Former Orissa High Court Chief Justice S. Muralidhar stated that the irreverence of Gen Z is a 'sure sign of democratic progress,' assuring that democracy in India will be safeguarded. Speaking at a memorial lecture, he advocated for a future where honest criticism of the government is not criminalized, and peaceful protests are not labeled as conspiracies. Justice Muralidhar also called for judicial swiftness in addressing state excesses and criticized the Collegium system for judicial appointments, citing unexplained executive interference and a lack of transparency in the past 12 years. He also advocated for a reformed, democratic, and independent BCI.
- Gen Z's irreverence and willingness to protest are seen as positive indicators for the future of democracy in India.
- Justice Muralidhar emphasized the importance of not criminalizing honest criticism of the government or peaceful dissent.
- He called for a judiciary that acts swiftly on complaints of state excesses and ensures constitutional validity.
The Supreme Court intervened to ensure journalist Abhishek Upadhyay received a copy of his FIR, highlighting the accused's right to access it. While the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), stipulates FIR access at later stages, judicial precedents (Delhi HC, Himachal Pradesh HC, SC) have established the right to obtain it sooner. The Supreme Court directed that FIRs be uploaded on police websites within 24-72 hours, with an exception for 'sensitive offences' like sexual or terror crimes, which require a reasoned decision by a DCP-rank officer and a three-member committee for grievances. Timely access is crucial for pre-trial remedies and a fair trial.
- The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed an accused person's right to obtain a copy of the FIR soon after its registration, not just at later stages.
- Police are mandated to upload FIRs on their official websites within 24-72 hours of registration to ensure transparency and access.
- An exception exists for 'sensitive offences' (e.g., sexual, terror crimes), where FIRs can be withheld, but this requires a reasoned decision by a senior police officer.
The youth vote, particularly among 18-29 year olds, is increasingly influencing electoral outcomes, though young voters are often among the least active electorates. Their preferences vary significantly across states and elections. While political change is primarily driven by new and first-time voters (18-21), the BJP's support among young voters has seen a decline since 2015, with Congress and regional parties gaining ground in many states. Youth participation in protests and movements also reflects broader issues beyond electoral politics, indicating a dynamic and evolving political engagement among India's youth.
- Young voters (18-29) are a dynamic part of India's electoral landscape, with varying participation and preferences across states.
- Political change is primarily influenced by new voters (18-21) and first-time voters.
- The BJP's support among young voters has declined since 2015, while Congress and regional parties have gained support.
The article highlights the ongoing debate on transparency in judicial appointments, advocating for greater openness in the collegium system to strengthen public confidence and ensure merit. It criticizes the collegium, a judicial creation, for its opacity, lack of eligibility matrix, and unknown assessment methodology. Concerns about nepotism, dubbed 'Uncle Judges,' are prevalent, with a significant percentage of judges having familial links. The article argues that constitutional values of equality and equal opportunity, applied to other public appointments, should also extend to the highest constitutional offices, proposing a transparent framework with advance vacancies, open applications, and reasoned recommendations to enhance public trust.
- The collegium system for judicial appointments lacks transparency, with no clear vacancy notifications, eligibility matrix, or assessment methodology.
- Concerns about nepotism, or 'Uncle Judges,' are significant, with a notable percentage of judges having familial links to former judges.
- The Supreme Court's own record on disclosure has regressed, with reasons for elevation no longer published since November 28, 2024.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that wearing a headscarf is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islam, dismissing a Muslim student's petition to wear hijab with her school uniform. The court stated that the dispute primarily concerned compliance with institutional dress code rather than freedom of faith. It highlighted that previous wearing of a scarf does not create an enforceable right to compel the school to change its uniform policy. The judgment relied on precedents from the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, reinforcing that conformity to institutional discipline is essential and reasonable, and not every religious practice automatically receives constitutional protection.
- The Allahabad High Court held that wearing a headscarf is not an essential religious practice for Muslim women in Islam.
- The court emphasized that the case was about compliance with institutional dress code, not an infringement of religious freedom.
- Previous wearing of a headscarf does not establish an enforceable right to alter school uniform policy.
A nine-member Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court ruled that the 1978 Bangalore Water Supply judgment's expansive interpretation of 'industry' will not automatically apply to the Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020. This decision aims to establish a new, clearer framework for labour law disputes, moving away from the worker-friendly precedent set in 1978 by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer. The new ruling emphasizes interpreting 'industry' based on IRC's specific text and statutory context, ensuring labour rights are protected as fundamental rights. It also highlights the broader societal impact of unemployment on households and stresses the importance of judicial vigilance in protecting workers' dignity and security.
