The Supreme Court has established a three-month timeline for Governors to take a final decision on Bills passed by State legislatures. This intervention addresses the issue of 'stuck legislative business' where Governors sit on Bills for years without exercising options under Article 200. The article discusses the scope of 'discretion' under Article 163, clarifying that Governors must generally act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. It highlights that Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to ensure State governments function in accordance with the Constitution, justifying judicial intervention when constitutional duties are neglected.
- Article 200 provides four options to the Governor: assent, withhold assent, return for reconsideration, or reserve for the President.
- The Court ruled that Governors cannot act independently of the Council of Ministers in legislative matters.
- The 3-month timeline aims to prevent the halting of the legislative machinery in states.
The Supreme Court stayed several controversial provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which aimed to regulate Muslim religious endowments. The Court halted the requirement that only Muslims practicing for five years can create a waqf and suspended the District Collectors' power to adjudicate property disputes. However, it upheld the removal of 'waqf-by-user' recognition and the capping of non-Muslim members on Waqf Boards. The government argues these amendments ensure transparency and curb corruption, while critics view them as an arbitrary interference in religious autonomy protected under the Constitution.
- The Court stayed Section 3C which authorized District Collectors to decide if a property is waqf.
- Provisions capping non-Muslim members in the Central Waqf Council at four were upheld as valid.
- The removal of 'waqf-by-user' recognition was upheld, but existing registered properties remain protected.
A Supreme Court Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai suggested reintroducing criminal prosecution for farmers involved in stubble burning to curb winter air pollution in northern India. The Court emphasized that while farmers are vital, they must also protect the environment, advocating for a 'carrot and stick' approach. However, the Union government opposed this, stating that current policy focuses on cooperative measures rather than punitive jail terms. The Centre noted that farmers are currently exempted from prosecution under the Commission for Air Quality Management Act as a matter of policy to avoid criminalizing the agricultural community.
- The CJI advocated for criminal prosecution to send a strong message against environmental pollution.
- The Centre argued that its policy is to take farmers along rather than putting them behind bars.
- Farmers are currently exempted from prosecution under the Commission for Air Quality Management Act.
The Supreme Court is hearing petitions challenging the validity of 'Freedom of Religion' Acts enacted by ten Indian states. These laws, often called anti-conversion laws, aim to prevent conversions through allurement, fraud, or force. Petitioners argue that these laws are 'virtually anti-conversion' and have a 'chilling effect' on the fundamental right to profess and propagate religion under Article 25. The Court is questioning the definition of 'deceitful' conversion and whether these laws interfere with personal liberty and the right to choose a life partner in inter-faith marriages.
- Ten Indian states have enacted stringent anti-conversion laws, which are being challenged for violating constitutional rights.
- Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to public order.
- Critics argue that the burden of proof in these laws often lies on the convert, which may be unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is scrutinizing the introduction of a 'cooling period' for FIRs filed under Section 498A of the IPC (now Section 85 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita). This follows an Allahabad High Court endorsement of a two-month wait before coercive action to prevent misuse of the law. However, critics and legal scholars argue that such 'judicial experimentalism' undermines a victim's right to prompt justice and functional autonomy of criminal justice agencies. The Court is revisiting whether referring domestic disputes to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before police action falls outside the statutory framework.
- Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of BNS) deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman.
- The 'cooling period' concept aims to prevent immediate arrests in potentially frivolous matrimonial disputes but may delay justice for genuine victims.
- The Lalita Kumari judgment established the category of 'preliminary inquiry' before FIR registration in matrimonial disputes.
The Supreme Court is hearing a Presidential Reference to clarify the constitutional position of Governors regarding the timeline for granting assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies. This follows a significant judgment on April 8, 2025. The Bench emphasized that the Constitution's silence on specific timelines in Articles 200 and 201 does not grant Governors 'unlimited discretion' to withhold Bills indefinitely. The proceedings highlight the tension between democratic principles and the Governor's role as a check on legislation. The Court aims to maintain the balance between federal cooperation and State autonomy.
- Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution deal with the Governor's power to grant or withhold assent to Bills.
- The Supreme Court clarified that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely, as it paralyzes democratic governance and renders legislatures defunct.
- The proceedings involve a Presidential Reference under Article 143, which provides the Court's advisory opinion to the Centre.
