to die with dignity.
- Harish Rana, in a vegetative state for 13 years, passed away after the Supreme Court allowed the withdrawal of clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration (CANH).
- The Supreme Court's judgment was a landmark decision, being the first of its kind in India to permit passive euthanasia in such circumstances.
- Rana had suffered 100% quadriplegic disability due to a fall in 2013.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, ruled that systemic bias and long-held presumptions against women officers in the armed forces created an uneven playing field, hindering their chances for permanent commission (PC). The court upheld the right of women officers to equal opportunity, treatment, and dignity, granting them permanent commission and pensionary benefits. It found that Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) were graded casually, leading to lower scores compared to male counterparts who were eligible for PC. The court rejected the argument of vacancy caps, stating that the inclusion of SSCWOs for PC is a constitutional obligation, not a matter of discretion.
- The Supreme Court identified systemic bias and unequal opportunity structures against women officers in the armed forces.
- The court upheld the right of women officers to permanent commission and pensionary benefits, ensuring equal opportunity and dignity.
- Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for Short Service Commission Women Officers (SSCWOs) were found to be casually graded, disadvantaging them in career progression.
India's Companies Act, 2013, mandated profit-sharing for social good, but environmental needs remain neglected in CSR funding. Recent Supreme Court observations, invoking Article 51A(g), have reframed environmental spending as a constitutional mandate, linking the right to conduct business with the responsibility to restore the planet. An analysis shows a lopsided spending pattern, with education (38%), healthcare (22%), and rural development (10%) receiving the most funds, while environment averages only 7-9%. Corporations often prefer "quick wins" like awareness drives over long-term land-based restoration projects due to their complexity and lack of expert skills. A strategic shift towards an 'ecosystem recovery' strategy, with alliances and long-term financing mechanisms like restoration trusts, is needed for real ecological impact.
- The Supreme Court has mandated environmental spending as a constitutional obligation, linking business rights to planetary restoration, invoking Article 51A(g).
- CSR funding in India shows a significant imbalance, with environmental projects receiving only 7-9% of funds compared to social sectors like education and healthcare.
- Companies often prioritize "quick wins" and easily reportable initiatives over complex, long-term environmental restoration projects.
The Supreme Court ruled that a person professing a religion other than Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism cannot be considered a Scheduled Caste (SC) member. Conversion to any other religion results in immediate and complete loss of SC status, regardless of birth. The court invoked Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which mandates this religious restriction. The ruling came in an appeal filed by Chinthada Anand, a Hindu-Madiga (SC) convert to Christianity, whose criminal proceedings under the SC/ST Act were quashed. The court clarified that "profess" implies public declaration and practice of a religion, not just personal belief, and outlined conditions for re-conversion.
- The Supreme Court ruled that SC status is limited to individuals professing Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism.
- Conversion to any other religion leads to an immediate and complete loss of Scheduled Caste status, irrespective of birth.
- The judgment invoked Clause 3 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which explicitly states this religious restriction.
The Lok Sabha referred the Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination. Introduced by Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, the Bill aims to amend the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, and the Companies Act, 2013. Its objectives are to facilitate ease of doing business, address gaps identified by the Company Law Committee in 2022, rationalize penalties, and decriminalize minor procedural lapses. Opposition members raised concerns about diluting Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) provisions, which the Finance Minister refuted, stating the Bill only amends net profit criteria, not the entire CSR clause. The JPC will now analyze the legislation and provide recommendations.
- The Corporate Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
- The Bill seeks to amend the LLP Act, 2008, and the Companies Act, 2013, to promote ease of doing business.
- Key objectives include rationalizing penalties and decriminalizing minor procedural lapses.
The Union government plans to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) in the ongoing Parliament session. Key proposed changes include appointing a "designated authority" to manage or dispose of assets created from foreign funds by NGOs whose FCRA registration is suspended or cancelled. The amendments also expand the definition of "key functionary" to include various roles beyond office bearers, making them liable for FCRA offenses. Additionally, the Bill proposes to reduce the maximum imprisonment for FCRA offenses from five years to one year and introduces fixed timelines for utilizing foreign funds received under "prior permission" category. Law enforcement agencies will also require prior Central government approval for investigations into FCRA-related complaints.
- Amendments to the FCRA are proposed to regulate foreign funds and manage assets of NGOs.
