A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, is re-examining the broader implications of its 2018 Sabarimala ruling, which struck down the age-based restriction on women's entry. The 2018 ruling held that Ayyappa devotees do not constitute a separate religious denomination and that the custom was not an "essential religious practice" (ERP). The current hearing delves into the ERP doctrine's evolution, the State's role in religious reform, and the definition of religious denominations under Articles 25 and 26. The Union government argued against judicial overreach in religious matters, while critics highlight the narrowing interpretation of ERP, which now requires practices to be indispensable to a religion's core identity, rather than merely inherently religious.
- A nine-judge Supreme Court Bench is reviewing the constitutional implications of the 2018 Sabarimala verdict.
- The 2018 ruling declared the age-based restriction on women's entry unconstitutional and stated Ayyappa devotees are not a separate religious denomination.
- The current examination focuses on the 'essential religious practice' (ERP) doctrine and the definition of 'religious denomination' under the Constitution.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah announced a proposed increase in Lok Sabha seats from 550 to 850, assuring that each state would receive an additional 50% seats while maintaining the current proportion based on the 1971 population. The current system, governed by Articles 81 and 82, ties seat allocation to the 1971 Census and territorial constituency division to the 2001 Census, with a freeze until the first census after 2026. The new Bills aim to remove this 2026 sunset proviso, immediately reallocating seats based on the latest census (2011 Census), and linking both steps to the same census. This change removes a constitutional safeguard for states that stabilized their population, potentially altering the balance of representation.
- The government proposes increasing Lok Sabha seats from 550 to 850, with each state getting an additional 50% seats.
- The current seat allocation is based on the 1971 Census, and the proposed change aims to maintain this proportion.
- Existing constitutional provisions (Articles 81 and 82) freeze seat readjustment until after the first census post-2026.
The Supreme Court ruled that electors purged from the voter list during West Bengal's special intensive revision, but subsequently cleared by Appellate Tribunals by April 21 or April 27, must be allowed to vote in the Assembly election. This order, issued by a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, provides a significant reprieve for citizens whose voting rights were denied due to "logical discrepancy." The court, exercising its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142, directed the Election Commission to publish a "supplementary revised electoral roll" for these individuals. However, those with pending appeals before tribunals will not be allowed to vote.
- The Supreme Court mandated that electors cleared by Appellate Tribunals by specific dates must be allowed to vote in the West Bengal Assembly election.
- The ruling addresses the denial of voting rights to citizens purged from the voter list under the "logical discrepancy" category.
- The court invoked its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 to issue these directions.
The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-First Amendment) Bill, 2026, aims to significantly alter the size and composition of State Assemblies by restarting the delimitation process and removing the freeze on seat readjustment in effect since 1976. The Bill proposes to amend Article 170 to allow fresh readjustment of Assembly seats and redrawing of territorial constituencies based on a future Census, to be specified by Parliament. It also substitutes Article 334A to operationalize one-third women's reservation in Assemblies, effective only after a fresh delimitation exercise based on the latest published Census (2011).
- The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, seeks to restart the delimitation process for State Assemblies and remove the 1976 freeze on seat readjustment.
- Article 170 is proposed to be amended to allow for fresh readjustment of Assembly seats and redrawing of constituencies based on a future Census.
- The Bill operationalizes one-third women's reservation in State Assemblies, which will take effect after a new delimitation exercise based on the latest published Census.
The Union government's move to link women's reservation (106th Amendment of 2023) with a post-Census delimitation, through the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, is seen as a political maneuver to reallocate Lok Sabha seats. Critics argue this will reshape Parliament's federal composition, benefiting states where the BJP is strong and disadvantaging those that have successfully controlled population growth. The Bill proposes to raise Lok Sabha membership to 850, remove the 1971 Census-based freeze on seat allocation, and use the 2011 Census for delimitation, leading to a significant shift in political power from southern to northern states.
- The government is linking women's reservation with a post-Census delimitation exercise, which critics view as a political strategy to reallocate Lok Sabha seats.
- The proposed changes would significantly alter the federal composition of Parliament, potentially benefiting northern states at the expense of southern states.
- The Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026, aims to increase Lok Sabha membership to 850 and remove the existing freeze on seat allocation based on the 1971 Census.
The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the appointment of new judges to the Kerala and Karnataka High Courts. A notable aspect of these recommendations is that a majority of the nominees are women advocates and judicial officers. For the Kerala High Court, Preeta Aravindan Krishnamma and Liz Mathew Anthraper have been proposed. For the Karnataka High Court Bench, Rajeshwari Narayana Hegde, Kedambadi Ganesh Shanthi, and Mahadevappa Brungesh have been recommended, emphasizing a push for greater diversity in judicial appointments.
- The Supreme Court Collegium has put forward names for new judicial appointments in Kerala and Karnataka High Courts.
- A significant number of the recommended individuals are women, reflecting a focus on gender diversity in the judiciary.
- The Collegium system plays a crucial role in the appointment and transfer of judges in higher courts.