In the case of Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain, the Supreme Court quashed a Bombay High Court order that had granted anticipatory bail to an accused in a caste-based crime. The Bench reaffirmed that Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, creates a specific bar against anticipatory bail for such offences. The court cautioned against conducting 'mini-trials' at the bail stage and emphasized that the bar is constitutionally valid to protect vulnerable communities from intimidation and ensure effective prosecution.
- Section 18 of the SC/ST Act explicitly prohibits the grant of anticipatory bail for offences under the Act.
- The SC ruled that courts must only examine if a 'prima facie' case exists based on the FIR, without deep evidentiary analysis at the bail stage.
- The judgment highlights that electoral retaliation against SC/ST voters is a serious offence that undermines social justice.
In the landmark Sukdeb Saha vs The State of Andhra Pradesh case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to mental health is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case arose from the suicide of a NEET candidate, highlighting the epidemic of student suicides in India. The court issued the 'Saha Guidelines,' requiring educational institutions to proactively develop support systems. This judgment shifts the perspective from viewing suicides as individual failures to recognizing them as outcomes of systemic neglect and 'structural violence,' mandating state responsibility for psychological well-being.
- The SC elevated mental health from a statutory right under the Mental Health Healthcare Act 2017 to a fundamental right under Article 21.
- The 'Saha Guidelines' mandate schools and colleges to establish mental health support systems and district-level monitoring committees.
- The ruling introduces the concept of 'structural violence' to describe how institutional neglect contributes to student suicides.
The Supreme Court clarified that Aadhaar is part of the "right-to-vote statute" and can be used by voters for identity verification. This came during a plea challenging the use of Aadhaar for special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. The court noted that Section 23(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, permits Election Commission officials to use Aadhaar to authenticate entries. While the petitioner argued Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship or residence, the court maintained its validity as a document for voter verification alongside other prescribed documents.
- Aadhaar is recognized as a valid document for voter verification under the Representation of the People Act.
- Section 23(4) of the RP Act, 1950, allows EC officials to use Aadhaar for authenticating electoral roll entries.
- The court rejected the argument that Aadhaar is inferior to other identity documents for electoral purposes.
The Supreme Court has stayed key portions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, finding them "prima facie arbitrary." Specifically, the court stayed Section 3C, which allowed a Waqf to lose its character if a government official raised a doubt about its ownership. The court emphasized the principle of separation of powers, stating that determining property title belongs to the judiciary, not the executive. However, it refused to freeze the entire law, upholding the requirement for mandatory registration of Waqfs and the inclusion of non-Muslim members in Waqf Boards, while limiting their numbers to ensure community representation.
- The Supreme Court stayed Section 3C of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which allowed unilateral alteration of property status by government officials.
- The court ruled that determining property title is a judicial function, and executive interference breaches the separation of powers.
- The requirement for mandatory registration of Waqfs was upheld, noting that unregistered Waqfs cannot claim legal protection.
In the case of Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court of India issued mandatory guidelines to ensure the integrity of DNA evidence in criminal investigations. The court observed frequent lapses in the chain of custody and unexplained delays in forensic testing. The new guidelines require the creation of a 'Chain of Custody Register,' swift transportation of samples to laboratories within 48 hours, and strict documentation by investigating officers. The court clarified that DNA evidence is 'opinion evidence' under the law and must be scientifically and legally proven to be substantive in a trial.
- Investigating officers are now strictly responsible for the secure and timely transport of DNA samples to FSL.
- A mandatory 'Chain of Custody Register' must be maintained and appended to the trial court record.
- DNA samples must reach the laboratory within 48 hours of collection to prevent contamination or degradation.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill 2025, passed during the monsoon session, has drawn criticism for its potential impact on India's digital economy. The Bill outlaws online real-money games, a move that critics argue violates the fundamental right to practice a profession under Article 19(1)(g). Furthermore, as 'betting and gambling' are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule, the Union's unilateral ban is seen as an encroachment on federalism. The industry was expected to generate ₹17,000 crore in GST revenue and employ 1.5 lakh people by 2025. Experts suggest that strict regulation and licensing would be more effective than total prohibition.
- The Bill bans real-money online gaming, potentially pushing the industry into the unregulated underground economy.
- Judicial precedents have consistently distinguished between 'games of skill' and 'games of chance,' protecting the former.
- The lack of consultation with State governments on a State subject raises significant constitutional propriety issues.
