The Allahabad High Court recently examined the legality of 'bulldozer justice'—the practice of demolishing properties of individuals accused of crimes without proper notice or hearing. The court reaffirmed that punishment lies exclusively with the judiciary and that administrative authorities cannot assume criminal culpability. Such actions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and the right to life and liberty. The court emphasized that demolition should be a regulatory measure of last resort for unauthorized construction, not a tool for extrajudicial punishment, as it undermines the separation of powers and erodes constitutional rights.
- The Allahabad High Court ruled that punitive demolitions without due process are a 'colourable exercise of power' that erodes the separation of powers.
- Administrative actions taken immediately after FIRs violate the principle of 'presumption of innocence' and judicial oversight.
- The Supreme Court in 2024 established that property cannot be demolished solely because an owner is an accused or convicted of an offence.
A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court is reviewing the 2018 Sabarimala verdict, which allowed women of all ages to enter the temple. The legal debate focuses on the 'essential religious practices' doctrine versus the 'anti-exclusion test' proposed by Justice Chandrachud. While the former allows courts to define religious tenets, the latter prioritizes whether a practice leads to systematic exclusion or impairs individual dignity. The court seeks to harmonize individual rights under Article 25 with the rights of religious denominations under Article 26, ensuring that religious autonomy does not violate the overarching values of a liberal constitution.
- The 2018 judgment ruled that excluding women aged 10-50 violated the right to freedom of religion and equality.
- The 'anti-exclusion test' examines if a religious practice is compatible with constitutional guarantees of equal treatment.
- Article 25 protects individual freedom of conscience, while Article 26 protects the rights of religious denominations to manage their affairs.
Petitions in the Supreme Court challenge the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, arguing it dilutes the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to provide a blanket exemption for 'personal information', removing the previous proviso that allowed disclosure if it served a larger public interest. Critics argue this prevents scrutiny of public servants' assets and corruption. The matter has been referred to a Constitution Bench to balance the fundamental right to privacy (Puttaswamy judgment) against the right to information (Article 19).
- The DPDP Act 2023 removes the 'public interest' override for disclosing personal information under RTI.
- Previously, RTI was used to probe corruption by accessing assets and liabilities of public servants.
- The Supreme Court must now reconcile the right to privacy with the need for transparency in governance.
An editorial criticizes the Supreme Court's perceived retreat from its 2018 guidelines intended to curb mob violence and cow vigilantism. Chief Justice Surya Kant recently observed that the 2018 'general directions' were 'unmanageable', suggesting petitioners approach High Courts instead. The article argues that since 2018, vigilantism has grown, often with state encouragement or legal sanctity. The 2018 judgment (Dipak Misra bench) had emphasized the state's 'sacrosanct duty' to protect citizens from lynching. The current judicial diffidence is seen as a blow to the rule of law and the protection of individual rights against majoritarian violence.
- The 2018 Supreme Court judgment provided specific preventive, punitive, and remedial measures against mob lynching.
- Current judicial observations suggest a shift toward handling cases on individual merits rather than systemic monitoring.
- Vigilante groups are allegedly being accorded quasi-policing powers in violation of court guidelines.
The Supreme Court observed that addressing human-wildlife conflict in southern India requires a humanitarian approach and direct engagement with local communities. Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the situation in parts of Kerala and other southern states is 'alarming'. The court emphasized that mere judicial orders are insufficient; instead, authorities must reach out to local people in their own language and understand their socio-economic conditions. The bench criticized the use of cruel methods like spikes or fireballs to drive away elephants and highlighted that commercial interests often exploit these conflict situations.
- Judicial orders alone cannot solve complex human-wildlife conflicts without ground-level community engagement.
- A humanitarian approach is necessary to understand the economic interests and sensitivities of local populations.
- The court flagged the systematic evasion of laws and the use of cruel deterrence methods against wildlife.
The independence of the Election Commission (EC) is a bedrock of Indian democracy, protected by Article 324 of the Constitution. Recent controversies have emerged regarding the 2023 Act governing the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and other ECs. Critics argue that the new selection committee, comprising the PM, a Union Minister, and the Leader of Opposition, undermines the SC's Anoop Baranwal judgment. The article discusses the constitutional mandate for a permanent EC and the rigorous removal process for the CEC, which is similar to that of a Supreme Court judge, ensuring protection from arbitrary executive action.
