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.
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 Tamil Nadu government will send a list of eligible Director-General of Police (DGP) rank officers to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for shortlisting a panel to appoint the next DGP/Head of Police Force. This process complies with Supreme Court guidelines from the Prakash Singh case. The incumbent DGP, Shankar Jiwal, completes his tenure on August 31. Revised guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs state that only DGP-rank officers in the Level-16 pay matrix are eligible, a change from earlier rules that included all IPS officers with 30 years of service. The UPSC empanelment committee will shortlist three officers for the state to choose from.
- Tamil Nadu government is initiating the process to appoint the next DGP/Head of Police Force by sending a list to UPSC.
- The selection process adheres to Supreme Court guidelines from the Prakash Singh case.
- Revised guidelines from the Ministry of Home Affairs specify eligibility criteria for DGP candidates, limiting it to Level-16 pay matrix officers.
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has raised concerns about potential disenfranchisement of lakhs of citizens. The process is criticized for being opaque, hurried, and imposing onerous burdens on voters, especially those added after 2003, who must re-establish eligibility with fresh applications. The ECI's notification lists only 11 acceptable proofs, notably omitting widely held documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, and even ECI-issued EPICs. The Supreme Court has intervened, urging the ECI to consider these omitted documents, emphasizing that electoral roll preparation must meet constitutional standards of fairness, transparency, and non-discrimination, as the right to vote is fundamental to democracy.
- The Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar is causing concern over potential voter disenfranchisement.
- The revision process is criticized for being opaque, hurried, and imposing excessive burdens on voters, particularly those added after 2003.
- The ECI's list of acceptable documents for re-establishing eligibility omits widely held proofs like Aadhaar, ration cards, and ECI-issued EPICs.
The Election Commission of India (EC) has initiated a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, sparking a debate on the term 'ordinarily resident'. According to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RP Act), a person must be 'ordinarily resident' in a constituency to be included in its electoral roll. The Gauhati High Court defined it as a "habitual resident" with the intention to dwell permanently, not temporarily. The article highlights the vulnerability of migrant labourers, who often move for work but maintain ties with their original residence. It suggests that strict interpretation could disenfranchise them and proposes amending the RP Act or RER to preserve their choice of retaining votes in their original constituency.
- The term 'ordinarily resident' is crucial for inclusion in India's electoral rolls, as defined by the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
- Judicial interpretations emphasize that 'ordinarily resident' implies habitual and permanent residency, not temporary stays.
- Migrant labourers face challenges, as their temporary work locations conflict with the strict definition, potentially leading to disenfranchisement.
The article argues that India's secularism was inherent in its foundational principles, influenced by leaders like Nehru and Ashoka the Great, long before the term was explicitly added to the Constitution in 1976. It highlights that the Motilal Nehru Committee's constitution (1928) and the Karachi Resolution (1931) already advocated for no state religion and state neutrality. The author emphasizes that secularism protects religions from state interference and ensures their autonomy, contrasting it with theocratic states. The piece also discusses various models of secularism from other democracies and asserts that India's secularism promotes civility and equal respect for all religions, making its explicit inclusion in 1976 a formal recognition of an existing ideal.
- India's secular ethos was present from its inception, rooted in historical figures like Ashoka and pre-independence constitutional drafts.
- Secularism, though explicitly added in 1976, was considered part of the basic structure of the Constitution even before.
- The author argues that secularism safeguards religious autonomy and prevents state domination over religious matters.