The Supreme Court has called for a comprehensive restructuring of century-old property laws, including the Transfer of Property Act (1882), Registration Act (1908), and Stamp Act (1899). Justice P.S. Narasimha noted that property disputes account for 66% of civil litigation in India, describing the buying process as 'traumatic.' The court directed the Law Commission of India to prepare a report on aligning these laws with modern technology. Crucially, the court urged the Centre to adopt blockchain technology for property registration to ensure transparency, immutability, and ease of tracking ownership history and encumbrances.
- Property disputes constitute approximately 66% of all civil litigation in India, highlighting the need for legal reform.
- The court identified fake documentation, land encroachments, and 'intermediaries' as major hurdles in current property transactions.
- Blockchain technology is recommended to create a distributed, time-stamped ledger for land titles and ownership history.
The Supreme Court has directed all States and Union Territories to immediately remove stray dogs from public spaces including educational institutions, hospitals, railway stations, and bus stands. These animals must be relocated to designated shelters. Before relocation, dogs must be neutered and vaccinated in accordance with the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023. The court expressed concern over the disturbing increase in dog-bite incidents and frequent accidents involving stray animals on highways. It also mandated that local authorities ensure premises are secured with fencing and gates to prevent animal entry, with compliance reports due within eight weeks.
- The Supreme Court ordered the 'forthwith' removal of stray dogs from sensitive public areas like schools and hospitals.
- Relocated dogs must undergo sterilization and vaccination as per the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023.
- The court emphasized that dogs removed from a specific location should not be released back into the same locality to ensure the effectiveness of the directive.
The Supreme Court ruled that arrested individuals must be provided with the grounds of arrest in writing and in a language they understand. This mandate is rooted in Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires informing the arrested person of the reasons for their detention. The court specified that these grounds must be supplied within a reasonable time, and at least two hours before the individual is produced before a Magistrate. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the arrest and subsequent remand illegal, necessitating the immediate release of the person.
- Article 22 of the Constitution mandates that no person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds of arrest.
- Providing grounds in a language not understood by the accused does not fulfill constitutional requirements.
- Grounds must be provided in writing at least two hours prior to production before a Magistrate.
The Supreme Court is reviewing the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, specifically Section 4(iii)(C)(II), which restricts surrogacy to couples who do not have any surviving child. A couple facing 'secondary infertility' challenged this, arguing it violates their reproductive choices. Currently, exceptions are only made if the existing child has a life-threatening disorder or is mentally/physically challenged. The government argues surrogacy is not a fundamental right and involves the use of another woman's body. The Court is considering whether these restrictions amount to an unreasonable limitation on the reproductive autonomy of citizens.
- Section 4(iii)(C)(II) of the Surrogacy Act 2021 restricts surrogacy to childless couples.
- Secondary infertility refers to the inability to conceive after previously birthing children naturally.
- The Court recently relaxed age specifications for surrogacy for couples with frozen embryos.
The Central government argued in the Supreme Court that the 'right to vote' is a statutory right under Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, while 'freedom of voting' is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a). This distinction arose during a petition challenging Section 53(2) of the RPA, which allows declaring candidates elected unopposed without a poll. Petitioners argue this prevents voters from exercising the NOTA option, thereby violating their right to express dissatisfaction. The Centre maintains that the right to vote is subject to statutory limitations and is not an absolute constitutional right.
- The Centre argues the right to vote is a statutory right conferred by Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
- Freedom of voting is categorized as a species of the right to expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Section 53(2) of the RPA 1951 is being challenged for potentially violating the voters' right to exercise NOTA in uncontested elections.
The article explains the concept of 'contempt of court' in India, rooted in Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, which designate the Supreme Court and High Courts as 'courts of record.' The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, classifies contempt into civil (willful disobedience) and criminal (scandalizing the court). While fair criticism of a decided case is not contempt, comments that interfere with the administration of justice or lower the court's authority are punishable. The power to punish for contempt is inherent to these courts to ensure the sanctity of the judicial process and constitutional morality.
- Article 129 (Supreme Court) and Article 215 (High Courts) empower these institutions to punish for contempt of themselves.
- Civil contempt involves willful disobedience of any judgment or decree, while criminal contempt involves scandalizing or lowering the authority of the court.
- The Attorney General or Advocate General's consent is typically required for a third party to initiate criminal contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court or High Court.
