A new Private Member's Bill proposes lowering the age threshold for treating children as adults in cases of 'heinous' crimes from 16 to 14 years. This follows the 2015 amendment to the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, which introduced a 'transfer system' for 16-18 year olds. Critics argue this move is a 'step back,' as it ignores developmental science and structural vulnerabilities. Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) suggests that adolescents aged 14-16 are not the primary drivers of serious crime, contradicting the bill's premise and raising concerns about punitive rather than rehabilitative justice.
- The 2015 JJ Act allows 16-18 year olds to be tried as adults for heinous crimes after a preliminary assessment by the JJ Board.
- Lowering the age to 14 would expose younger children to adult prisons and criminal processes, potentially causing long-term harm.
- NCRB data shows that Children in Conflict with the Law (CiCL) constitute only 0.5% of total registered crimes in 2023.
The process for removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge, often referred to as 'impeachment,' is governed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A judge can only be removed on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.' However, a significant loophole exists: the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the statutory power to admit or refuse a removal motion even if signed by the required number of MPs. This discretion can potentially thwart the constitutional process, especially if the government of the day opposes the motion.
- The Constitution uses the term 'removal' for judges; 'impeachment' is technically reserved for the President under Article 61.
- A removal motion requires signatures from 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members to be initiated.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the procedure for investigation by a high-level committee after a motion is admitted.
The Supreme Court has constituted a multi-disciplinary committee of experts, including environmentalists and scientists, to provide a scientific definition of the Aravalli Range. This move follows public concern over a previous definition that considered only elevations of 100 meters or above as 'Aravalli,' which would have left thousands of hills unprotected from unregulated mining. The court has stayed its earlier judgment to prevent irreversible ecological damage. The expert panel will also create a roadmap for permissible activities and regulated mining within this sensitive and ancient mountain ecosystem.
- A previous definition based on a 100-meter threshold would have excluded over 11,000 hills in Rajasthan from environmental protection.
- The new committee will work under the Supreme Court's supervision to ensure ecological safety and define permissible mining.
- Senior advocates argued that mountains are complex tectonic structures that cannot be defined by simple elevation metrics alone.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Election Commission (EC) possesses wide discretion under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, its powers are not 'untrammelled.' During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court emphasized that any deviations from standard procedure must respect constitutional guarantees like equality before the law (Article 14) and ensure transparency to protect the civil rights of voters, as revisions can significantly impact voter eligibility.
- The EC's power to direct special revisions must be exercised within the framework of existing statutory rules and natural justice.
- Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act provides residuary power but does not allow the EC to bypass the procedural 'shackles' of Rule 25.
- Any deviation from prescribed norms during electoral roll revisions must be backed by fair, just, and recorded reasons.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions from Tamil Nadu and Kerala questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a 'juristic person' with the right to approach High Courts under Article 226. The states argue that the ED is a statutory creation, not a 'person' or 'body corporate,' and thus lacks the legal standing to sue or be sued like a natural person. This legal challenge follows the ED's attempts to block state-led investigations into its officials. The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the legal status and litigation powers of central investigative agencies.
- A 'juristic person' is a legal fiction recognized as having rights and duties, similar to a corporation.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu contend that the ED, being a statutory agency, cannot exercise powers not specifically conferred by its governing statute.
- The case arose after the ED challenged a Kerala government notification setting up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against ED officials.
This article critiques the functioning of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the role of 'media trials' in high-profile cases. It highlights instances where the judiciary has called out the ED for exceeding its mandate and violating legal principles, such as conducting searches without credible information or a predicate offence. The article argues that the ED's sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), including the difficulty of obtaining bail, are increasingly being used as tools of political intimidation. It calls for urgent constitutional guardrails to prevent investigative authorities from becoming instruments of arbitrary state power.
- The PMLA requires a 'predicate offence' (scheduled offence) that generates proceeds of crime before money laundering charges can be applied.
- Section 50 of the PMLA allows the ED to summon individuals and record statements under oath, which can be used as evidence.
- The 'reverse burden of proof' under PMLA makes it exceptionally difficult for accused individuals to secure bail compared to regular criminal law.
