The article exposes Bihar as a major hub for girl child trafficking, often for forced participation in 'orchestras' or the flesh trade. Victims, some as young as 12, are lured with promises of dance careers or marriage, then subjected to violence, rape, and exploitation. Despite rescue efforts, conviction rates remain abysmal due to under-resourced Anti-Human Trafficking Units (AHTUs) and jurisdictional issues. The article highlights the lack of regulatory oversight, poverty, and geographical factors (porous border with Nepal, railway connectivity) that facilitate trafficking. It calls for a comprehensive strategy, PICKET (Policy, Institutions, Convergence, Knowledge, Economically, Technology), to combat this issue.
- Bihar has emerged as a significant hub for girl child trafficking, often for exploitation in 'dance troupes' and the flesh trade.
- Victims are lured with false promises and subjected to severe physical, psychological, and sexual abuse.
- Factors contributing to Bihar's vulnerability include lack of regulatory oversight, poverty, and geographical location facilitating trafficking routes.
The Union Environment Ministry has notified the Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025, establishing a legal framework to address chemically contaminated sites. These sites, historically dumped with hazardous waste, lacked regulation. Under the new rules, district administrations will report "suspected contaminated sites," followed by a preliminary assessment by a State Board or reference organization within 90 days. A detailed survey will then confirm contamination, and a reference organization will specify remediation plans. Responsible parties will bear the clean-up costs, with criminal liability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) for contamination causing loss of life or damage.
- New Environment Protection (Management of Contaminated Sites) Rules, 2025, provide a legal structure for managing contaminated sites.
- District administrations will identify and report suspected sites, followed by assessment by State Boards or expert organizations.
- Responsible parties will be identified and held accountable for remediation costs.
Tamil Nadu and Kerala urged the Supreme Court to dismiss a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on timelines for the President and Governors to clear State Bills. Both states argued that the reference is "misleading" and an "appeal in disguise" against the Court's prior authoritative pronouncements, particularly the Tamil Nadu Governor case. They contended that the Constitution does not permit the Supreme Court to sit in appeal of its own judgments, nor can the President vest appellate jurisdiction through such a reference. Citing Article 143, the states asserted that the President can refer a question of law only if the Supreme Court has not already decided it, which is not the case here as powers under Articles 200 and 201 have been subject to multiple judgments.
- Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenged a Presidential Reference on the grounds that it seeks to revisit settled legal questions.
- The states argued that the Supreme Court cannot review its own judgments through a Presidential Reference.
- They cited Article 143, stating that the President can only refer questions of law not yet decided by the apex court.
India's judicial system faces a severe backlog, with over 5 crore cases pending across the Supreme Court, High Courts, and district/subordinate courts. This "justice delayed is justice denied" scenario is exacerbated by structural bottlenecks, procedural delays, and systemic constraints, including inadequate infrastructure, staff, and lack of effective case management. Civil cases, especially at the district level, experience the longest delays, with only 38.7% resolved within a year. A significant cause is the persistent gap in judicial strength, with the judiciary functioning at 79% capacity, far below the 1987 Law Commission's recommendation. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like Lok Adalats show promise, having resolved over 27.5 crore cases between 2021 and March 2025.
- India's courts are burdened with over 5 crore pending cases, indicating a significant challenge to timely justice.
- Delays are attributed to structural bottlenecks, judicial vacancies, and lack of effective case management.
- Civil cases, particularly at the district level, experience the longest resolution times.
A recent controversy has reignited the debate over the scope of medical activities for AYUSH practitioners, particularly their right to prescribe modern medicines and perform surgeries. Historically, the Bhore Committee (1946) favored modern medicine, but protests led to the Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine (1948), which linked Ayurveda to Hindu nationalism. The Indira Gandhi government enacted the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (1970), later replaced by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act (2020), recognizing AYUSH. The core issue remains the interpretation of Rule 2(ee) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, regarding who can prescribe modern medicine, with the Supreme Court in 1998 ruling against Ayurvedic practitioners prescribing allopathic drugs.