- The Supreme Court's nine-member Constitution Bench ruled that the 1978 BWSSB judgment's definition of 'industry' will not automatically apply to the IRC 2020.
- This decision aims to establish a new, clearer framework for labour law disputes under the IRC, moving away from the expansive 1978 interpretation.
- The 1978 ruling, known for its 'triple test,' had significantly broadened the definition of 'industry' to include various activities like hospitals and educational institutions.
The Supreme Court revisited its 1978 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs A. Rajappa (BWSSB) judgment, clarifying that its 'Triple Test' is not a definitive guide for interpreting 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Code (IRC), 2020. The court emphasized that the IRC's definition of 'industry' must be interpreted based on its actual text and be worker-oriented, upholding social justice and fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. This ruling aims to prevent the dilution of labour protections, acknowledge power imbalances between employers and workers, and safeguard against exploitation and unfair labour practices, thereby protecting the Constitution's basic structure.
- The Supreme Court's judgment clarifies that the 1978 BWSSB 'Triple Test' is not a definitive guide for interpreting 'industry' under the new IRC 2020.
- Interpretation of 'industry' under IRC 2020 must be worker-oriented, considering the actual text of provisions and preserving social justice.
- The judgment protects labour rights as fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court praised the repealed Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) as a 'salutary scheme,' not a freebie or exploitation. This observation came during a petition hearing regarding delayed wages under MGNREGA. The court clarified that the 'right to work' is not a fundamental right under Article 21 but a democratic aspiration under Part IV (DPSP). The new law, Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, shifts from a demand-driven to a centrally controlled model, increases workdays, and raises the funding burden on States from 90:10 to 60:40.
- The Supreme Court lauded MGNREGA as a 'salutary scheme' and not a 'freebie' or 'exploitation'.
- The court clarified that the 'right to work' is not a fundamental right under Article 21, but a democratic aspiration under Part IV (DPSP).
- The new law, VB-G RAM G Act, shifts MGNREGA from a demand-driven, rights-based framework to a centrally controlled model.
As India enters its 80th year of Independence, the article reflects on the nation's journey, acknowledging its achievements but highlighting grave challenges to its democratic fabric. Authored by Senior Advocate Ashwani Kumar, it points to the erosion of fraternity, heightened communal discord, pervasive arrogance of power, and politicization of institutions. The judiciary's credibility is questioned due to media trials and delays, while Parliament's deliberative role is doubted. The electoral process needs reform to restore trust. The author emphasizes that substantive democracy goes beyond majoritarianism, requiring moral leadership, ethical politics, and a return to constitutional values to overcome these threats and ensure justice, freedom, and human dignity.
- India's democracy at 80 faces significant challenges including erosion of fraternity and political polarization.
- The article highlights the decline in credibility of the judiciary and the diminished deliberative role of Parliament.
- Electoral processes require reform to restore public trust and reduce widespread doubts about credibility.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed safeguards against arbitrary arrest, emphasizing that an arrested person must be properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds for arrest, as mandated by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS, 2023). The court's ruling in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) stressed that failure to provide clear information invalidates the arrest. It also reiterated guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), stating that arrests should be an exception, not routine, and must be justified by necessity, especially for offenses with punishment less than seven years. These measures aim to balance state authority with individual liberty and dignity.
- The Supreme Court has reinforced that arrested persons must be properly and meaningfully informed of the grounds for their arrest, upholding constitutional rights.
- Failure to provide clear information about the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC (now Section 47 of BNSS, 2023).
- Arrests should not be routine; they must be justified by necessity, especially for offenses with punishment less than seven years, as per guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014).
The article discusses the complex political situation in Darjeeling, highlighting the long-standing demands for greater autonomy or a separate state. It notes that the region's unique cultural identity and economic grievances have fueled various movements over decades. The piece suggests that any lasting solution must address the aspirations of the local population, ensuring their participation in governance and equitable development. It emphasizes that ignoring these demands risks continued instability and unrest, underscoring the need for a comprehensive political dialogue that respects regional specificities within the broader framework of the state.
- Darjeeling faces a complex political situation driven by long-standing demands for autonomy or statehood.
- The region's unique cultural identity and economic grievances are key factors fueling these movements.
- A lasting solution requires addressing local aspirations and ensuring participation in governance and equitable development.
The article reflects on the significance of Jantar Mantar as a symbol of protest and a democratic space in India, questioning its future relevance after major protests conclude. It discusses how Jantar Mantar has historically served as a crucial site for diverse movements, from farmers' protests to women's rights activism, allowing marginalized voices to be heard. However, the piece also touches upon the challenges faced by such protest sites, including government restrictions, media narratives, and the difficulty of sustaining momentum. It underscores the importance of preserving these spaces for dissent and ensuring that the concerns raised by protesters translate into meaningful policy changes, rather than fading once the crowds disperse.