The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has reiterated its decision regarding the panel of candidates for the post of Director-General of Police (DGP) in Tamil Nadu. Despite the state government's representation that the three shortlisted names were not acceptable, the UPSC maintained its stance, stating the representation has been disposed of. The appointment process follows Supreme Court guidelines from the Prakash Singh case, which require the state to send eligible names to the UPSC three months before a vacancy. The delay in appointing a regular DGP has drawn criticism from opposition parties in the state.
- The UPSC is responsible for empanelling officers for the post of DGP/Head of Police Force (HoPF) based on seniority and merit.
- The selection process must adhere to Supreme Court guidelines established in the landmark Prakash Singh case.
- The Tamil Nadu government had raised objections to the UPSC's recommended panel, which included Seema Agrawal, Rajeev Kumar, and Sandeep Rai Rathore.
The Supreme Court has decided to examine the constitutionality of provisions in the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which bar married couples with a healthy biological or adopted child from accessing surrogacy. The Union government defends the ban, arguing that surrogacy is not a fundamental right and involves the use of another woman's body. However, petitioners argue that 'secondary infertility'—the inability to conceive a second child—is emotionally taxing and that the restriction infringes on reproductive choices. The court will weigh the state's interest in regulating surrogacy against the individual's desire for a second child.
- The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, currently restricts surrogacy to couples who have no surviving children, with certain medical exceptions.
- The government contends that surrogacy should be a last resort after other options like adoption or ART have failed.
- Petitioners argue that India has no 'one-child policy' and that the law should recognize the emotional toll of secondary infertility.
The Supreme Court of India has flagged the growing misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to criminalize consensual relationships between adolescents. A Bench led by Justice B.V. Nagarathna observed that parents often lodge complaints against boys in such relationships as a form of retribution. The court is considering issuing directions to spread legal awareness among students and men regarding the Act's provisions. The judges emphasized the need for early sensitisation on gender parity and legal literacy in school curricula to prevent the unintended criminalization of youth in situations not envisaged by the law's framers.
- The POCSO Act is increasingly being invoked in cases of consensual relationships between minors, leading to unintended legal consequences.
- The Supreme Court suggests that ethical and behavioural training on treating women with respect should be part of education.
- Several states, including Telangana and Himachal Pradesh, have been asked to respond to the court's concerns regarding legal awareness.
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition by Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories challenging the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India’s (FSSAI) decision to ban the word ‘ORS’ (Oral Rehydration Solution) for non-medical beverages. The FSSAI directive restricts the use of the label ‘ORS’ to products that meet specific medical standards, preventing fruit-based or ready-to-drink beverages from using the term. The court ruled that using ‘ORS’ for products that do not follow the WHO-recommended formula could mislead consumers and pose health risks, particularly during medical emergencies.
- The FSSAI has banned the use of the term 'ORS' for any beverage that does not meet established medical standards for Oral Rehydration Solution.
- The ruling aims to prevent consumer confusion between commercial fruit drinks and medically necessary rehydration salts.
- The Delhi High Court emphasized that labeling must be accurate to ensure public health and safety, especially for products used to treat dehydration.
The High Seas Treaty, formally known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement, aims to protect marine life in international waters. It establishes a framework for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), and the sharing of benefits from Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs). However, challenges remain, including the ambiguity of the 'common heritage of humankind' principle versus 'freedom of the high seas.' There is also concern over the non-participation of major powers like the U.S., China, and Russia, and the potential for 'biopiracy' by developed nations who have the technology to exploit these resources.
- The BBNJ agreement covers the 'High Seas,' which are areas of the ocean beyond any country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
- A core pillar of the treaty is the fair and equitable sharing of monetary and non-monetary benefits derived from Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs).
- The treaty faces hurdles due to the lack of ratification by major maritime powers and potential conflicts with existing bodies like the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
The Supreme Court of India has characterized 'digital arrests' as a major challenge, noting that fraudsters have scammed victims, primarily the elderly, of over ₹3,000 crore. These scams involve criminals posing as law enforcement or judicial officers using forged documents and morphed videos to extort money. The court highlighted that these cybercrimes often originate from 'scam compounds' across borders. The Solicitor-General informed the court about the use of AI to morph faces of judges during video calls. The SC is considering tasking the CBI with probing these organized syndicates to strengthen the hands of agencies.