- The debate centers on AYUSH practitioners' scope, including prescribing modern medicines and performing surgeries.
- Historical committees like Bhore (1946) and Committee on Indigenous Systems of Medicine (1948) shaped the recognition of traditional medicine.
- Legislation like the Indian Medicine Central Council Act (1970) and the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act (2020) formally recognized AYUSH systems.
The Supreme Court urged the Election Commission (EC) to accept Aadhaar and Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) as identity documents for the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral list, emphasizing "mass inclusion" over "en masse exclusion." The EC resisted, citing easy forgery of these documents. However, the Court, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, argued that any document can be forged and that Aadhaar and EPIC carry a "presumption of correctness," with Aadhaar having an authentication system. The Court questioned the EC's logic of not evaluating claims based on these documents when other "indicative" proofs are accepted.
- The Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to prioritize "mass inclusion" in the Bihar electoral roll revision.
- The Court advocated for accepting Aadhaar and EPIC as valid identity proofs, despite EC's concerns about forgery.
- Justices emphasized that Aadhaar and EPIC have a presumption of correctness and Aadhaar has an authentication system.
The article clarifies that Indian citizenship is a fundamental prerequisite for being an elector and legislator, refuting objections to the Election Commission of India's (ECI) verification of citizenship during Bihar electoral roll revisions. It emphasizes that the ECI's constitutional duty under Article 324 is to ensure accurate electoral rolls, and non-citizens are disqualified from voting and holding legislative office. The author highlights that mere possession of an Aadhaar card does not confer citizenship, as per Section 9 of The Aadhaar Act, 2016. The article stresses that any inclusion of non-citizens in electoral rolls is null and void, and the ECI must investigate complaints regarding such inclusions.
- Indian citizenship is a fundamental requirement for both voting and holding legislative office.
- The Election Commission of India (ECI) has a constitutional duty to verify citizenship during electoral roll revisions.
- Non-citizens are disqualified from being registered as voters, and their names must be struck off if erroneously included.
The article argues that criminalizing consensual sex between adolescents aged 16-18 years undermines the core objective of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is to protect children. It highlights a trend where adolescents in voluntary relationships face persecution, prompting calls for review and exemptions. Senior advocate Indira Jaising's submission to the Supreme Court suggests that such consensual acts should not be deemed 'abuse' under POCSO Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). While the Law Commission advised "guided judicial discretion" for sentencing, the article stresses the need for caveats to ensure the law's broad intent is met, as suggested by the Madras High Court.
- The core objective of the POCSO Act, 2012, is to protect children, but its application to consensual adolescent relationships is being questioned.
- Senior advocate Indira Jaising advocates for an exception in POCSO and BNS for consensual sex between 16-18 year olds to prevent misuse.
- The Law Commission in 2023 suggested "guided judicial discretion" for sentencing in such cases, rather than changing the age of consent.
The Supreme Court recently highlighted "serious lapses" in the enforcement of the POSH Act, underscoring the inadequate functioning of Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs). The POSH Act, 2013, mandates ICCs in workplaces with over 10 employees, superseding the Vishaka Guidelines (1997). ICCs are headed by a senior woman officer, with at least half members being women, and include an external member. They possess civil court powers, must complete inquiries within 90 days, and recommend action. Challenges include insufficient training, power imbalances, lack of confidentiality, and poor monitoring, often rendering ICCs ineffective or "dead letters."
- The Supreme Court has expressed significant concern over "serious lapses" in the implementation of the POSH Act and the effectiveness of ICCs.
- The POSH Act, 2013, mandates ICCs in workplaces with more than 10 employees, building upon the earlier Vishaka Guidelines of 1997.
- ICCs are structured with a woman Presiding Officer, a majority of women members, and an external expert, wielding powers akin to a civil court.