- Jantar Mantar serves as a vital democratic space for protest and dissent in India, amplifying marginalized voices.
- The article questions the long-term impact and sustainability of protests once the immediate crowds disperse.
- Challenges include government restrictions, media framing, and the difficulty of translating protest demands into policy changes.
The article discusses Kerala's cautious approach to implementing the central government's PM SHRI and SHRIN schemes for school development. While the state acknowledges the need for infrastructure upgrades, it expresses reservations about potential central interference in curriculum and educational policies, which are state subjects. Kerala fears that these schemes might dilute its own educational model, which prioritizes social justice and equity. The state is exploring ways to leverage central funds without compromising its autonomy and unique educational philosophy, highlighting the ongoing tension between central and state powers in policy implementation.
- Kerala is hesitant to fully adopt PM SHRI and SHRIN schemes due to concerns about central interference in state educational policies.
- The state fears that central schemes might dilute its existing educational model, which emphasizes social justice and equity.
- Kerala seeks to utilize central funds for infrastructure development while maintaining its autonomy over curriculum and pedagogy.
The article argues that India's democratic health is being undermined by the weakening of institutional opposition, particularly within the Congress party. It highlights how the party's internal struggles and leadership vacuum have diminished its effectiveness as a counterweight to the ruling government. The piece suggests that the reliance on populist movements and individual charisma, rather than robust institutional structures, further erodes the capacity for sustained opposition. This trend, coupled with the government's dominance, risks creating an imbalance of power, where crucial checks and balances are compromised, potentially leading to a less accountable governance.
- The decline of a strong institutional opposition, particularly the Congress party, is weakening India's democratic framework.
- Internal party struggles and a leadership vacuum within the opposition diminish its ability to effectively challenge the ruling government.
- Over-reliance on populist movements and individual charisma, rather than robust institutional structures, further erodes the opposition's capacity.
The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on a petition challenging the interpretation of the "merger" exception under Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (anti-defection law). Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, the petitioner, argued that the current interpretation allows a legislature party to effect a "deemed merger" without formal party approval, potentially turning an electoral majority into a minority. He contended that this has "huge repercussions" for the polity and can alter electoral verdicts. While the Bench acknowledged the concerns, it initially expressed disinclination to intervene, suggesting it was a matter for Parliament or political parties, but ultimately issued notice on the plea.
- The Supreme Court sought the Union government's response on a plea challenging the interpretation of the anti-defection law's "merger" exception.
- Petitioner Kapil Sibal argued that the current interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule allows for "deemed mergers" without formal party approval.
- Sibal contended that this interpretation has significant repercussions for the polity, potentially altering electoral verdicts and turning majorities into minorities.
The Union government introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha, proposing stricter penalties for examination paper leaks, including up to 10 years in jail and a ₹50 lakh fine. This move came amidst uproar from Opposition members demanding a discussion on police action against protesting students. Speaker Om Birla brokered a truce, with a debate scheduled for Tuesday. The Opposition plans to widen its offensive by raising issues like the alleged Ram Temple donation embezzlement and ethanol-blended fuel, aiming to challenge the government and gain political ground, especially with the Cockroach Janta Party spearheading Gen-Z protests.
- The Union government introduced the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, in Lok Sabha.
- The Bill proposes stricter penalties for paper leaks, including up to 10 years in jail and a ₹50 lakh fine.
- The introduction was met with Opposition protests demanding a discussion on police action against student protesters.
The Supreme Court indicated it might frame uniform guidelines for police conduct during large-scale demonstrations, emphasizing the constitutional right to peaceful protest. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant stressed that discipline is integral to democracy and that police excesses should be independently examined. The court acknowledged injuries to both protesters and police personnel and highlighted the need for "self-imposed discipline" from both citizens and law enforcement. Senior advocate Vikas Singh urged the court to frame uniform guidelines due to widespread allegations of police excesses across the country, making a standard operating protocol necessary.
- The Supreme Court is considering framing uniform guidelines for police conduct during mass demonstrations to protect the constitutional right to peaceful protest.
- Chief Justice of India Surya Kant emphasized that police excesses must be independently examined and that discipline is crucial for democratic processes.
- The court acknowledged concerns over injuries sustained by both protesters and police personnel, stressing the need for self-imposed discipline from all parties.
Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay's decision to initiate direct talks with Karnataka CM D. K. Shivakumar on the Cauvery water-sharing dispute represents a significant departure from Tamil Nadu's traditional policy of adjudication. While aimed at securing the State's due share of water, this outreach has drawn disapproval from many political parties and farmers' leaders who fear it bypasses established mechanisms like the CWMA and CWRC. Concerns also exist that Karnataka might use this opportunity to raise the contentious Mekedatu dam project, potentially complicating the long-standing dispute.