The Union government has circulated drafts of a Constitution Amendment Bill and a Delimitation Bill proposing to redistribute Lok Sabha seats based on the 2011 Census, aiming to increase the total strength to 850. This move, linked to implementing 33% women's reservation, is contentious as it would shrink the representation of southern states (from 24.3% to 20.7%) while increasing that of Hindi heartland states (from 38.1% to 43.1%). States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, and Punjab have opposed this, advocating for an extension of the existing freeze on seat readjustment beyond 2026.
- The government proposes to redistribute Lok Sabha seats based on the 2011 Census, potentially increasing the total strength to 850 members.
- This initiative is linked to the operationalisation of 33% women's reservation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
- Southern states are projected to lose parliamentary representation, while Hindi heartland states are expected to gain significantly.
The article critiques the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan (VBSA) Bill, intended to implement the National Education Policy (NEP 2020), as a constitutional overreach. It argues the Bill grants excessive discretionary power to Union government-controlled councils, usurps the Education Ministry's fund allocation authority, and dilutes the University Grants Commission's (UGC) consultative requirements. The author, Dinesh Abrol, contends that the Bill undermines the autonomy of premier institutions like IITs and IIMs, promotes Hindutva ideologies, and centralizes regulation. He proposes that State Higher Education Councils (SHECs) be represented on the Bill's three councils to ensure consensual decision-making, shared responsibility, and the establishment of a separate Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC) for equitable fund disbursement, focusing on inter-regional equity and social justice.
- The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhisthan (VBSA) Bill is criticized for constitutional overreach and centralizing power in Union government-controlled councils.
- The Bill is alleged to undermine the autonomy of premier educational institutions and dilute the consultative role of the UGC.
- The author argues that the Bill promotes Hindutva ideologies and a top-down, prescriptive regulatory approach.
The Supreme Court reiterated its long-held principle that Scheduled Caste (SC) protections and special provisions are available only to those practicing Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism. This judgment arose from a Christian pastor's plea for SC/ST Act protection. The Court affirmed that an SC member converting out of these three religions ceases to be an SC. Historically, SC definition initially included only Hindus, later extended to Sikhs (1956) and Buddhists (1990). The editorial notes that while theological and constitutional arguments support this distinction, the exclusion of Christian and Muslim converts, who still face discrimination, remains a contested and politically surcharged issue, currently under review by a commission.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Scheduled Caste benefits are limited to those practicing Hinduism, Sikhism, and Buddhism.
- Conversion out of these specified religions results in the loss of SC status, as per the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
- The original SC definition for Hindus was extended to Sikhs in 1956 and Buddhists in 1990, reflecting historical and political realities.
The Union government plans to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) in the ongoing Parliament session. Key proposed changes include appointing a "designated authority" to manage or dispose of assets created from foreign funds by NGOs whose FCRA registration is suspended or cancelled. The amendments also expand the definition of "key functionary" to include various roles beyond office bearers, making them liable for FCRA offenses. Additionally, the Bill proposes to reduce the maximum imprisonment for FCRA offenses from five years to one year and introduces fixed timelines for utilizing foreign funds received under "prior permission" category. Law enforcement agencies will also require prior Central government approval for investigations into FCRA-related complaints.
- Amendments to the FCRA are proposed to regulate foreign funds and manage assets of NGOs.
- A "designated authority" will be appointed to handle assets of NGOs with suspended or cancelled FCRA registrations.
- The definition of "key functionary" is expanded, making more individuals liable for FCRA offenses.
The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) in Meghalaya approved an amendment mandating that only Scheduled Tribe members can contest its polls. This decision effectively ends over seven decades of non-tribal participation in GHADC elections and follows weeks of unrest and ethnic tensions, which included protests where two people died. The State government had deferred the April 10 elections and extended the council's tenure to allow for these rule amendments. Chief Minister Conrad K. Sangma hailed the resolution as a "historic milestone," emphasizing its role in safeguarding the rights and self-governance of tribal communities under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
- The GHADC in Meghalaya amended its rules to restrict election candidacy exclusively to Scheduled Tribe members.
- This change ends non-tribal participation in council elections, a practice that had existed for over seven decades.
- The decision comes after weeks of ethnic tensions and protests, resulting in two deaths.
The Union government plans to introduce an amendment Bill proposing a delimitation exercise based on the 2011 Census to implement the Women's Reservation Act, 2023, before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections. This move aims to increase Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 816, with 273 seats (33%) reserved for women. The amendments could be brought in during the ongoing Budget Session or a Special Session. States, particularly Southern States, have expressed concerns about maintaining their existing proportion of seats, fearing a loss of representation due to population control success. The government intends to maintain the pro rata basis for seat allocation to address these concerns.
- An amendment Bill for delimitation based on the 2011 Census is planned to implement the Women's Reservation Act, 2023.
- The delimitation aims to increase Lok Sabha seats from 543 to 816, reserving 33% (273 seats) for women.
- The government intends to introduce the Bill before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.