Child trafficking remains a critical issue in India, with over 53,000 children rescued between 2024 and 2025. The Supreme Court, in the K. P. Kiran Kumar case, issued strict guidelines to prevent trafficking, linking it to the fundamental right to life under the Constitution. The article examines the legal framework, including the Palermo Protocol and Section 143 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, which provides a broad definition of exploitation. Despite these laws, the conviction rate remains low at 4.8%. The author emphasizes the need for socio-economic interventions for marginalized communities and enhanced Union-State cooperation, as law and order are state subjects while trafficking is often a cross-border crime.
- The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, Section 143, defines trafficking to include recruitment, transportation, and receipt of persons for exploitation.
- Articles 23 and 24 of the Indian Constitution provide fundamental protections against human trafficking and hazardous child labor.
- The conviction rate for trafficking offenses in India was only 4.8% between 2018 and 2022, highlighting a major gap in law enforcement.
The Supreme Court of India, using its plenary powers under Article 142, issued nine directions to address the 'epidemic' of student suicides in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). The court highlighted that the rapid 'massification' and 'privatisation' of education have occurred without a corresponding boost in quality, leading to severe student distress. A major concern is the high vacancy rate in faculty positions, with some universities reporting up to 50% vacancies. The Court ordered that all vacant faculty, Registrar, and Vice-Chancellor positions in both public and private HEIs be filled within four months. This move aims to ensure institutional support and fulfill the National Education Policy 2020's goal of 50% Gross Enrolment Ratio by 2035.
- The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to issue binding directions for student well-being and institutional reforms.
- Seven of the nine directions focus on tracking student suicides and providing mental health support within HEIs.
- The Court mandated a strict four-month deadline for filling all vacant faculty and administrative positions in universities.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before initiating an inquiry or investigation against a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna struck down the section, arguing it violates Article 14 by creating a protected class and hindering the fight against corruption. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision, suggesting that an independent body like the Lokpal, rather than the government, should grant such sanctions to maintain neutrality. The case has been referred to a larger Bench to resolve the core disagreement.
- Section 17A of the PC Act requires prior approval from the government before investigating public servants for official acts.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision creates an impermissible barrier to investigation and fosters a 'policy bias' within institutions.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that the Lokpal could act as an independent authority to grant sanctions, balancing accountability with protection from frivolous litigation.
Nearly six years after the 2019 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Union government is yet to constitute the Arbitration Council of India (ACI). The ACI was envisioned as a regulatory body to promote institutional arbitration and grade arbitral institutions. However, concerns regarding its independence persist, as the council would comprise members nominated by the executive. The draft Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to address these issues by introducing structural reforms, redefining 'arbitral institutions,' and recalibrating the role of courts in granting interim relief to reduce judicial intervention and curb delays in the arbitration process.
- The ACI was proposed by the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee to make India a hub for international arbitration.
- Critics argue that government dominance in the ACI's composition could compromise its institutional impartiality.
- The 2024 draft Bill aims to limit court intervention by requiring arbitration to commence within 90 days of interim relief.
The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by Justice Yashwant Varma challenging the Lok Sabha Speaker's decision to constitute an inquiry committee for his removal. The court emphasized that constitutional safeguards for judges should not paralyze the removal process. Justice Varma argued that since removal notices were submitted in both Houses on the same day, a joint committee was required under Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act. However, the Bench ruled that because the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman rejected the notice while the Lok Sabha Speaker admitted it, the Speaker acted within his legal autonomy to proceed independently.
- The Supreme Court clarified that the rejection of a removal motion in one House does not render the other House incompetent to proceed.
- Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act regarding joint committees applies only if notices are admitted in both Houses.
- The judiciary must balance the protection of judges with the effective functioning of constitutional removal mechanisms.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This section mandates prior government sanction before investigating a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, while Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld it, arguing it protects honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' The case will now be referred to a larger three-judge bench for a final decision on balancing public probity with officer protection.
- Section 17A was introduced to provide a filter against malicious prosecution of public servants for official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision is unconstitutional as it creates an arbitrary distinction between classes of public servants.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that independent bodies like Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction to ensure impartiality.
The Supreme Court questioned the Election Commission (EC) regarding the authority of Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) to strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries. During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted. The Court raised concerns whether an ERO's finding could trigger a central government investigation into an individual's right to remain in India. The EC argued that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and that excluded individuals have a right to appeal, maintaining that verifying citizenship is essential for maintaining valid electoral rolls.
