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.
The Supreme Court of India has called for the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media influencers and commercial speech. This follows concerns over derogatory remarks and content that might offend specific groups. The debate centers on balancing the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) with reasonable restrictions like public order and decency. Legal experts argue whether existing laws like the IT Act 2000 are sufficient or if a new framework is needed. The court emphasizes that while commercial speech is protected, it must not infringe upon individual dignity or social harmony.
- Commercial speech is recognized as a part of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The Sakal Papers case (1962) established that the state cannot restrict the circulation of news under the guise of regulating commercial aspects.
- Any new regulations must meet the 'test of proportionality' to ensure they do not lead to arbitrary censorship.
The ongoing legal battle regarding bail for activists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) highlights concerns over extended pre-trial detention. Section 43D(5) of the UAPA makes bail nearly impossible if the court finds the accusations 'prima facie true,' a standard hardened by the Supreme Court’s Watali (2019) judgment. Critics argue that this framework allows the legal process itself to become a form of punishment, especially when trials are delayed for years. The article emphasizes that constitutional guarantees of liberty under Articles 19 and 21 must be protected against state overreach and vague definitions of terrorist acts.
- Section 43D(5) of the UAPA prohibits bail if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
- The Supreme Court's Watali judgment (2019) restricts detailed examination of evidence at the bail stage, favoring the prosecution's narrative.
- Long incarceration without trial is increasingly viewed as a violation of fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution.
This explainer examines the ongoing debate regarding the 50% ceiling on reservations in India. While the Indra Sawhney case (1992) established this limit to balance equality of opportunity with affirmative action, several states are pushing for higher quotas based on population data. The article explores Articles 15 and 16, which guarantee equality and allow for special provisions for backward classes. It also discusses the EWS reservation, which was upheld by the Supreme Court despite exceeding the 50% limit, and the recent debate over sub-categorization within SC/ST groups to ensure benefits reach the most marginalized.
- Articles 15 and 16 provide the constitutional basis for reservations in education and public employment.
- The 50% cap was established in the Indra Sawhney (Mandal) case but is not an absolute constitutional limit.
- The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced 10% EWS reservation, pushing the total beyond 50% in many states.
This opinion piece discusses the lack of transparency in the Supreme Court Collegium, highlighted by Justice B.V. Nagarathna's recent dissent regarding a judicial appointment. It argues that the 'culture of justification' is missing in the judiciary's own administrative decisions. While the Collegium system vests power in senior judges, the lack of public reasoning for appointments or rejections erodes institutional legitimacy. The author suggests that the judiciary must subject itself to the same standards of openness it demands from other branches of government to maintain public trust and democratic accountability.
- The Collegium system is a product of judge-made law from the Second (1993) and Third (1998) Judges Cases.
- Dissent within the Collegium is rarely made public, leading to a perception of total opacity in judicial appointments.
- Comparisons are drawn with the UK and South Africa, where judicial selection processes involve more public scrutiny.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments from states like West Bengal and Karnataka regarding delays by Governors in assenting to bills. Senior advocates argue that under Article 200, Governors must return bills 'as soon as possible,' which should be interpreted as 'forthwith' or 'immediately.' They contend that Governors, as titular heads, cannot sit on bills indefinitely or question their constitutionality, as that role belongs to the judiciary. The states argue that such delays obstruct the will of the people and violate the federal structure, emphasizing that Governors must act on the 'aid and advice' of the State Cabinet.
- Article 200 requires Governors to either assent, withhold assent, or reserve bills for the President 'as soon as possible.'
- States argue that Governors are bound to grant assent if the legislature re-passes a bill after it was returned.
- The 'forthwith' interpretation aims to prevent Governors from creating a constant state of conflict with elected governments.
Despite the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength of 34 judges, there is a persistent gender imbalance, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna currently being the sole woman judge. Historically, only 11 women have been appointed to the apex court since 1950, representing a mere 3.8% of the total 287 judges. The article argues for institutionalizing gender representation in the Collegium's selection criteria. It highlights that diversity brings unique perspectives and increases public trust. The lack of transparency in the Collegium system and the 'seniority' argument are cited as barriers to female appointments.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna is scheduled to become the first woman Chief Justice of India (CJI) in 2027, but only for 36 days.
- Only five women have ever been part of the Supreme Court Collegium, with only three involved in appointments.
- Diversity in the judiciary should include gender, caste, religion, and regional representation to be truly inclusive.
