The Supreme Court's judgment in the 16th Presidential Reference has sparked debate over the lack of fixed timelines for constitutional authorities like Governors and Speakers. The court showed judicial deference to written constitutional language, refusing to prescribe specific timeframes for duties such as deciding on defection petitions or returning bills. Critics argue this creates a 'constitutional anomaly' where elected members can complete terms without facing consequences for defection. The article emphasizes that constitutional morality, as envisioned by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, requires institutions to act in a manner that upholds the spirit of the Constitution rather than exploiting its silences to block legislative business.
- The judgment addresses the absence of explicit timelines for constitutional functions in the Indian Constitution.
- The lack of a timeframe for the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection) allows members to potentially evade disqualification for years.
- Governors withholding bills indefinitely can effectively nullify validly enacted laws by elected State Assemblies.
The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to furnish six years of nationwide data on missing children. A bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna expressed concern over the rising number of untraced children and the lack of a dedicated nodal officer in the Home Ministry to coordinate with states. The court ordered the appointment of such an officer within two weeks and mandated that their details be uploaded to the Mission Vatsalya portal. This portal, administered by the Ministry of Women and Child Development, is intended to be a central platform for tracking and securing outcomes for missing children.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the need for effective dissemination of information and coordinated use of the Mission Vatsalya platform.
- The Ministry of Home Affairs was criticized for not having a dedicated officer to oversee missing children cases despite being the central agency.
- The directive came during a hearing of a PIL filed by the NGO Guria Swayam Sevi Sansthan regarding untraced children.
The Supreme Court clarified that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, provides enforceable rights to persecuted religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, but these rights are contingent upon official verification. An NGO, Aatmadeep, raised concerns about the 'Special Intensive Revision' (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, which risks making refugees stateless due to delays in issuing citizenship certificates. The Court emphasized that while the law exists, a mechanism for implementation must be followed. It has sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission regarding the status of these applicants and the validity of their acknowledgment receipts.
- The CAA 2019 grants citizenship rights to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three neighboring countries.
- The Supreme Court stated that every claim must be enquired into and verified by authorities before citizenship is conferred.
- The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has created a fear of statelessness among those whose claims are pending.
Following a petition highlighting the struggles of prisoners like G.N. Saibaba and Stan Swamy, the Supreme Court of India has directed prisons to provide disability-related support. The ruling emphasizes that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 applies to places of detention. Currently, many state prison manuals are outdated, assuming all prisoners are physically able. The Court also addressed intersectional issues, noting that caste-based segregation and the assignment of menial tasks to Dalit and Adivasi prisoners remain problematic. The judgment calls for updated manuals, disability screening at admission, and independent inspections.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 obligates governments to support disabled inmates.
- Prison manuals must be updated to include clear duties regarding disability-related accommodations and infrastructure.
- The Court noted that caste-based segregation in jails is unconstitutional and will monitor discrimination via suo motu proceedings.
This article explores the conflict between the Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the Ministry of Home Affairs' (MHA) authority over citizenship. While the ECI argues it must verify eligibility for enrollment, critics suggest only the MHA has the legal power to determine citizenship. The discussion touches upon the Citizenship Act of 1955, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), and the National Population Register (NPR). It highlights the administrative burden on individuals to prove citizenship, particularly in Assam, where the NRC process has left many in a state of 'doubtful citizenship.'
- The ECI's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is being legally challenged for potentially overstepping into citizenship determination.
- Under the Citizenship Act of 1955, the power to determine citizenship rests primarily with the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
- The National Population Register (NPR) was last updated in 2015 with details of 119 crore residents.
The article examines the government's directive to preload the 'Sanchar Saathi' app on new smartphones to combat cyberfraud. While the intent is to protect users from identity theft, critics argue that such mandates create privacy risks and expand state surveillance capabilities. The government eventually withdrew the directive following backlash. The author advocates for a shift from state-mandated tech solutions to a 'three pillars' approach: obligations on financial firms, functional reporting mechanisms, and sustained public education to improve digital literacy and empower citizens against sophisticated online scams.
- Mandatory preloading of apps like Sanchar Saathi raises concerns about privacy and state surveillance.
- The Supreme Court's 'test of proportionality' from the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment is a key legal benchmark.
- Online financial fraud cost victims over $1 trillion worldwide in 2023 according to Interpol.