Experts warn that the U.K.-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) contains intellectual property (IP) and regulatory clauses that could favor patent owners, potentially hindering the production and affordability of life-saving generic medicines. This could negatively impact patients in India and the Global South. Concerns include the preference for voluntary licenses, which often have restrictive conditions and fail to significantly reduce prices. The agreement also changes the submission of patent working details from annual to triennial and restricts public access to confidential information, making it harder to prove unmet demands for compulsory licenses.
- The U.K.-India FTA's IP and regulatory clauses are feared to favor patent owners, potentially limiting access to generic medicines.
- Provisions like the preference for voluntary licenses over compulsory ones raise concerns about drug affordability.
- Changes to patent working data submission (triennial instead of annual) and confidentiality will hinder proving unmet demands.
A study co-authored by NLU, Delhi, revealed that reporting on public officials, religious matters, and protests are the top three reasons journalists in India face criminal charges. The report, "Pressing charges," analyzed 423 cases against 427 journalists from 2012-2022, finding that 40% were arrested. Journalists from smaller towns and those reporting in regional languages were most impacted, often without national media attention. Common charges included public tranquility offenses, criminal intimidation, defamation, and offenses against public servants and religion. This trend raises serious constitutional concerns regarding freedom of the press in a democracy.
- Reporting on public officials, religious matters, and protests are the most common reasons for criminal charges against journalists in India.
- The study found that journalists in smaller towns and regional media are disproportionately affected, with 40% of those covered being arrested.
- Criminal charges frequently invoked include those related to public tranquility, defamation, and offenses against public servants.
The Supreme Court ruled that States cannot claim "parity" with the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir to demand delimitation of constituencies. The Court clarified that States are bound by a constitutional embargo under Article 170(3), which bars delimitation until after the first Census post-2026. In contrast, J&K, being a Union Territory, is excluded from this freeze, and its delimitation was based on the 2011 Census. The Court emphasized that allowing delimitation for States like Andhra Pradesh and Telangana would foster discontent and destabilize the uniform electoral framework, particularly affecting other North-Eastern States previously excluded from such exercises.
- The Supreme Court has clarified that States cannot demand delimitation of constituencies by citing the precedent of Jammu and Kashmir.
- States are constitutionally bound by an embargo under Article 170(3), which prohibits delimitation until after the first Census following 2026.
- Jammu and Kashmir, as a Union Territory, is exempt from this embargo, and its delimitation was conducted based on the 2011 Census.
The Supreme Court permitted the State of Kerala to withdraw two petitions filed against its Governor for delaying crucial Bills. The withdrawal was based on an April 8 judgment in a similar case concerning the Tamil Nadu Governor, which prescribed a maximum three-month deadline for the President and State Governors to act on State Bills under Articles 200 and 201. The Attorney General stated it was not a simple withdrawal but based on the precedent. The President had also issued a reference under Article 143 to question the court's inherent powers to impose timelines on Governors.
- The Supreme Court allowed Kerala to withdraw petitions against its Governor regarding delays in clearing Bills.
- The withdrawal was influenced by an April 8 judgment setting a three-month deadline for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.
- The April 8 judgment applies to Bills sent for approval or reserved for consideration under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.
The Lok Sabha is set to take up a bipartisan motion to remove Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court. Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju stated that 152 MPs from both ruling and opposition alliances have signed the motion, indicating a unanimous decision. The process will follow the Judges (Inquiry) Act, starting in the Lok Sabha and then moving to the Rajya Sabha. This action follows a Supreme Court committee inquiry into a cash recovery controversy involving Justice Varma when he was with the Delhi High Court. Speaker Om Birla is expected to announce a three-member inquiry committee to probe the charges.
- A bipartisan motion has been initiated in the Lok Sabha to remove Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court.
- The motion has garnered support from 152 MPs across ruling and opposition parties, indicating a broad consensus.
- The removal process will adhere to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, starting in the Lok Sabha and subsequently moving to the Rajya Sabha.