- 'Digital arrests' involve fraudsters impersonating officials to extort money through fear and forged legal documents.
- The elderly population is the primary target of these scams, with total losses estimated at ₹3,000 crore in India alone.
- Criminals are increasingly using advanced technology, including AI, to morph faces and create realistic fake courtrooms for extortion.
The Supreme Court of India has taken a serious view of government employees feeding stray dogs within office premises, stating it violates previous orders regarding designated feeding zones. A Bench led by Justice Vikram Nath emphasized the need for effective implementation of the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The court noted that unregulated feeding leads to public inconvenience and 'untoward incidents.' It has directed the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) to be a party to the proceedings and will issue specific directions on November 7.
- The Supreme Court ruled that feeding stray dogs must be restricted to designated zones to prevent public safety issues and office disruption.
- The Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023, are the primary framework for managing stray dog populations and rabies control in India.
- The court highlighted the failure of several States and UTs to submit compliance reports on the implementation of ABC Rules.
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, ruled that investigative agencies cannot coerce lawyers into revealing professional communications with their clients. The court held that lawyer-client privilege is a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. This privilege is also protected under Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023. The judgment emphasizes that forcing such disclosures would infringe upon the client's right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3). The court clarified that exceptions only apply if the communication involves illegal purposes or if a crime/fraud is committed as a result.
- The Supreme Court affirmed that lawyer-client confidentiality is protected under the right to practice a profession and the right to life (Articles 19 and 21).
- Section 132 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023, mandates that advocates cannot be coerced into revealing client information.
- The court stated that any summons to a lawyer by a probe agency must be approved by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
The Union Government introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA. It proposes that any Minister in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offense punishable by five years or more must be removed from office. Critics argue this grants excessive discretionary power to enforcement agencies, potentially allowing the "arrest" process to be used as a political tool against opposition leaders. The bill also intersects with the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and raises concerns about the "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle and the right to liberty.
- The bill mandates the removal of a Minister if they remain in custody for 30 consecutive days for specific offenses.
- It affects the Union Council of Ministers, State Councils of Ministers, and the special administrative provisions for Delhi.
- Legal experts worry that the bill doesn't account for 'default bail' under Section 167(2) of the CrPC/BNSS.
The Supreme Court of India has directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate the rising cases of 'digital arrests.' Fraudsters, often operating from 'scam compounds' across borders, pose as law enforcement or judicial officers to extort money from innocent citizens, especially senior citizens. They use advanced technology, including AI, to create fake courtrooms and police station environments. The court took suo motu cognizance of the issue after reports of people being threatened with arrest unless they paid large sums of money.
- 'Digital arrest' is a cybercrime where victims are intimidated into staying online under the guise of a legal investigation.
- Criminals use AI and deepfake technology to morph backgrounds into realistic police stations or courtrooms.
- The Supreme Court highlighted that many of these cybercrimes originate from organized 'scam compounds' outside India.
Constitutional morality refers to the adherence to the spirit and conventions of the Constitution rather than just its literal text. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously argued that constitutional morality must be cultivated, as democracy in India is a 'top-dressing' on an essentially undemocratic soil. The judiciary has increasingly used this concept to check arbitrary state actions and ensure accountability. Landmark cases like the Sabarimala judgment and Manoj Narula vs Union of India have applied this principle to uphold the rule of law and prevent the misuse of power by state functionaries.
- Constitutional morality involves rules of propriety and conduct among constitutional functionaries that go beyond written law.
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar drew the concept from historian George Grote to emphasize the need for a 'passionate attachment' to the Constitution.
- The Supreme Court uses this principle to strike down actions that are arbitrary or violate the core values of the Constitution.
Data reveals a significant drop in complaints filed with the Lokpal, falling from 2,469 in 2022-23 to just 233 in the current year (up to September). Since its inception in 2019, the anti-corruption body has received 6,955 complaints, but only 289 preliminary inquiries were ordered, and prosecution sanctions were granted in only seven cases. Activists have raised concerns regarding the lack of annual reports since 2021-22 and the dismissal of many complaints on technical grounds, suggesting a decline in public engagement and institutional effectiveness.
- The Lokpal has jurisdiction over corruption allegations against the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, and MPs.
- Public engagement has nosedived, with 90% of total complaints filed in the first four years of its establishment.
- Only 7 prosecution sanctions have been granted out of nearly 7,000 complaints received since 2019.