- A "designated authority" will be appointed to handle assets of NGOs with suspended or cancelled FCRA registrations.
- The definition of "key functionary" is expanded, making more individuals liable for FCRA offenses.
The article debates the feasibility of compulsory voting in India, concluding it is neither desirable nor constitutionally sound, despite its potential to increase voter turnout. While voting is essential for democracy, it is not a fundamental or legal duty in India. Implementing compulsory voting would face practical difficulties, impose harsh penalties (as seen in other countries), and potentially violate the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 19(1). Instead, the focus should be on fostering voter enthusiasm through innovative campaigns, improving accessibility for migrant workers, and exploring secure remote voting technologies to enhance participation.
- Compulsory voting is not a fundamental or legal duty in India and raises constitutional concerns regarding freedom of expression.
- Practical difficulties and harsh penalties associated with compulsory voting make it undesirable and unfeasible for India.
- The Law Commission's 255th report indicated a 7% increase in turnout but linked it to strict enforcement of penalties.
India is witnessing a concerning trend of digital censorship, where social media accounts of activists and journalists are blocked, often for criticizing the government. The government utilizes emergency powers under the IT Rules, expanding the definition of "threat to public order." Critically, procedural safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act 2000, which require reasoned orders and judicial review, are being diluted through Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules, making blocking proceedings confidential. This lack of transparency and executive-only review undermines the constitutional right to free speech and judicial oversight, effectively creating a "digital exile" for critics and signaling a move towards arbitrary censorship.
- Digital censorship in India is increasing, with social media accounts blocked for criticizing the government.
- The government uses emergency powers under IT Rules, expanding "threat to public order" definitions.
- Procedural safeguards of Section 69A of IT Act 2000 are diluted by Rule 16 of 2009 Blocking Rules, making blocking orders confidential.
The article examines Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act, which allows the U.S. to unilaterally determine and act against foreign trade practices deemed unfair. Despite a 1999 WTO panel ruling that Section 301's unilateral nature could violate WTO law, the U.S. assured compliance. However, the Trump administration weaponized Section 301 to impose punitive tariffs, notably against China, and subsequently blocked the WTO Appellate Body, undermining the multilateral dispute settlement mechanism it helped create. This highlights the fragility of multilateral rules and the need for India and other developing nations to actively engage in coalition-building to revive and strengthen these global trade norms.
- Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act grants the U.S. unilateral power to impose tariffs, potentially violating international trade rules.
- The Trump administration used Section 301 as a punitive weapon, imposing tariffs on countries like China, despite WTO rulings against such actions.
- The U.S. has undermined the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism by blocking the appointment of Appellate Body members.
The "double-engine sarkar" slogan, implying faster development for states governed by the same party as the Union, poses a serious constitutional question for India's federal compact. This approach undermines the principle of cooperative federalism, suggesting that development is contingent on political alignment rather than constitutional rights. Issues like the Union government's increasing reliance on cesses and surcharges, which are not shared with states, and Governors delaying bills in opposition-ruled states, highlight the erosion of states' financial autonomy and legislative sovereignty. Structural reforms are needed to ensure fairness and prevent governance from becoming hostage to political alignment.
- The "double-engine sarkar" slogan implies preferential development for states aligned with the Union government, challenging India's federal principles.
- Fiscal federalism is strained by the Union's increased use of cesses and surcharges, reducing resources for states and concentrating power.
- Governors in opposition-ruled states have been accused of delaying legislative bills, acting as a "second engine running in reverse."
The Supreme Court recently closed the landmark MC Mehta vs Union of India PIL case on vehicular pollution, nearly four decades after its inception. This case, initiated in 1985, led to over 1,000 court orders and monumental environmental reforms, including Delhi's transition to CNG public transport. It established the principle of 'continuing mandamus,' allowing the court to monitor executive compliance over extended periods. The case significantly shaped India's environmental jurisprudence, linking the right to clean air with Article 21. While closed, its legacy underscores the judiciary's proactive role in environmental protection and the challenges of implementation by the executive.
- The MC Mehta vs Union of India PIL case on vehicular pollution, initiated in 1985, has been closed after nearly four decades.
- The case resulted in over 1,000 court orders and landmark environmental reforms, including Delhi's CNG transition.
- It established the 'continuing mandamus' principle, allowing prolonged judicial monitoring of executive compliance.