The pendency of cases in the Supreme Court of India has reached a record high of 88,417, despite the court functioning with its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges. Data from the National Judicial Data Grid shows that in August 2024, the filing of fresh cases (7,080) significantly surpassed the disposal rate (5,667), resulting in a disposal rate of 80.04%. The backlog includes 69,553 civil cases and 18,864 criminal matters. Efforts to reduce the case log, such as having more Benches work during the long summer recess, have not yet stemmed the rising tide of litigation.
- The Supreme Court is currently operating at its maximum sanctioned judicial strength of 34 judges.
- The gap between case institution and disposal remains the primary driver of the increasing backlog.
- A significant portion of the pendency consists of civil cases, which account for nearly 70,000 of the total.
The Supreme Court is set to deliver a verdict on petitions seeking a stay on the implementation of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025. Petitioners argue that the Act facilitates a 'creeping acquisition' of Muslim properties and encroaches upon the minority community's right to freedom of religion. They specifically highlight concerns that the Act would invalidate 'unregistered waqf-by-users,' many of which lack formal deeds. The government defends the legislation as a necessary measure to counter rampant encroachment on public and private properties and to bring transparency to Waqf administration.
- The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 was cleared by Parliament in early April 2025.
- Petitioners claim the law violates the right to freedom of religion and targets minority properties.
- A key issue is the status of 'waqf-by-users' which lack formal documentation.
The Delhi High Court has observed that when two adults enter into a consensual sexual relationship or choose to live together, they must accept responsibility for the consequences of that decision. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that a party cannot retrospectively label the relationship as sexual assault after it turns sour. The court quashed a rape case against a man where the complainant alleged sexual intercourse under false promises of marriage. The court noted the complainant was aware of the man's married status from the beginning, indicating the relationship was consensual.
- Adults in consensual relationships must take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.
- Relationships cannot be painted as crimes of sexual assault retrospectively after a breakup.
- The court emphasized that awareness of a partner's marital status negates claims of 'false promise of marriage'.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has notified the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, along with new Rules and Orders. This legislation replaces several colonial-era laws, including the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920. A significant change is granting Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) in Assam the powers of a first-class judicial magistrate, allowing them to issue arrest warrants. The rules also mandate the recording of biometric information for all foreigners and require educational institutions to report the academic performance and conduct of foreign students to the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO).
- Foreigners Tribunals in Assam now hold the powers of a first-class judicial magistrate.
- The new law replaces the Passport Act of 1920 and the Registration of Foreigners Act of 1939.
- Educational institutes must provide semester-wise reports on foreign students' academic performance and conduct.
The Calcutta High Court is hearing petitions challenging the forest clearance for the ₹81,000-crore Great Nicobar Island development project. The Tribal Affairs Ministry has requested to be removed from the list of respondents, arguing that the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, falls under the jurisdiction of the Union Territory administration. Petitioners allege that provisions of the FRA were violated, specifically regarding the consent of tribes for diverting 13,000 hectares of forest land. The project includes a trans-shipment port, airport, power plant, and a new township, raising significant environmental and tribal rights concerns.
- The project involves the diversion of approximately 13,000 hectares of forest land in Great Nicobar.
- Petitioners claim the consent of local tribes was not properly obtained as per the Forest Rights Act 2006.
- The Tribal Affairs Ministry contends that the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued based on facts from the island administration.
The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to ensure 'upward mobility' for meritorious candidates with disabilities. The court ruled that if a candidate with a disability scores higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category, they should be moved to the unreserved list, leaving the reserved seat vacant for another person with a disability. The bench stated that denying this mobility defeats the purpose of reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act and constitutes 'hostile discrimination.' This principle applies to both initial recruitment and promotions, ensuring that reservation serves its objective of opening windows for mainstream participation.
- Meritorious candidates with disabilities who qualify on their own merit must be counted against unreserved seats.
- This practice ensures that more people with disabilities can benefit from reservation quotas.
- The court emphasized that the law must view disability as a lens to reveal institutional frameworks rather than a deficit.
The Union government informed the Supreme Court that it will hold a high-level meeting with state officials and law enforcement agencies to establish exclusive courts for trying offences under special statutes like the NIA and UAPA Acts. This move aims to address the overwhelming pendency in regular courts, which delays trials for serious national security offences. Currently, out of 52 designated courts, only three are exclusively dedicated to NIA cases. A Supreme Court bench emphasized that proceedings under special statutes cannot be delayed due to general court backlogs, as swift justice is essential for maintaining national security and the rule of law.