A five-judge Supreme Court bench, while hearing a Presidential Reference, observed that Governors cannot indefinitely delay or sit over bills passed by state legislatures. The court emphasized that no organ can impair the functioning of the Constitution or the legislature's wisdom. This follows an April 8 judgment regarding the Tamil Nadu Governor, where a three-month deadline was suggested. The bench is debating whether 'deemed assent' should apply if deadlines are missed. The Centre argued Governors have absolute power under Article 200, while States contend such delay thwarts the constitutional scheme.
- Governors must act with immediacy and cannot assume 'royalty' status in a Republic.
- The Supreme Court is examining if a general timeline, such as three months, can be imposed on constitutional heads for bill assent.
- Article 200 of the Constitution governs the Governor's power to assent, withhold, or reserve bills for the President.
Supreme Court Justice B.V. Nagarathna has issued a multi-faceted dissent against the Collegium's proposal to elevate Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the apex court. Her dissent touched upon the criteria for elevation, including seniority and regional representation. She noted that several senior women High Court judges were overlooked and expressed concerns that the appointment might be 'counter-productive' to the administration of justice. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that judicial appointments must be free from the fear of other powers and should ensure diversity in region, gender, and community.
- Justice Nagarathna's dissent is the first from a woman Supreme Court judge regarding Collegium elevations.
- She highlighted that Justice Pancholi ranked 57th in all-India seniority, questioning the bypass of more senior judges.
- The dissent emphasized the need for diversity in region, gender, and community within the Supreme Court.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred the question of whether minority educational institutions are entirely exempt from the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 to a larger Bench. The reference challenges a 2014 Constitution Bench verdict (Pramati case) which exempted minority schools from providing 25% reservation for disadvantaged children under Section 12(1)(c). Justice Dipankar Datta observed that minority status has sometimes become a 'vehicle for circumventing' the mandate of universal elementary education and Article 21A, leading to fragmentation of the common schooling vision.
- The court is reconsidering if minority institutions should be exempt from the 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups.
- Justice Dipankar Datta noted that the 2014 Pramati judgment may have jeopardized the foundation of universal elementary education.
- The reference stems from appeals against school departments insisting on TET qualification for teachers in minority schools.
The Supreme Court has sought responses from the Centre and NCERT regarding a petition to integrate transgender-inclusive comprehensive sexuality education into school curricula. The plea, filed by a 16-year-old student, highlights that despite the 2014 NALSA judgment and the Transgender Persons Act 2019, educational modules on gender identity and diversity are largely absent. The petitioner argues that these omissions violate the right to equality and Directive Principles of State Policy. A survey of textbooks across several states revealed systemic omissions, with Kerala being a partial exception.
- The petition seeks the integration of transgender-inclusive sexuality education into school curricula nationwide.
- It cites the 2014 NALSA v Union of India judgment which mandated such inclusion.
- The plea alleges failure by NCERT and SCERTs to include modules on gender identity and diversity.
Urban noise pollution in India frequently exceeds WHO safety limits, yet regulatory enforcement remains weak. While the Noise Pollution Rules, 2000 provide a framework, they are rarely updated to reflect urban realities. The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 (Right to Life) to include the right to a quiet environment, noting that unchecked noise poses a serious threat to mental well-being and civic freedom. The article calls for decentralizing monitoring, empowering local bodies, and fostering a culture of 'sonic empathy' to address the ecological and health impacts of rising decibel levels.
- WHO safe limits in silent zones are 50 dB(A) by day, but readings in cities like Delhi often reach 65-70 dB(A).
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2024 that environmental disruptions, including excessive noise, infringe upon the fundamental right to life under Article 21.
- The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) launched the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) in 2011.
The Supreme Court is currently examining the issue of restoring statehood to Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting the importance of India's federal design. Under Article 1, India is a 'Union of States,' a unique system combining federal and unitary features. While Article 3 allows Parliament to reorganize states, federalism is recognized as part of the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. The article argues that without a robust federal design, the Rajya Sabha's permanent status under Article 83(1) would lose its purpose. The restoration of statehood is seen as essential to protecting the constitutional rights of citizens and maintaining the Union's integrity.
- The Supreme Court has sought a detailed response from the Centre regarding the timeline for J&K's statehood.
- Article 1 defines India as an indestructible union of destructible states, emphasizing 'Union' over 'Federation'.
- Federalism is a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, meaning it cannot be abridged by Parliament.
The Supreme Court has urged the Union government to formulate guidelines for regulating social media content, particularly concerning influencers who commercialize free speech in ways that offend vulnerable groups. The directive arose from an application alleging derogatory comments against individuals with Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA). The Court emphasized that free speech for "commercial purposes" should not hurt sentiments and that any additional regulation must be carefully drafted to avoid impinging on fundamental free speech rights. The Constitution permits restrictions on free speech only on eight narrowly defined grounds under Article 19(2), and the Court has consistently held that these grounds are exhaustive and cannot be expanded.