- Tamil Nadu CM Vijay is pursuing direct talks with Karnataka on the Cauvery issue, deviating from past policies.
- The move aims to secure Tamil Nadu's water share, which is currently deficient.
- Critics fear direct negotiations could bypass established regulatory bodies like CWMA and CWRC.
Tamil Nadu Assembly Speaker J.C.D. Prabhakar has summoned AIADMK general secretary Edappadi K. Palaniswami and four former party MLAs to appear before him on July 30 for disqualification proceedings. This action is based on a petition filed by Mr. Palaniswami himself, after 25 rebel AIADMK MLAs voted in favor of the Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam government during a vote of confidence. The Speaker is seeking clarifications following earlier appearances by the four former MLAs.
- Disqualification proceedings initiated against Edappadi K. Palaniswami and four former AIADMK MLAs.
- The proceedings are under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
- The petition was filed by Mr. Palaniswami after MLAs voted against the party line in a confidence vote.
This opinion piece advocates for reimagining India's anti-defection law to strengthen democracy and prevent political instability. It argues that the current law, while intended to curb defections, has often led to political horse-trading and undermined internal party democracy. The article suggests that the law should focus on punishing individual defections that are clearly driven by personal gain, rather than penalizing collective decisions or mergers. It proposes reforms such as allowing legislators to vote according to their conscience on certain issues, clarifying the definition of defection, and ensuring timely decisions by presiding officers. The goal is to balance party discipline with legislative freedom and prevent misuse of the law for political manipulation.
- India's anti-defection law needs reimagining to prevent political instability and strengthen democracy.
- The current law often leads to horse-trading and undermines internal party democracy.
- Reforms should focus on punishing individual defections driven by personal gain, not collective decisions or mergers.
This opinion piece argues that the Indian opposition's focus has shifted from merely seeking to regain power to a broader mission of "reclaiming the Republic." It suggests that the opposition now views the current government as undermining democratic institutions and constitutional values, making the struggle existential rather than merely electoral. The article highlights the need for the opposition to move beyond electoral arithmetic and build a narrative that resonates with citizens, emphasizing constitutionalism, pluralism, and federalism. It calls for a unified strategy that addresses the erosion of democratic norms and protects the foundational principles of the Republic, rather than just focusing on winning elections.
- The Indian opposition's objective has broadened from regaining power to "reclaiming the Republic," viewing the current government as undermining democratic institutions.
- The struggle is now seen as existential, focusing on protecting constitutional values and democratic norms.
- The opposition needs to build a narrative centered on constitutionalism, pluralism, and federalism.
Seventy-five years after its enactment, India's First Amendment continues to cast a long shadow, particularly concerning the balance between freedom of speech and expression and reasonable restrictions. The amendment, introduced in 1951, aimed to curb perceived excesses of free speech, especially in the context of public order and defamation. Critics argue that it has been frequently invoked to suppress dissent and limit journalistic freedom, leading to a chilling effect. The article calls for a re-evaluation of its application to ensure that fundamental rights are protected while addressing genuine concerns about public order and national security.
- India's First Amendment, enacted in 1951, introduced "reasonable restrictions" on freedom of speech and expression.
- The amendment was a response to concerns about public order, defamation, and national security in the nascent republic.
- Critics argue that its broad interpretation has often been used to curb dissent and limit journalistic freedom.
The Supreme Court utilized its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to overturn a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This decision was made in a case where the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, later married the accused as an adult. The court emphasized that Article 142 allows it to ensure "complete justice" when existing laws are insufficient, enabling the couple to live peacefully as spouses.
- The Supreme Court used Article 142 to quash a POCSO conviction.
- The decision was based on the fact that the victim and accused later married as adults.
- Article 142 grants the Supreme Court power to deliver "complete justice" where laws fall short.
Higher education in India is a crucial arena reflecting the evolving dynamics of Indian federalism, with competing visions between the Union and State governments on regulatory authority, curriculum, funding, and digital governance. Despite education being on the Concurrent List, the Union government's influence is growing, particularly through the NEP 2020, central funding mechanisms, and national regulatory agencies. States, however, are not merely passive recipients but engage in strategic adaptation, selectively implementing reforms based on local contexts and positioning themselves as regional education hubs, showcasing a negotiated form of federalism.
- Higher education governance in India is a key site for expressing the changing dynamics of federalism.
- The Union government's influence in higher education is expanding through policies like NEP 2020, central funding, and regulatory bodies.
- States exhibit strategic adaptation, selectively implementing central policies and pursuing their own educational priorities.