The Supreme Court has ruled that prison authorities who abuse disabled prisoners will be penalized under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta directed all States and Union Territories to amend their prison rules to ensure assistive devices, specialized medical care, and enhanced family visitation rights for disabled inmates. The order stems from a plea highlighting the deaths of activists G.N. Saibaba and Stan Swamy, whose health deteriorated due to inadequate prison facilities. The court emphasized that disabled prisoners deserve the same dignity and rights as free disabled persons.
- Prison authorities are now liable for penalties under Section 89 of the RPwD Act for abusing disabled inmates.
- States and UTs must modify prison manuals to include provisions for assistive devices and specialized medical care.
- The court highlighted the 'double punishment' faced by disabled prisoners: their conviction and the lack of accessibility.
The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Centre regarding a plea challenging the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order 2025. The Asom Gana Parishad (AGP) argues that this order contradicts the Assam Accord by effectively extending the cut-off date for illegal immigrants from March 24, 1971, to December 31, 2024. The petition claims this violates Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, which was specifically inserted to uphold the Accord's intent of preserving the demography and cultural identity of the Assamese people. The Court's review will focus on the constitutionality of these exemptions.
- The Assam Accord established March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for identifying and deporting foreigners in Assam.
- The 2025 Order is accused of 'indirectly legalising' illegal immigration by allowing certain minorities to stay until late 2024.
- Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, is the legal backbone of the Assam Accord and was recently upheld by a Constitution Bench.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant has called for "zero sympathy" for acid attackers, stating the entire legal system must respond ruthlessly. The Supreme Court is hearing a plea to formally recognize acid attack survivors as "persons with specified disabilities" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016. This would ensure survivors receive necessary medical and legal support. The CJI proposed setting up special courts to conduct acid attack trials on a day-to-day basis to address the massive delays in the current judicial process, where cases can remain pending for over 16 years.
- The Supreme Court is considering classifying acid attack survivors under the RPwD Act, 2016, to provide them with disability benefits and protections.
- CJI Surya Kant emphasized that the ruthlessness shown by attackers must be met with equal ruthlessness from the judicial system.
- The proposal includes the establishment of special courts dedicated to fast-tracking acid attack cases on a daily basis.
The Supreme Court has ordered a CBI investigation into "digital arrest" scams, where fraudsters impersonate officials to extort money. This scam has caused losses exceeding ₹3,000 crore, primarily targeting senior citizens. The Court emphasized the need for cooperation from the RBI, using AI/ML to trace money trails, and online intermediaries under IT Rules 2021. The article highlights the transnational nature of these crimes, often operated from "scam centres" in Southeast Asia involving trafficked workers. It calls for international diplomacy and domestic improvements in digital literacy and police capabilities to tackle this evolving threat.
- The Supreme Court bypassed the usual requirement for State consent for CBI probes due to the severity and cross-border nature of digital arrest scams.
- Financial "mule" accounts are central to these scams, necessitating intervention from the RBI and the use of advanced technology like AI to trace funds.
- Many scams originate from Southeast Asian "scam centres" where trafficked individuals are forced into cyber-slavery to run fraud operations.
The Supreme Court of India is hearing petitions to remove 97 central and state laws that still contain discriminatory provisions against people affected by leprosy. These 'antediluvian' laws restrict access to public transport, the right to run for office, and employment. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has recommended replacing derogatory terminology and using iris scans for Aadhaar enrolment, as leprosy-induced nerve damage often affects fingertips. Since leprosy is now fully curable and non-infectious with modern medicine, the court has directed states to report on steps taken to eliminate these stigmas and ensure fundamental rights.
- India reports approximately 57% of the world's leprosy cases, caused by the bacterium Mycobacterium leprae.
- Discriminatory laws persist despite leprosy being curable and non-infectious with Multi-Drug Therapy (MDT).
- The NHRC advocates for the use of iris scans for Aadhaar because leprosy often causes loss of sensation and damage to fingertips.
A recent 2:1 majority judgment by the Supreme Court has reviewed its earlier stance on post facto environmental clearances (ECs). Previously, the court had declared such retrospective clearances illegal, emphasizing that environmental laws require prior approval to prevent irreversible damage. The new judgment suggests that in some situations, retrospective ECs might be permissible to avoid 'public interest' issues like halting completed projects. Critics argue this undermines the 'precautionary principle' and the 'polluter pays' principle, potentially encouraging industries to bypass initial regulations and seek regularisation later through fines, marking a retreat from established environmental jurisprudence.
