The article critiques the Supreme Court's call for government regulation of social media speech, warning that it risks empowering an executive already prone to curbing free expression. It argues that expanding state powers to police speech can stifle democratic discourse, suppress artistic and political expression, and lead to partisan monitoring. The author points to existing problematic regulations like the IT Rules, 2021, and asserts that the judiciary's core role is to safeguard constitutional rights, not to act as an unchallenged authority that grants the state unchecked power.
- The Supreme Court's suggestion for social media speech regulation is criticized for potentially enhancing executive control over freedom of expression.
- Expanding state authority to police speech risks suppressing democratic discourse, art, and political dissent, fostering a climate of self-censorship.
- Existing regulations, such as the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are cited as examples of problematic state control over online content.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, is examining whether the judiciary can review a Governor's inaction on State Bills under Article 200, drawing parallels with the judicial review of President's Rule under Article 356. This Presidential Reference was prompted by a Tamil Nadu petition against its Governor for delaying assent to Bills since 2020, following a previous judgment that set three-month deadlines. The Centre and several states argue that the Governor's functions under Article 200 are legislative and should not be subject to judicial limitations.
- The Supreme Court is deliberating on the judiciary's power to review a Governor's delay in assenting to State Bills under Article 200.
- Chief Justice B.R. Gavai highlighted the inconsistency of reviewing Article 356 discretion but not Article 200 discretion.
- The Presidential Reference was triggered by a petition from Tamil Nadu regarding its Governor's prolonged inaction on Bills since 2020.
The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, recently passed by Parliament, aims to ban all forms of Real Money Games (RMGs) and their advertisements, while promoting e-sports and social gaming. The Act defines online money games broadly, encompassing skill-based games like Poker and Rummy if played for stakes. This move is driven by concerns over financial fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and addiction linked to RMGs, with government data suggesting significant user losses and suicides. Critics argue the Act's failure to distinguish between games of skill and chance violates Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Trade and Occupation) and may face constitutional challenges, especially given that state governments already regulate betting and gambling.
- The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, seeks to ban Real Money Games (RMGs) and their advertisements while promoting e-sports and social gaming.
- The Act broadly defines online money games to include skill-based games played for stakes, raising concerns for the industry.
- The government's rationale for the ban includes preventing financial fraud, money laundering, tax evasion, and addressing addiction and associated suicides.
The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, has recommended the elevation of Chief Justices Alok Aradhe of the Bombay High Court and Vipul Manubhai Pancholi of the Patna High Court to the Supreme Court. Justice Aradhe, born in April 1964, has a long judicial career, including appointments as Additional Judge of Madhya Pradesh, Permanent Judge, and Chief Justice of Telangana and Bombay High Courts. Justice Pancholi, born in May 1968, was confirmed as a Permanent Judge of the Gujarat High Court and later became Chief Justice of the Patna High Court. These recommendations aim to fill vacancies in the top court.
- The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the elevation of two High Court Chief Justices to the Supreme Court.
- Justices Alok Aradhe (Bombay High Court) and Vipul Manubhai Pancholi (Patna High Court) are the recommended individuals.
- Justice Aradhe has served as Chief Justice of Telangana and Bombay High Courts.
The article argues that India's constitutional courts have become "parallel legislators" due to Parliament's systematic abdication of precise law-making, leading to frequent challenges to legislation. The authors, Samrat Pasriccha and Rohini Narayanan, highlight that laws are often introduced without adequate notice, bypass committees, and are rushed through with minimal scrutiny, resulting in vague definitions, incoherent clauses, and contradictions with existing laws or the Constitution. This flawed process leads to litigation, harming economic prosperity, social harmony, and democratic values. They propose that the Attorney-General for India (AG) should play a more active role in pre-legislative scrutiny, leveraging Article 88 of the Constitution, to guide lawmakers and prevent legislation from becoming litigation.
- India's constitutional courts are increasingly acting as "parallel legislators" due to Parliament's inadequate law-making process.
- Legislation is often rushed, lacks proper stakeholder consultation, bypasses parliamentary committees, and contains flaws like vague definitions and contradictions.