A debate addresses whether India should relax its adoption procedures, prompted by long waiting periods for prospective parents (13 parents for every child available). While some argue that strict procedures cause delays, experts like Aloma Lobo and Smriti Gupta contend that the procedures are crucial for preventing child trafficking and ensuring safe placements. They emphasize that the primary issue is the scarcity of children legally free for adoption, not the procedures themselves. Many abandoned or orphaned children in shelters are not evaluated for adoptability, and the term "orphan" is often loosely applied. The discussion highlights the need to bring more eligible children into the legal adoption pool and improve post-adoption support and training for parents, especially for those adopting older children or children with special needs.
- The long waiting period for child adoption in India is primarily due to a scarcity of children legally free for adoption, rather than overly strict procedures.
- Existing adoption procedures are essential safeguards against child trafficking and improper placements, ensuring the child's safety and well-being.
- Many abandoned and orphaned children in shelters are not being evaluated or brought into the legal adoption pool, contributing to the shortage.
The Supreme Court has issued notices on a Presidential Reference seeking its opinion on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on State Bills. This Reference stems from the President's 14 questions following the Supreme Court's April 8 ruling, which deemed a Governor's inaction on Bills illegal and imposed timelines. Article 143(1) grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction, allowing it to render opinions on law or fact not connected to ongoing litigation. While advisory opinions are not binding precedents, they hold persuasive authority. The Court has previously used Presidential References to refine aspects of judgments, though it cannot be used to review or reverse settled judicial decisions.
- A Presidential Reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on the judicial enforceability of timelines for Presidential and Gubernatorial assent to State Bills.
- Article 143(1) of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court advisory jurisdiction on matters of law or fact.
- Advisory opinions, while not legally binding precedents, carry significant persuasive authority.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion stating that countries could be in violation of international law if they fail to take adequate measures to protect the planet from climate change. Nations harmed by climate change effects could also be entitled to reparations. Advocates welcomed the opinion, which underscores nations' obligations to tackle climate change. ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa described the climate crisis as an "existential problem" imperiling all life. The case was initiated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and supported by over 130 countries, strengthening the global legal framework for holding nations accountable for climate inaction.
- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion on states' obligations regarding climate change.
- Failure to act against climate change could constitute a violation of international law, potentially entitling affected nations to reparations.
- The ruling emphasizes the "existential problem" posed by the climate crisis to global health and life.
Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai has agreed to constitute a Bench to hear a petition challenging the in-house inquiry procedure and the recommendation for the removal of Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. CJI Gavai, who was part of the consultations, will not be on the Bench. The petition argues that the in-house inquiry is an "extra-constitutional mechanism" that usurps Parliament's exclusive authority to remove judges under Articles 124 and 218 of the Constitution and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. The Act provides stringent safeguards, including formal charges and proof beyond reasonable doubt, which the in-house procedure lacks.
- The Chief Justice of India will form a Bench to examine the challenge against the removal recommendation for Justice Yashwant Varma.
- The petition contends that the in-house inquiry procedure is an unconstitutional mechanism that bypasses parliamentary authority.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the legislative process for judge removal, including formal charges and proof of misbehaviour.
Following the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar as Vice-President due to health reasons, the Election Commission is mandated to immediately announce an election to fill the mid-term vacancy. The Constitution does not provide for a method of succession for the Vice-President's office in cases of death, removal, or resignation, necessitating a fresh election. Until a new Vice-President assumes office, the Deputy Chairman will preside over Rajya Sabha proceedings. The Vice-President is elected by an electoral college comprising members of both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, through a system of proportional representation by single transferable vote and secret ballot, where each vote has a value of one.
- The Election Commission must immediately conduct an election to fill the Vice-President's office due to a mid-term vacancy.
- The Constitution does not provide for succession in case of resignation, death, or removal of the Vice-President.