- The judgment reviews the 2025 CREDAI vs Vanashakti case regarding the legality of post facto environmental clearances.
- The majority view argues that a total ban on retrospective clearances could lead to economic waste for completed projects.
- The dissenting opinion by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan warns that this shifts the goalpost from principle to expediency.
The rise of AI-generated deepfakes has exacerbated Non-Consensual Intimate Image (NCII) abuse, particularly targeting women and transgender individuals. While the government has issued Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) requiring the removal of such content within 24 hours, the article argues that legal provisions alone are insufficient. There is a lack of contemporary data from the NCRB on NCII, and existing laws like the IT Act and DPDP Act remain opaque in practice. The article calls for gender-neutral reforms, better police training, and stronger victim-centric legal mechanisms to address the deep-rooted social stigma and lack of digital literacy.
- NCII abuse involves the unauthorized distribution of intimate images, often enhanced or created by AI deepfake technology.
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued SOPs in November 2025 to curb NCII circulation and protect digital dignity.
- A major hurdle is the lack of granular classification of cybercrimes in National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data.
The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has issued directives requiring smartphone manufacturers to pre-install the Sanchar Saathi app by March 2026 to combat cybercrime and counterfeit handsets. While the government, represented by Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia, claims the app is for consumer protection and can be deleted, critics argue it represents 'overkill.' The directive mandates high-level system access for the app, raising fears of state surveillance. Legal experts point out that under the K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, any state intrusion into privacy must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, suggesting less invasive methods like web portals already exist.
- The DoT directive mandates 'SIM binding' and pre-installation of the Sanchar Saathi app on all new devices sold from March 2026.
- The app is intended to verify device authenticity and tackle crimes like 'digital arrests' and spoofed IMEI numbers.
- Critics argue the app's deep system integration could lead to unauthorized surveillance and violates the proportionality standard established by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition warning against the indiscriminate use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in judicial work. The petition highlights that GenAI can produce 'hallucinations,' resulting in fictitious judgments and research materials. It argues that opaque AI use could trigger constitutional and human rights concerns, potentially replicating or aggravating existing biases and discriminatory practices. The petitioner seeks strict guidelines or a policy for the regulated and transparent use of GenAI in courts and tribunals until a formal law is enacted to ensure stakeholder liability.
- GenAI 'hallucinations' can lead to the citation of non-existent precedents and fake case laws in court proceedings.
- The petition urges the judiciary to use only bias-free data with transparent ownership to protect human rights.
- There is a risk of AI algorithms replicating and aggravating pre-existing social, legal, and stereotypical biases.
The Supreme Court observed that women constitute the 'largest minority' in India, making up 48.44% of the population, yet their representation in Parliament is receding. A Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna was hearing a petition challenging the implementation delay of the 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam' (106th Amendment Act). The Act, which grants 33% reservation to women in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, is tied to the conduct of the next Census and subsequent delimitation. The Court questioned the lack of a specific timeline for the Census, noting that a Constitutional amendment cannot be held back indefinitely.
- Women form 48.44% of the total population but lack adequate political representation in Parliament and State legislatures.
- The 106th Amendment Act provides 33% reservation, but its implementation is linked to the next Census and delimitation exercise.
- Article 15(3) of the Constitution mandates the State to take affirmative action and make special provisions for the empowerment of women.
The Supreme Court has directed municipal authorities to relocate stray dogs from public places to shelters for sterilization and vaccination. This order emphasizes the 'fundamental duty' of citizens under Article 51A(g) to have compassion for living creatures. However, the implementation faces challenges regarding infrastructure and the balance between animal rights and human safety. The court cited Section 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which mandates the well-being of animals. Previous judgments, like Animal Welfare Board of India vs A. Nagaraja, established that all living creatures have inherent dignity and a right to live peacefully, free from unnecessary suffering.
- Article 51A(g) of the Constitution mandates compassion for living creatures as a fundamental duty of every citizen.
- The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, requires persons in charge of animals to ensure their well-being.
- The court seeks to balance animal compassion with the human right to life and safety under Article 21.
Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath highlighted a disturbing trend where over 70% of India's prison population consists of undertrials who have not been found guilty. Speaking at the release of a NALSAR report, he noted that only 7.91% of these prisoners utilized available legal aid, primarily because they were unaware of their right to free legal help. The report by the Square Circle Clinic revealed that many undertrials spend more time in jail than the maximum sentence for their alleged offenses. A significant majority of these individuals belong to disadvantaged caste groups and the unorganized sector, facing systemic barriers to justice.