- This leads to frequent litigation, burdening courts and negatively impacting economic prosperity, social harmony, and democratic values.
The article critically examines Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, arguing that it replaces the draconian sedition law with an even worse provision, being "weaponised with impunity" against journalists. Former Supreme Court Judge Madan B. Lokur highlights that the new section, which penalizes acts endangering India's sovereignty, unity, and integrity, is vaguely worded and can be easily misinterpreted to stifle free speech. He points out the "freezing effect" on journalists, the financial burden of frivolous complaints, and the Assam police's alleged harassment of journalists Karan Thapar and Siddharth Varadarajan under this section. The author questions the constitutionality of Section 152 and the police's disregard for legal mandates, such as providing a copy of the FIR.
- Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, is criticized for being a more severe replacement for the repealed sedition law, potentially stifling free speech.
- The article argues that the vague wording of Section 152 allows for its "weaponisation" against journalists, leading to harassment and financial inconvenience.
- The author highlights the "freezing effect" on critical reporting, where any perceived misinterpretation could lead to charges of undermining national security.
The Supreme Court on Monday urged the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media conduct, including online shows, after observing that social media influencers commercialize free speech and their comments can hurt sentiments in a diverse society. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi highlighted the need for effective consequences for violations and a clear distinction between free speech, commercial speech, and prohibited speech. The court was hearing a case against comedians for insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities, emphasizing that such acts "completely smashed" the constitutional objective of bringing disabled persons into the mainstream. The Attorney-General suggested sensitisation of social media users as a primary objective.
- The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to formulate guidelines for regulating social media conduct, including online shows and podcasts.
- Justices emphasized that commercialized free speech by influencers has the potential to hurt sentiments in India's diverse society, especially concerning disabled persons.
- The court highlighted the need for clear distinctions between free speech, commercial speech, and prohibited speech, noting an overlap between commercial and prohibited speech.
The Union government introduced the 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill to remove Ministers, including the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers, if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for criminal offenses punishable by at least five years imprisonment. They would be removed either by PM/CM's advice or automatically on the 31st day if no advice is tendered. The Bill also amends Article 239AA for Delhi and requires a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Existing laws, like the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act), only disqualify convicted persons sentenced to two or more years, not those merely arrested. Critics argue the Bill undermines parliamentary democracy, allows for political misuse, and removes elected representatives based on mere police action before trial, rather than addressing the root cause of criminalization in politics.
- The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill proposes the removal of Ministers, PM, and CM if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for serious criminal offenses.
- The Bill seeks to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA of the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds majority for passage.
- Current laws, such as the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only disqualify individuals upon conviction and sentencing, not mere arrest.
The 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee, is presented as the Union government's solution to political corruption, aiming to prevent Ministers, including PMs and CMs, from governing from jail. The Bill proposes that Ministers arrested for serious offenses (punishable by five years or more imprisonment) and incarcerated as undertrials for 30 days would lose office automatically on the 31st day or by presidential/gubernatorial order. The Opposition deems it unconstitutional, fearing it could destabilize elected governments and politicize the power of arrest. Supreme Court judgments have cautioned against using arrest as harassment, emphasizing that the power to arrest does not always necessitate its exercise, and that deprivation of liberty, even for a single day, is a serious matter.
- The 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill seeks to remove Ministers, PMs, and CMs from office if arrested and detained for 30 days for serious offenses.
- The Bill is intended to combat political corruption but is criticized by the Opposition as unconstitutional and a tool for destabilizing elected governments.
- Concerns are raised that the Bill politicizes the power of arrest, allowing for potential misuse against ministers in opposition-ruled states.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is facing a credibility crisis, highlighted by the controversial transfer of archaeologist K. Amarnath Ramakrishna, who led the Keeladi excavations. These excavations revealed a sophisticated urban society from the Iron Age (12th-6th century BCE) to the Early Historic Period (6th-4th century BCE), but faced downplaying and halting by the ASI after Ramakrishna's transfer. The Madras High Court intervened, transferring the site to the Tamil Nadu State Department of Archaeology. The article criticizes ASI's inconsistent approach, contrasting its neglect of significant findings at Adichanallur with its uncritical embrace of mytho-historical narratives in Rajasthan, which aligns with a "methodological nationalism." It calls for structural reforms, greater methodological rigour, financial autonomy, and an epistemic framework embracing India's plural historical past.