The Union government has proposed an amendment to the IT Rules, 2021, to mandate the labelling of AI-generated or 'synthetic' content. This move addresses growing concerns over deepfakes, electoral integrity, and the proliferation of AI 'slop.' While major firms like Meta have already begun labelling such content, the government seeks a formal regulatory framework. The proposal aims to protect the democratic setup from misleading photorealistic content. However, experts suggest that such rules should eventually be tested in Parliament to ensure they balance innovation with necessary regulation in the world's second-largest AI user base.
- The government proposes amending the IT Rules, 2021, to require mandatory labelling of AI-generated imagery.
- The move targets the spread of deepfakes and misinformation that could impact electoral integrity.
- India is the world's second-largest AI user base, making it highly vulnerable to viral synthetic content.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel is under a legal obligation to facilitate the passage of humanitarian aid and provide basic needs to Palestinians in Gaza. ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa stated that while the court's 'Advisory Opinion' is not legally binding, it carries significant legal and moral authority. The ruling comes amidst a humanitarian crisis and calls for Israel to cooperate with UN entities, including UNRWA. Israel has rejected the opinion, calling it a political attempt. Norway has announced plans to propose a UN General Assembly resolution to enforce the lifting of restrictions.
- The ICJ emphasized that Israel must ensure Palestinians have access to food, health, and shelter as part of its international obligations.
- The ruling highlights the role of UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, which has faced operational bans by Israel.
- Advisory opinions from the ICJ serve as authoritative interpretations of international law even if they lack direct enforcement mechanisms.
This analysis examines the legal framework and judicial caution regarding the transfer of state-level investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Using the Karur stampede case as a reference, the article highlights that the Supreme Court views CBI transfers as a 'measure of last resort,' reserved for exceptional situations where the integrity of the local probe is compromised. The CBI, established under the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946, requires state consent for investigations, though courts can override this under Articles 32 or 226. The judiciary emphasizes that transfers must be based on prima facie evidence of bias, not mere allegations.
- The CBI is considered a premier investigative body for crimes with inter-state or national ramifications.
- State governments have the primary responsibility for law and order under Entry 1 and Entry 2 of the State List (Schedule VII).
- A court-ordered CBI probe is not a 'routine matter' and requires a high threshold of proof regarding the failure of state machinery.
India has an estimated 4 million to 90 million domestic workers, predominantly women from marginalized communities, who lack adequate legal protections. Despite a Supreme Court directive to enact comprehensive legislation, progress remains slow. The article advocates for a national law that ensures minimum wages, social security, and protection against harassment. While states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have made some strides through welfare boards and specific bills, implementation remains a challenge. The absence of a central framework leaves these workers vulnerable to exploitation by placement agencies and employers, atomizing them into unregulated workspaces.
- Domestic workers are often excluded from standard labor laws, making workplace inspections nearly impossible.
- The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 189 (2011) aims to protect domestic workers, but India has yet to ratify it.
- Proposed legislation includes mandatory registration, written contracts, and contributions to a welfare fund.
The Supreme Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to wait for the outcome of a Presidential Reference regarding the scope of a Governor's authority to reserve state bills for the President's consideration. The case involves Governor R.N. Ravi's decision to reserve two bills—the Kalaignar University Bill and the TN Physical Education and Sports University (Amendment) Bill—after withholding assent. A five-judge Constitution Bench is examining whether Governors have the discretion to reserve bills that have been re-passed by the State Legislature, or if they are bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The Supreme Court is examining the Governor's constitutional remit under Article 200 and Article 201.
- A previous judgment set a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on bills sent for assent.
- The court had earlier granted 'deemed assent' to bills delayed by the Governor under Article 142.
Data from 2017-2023 reveals that West Bengal has one of the lowest conviction rates for crimes against women in India, despite recording high numbers of cases. Only about one in five cases ends in conviction. The state consistently ranks among the top four for the highest number of such crimes, including acid attacks and cruelty by husbands. High pendency rates and a large number of acquittals highlight a lack of accountability and efficiency in the legal process, with the number of pending cases rising by 56% since 2017.
- West Bengal's conviction rate for crimes against women fluctuated between 5% and 8.9% from 2017-2023.
- The state recorded the highest number of acquittals and the largest backlog of pending cases in the country in 2023.
- West Bengal ranks 35th out of 36 in conviction rates for cases of crimes against women.