- Over 70% of the Indian prison population consists of undertrials awaiting the conclusion of their legal cases.
- Only 7.91% of undertrials utilize free legal aid due to a lack of awareness regarding their constitutional rights.
- Approximately 67.6% of the undertrials covered in the NALSAR study belonged to disadvantaged caste groups.
The Supreme Court has called for a comprehensive restructuring of century-old property laws, including the Transfer of Property Act (1882), Registration Act (1908), and Stamp Act (1899). Justice P.S. Narasimha noted that property disputes account for 66% of civil litigation in India, describing the buying process as 'traumatic.' The court directed the Law Commission of India to prepare a report on aligning these laws with modern technology. Crucially, the court urged the Centre to adopt blockchain technology for property registration to ensure transparency, immutability, and ease of tracking ownership history and encumbrances.
- Property disputes constitute approximately 66% of all civil litigation in India, highlighting the need for legal reform.
- The court identified fake documentation, land encroachments, and 'intermediaries' as major hurdles in current property transactions.
- Blockchain technology is recommended to create a distributed, time-stamped ledger for land titles and ownership history.
The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to immediately remove stray dogs from public spaces including educational institutions, hospitals, railway stations, and bus stands. These animals must be relocated to designated shelters. Before relocation, dogs must be neutered and vaccinated in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The court expressed concern over the disturbing increase in dog-bite incidents and frequent accidents involving stray animals on highways. It also mandated that local authorities ensure premises are secured with fencing and gates to prevent animal entry, with compliance reports due within eight weeks.
- The Supreme Court ordered the 'forthwith' removal of stray dogs from sensitive public areas like schools and hospitals.
- Relocated dogs must undergo sterilization and vaccination as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
- The court emphasized that dogs removed from a specific location should not be released back into the same locality to ensure the effectiveness of the directive.
The Supreme Court ruled that arrested individuals must be provided with the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language they understand. This mandate is rooted in Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires informing the arrested person of the reasons for their detention. The court specified that these grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time, and at least two hours before the individual is produced before a Magistrate. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, necessitating the immediate release of the person.
- Article 22 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
- Providing grounds in a language not understood by the accused does not fulfill constitutional requirements.
- Grounds must be provided in writing at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, specifically Section 4(iii)(C)(II), which restricts surrogacy to couples who do not have any surviving child. A couple facing 'secondary infertility' challenged this, arguing it violates their reproductive choices. Currently, exceptions are only made if the existing child has a life-threatening disorder or is mentally/physically challenged. The government argues surrogacy is not a fundamental right and involves the use of another woman's body. The Court is considering whether these restrictions amount to an unreasonable limitation on the reproductive autonomy of citizens.
- Section 4(iii)(C)(II) of the Surrogacy Act 2021 restricts surrogacy to childless couples.
- Secondary infertility refers to the inability to conceive after previously birthing children naturally.
- The Court recently relaxed age specifications for surrogacy for couples with frozen embryos.
The Central government argued in the Supreme Court that the 'right to vote' is a statutory right under Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while 'freedom of voting' is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). This distinction arose during a petition challenging Section 53(2) of the RPA, which allows declaring candidates elected unopposed without a poll. Petitioners argue this prevents voters from exercising the NOTA option, thereby violating their right to express dissatisfaction. The Centre maintains that the right to vote is subject to statutory limitations and is not an absolute constitutional right.
- The Centre argues the right to vote is a statutory right conferred by Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Freedom of voting is categorized as a species of the right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Section 53(2) of the RPA 1951 is being challenged for potentially violating the voters' right to exercise NOTA in uncontested elections.
The article explains the concept of 'contempt of court' in India, rooted in Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, which designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as 'courts of record.' The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, classifies contempt into civil (willful disobedience) and criminal (scandalizing the court). While fair criticism of a decided case is not contempt, comments that interfere with the administration of justice or lower the court's authority are punishable. The power to punish for contempt is inherent to these courts to ensure the sanctity of the judicial process and constitutional morality.
- Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) empower these institutions to punish for contempt of themselves.
- Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of any judgment or decree, while criminal contempt involves scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court.
- The Attorney General or Advocate General's consent is typically required for a third party to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court or High Court.