- The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is under scrutiny for its handling of archaeological findings and alleged political interference.
- The Keeladi excavations in Tamil Nadu provided crucial evidence of an ancient urban society, but faced obstruction and downplaying by the ASI.
- The article highlights ASI's inconsistent approach, showing neglect of some sites while promoting mytho-historical narratives at others, indicative of "methodological nationalism."
The proposed Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced in Lok Sabha, aims to address political criminality by mandating the removal of Ministers, Chief Ministers, and the Prime Minister if detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for crimes punishable by five years or more imprisonment. While intended to promote cleaner politics, the Bill raises concerns about undermining the presumption of innocence (Article 21) by linking removal to mere detention, not conviction. It also risks politicizing the process through executive discretion and creates an inconsistency in treatment between legislators (disqualified upon conviction) and ministers (removed upon detention). The article suggests a more nuanced model, linking removal to judicial milestones like framing of charges or interim suspension, rather than outright removal based on arrest.
- The 130th Constitution (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes automatic removal of ministers, including PM/CM, if detained for 30 days for serious offenses.
- The Bill aims to curb political criminality but potentially infringes on the principle of presumption of innocence, a fundamental right under Article 21.
- It introduces an inconsistency by treating ministers differently from legislators, who are disqualified only upon conviction.
The Supreme Court is navigating the complex issue of free-roaming dogs, seeking to balance compassion with public safety. Initial directives for shelter confinement were later modified to permit release after vaccination and deworming, retaining only aggressive or rabid animals. The article highlights India's significant rabies burden and the ineffectiveness of the Animal Birth Control Rules without adequate sterilisation coverage. It advocates for properly resourced and regulated shelters with veterinary standards and transparent oversight, noting that administrative neglect hinders current efforts. A modern statute is proposed to replace the outdated Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, mandating minimum standards for municipal shelters and accurate stray dog counts.
- The Supreme Court is addressing the issue of free-roaming dogs, aiming to reconcile animal welfare with public safety concerns.
- Existing Animal Birth Control Rules are ineffective without achieving a high percentage of sterilisation coverage.
- There is a critical need for well-resourced, regulated animal shelters adhering to veterinary standards and transparent oversight.
The Election Commission reported that 98.2% of Bihar's 7.24 crore electors submitted documents for the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls within 60 days, with the final roll due by September 30. The remaining 1.8% have eight days to submit documents or rectify errors. Concurrently, the BJP clarified that Aadhaar is only proof of identity and residence, not citizenship, and cannot be the sole document for voter enrollment. This statement addresses opposition propaganda, as the SIR aims to remove ineligible names, including deceased individuals and non-citizens, with 65 lakh names already removed from the draft rolls.
- The Election Commission successfully conducted the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, achieving high document submission rates.
- The BJP clarified that Aadhaar serves as proof of identity and residence but not citizenship, and is insufficient as the sole document for voter enrollment.
- The SIR process is designed to cleanse electoral rolls by removing ineligible names, including deceased individuals and non-citizens.
The Supreme Court modified its earlier "harsh" August 11 order that mandated the capture and confinement of all stray dogs in Delhi and adjoining districts. The revised directive now requires civic authorities to sterilize, deworm, and immunize stray dogs before releasing them back to their original localities, aligning with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. Dogs infected with rabies or exhibiting aggressive behavior are to be housed permanently in separate shelters. The court also directed the establishment of dedicated feeding zones and expanded the matter to a pan-India issue, emphasizing a balanced approach to public safety and animal welfare.
- The Supreme Court modified its previous order regarding stray dogs, deeming the initial directive to capture and confine them as "too harsh."
- The new order mandates sterilization, deworming, and immunization of stray dogs before their release back to their original areas.
- Dogs with rabies or aggressive tendencies are to be permanently housed in separate shelters, not released.