- The Vice-President is elected by an electoral college consisting of members from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
The Karnataka government is drafting a new law, the Karnataka Devadasi (Prevention, Prohibition, Relief and Rehabilitation) Bill, to replace the existing four-decade-old legislation from 1982. The proposed law aims to strengthen efforts against the Devadasi system by eliminating the need for a father's name in official documents and recognizing the right of a Devadasi's child to identify their father through DNA tests, ensuring property and inheritance rights. It also proposes increasing the jail term for those abetting the practice from three to five years, addressing a long-standing demand for comprehensive rehabilitation.
- Karnataka is developing a new law to replace the 1982 Devadasi (Prohibition and Dedication) Act.
- The new legislation will remove the requirement for a father's name in application forms for children of Devadasis.
- It will include provisions for paternity tests and grant property and inheritance rights to children of Devadasis.
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, has issued formal notices to all States and the Union government regarding a Presidential Reference. The reference seeks clarity on the powers of the President and Governors in granting assent to State Bills, a matter affecting the entire country. The court will address questions on whether judicial powers extend to imposing timelines on these constitutional authorities under Articles 200 and 201, and the scope of Article 142 in substituting constitutional powers. This follows a previous judgment where the court deemed a Governor's actions illegal for delaying assent to Bills.
- The Supreme Court has issued notices to all States and the Union government on a Presidential Reference concerning the powers of the President and Governors.
- The reference seeks clarity on imposing timelines for assent to State Bills and the extent of judicial powers under Article 142.
- The issue affects all States and the entire country, with the Supreme Court committed to answering the President's questions.
The article explores the legal status of the 'right to vote' in India, a subject of ongoing debate in the Supreme Court. It distinguishes between natural, fundamental, constitutional, and statutory rights. While natural rights are inherent, fundamental rights (Part III of Constitution) are enforceable in the Supreme Court. Constitutional rights (outside Part III) are operationalized by legislation and enforceable in High Courts. Statutory rights are provided by ordinary laws. Historically, the Supreme Court has mostly held the right to vote as a statutory right, as seen in cases like N.P. Ponnuswami (1952) and Kuldip Nayar (2006). However, Justice Ajay Rastogi, in his partial dissent in Anoop Baranwal (2023), argued it is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) and intrinsic to free and fair elections, suggesting its elevation to a constitutional right.
- The legal status of the 'right to vote' in India is debated, oscillating between a statutory and a constitutional right.
- The Supreme Court has predominantly classified the right to vote as a statutory right.
- Justice Ajay Rastogi, in a dissenting opinion, argued that the right to vote is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a).
The process to remove Justice Yashwant Varma from office began in Parliament, with members of both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha submitting notices to their presiding officers. 63 Opposition members signed the notice to the Rajya Sabha Chairman, while 152 members, including Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi, backed the Lok Sabha notice. The move follows Justice Varma's responsibilities being taken away and his transfer from Delhi High Court to Allahabad High Court after burnt currency notes were found at his residence. According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act, a joint committee comprising a Supreme Court judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court, and a distinguished jurist will be constituted to examine the charges.
- The impeachment process for High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma has been initiated in Parliament.
- Notices for his removal were submitted to both the Rajya Sabha Chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker, meeting the required numerical thresholds.
- The initiation follows the judge's transfer and the discovery of burnt currency notes at his residence.
The Election Commission (EC) assured the Supreme Court that being found ineligible for electoral roll registration under the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar will not lead to citizenship cancellation. The EC clarified that its guidelines are constitutional and aim to maintain the purity of electoral rolls, emphasizing that Article 326 (adult suffrage) ensures the right to vote without discrimination. Voters already on the 2003 rolls are exempt from furnishing documents if they submit a partially pre-filled enumeration form. The EC also stated that Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards cannot be accepted as standalone documents for SIR, as Aadhaar is only proof of identity, and bogus ration cards are widespread.
- The Election Commission clarified that exclusion from electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar does not equate to citizenship cancellation.
- The EC's guidelines are aimed at ensuring the purity of electoral rolls and are constitutional.
- Article 326 of the Constitution grants every citizen the right to vote without discrimination.