- Article 324 provides for a permanent Election Commission with powers of superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
- The CEC can only be removed from office in a manner similar to a Supreme Court judge (impeachment).
- The 2023 Act changed the selection process for ECs, which is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently upheld that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not apply to Scheduled Tribes, reaffirming the legal principle of providing special protection to indigenous customs. In the case of Nawang v. Bahadur, the court overturned a High Court order that had granted inheritance rights to tribal women who had 'Hinduised.' The ruling confirms the constitutional validity of Section 2(2) of the Act, which excludes Scheduled Tribes. While this protects customary laws, it leaves many tribal women without absolute property rights, leading to calls for a separate enactment to ensure gender parity while preserving tribal identity.
- Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, specifically excludes Scheduled Tribes from its purview.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament, not the judiciary, has the authority to extend the Act to tribal communities.
- Customary laws in many tribal communities deny absolute property rights to women, creating a legal gap.
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled 6-3 that President Donald Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unilaterally impose tariffs was unlawful without clear congressional authorization. The court found that IEEPA does not grant the executive power to tax or regulate trade to such an extent. This ruling impacts various countries, including India, which faced a 50% tariff hike linked to its purchase of Russian oil. While some existing tariffs under other laws remain, the ruling establishes a significant check on executive overreach in trade policy, potentially easing pressure on bilateral trade negotiations.
- The ruling restricts the President's ability to use emergency powers for imposing unlimited tariffs without legislative oversight.
- The court emphasized the necessity of 'clear congressional authorization' for the executive to exercise taxation-like economic powers.
- India had been specifically targeted with high tariffs due to Washington's objections to New Delhi purchasing oil from Russia.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling, has struck down President Donald Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs imposed on various countries, including India. The court ruled that the President exceeded his authority under the 1977 emergency powers law, asserting that the constitutional power to impose taxes and tariffs resides solely with Congress. The ruling nullifies billions in collected import taxes and opens the door for companies to seek refunds. While the decision limits executive overreach in trade policy, the administration may still seek to maintain the tariff framework under different legal authorities.
- The 6-3 decision emphasizes that the U.S. Constitution vests the power of taxation in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive.
- The ruling specifically targets tariffs imposed under a national emergency declaration intended to address trade deficits.
- Major companies like Costco are now expected to seek refunds for billions of dollars paid in tariffs since 2025.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the final hearing for over 250 petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, starting May 5. The Act fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 2015. Petitioners argue the law is discriminatory and violates the secular principles of the Constitution. The court will first address general legal challenges before examining specific regional issues, such as the impact on the demography of Assam and Tripura and the exemptions provided to Sixth Schedule tribal areas.
- The Supreme Court will begin back-to-back hearings on 250+ CAA petitions from May 5, 2024.
- The CAA 2019 provides citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three neighboring countries.
- The Act does not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura included in the Sixth Schedule.
The Supreme Court of India has referred petitions challenging the amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench. The amendment removes the 'public interest override' that previously allowed the disclosure of personal information if justified by a larger public interest. Critics argue this creates a 'blanket ban' on information concerning officials and public spending, leading to information asymmetry between the state and citizens. The court will examine the 'constitutional sensitivity' of these changes and their impact on transparency and democratic accountability.
- The DPDP Act 2023 amends the RTI Act 2005, effectively prohibiting the disclosure of any personal information.
- A Constitution Bench will define 'personal information' and assess the legality of removing the public interest override.
- Journalists may be classified as 'data fiduciaries' under the new rules, potentially facing fines up to ₹250 crore for non-compliance.
A private member Bill has been introduced in the Rajya Sabha to amend the Constitution to bring diversity to judicial appointments and establish regional benches of the Supreme Court. Currently, the Collegium system, established through the Three Judges Cases, governs appointments but faces criticism for lack of transparency and social representation. Between 2018 and 2024, only about 20% of high court judges belonged to SC, ST, or OBC categories. The Bill proposes mandatory representation for minorities and women and suggests regional benches in Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, and Chennai to improve access to justice for common citizens.
- Article 124 and Article 217 of the Constitution govern the appointment of Supreme Court and High Court judges.
- The Collegium system consists of the CJI and senior-most judges, excluding the executive from the final selection.
- The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015.