The Supreme Court has directed political parties in Bihar to assist the Election Commission (EC) in re-enrolling voters excluded from the draft electoral roll for the upcoming Assembly elections. The court emphasized the urgency, with the claims-and-objections stage ending on September 1, though an extension might be considered if there's an "overwhelming response." Voters can file claims online using Aadhaar or 11 other specified documents as proof of identity. The EC expressed disappointment with political parties' lack of initiative, noting that a significant portion of the excluded 65 lakh voters are either deceased, migrated, or duplicate entries.
- The Supreme Court directed political parties to actively assist the Election Commission in re-enrolling excluded voters in Bihar.
- Voters can file claims and objections online, using Aadhaar or other specified documents for identity proof.
- The court highlighted the lack of initiative from political parties in assisting voters, despite the deadline for claims approaching.
The National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) has issued a 10-point advisory to address gender disparity in organ transplants, prioritizing women patients and relatives of deceased donors in organ allocation. Data from 2019-2023 reveals that women constitute 63.8% of living organ donors but receive significantly fewer transplants (17,041) compared to men (39,447). NOTTO, as the apex government body, oversees organ donations under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994. The advisory also calls for creating permanent transplant coordinator posts and developing facilities for organ retrieval in trauma centers, emphasizing early identification of deceased donors. Globally, only 10% of the worldwide need for organ transplants is met, with lack of awareness and cultural myths being major obstacles in India.
- NOTTO has issued an advisory to address gender disparity in organ donation, prioritizing women patients and relatives of deceased donors.
- Women are the majority of living organ donors (63.8%) but receive significantly fewer transplants than men.
- NOTTO is the apex government body overseeing organ donations under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act 1994.
This article critiques a Chhattisgarh High Court observation in a custodial death case, where police officers were deemed to have intended 'to teach a lesson' to the victim. The author argues that such judicial language rationalizes state violence and normalizes custodial torture, undermining constitutional principles of dignity, due process, and proportionality. The victim, a Dalit man, died after severe assault in custody, highlighting caste-coded enforcement. The High Court's failure to intervene on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act aspect, by demanding explicit proof of caste motivation, is also criticized. The piece emphasizes that judicial integrity requires courts to reject the idea of violence as disciplinary and to ensure robust application of laws to protect vulnerable groups.
- The Chhattisgarh High Court's observation that police intended 'to teach a lesson' in a custodial death case is criticized for rationalizing state violence.
- Such judicial language normalizes custodial torture and undermines constitutional values of justice, dignity, and due process.
- The case involved a Dalit victim, highlighting the issue of caste-coded enforcement and the judiciary's narrow interpretation of the SC/ST Act.
The Supreme Court expressed strong concerns over Governors indefinitely withholding State Bills, potentially rendering State legislatures defunct. Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai questioned if the SC, as the Constitution's custodian, should remain powerless when constitutional functionaries fail to discharge their duties without valid reasons. The Solicitor-General argued that such delays are political matters, not judicial, and the court should avoid encroaching on law-making. However, the CJI referenced the SC's past role in upholding the Basic Structure by setting aside constitutional amendments that limited judicial review, asserting the court's power to intervene in such constitutional impasses.
- The Supreme Court questioned the constitutional validity of Governors indefinitely withholding assent to State Bills.
- CJI B.R. Gavai highlighted instances like the Tamil Nadu Governor's inaction on crucial State Bills for years.
- The Solicitor-General argued that delays in assenting to Bills are political issues to be resolved in the political sphere, not through judicial orders.
The article argues for India's urgent need for a comprehensive national space law to regulate its rapidly expanding space sector, especially with increasing private sector involvement. Currently, India relies on the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 and various policies, lacking a unified legal framework for crucial aspects like liability, intellectual property, and dispute resolution. A robust space law is essential to provide legal certainty, attract investment, ensure compliance with international obligations, and foster innovation. The absence of such a law creates ambiguities for private players and could hinder India's ambition to become a global leader in space, emphasizing the need for a clear regulatory framework beyond existing policies like the draft Indian Space Policy 2023.
- India currently lacks a comprehensive national space law, relying on international treaties and policies.
- A national space law is crucial for regulating the growing private sector participation in India's space industry.
- Such a law would provide legal certainty, attract investment, and ensure compliance with international obligations.