- The government plans to create exclusive courts to expedite trials for NIA and UAPA cases.
- High pendency in regular courts is currently hindering the swift disposal of national security-related trials.
- Only a small fraction of currently designated courts are exclusively handling NIA cases.
Despite the International Day of the World's Indigenous Peoples, tribal women in India continue to face significant gender injustice regarding ancestral property rights. Most tribal communities follow customary laws that exclude daughters from inheritance, a practice the Supreme Court recently scrutinized in Ram Charan and Ors. vs Sukhram and Ors. (2025). While the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005 to grant equal rights to daughters, Section 2(2) specifically excludes Scheduled Tribes. The article advocates for the codification of tribal laws or a separate act to ensure gender parity and protect tribal women from land alienation, ensuring their fundamental right to equality is upheld.
- Tribal women are often denied inheritance rights under customary laws, unlike women covered by the Hindu Succession Act.
- The Supreme Court has emphasized that excluding daughters from ancestral property negates the fundamental right to equality.
- Only 16.7% of ST women possess land compared to 83.3% of ST men, according to the 2015-16 Agriculture Census.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has urged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to withdraw a Union Ministry memorandum that exempts atomic mineral mining from public consultation. Stalin argues that coastal regions, rich in rare earth elements, are ecologically fragile and home to endangered species and natural barriers like mangroves. He emphasizes that such projects demand rigorous scrutiny and community involvement. The CM cited a 2020 Supreme Court verdict (Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Rohit Prajapati) stating that substantive changes to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework cannot be made through executive instructions like office memoranda, which cannot override statutory notifications.
- The Union Ministry issued a memorandum exempting atomic and strategic mineral mining from public hearings.
- CM Stalin argues this weakens participatory democracy and threatens ecologically sensitive coastal ecosystems like the Gulf of Mannar.
- The EIA Notification of 1994 originally made public hearings mandatory for such projects.
The Supreme Court Collegium, led by the Chief Justice of India, has recommended the appointment of regular Chief Justices for three High Courts. Justice Soumen Sen of the Calcutta High Court has been recommended as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court. Justice P.B. Bajanthri, currently the Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court, is recommended for the permanent position. Additionally, Justice M. Sundar of the Madras High Court has been recommended to lead the Manipur High Court. These recommendations are part of the ongoing process to fill judicial vacancies and ensure efficient functioning of state-level judiciary.
- The SC Collegium is the body responsible for the appointment and transfer of judges in the higher judiciary.
- Recommendations were made for the High Courts of Meghalaya, Patna, and Manipur.
- The process involves the senior-most judges of the Supreme Court making selections based on seniority and merit.
The Supreme Court of India has ordered the Election Commission of India (ECI) to include Aadhaar as one of the 12 valid documents for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls. This intervention follows the exclusion of over 65 lakh electors from the draft rolls. The ECI had previously argued that Aadhaar was proof of residency rather than citizenship, but the Court dismissed this, noting that other accepted documents also do not conclusively prove citizenship. The ruling emphasizes that procedural rigidity must not disenfranchise eligible citizens, particularly marginalized groups, women, and migrant workers who rely heavily on Aadhaar for identification.
- The Supreme Court ruled that Aadhaar must be accepted as a valid document for voter verification to ensure inclusivity.
- The ECI's previous exclusion of Aadhaar led to the removal of 65 lakh potential voters from Bihar's draft rolls.
- Statistical analysis revealed disproportionate removal of women and migrant workers during the revision process.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Election Commission (EC) to include Aadhaar as the 12th 'indicative' document for identity proof during the special intensive revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi clarified that while Aadhaar can be used to verify identity or residence, it cannot be treated as evidence of Indian citizenship. The court noted that despite previous directives, booth-level officers were refusing to accept Aadhaar. The EC is now tasked with publicizing this order to ensure voters can use Aadhaar for filing claims or objections during the revision process.
- Aadhaar is now officially recognized as the 12th indicative document for identity proof in Bihar's electoral roll revision.
- The Supreme Court emphasized that Aadhaar serves as proof of identity or residence but is not proof of Indian citizenship.
- The Election Commission retains the authority to verify the authenticity and genuineness of any Aadhaar document submitted.