- The Supreme Court is examining if EROs can effectively strip the 'colour of citizenship' before a final central government decision.
- Article 326 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 are central to the EC's claim of authority for these deletions.
- Nearly 6.5 crore names were deleted in the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process across several states.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the Right to Education (RTE) Act is a vital tool for transforming India's social structure by ensuring children from diverse backgrounds study together. Justice P.S. Narasimha stated that the obligation of neighborhood schools to admit children from weaker and disadvantaged sections is 'normatively ambitious.' The court emphasized that equality must start in the classroom, where children of multi-millionaires and street vendors sit side-by-side. The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of Article 21A to provide free and compulsory education, describing its implementation as a national mission for both government and local authorities.
- The RTE Act envisages elementary education in a shared institutional space to break class and caste barriers.
- Neighborhood schools have a statutory mandate to ensure inclusive admissions for disadvantaged sections.
- The court views the implementation of Article 21A as a 'national mission' for the government.
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This provision requires prior government approval before investigating public servants for official decisions. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, viewing it as a barrier to transparency. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan argued it is necessary to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' He suggested that an independent authority like the Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction. The case has been referred to a larger three-judge bench for final determination.
- Section 17A was introduced to prevent the harassment of public servants for bona fide official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision violates the principle of equality before the law.
- Justice Viswanathan emphasized that the Lokpal has the authority to inquire into allegations even against the Prime Minister.
The Supreme Court is examining whether Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) can strike individuals off electoral rolls based on citizenship inquiries before a final decision by the Central government. The bench, including Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, questioned if an ERO's finding could trigger investigations into an individual's right to remain in India. The Election Commission argues that Article 326, the Representation of the People Act, and the Registration of Electors Rules 1960 empower them to conduct such inquiries to ensure only citizens are on the rolls. The court is concerned about the potential for these findings to lead to deportation without due process.
- EROs are conducting inquisitorial enquiries into citizenship during Special Intensive Revisions (SIR).
- The Supreme Court is concerned that removing a voter's name based on citizenship doubts might strip them of rights before a final government decision.
- The Election Commission maintains that citizenship is a cornerstone of the electoral process and non-citizens are not entitled to vote.
Recent US military action in Venezuela, aimed at capturing President Nicolas Maduro on 'narco-terrorism' charges and seizing oil assets, is criticized as a flagrant violation of international law. The article argues that this action violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The breakdown of the balance-of-power concept, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has led to unchecked exercise of power by the US. The author suggests that India needs a strategic military-industrial complex to counter such insensitive geopolitical shifts.
- The US action in Venezuela is seen as a violation of the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force against sovereign states.
- The declaration to use Venezuela's oil wealth to compensate US companies is viewed as a breach of international norms.
- The article highlights the shift from a bipolar world to a unipolar one where the US exercises 'unchecked power' in pre-emptive strikes.
There is a growing legal and social debate regarding the age of consent in India, currently set at 18 years under the POCSO Act (2012). Critics argue that the rigid age limit criminalizes consensual adolescent relationships, often weaponized by families to punish young couples. While the Law Commission (2023) advised against lowering the age to 16, it recommended 'guided judicial discretion' for sentencing in cases involving minors aged 16-18. Recent High Court and Supreme Court judgments have highlighted the need to distinguish between predatory abuse and 'young love' to protect adolescent autonomy.
- The POCSO Act applies strict liability, making a minor's consent legally irrelevant if they are under 18.
- The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, raised the age of consent from 16 to 18 to align with POCSO.
- The Law Commission's 283rd Report (2023) opposed lowering the age but suggested judicial discretion in sentencing.
Recent data reveals a significant milestone in 2025 where fast-track special courts cleared more child sexual offence cases than registered, achieving a 109% disposal rate. However, this surge in disposals has not led to higher conviction rates; instead, convictions fell from 35% in 2019 to 29% in 2023. The analysis suggests that rapid case processing might lead to weaker investigations and incomplete forensic reports. The article emphasizes that children in POCSO cases require comprehensive support systems, including trained professionals and sensitive legal procedures, rather than just speedy trials.