The article explores the legal standing of satire in India, emphasizing that courts generally view it as a vital form of expression. While the government occasionally blocks satirical content citing national security or public order, the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case established that content must be heard before being blocked. Satire is defined as an artistic form that exposes absurdities and hypocrisies. However, recent amendments to IT Rules and government actions against social media posts have sparked debates on whether satire can be deemed a threat to the state or if it is protected under Article 19(1)(a).
- Satire is recognized by courts as an essential element of public life and opinion for revealing hypocrisies.
- The Supreme Court has cautioned against using state power to stifle expression on public and political issues.
- Section 69A of the IT Act is often used to block content, but courts insist on due process and transparency.
The Supreme Court of India has intervened to protect the citizens' right to health by directing the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) to consider mandatory front-of-package warning labels (FOPL). These labels would target packaged foods high in sugar, salt, and saturated fats, which are linked to non-communicable diseases like diabetes and hypertension. The court expressed dissatisfaction with the slow progress of the FSSAI's current initiatives. Data from the 2023 ICMR-INDIAB study highlights the urgency, showing that over 100 million Indians have diabetes, necessitating immediate preventive measures through transparent food labeling.
- The Supreme Court emphasizes the right to health by pushing for mandatory FOPL on processed foods.
- High levels of sugar, salt, and fat in processed foods are directly linked to rising NCDs in India.
- FSSAI is directed to respond to the proposal within four weeks following dissatisfaction with previous compliance reports.
The Supreme Court has agreed to refer petitions to a Constitution Bench to examine if Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, cripples the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The provision amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, potentially creating a 'blanket ban' on disclosing personal information of public officials. Petitioners argue this removes the 'public interest' override and the discretion of Public Information Officers to balance privacy and transparency. The court will define what constitutes 'personal information' and whether the amendment violates the fundamental right to information under Article 19 of the Constitution.
- Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005, removing the proviso for public interest disclosure.
- Critics argue the amendment equates the privacy of public functionaries with that of ordinary citizens, hindering government accountability.
- The 2019 'CPIO vs Supreme Court' judgment previously established a proportionality test for balancing privacy and the right to information.
As of December 31, 2025, India had 574 prisoners on death row, a 43.5% increase since 2016. Despite this rise, there is a growing hesitancy in the appellate judiciary to confirm death sentences. Over the last decade, High Courts decided 1,085 death sentences, with 34.65% resulting in acquittals and only 8.31% being upheld. The Supreme Court has not confirmed any death sentences in the last three years, even acquitting and releasing 10 death row prisoners in 2025. These trends highlight concerns regarding the handling of evidence and procedural fairness in trial courts.
- The number of people on death row has steadily increased since 2020, reaching 574 by the end of 2025.
- High Courts show a high rate of acquittals (34.6%) and commutations for death penalty cases.
- The Supreme Court has shown significant restraint, with zero confirmations in the 2023-2025 period.
The Supreme Court is set to hear a petition challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. The petitioner argues that this section amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, allowing public authorities to blankly refuse information by categorizing it as 'personal nature.' Critics claim this 'weaponises' the right to privacy to 'disarm' the citizens' right to seek information from the state. The petition contends that this removes the balancing mechanism where public interest could outweigh privacy concerns, potentially leading to a lack of transparency in governance and protecting public functionaries from scrutiny.
- Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act 2023 amends the RTI Act to expand the scope of personal information exemptions.
- The petition argues that privacy is being used to protect the state and public functionaries rather than ordinary citizens.
- It claims the amendment violates Article 19 (Right to Free Speech) and Article 14 (Right to Equality).
The process for appointing a regular Director-General of Police (DGP) in Tamil Nadu has resumed following Supreme Court directives. The court ordered that the appointment must be completed within three weeks. According to the Prakash Singh case guidelines, a regular DGP must have a minimum tenure of two years, regardless of their date of superannuation. The State government is required to send a panel of eligible officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which then finalizes a shortlist of three officers. The state must then select one from this shortlist to ensure stability in police leadership.
- The Supreme Court mandated the completion of the DGP appointment within a three-week timeframe to avoid temporary leadership.
- Guidelines from the landmark Prakash Singh case ensure a fixed two-year tenure for the DGP to prevent political interference.
- The UPSC plays a critical role in empanelling eligible officers based on seniority, merit, and residual service.