The Education Ministry has informed a Joint Committee of Parliament that the proposed Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, will incorporate a UGC-like mechanism for grants disbursement. Initially, the Bill aimed to separate funding powers from the regulatory framework to avoid conflicts of interest. However, the Ministry now plans to devise and adopt similar qualitative processes for grants under the Shiksha Adhishthan. Opposition MPs raised concerns about potential centralized control, arguing it would create a "super-regulator" and undermine federalism. They also criticized the Bill as "skeletal," lacking crucial details that would be determined later through rules.
- The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, initially aimed to separate funding from regulatory powers in higher education.
- The Education Ministry now proposes to integrate a UGC-like grants-disbursal mechanism under the Shiksha Adhishthan.
- Opposition MPs expressed concerns that this move could lead to centralized control, creating a "super-regulator" and violating federalism principles.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the final hearing for over 250 petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019, starting May 5. The Act fast-tracks Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before 2015. Petitioners argue the law is discriminatory and violates the secular principles of the Constitution. The court will first address general legal challenges before examining specific regional issues, such as the impact on the demography of Assam and Tripura and the exemptions provided to Sixth Schedule tribal areas.
- The Supreme Court will begin back-to-back hearings on 250+ CAA petitions from May 5, 2024.
- The CAA 2019 provides citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three neighboring countries.
- The Act does not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, and Tripura included in the Sixth Schedule.
The Supreme Court of India has referred petitions challenging the amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench. The amendment removes the 'public interest override' that previously allowed the disclosure of personal information if justified by a larger public interest. Critics argue this creates a 'blanket ban' on information concerning officials and public spending, leading to information asymmetry between the state and citizens. The court will examine the 'constitutional sensitivity' of these changes and their impact on transparency and democratic accountability.
- The DPDP Act 2023 amends the RTI Act 2005, effectively prohibiting the disclosure of any personal information.
- A Constitution Bench will define 'personal information' and assess the legality of removing the public interest override.
- Journalists may be classified as 'data fiduciaries' under the new rules, potentially facing fines up to ₹250 crore for non-compliance.
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 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 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.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah is set to introduce three Bills in the Lok Sabha to establish a legal framework for the removal of the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and State/UT Ministers who are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges (punishable by five years or more imprisonment). The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, aim to address the current lack of constitutional provision for such removals. The objective is to uphold constitutional morality and public trust, ensuring ministers' conduct is beyond suspicion.
- Three new Bills will be introduced to create a legal framework for removing the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Chief Ministers, and State/UT Ministers.
- Removal applies if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges (punishable by five years or more imprisonment).
- The Bills aim to address the current absence of constitutional provisions for such removals.
Former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna informed a Joint Parliamentary Committee that the proposed Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, commonly known as the 'One Nation, One Election' Bill, grants "unfettered discretion" to the Election Commission. He argued that Clause 5 of the proposed Article 82A, allowing the EC to postpone Assembly polls, could lead to indirect President's Rule and violate the federal structure and Article 14. Four other former CJIs have also flagged legal infirmities. Justice Khanna stated the Bill fails to meet its objective of reducing policy paralysis, as the Model Code of Conduct would still apply during premature dissolutions.
- The proposed 'One Nation, One Election' Bill (Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024) grants "unfettered discretion" to the Election Commission.
- Former CJI Sanjiv Khanna warned that Clause 5 of proposed Article 82A could lead to indirect President's Rule and violate India's federal structure and Article 14.
- Several former Chief Justices of India have identified legal infirmities in the proposed legislation.
In a historic decision, the Karnataka State Cabinet approved a new reservation matrix for Scheduled Castes (SCs), slicing the existing 17% reservation. Dalit Right (Holeyas) and Dalit Left (Madigas) groups will each receive 6% internal quota, while Lambani, Korama, Koracha, Bhovis, and 59 other smaller communities will be allotted 5%. This decision aims to bring closure to a three-decade-old struggle for internal reservation among SCs, following the Supreme Court's allowance for such provisions. An ordinance will be promulgated after the Monsoon session to implement these changes.
- Karnataka Cabinet approved a new internal reservation matrix for Scheduled Castes (SCs) within the existing 17% quota.
- Dalit Right (Holeyas) and Dalit Left (Madigas) groups will each get 6% internal reservation.
- Lambani, Korama, Koracha, Bhovis, and 59 other smaller communities will receive 5% reservation.
The Supreme Court intervened in the Tamil Nadu Governor case, granting deemed assent to 10 State Bills that had been pending since 2020. The Bench clarified its action was to resolve an "egregious situation" and not to overrule previous judgments. Attorney General R. Venkataramani argued that the Governor was within his powers under Article 200 to withhold assent and was not bound by the Council of Ministers' advice. A Presidential Reference is currently questioning the SC's power to impose three-month deadlines on Governors, with the A-G contending that Article 142 cannot supplant substantive law or violate the Constitution's basic structure.
- The Supreme Court intervened in the Tamil Nadu Governor case to resolve a situation where State Bills were pending since 2020.
- The Attorney General argued that the Governor's power to withhold assent under Article 200 is discretionary and not bound by the Council of Ministers' advice.
- The SC clarified its action was not meant to overrule previous judgments but to address a 'glaring' factual situation.
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.