The Uttarakhand Assembly passed nine Bills amidst uproar, including amendments to the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) and anti-conversion laws, and a new Minority Educational Institutions Bill, 2025. The UCC (Amendment) Bill, 2025, increases punishments for illegal live-in relationships, with married persons entering such relationships facing up to seven years in jail. The Anti-conversion Bill, 2025, extends jail terms for "forced conversions" to life and includes provisions for "false promises of marriage" and hiding religion with intent to marry. The Minority Educational Institutions Bill extends benefits to Sikh, Jain, Christian, Parsi, and Buddhist institutions, while mandating madrasas to seek affiliation from the Uttarakhand Education Board by July 2026 or face closure.
- Uttarakhand Assembly passed several controversial Bills, including amendments to UCC and anti-conversion laws.
- The UCC (Amendment) Bill, 2025, increases penalties for illegal live-in relationships, especially for married individuals.
- The Anti-conversion Bill, 2025, introduces harsher punishments for forced conversions and includes new provisions against false promises of marriage and hiding religion.
The Lok Sabha passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Bill, 2025, by voice vote, aiming to prohibit the offering, operation, facilitation, advertisement, promotion, and participation in online money games, specifically targeting fantasy sports and card games where users risk money. The Bill defines 'real money gaming' to include platforms like Dream11 and PokerBaazi. The online gaming industry, with annual revenues exceeding ₹31,000 crores and employing over two lakh people, faces strict regulations. Punishments for violations include imprisonment up to three years and/or fines up to ₹1 crore. The legislation also bans related advertisements and restricts financial institutions from transferring funds for such games.
- The Lok Sabha passed a Bill to prohibit real money online gaming, including fantasy sports and card games where users risk money.
- The Bill aims to regulate and ban the operation, promotion, and participation in such online games.
- Penalties for violations include significant imprisonment terms and hefty fines.
The article highlights the persistent bureaucratic hurdles faced by transgender individuals in India for gender identity recognition, despite legal provisions like the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. It references a Manipur High Court order to issue fresh certificates to Beoncy Laishram, underscoring the gap between legal rights and their practical implementation. The Supreme Court's landmark NALSA v Union of India judgment recognized the right to self-identify gender, yet administrative processes remain rigid. The author argues for institutional reform and cultural change to bridge this gap, ensuring that the spirit of the law translates into accessible recognition for transgender citizens.
- Transgender individuals in India face significant bureaucratic hurdles in getting their gender identity recognized.
- The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, legally recognizes self-identified gender, but implementation is challenging.
- The Supreme Court's NALSA v Union of India judgment affirmed the right to self-identify gender.
The Supreme Court questioned the Centre regarding the powers of Governors to withhold assent to State Bills under Article 200 of the Constitution, asking if elected State governments are at the mercy of Governors' whims. A Presidential Reference Bench, headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, examined the Centre's submission that State Bills would lapse if Governors withheld assent. The Solicitor-General argued that the power to withhold assent should be used sparingly, especially when it frustrates democratic will or violates fundamental rights. The Court highlighted that the Governorship should not be a "sanctum for retired politicians" and emphasized the need for constitutional interpretation to align with present-day realities.
- The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional implications of Governors withholding assent to State Bills.
- The Court questioned if elected state governments are subject to the arbitrary decisions of Governors.
- The Solicitor-General argued that the Governor's power to withhold assent should be used sparingly.
The Union Home Minister introduced three new Bills in Lok Sabha, including the Constitution (One Hundred And Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposing the removal of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and other Ministers if arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges. The President, Governors, or Lieutenant-Governors would be the removal authorities, with a provision for reappointment upon release. The Bills were referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for review. Opposition parties strongly criticized the legislation as "unconstitutional, anti-federal," and a step towards "medieval times," accusing the government of seeking political morality while undermining democratic principles.
- Three new Bills propose the removal of elected representatives like PMs and CMs if detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges.
- The President, Governors, or Lieutenant-Governors are designated as the authorities for such removals.
- Opposition parties have condemned the Bills as unconstitutional, anti-federal, and a potential tool for political misuse.