The Lok Sabha has passed the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which introduces 'savings provisions' under Section 104. This amendment aims to prevent legal confusion following the repeal of older labor laws by the 2020 Code. It clarifies that the repeal of acts like the Trade Unions Act, 1926, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, occurred by the operation of the Code itself, rather than through executive discretion. This legislative step is intended to provide continuity and legal certainty for labor relations and ensure the effective implementation of the four major Labour Codes.
- The 2026 Bill amends the Industrial Relations Code of 2020 to clarify the status of repealed laws.
- Section 104 savings provisions are designed to ensure the continuity of certain legal protections.
- The government aims to dismiss the 'misconceived ground' that the executive was delegated power to repeal acts.
Former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai testified before a Parliamentary Joint Committee that the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024, does not violate the Basic Structure doctrine. The bill seeks to synchronize elections for the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies. Justice Gavai argued that the amendment merely changes the 'manner of elections' and falls within Parliamentary competence. However, the legal community remains divided; while four former CJIs support the bill, others like Justice U.U. Lalit have expressed concerns that it might not withstand a legal challenge in the Supreme Court regarding federalism.
- The 129th Amendment Bill aims to synchronize Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections across India.
- Justice Gavai argued that the bill does not breach the federal framework or impact government accountability.
- Six former CJIs have provided testimony, with a 4-2 split in favor of the bill's constitutionality.
Recent Madras High Court judgments regarding temple rituals and entry have highlighted the judiciary's role in adjudicating religious disputes. Historically, such matters were treated as civil rights disputes, but since the 1950 Constitution, they are viewed through the lens of fundamental rights under Articles 25 and 26. The courts use the 'essential religious practice' test to determine if a custom is integral to a religion and protected from state interference. However, religious freedom is subject to public order, health, and morality. The judiciary aims to ensure that religious practices do not undermine constitutional principles like equality and liberty.
- Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution provide fundamental rights to practice and profess religion, subject to state regulation.
- The 'essential religious practice' test was developed by the Supreme Court to determine the constitutional protection of specific rituals.
- The Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (1927) was a precursor to modern state oversight of temples.
The article discusses the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in various states, including West Bengal and Bihar. It raises concerns about the 'judicial drift' where the Supreme Court acts as an administrator rather than a constitutional adjudicator. The SIR process, which involves large-scale revisions, is criticized for potentially disenfranchising vulnerable populations by placing the burden of proof of citizenship on the residents. The author argues that the ongoing SIRs amount to an exercise where entire populations are called upon to establish their citizenship without pre-existing cause for suspicion.
- The SIR process involves a wholesale revision of voter rolls, often leading to arbitrary deletions and hardship for residents.
- The Representation of the People Act authorizes the ECI to conduct special revisions, but the scale of current SIRs is questioned.
- The 1995 Lal Babu Hussein case established that notices for removal must be directed at specific individuals with disclosed reasons for suspicion.
Following a fatal blast in an illegal rat-hole coal mine in East Jaintia Hills, the Meghalaya government has constituted a judicial inquiry commission. A panel headed by Justice B.P. Katakey flagged a massive discrepancy in surveyed coal stocks, with over 1.92 lakh tonnes missing. Despite a 2014 ban by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), illegal mining persists through thousands of rat-holes. Activists are calling for an Enforcement Directorate (ED) probe, arguing that illegal mining has transitioned from a law-and-order issue to a serious economic offense involving complex financial networks.
- A judicial inquiry commission has been formed to investigate the February 5 mine blast that killed 27 miners.
- The Justice B.P. Katakey panel found nearly 2 lakh tonnes of coal missing from surveyed dumps.
- Rat-hole mining was banned by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in April 2014 due to safety and environmental risks.
The article critiques the use of criminal law, specifically FIRs, to suppress artistic expression that may offend certain groups. Using the example of the film 'Ghooskhor Pandat', it highlights how executive actions often bypass judicial scrutiny to flatten public debate. It emphasizes that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects speech even when it is unwelcome to powerful groups. The piece argues that the state bears the burden of specificity when imposing restrictions under Article 19(2) and should prioritize judicial relief over coercive executive measures to maintain democratic values.
- Article 19(1)(a) protects speech precisely because it can be unwelcome to powerful groups.
- Restrictions imposed by the state under Article 19(2) must be proportionate and specific.
- Courts distinguish between speech that merely offends and speech that leads to violence or disorder.