- The Supreme Court directed the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media content, especially commercial free speech by influencers.
- The Court stressed that commercial free speech should not offend the sentiments of vulnerable groups.
- Restrictions on free speech are permissible only on eight narrowly defined grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
The Kerala government is considering an amendment to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, to tackle specific challenges related to human-wildlife conflict. The proposed amendment would authorize the Chief Wildlife Warden to permit killing, tranquilizing, or capturing a wild animal if it causes serious injury or is found in a public place. Law Minister P. Rajeeve stated that the State government is competent to propose such an amendment to a Central law, which would require Presidential assent after being passed by the State Assembly, as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The State has long struggled with the Central law's limitations in managing this critical issue.
- Kerala plans to amend the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, to better manage human-wildlife conflict.
- The proposed amendment would allow the Chief Wildlife Warden to authorize the killing, tranquilization, or capture of dangerous wild animals.
- The State government believes it is competent to amend a Central law on a Concurrent List subject, requiring Presidential assent.
The Supreme Court of India has regained its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges with the swearing-in of Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi. Chief Justice B.R. Gavai administered the oath. Justice Pancholi is slated to become Chief Justice of India in 2031. Their appointment process saw a rare dissent from Justice B.V. Nagarathna, who questioned Justice Pancholi's seniority ranking and suggested other meritorious judges could be considered. Despite this, the Collegium recommended the appointments by a 4:1 majority, which were subsequently notified within 48 hours.
- The Supreme Court of India has reached its full sanctioned strength of 34 judges.
- Justices Alok Aradhe and Vipul M. Pancholi were sworn in by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai.
- Justice Vipul M. Pancholi is in line to become the Chief Justice of India in 2031.
Tamil Nadu argued in the Supreme Court that a Governor cannot act as a "super Chief Minister" and has limited discretion, countering the Centre's view of wide gubernatorial powers. Senior advocate A.M. Singhvi, representing Tamil Nadu, stated that the Governor is a "lubricator" or "facilitator," not a legislator, and acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. The State questioned how a Governor could have the final say on a Bill, emphasizing that general discretion would create chaos in responsible governments. The Centre, represented by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, argued that a State cannot file an Article 32 petition for fundamental rights violation by the Governor, who enjoys "complete immunity" under Article 361.
- Tamil Nadu argued in the Supreme Court that a Governor's role is limited to a "lubricator" or "facilitator," not a "super Chief Minister."
- The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, especially regarding legislative processes.
- Tamil Nadu challenged the notion of wide gubernatorial discretion, stating it would lead to chaos in responsible governments.
The Delhi High Court's order to block Sci-Hub has reignited debates on access to research papers. The article criticizes the academic publishing model where publicly funded scientists are unpaid, yet institutions face exorbitant subscription fees. It argues that Sci-Hub, despite copyright violations, provided crucial access. The "One Nation, One Subscription" (ONOS) initiative, approved with a ₹6,000 crore outlay, aims to provide bulk access to 13,000 journals for public institutions. However, concerns persist regarding ONOS's scope, cost-effectiveness, and its ability to address systemic issues like copyright transfer and dependence on foreign publishers.
- The Delhi High Court's decision to block Sci-Hub has intensified discussions on equitable access to scholarly research and the ethics of academic publishing.
- The current publishing model is criticized for charging exorbitant subscription fees to institutions while scientists, often publicly funded, receive no payment for their work.
- Sci-Hub, despite its legal issues, served as a vital, albeit unauthorized, platform for researchers to access scientific literature, particularly in developing countries.
The article discusses recent controversies surrounding the Election Commission of India (ECI), including allegations of voter list manipulation and its conduct of a "special intensive revision" in Bihar. It criticizes the ECI's defensive posture and ultimatum to the Leader of Opposition, emphasizing that as a constitutional body, the ECI is obligated to investigate serious complaints. While Article 324 grants the ECI extensive powers for free and fair elections, these powers must be exercised strictly within the constitutional and legal frameworks, as highlighted by concerns over the Bihar revision violating legal provisions and the Supreme Court's intervention.
- The ECI's recent handling of voter list manipulation allegations and the Bihar electoral roll revision has raised questions about its impartiality and adherence to legal procedures.
- As a constitutional body, the ECI has a fundamental obligation to thoroughly examine and address serious complaints regarding electoral irregularities.
- Article 324 of the Constitution grants the ECI vast powers for the superintendence, direction, and control of elections, ensuring their freeness and fairness.