- Fast-track special courts achieved a record 109% disposal rate in 2025, clearing 87,754 cases.
- Despite faster disposals, the national average conviction rate dropped to 29% by 2023.
- The POCSO Act (2012) was designed to provide child-friendly procedures and time-bound trials.
The Supreme Court recently denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the 2020 Delhi riots conspiracy case, citing the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court established a 'hierarchy of roles,' distinguishing 'ideological drivers' from 'local-level facilitators.' Under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail is significantly harder to obtain compared to ordinary criminal law, as the court must be satisfied that the accusations are prima facie true. The judgment also expanded the reading of 'terrorist acts' under Section 15 to include road blockades (chakka jams) intended to disrupt essential services or threaten national security.
- Section 43D(5) of the UAPA creates a high threshold for bail, departing from the general principle of 'bail, not jail' found in ordinary criminal law.
- The court distinguished between 'ideological drivers' who devised strategies and 'derivative' participants who provided logistical support for protests.
- Section 15 of the UAPA defines 'terrorist acts' broadly, including actions intended to threaten the unity, integrity, or security of India.
Attorney-General R. Venkataramani has stated that the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, does not 'dilute' the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. While civil society groups argue that amendments to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act create a total exemption for personal information, the A-G points to Section 8(2) of the RTI Act. This section mandates the disclosure of exempted information if the public interest outweighs the harm. The DPDP Act aims to provide a legal framework to balance privacy and transparency, as mandated by the Supreme Court's Puttaswamy judgment, ensuring accountability is maintained.
- Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act was amended by the DPDP Act to exempt 'personal information' from disclosure.
- Section 8(2) of the RTI Act remains a 'super-clause' that allows disclosure if public interest is paramount.
- The DPDP Act was notified in August 2023 with a 12-18 month implementation timeline for various provisions.
The Phaltan case, involving the suicide of a lady doctor in Maharashtra, highlights the critical need for protecting victim dignity in the criminal justice system. Indian jurisprudence, through the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023 and Section 53A of the Evidence Act, prohibits using a victim's 'general immoral character' or previous sexual experience as a defense. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that a victim's testimony should not be viewed with suspicion based on perceived 'loose morals.' The article emphasizes that legislative changes alone are insufficient without a shift in societal mindset and better training for police and the judiciary to prevent 'secondary victimisation' through character assassination.
- The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, replaces the Indian Evidence Act and maintains prohibitions on character assassination of victims.
- Section 72 of the BNS (formerly Section 228A IPC) mandates the non-disclosure of the identity of sexual assault victims to prevent public shaming.
- The Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs Gurmit Singh & Ors. (1996) ruled that a victim's testimony should not be viewed with suspicion based on character.
The Supreme Court is hearing a challenge by sitting Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma regarding the "unilateral" establishment of an inquiry committee by the Lok Sabha Speaker. The case centers on whether a notice of motion for removal must be admitted by both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker simultaneously if given on the same day. The Court is examining Section 3(2) of the Judges (Inquiry) Act, which mandates joint action. The Solicitor-General argued that the ultimate test of removal lies with the Houses of Parliament, while the petitioner claims procedural prejudice.
- The case involves the interpretation of Article 32 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
- Under the Act, if motions are given in both Houses on the same day, the Chairman and Speaker must act jointly to form a committee.
- The petitioner argues that the rejection of the motion by the RS Chairman while the LS Speaker admitted it caused legal prejudice.
Over the last decade, the Supreme Court of India has shifted from reviewing administrative legality to issuing forward-looking regulatory directions in environmental matters. While intended to protect the environment, this "managerial role" has sometimes created uncertainty for regulated actors. Key instances include the 2022 mandate for Eco-sensitive Zones (ESZ) of at least one kilometer around protected areas, which was later modified due to practical difficulties. The Court's tendency to substitute for the regulator, rather than correcting the regulatory process, has led to a "push-pull" relationship with the executive, often resulting in policy U-turns.
- The Court has moved into a "continuing mandamus" role, issuing serial directions in cases like the Aravalli hills mining.
- Frequent modifications of orders can smother meaningful judicial review in other forums.
- Experts suggest the Court should focus on disciplining the state back into regulation rather than acting as an approving authority.