The Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that courts should not ordinarily interfere in an ongoing electoral process.
Background
Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan was the party’s sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.
The Returning Officer (RO) rejected her nomination on 9 June 2026 for allegedly failing to disclose a pending criminal proceeding in Hyderabad in Form 26 (election affidavit).
Subsequently, BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat were elected unopposed.
Key Constitutional Principle
Article 329(b) of the Constitution: Bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
Provides that elections to Parliament or State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition in the manner prescribed by law.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226 to interfere with the RO’s decision during an ongoing election.
Recognising exceptions for “patent” or “glaring” errors would amount to adding principles not envisaged under Article 329(b).
The appropriate remedy available to Ms. Natarajan is to file an election petition before the competent High Court.
Reliance on Precedent
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer: Established the principle of non-interference during the electoral process.
Election-related disputes arising before completion of elections must ordinarily be resolved through election petitions.
Arguments by Meenakshi Natarajan
Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that: The RO committed a “patent error”.
Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disclosure is required only in cases where charges have been framed.
Allowing her candidature would facilitate, rather than obstruct, free and fair elections.
Counter Arguments
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that:
The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
Therefore, an Article 32 petition is not maintainable.
The Election Commission of India contended that:
All pending criminal proceedings must be disclosed, irrespective of the stage of the case.
The proper remedy is an election petition.
Court’s Clarification
The dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice any election petition that Ms. Natarajan may file before the concerned High Court.
Prelims Pointers
Article 329(b): Election disputes can be challenged only through election petitions.
Article 32: Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
Article 226: High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
Section 33A, Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
Form 26: Affidavit containing details relating to assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, and criminal cases.
Returning Officer (RO): Scrutinises nomination papers and conducts the election process.
The Supreme Court recently witnessed the swearing-in of five new judges after a Presidential Ordinance increased its sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges. While two appointments filled pre-existing vacancies, three judges were appointed to posts that exist solely because of the Ordinance.
How has the Ordinance altered the composition of the Supreme Court?
Presidential Ordinance: Increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 judges to 38 judges.
Five New Appointments: Five judges were sworn in following the Ordinance.
Existing Vacancies: Two appointments filled already existing lawful vacancies.
Ordinance-Created Posts: Three appointments were made against posts created solely through the Ordinance.
Temporary Basis: The additional posts continue only so long as the Ordinance remains operational or is replaced by legislation.
Constitutional Provision: Article 124 leaves determination of the number of Supreme Court judges to Parliament.
Why does the issue raise concerns regarding judicial independence?
Security of Tenure: Judicial independence requires judges to occupy constitutionally secure offices free from executive discretion.
Executive Dependence: Ordinance-created positions remain dependent upon the executive’s temporary legislative action.
Institutional Perception: Independence includes not merely actual autonomy but also the appearance of autonomy from political branches.
Temporary Offices: Judges occupying posts that may disappear if the Ordinance lapses could create perceptions of institutional dependence.
Basic Structure Doctrine: Judicial independence forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be diluted indirectly.
How does the controversy relate to the NJAC judgment and judicial primacy?
NJAC Judgment (2015): Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India struck down the 99th Constitutional Amendment and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
Parliamentary Support: The amendment was passed by 367 votes to 1 in the Lok Sabha and ratified by States.
Composition of NJAC: Included the Chief Justice of India, two senior-most judges, the Union Law Minister, and two eminent persons.
Veto Provision: Any two members could veto a recommendation.
Judicial Concern: The Court held that this arrangement undermined judicial primacy in appointments.
Present Contradiction: Critics argue that accepting appointments against Ordinance-created posts appears inconsistent with the Court’s earlier insistence on institutional independence.
Why is the use of Ordinances controversial in constitutional governance?
Article 123 Power: Enables the President to promulgate Ordinances when Parliament is not in session.
Temporary Nature: Ordinances cease to operate six weeks after Parliament reassembles unless approved.
Executive Withdrawal: Ordinances may be withdrawn before parliamentary approval.
Democratic Concern: Frequent reliance on Ordinances may bypass normal legislative scrutiny.
Institutional Stability: Temporary laws may create uncertainty in long-term institutional arrangements such as judicial appointments.
What has the Supreme Court previously held regarding Ordinance-making powers?
D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1986): Held that repeated re-promulgation of Ordinances amounts to a fraud on the Constitution.
Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): Seven-judge Bench ruled that Ordinance-making cannot become a parallel source of legislation.
Legislative Supremacy: Ordinances are intended as exceptional measures, not substitutes for parliamentary law-making.
What legal uncertainties arise if the Ordinance lapses?
Reversion of Strength: Supreme Court strength would revert from 38 to 34 judges.
Status of Judges: Questions may arise regarding judges appointed against Ordinance-created posts.
Unsettled Position: No direct precedent exists concerning judges appointed to judicial offices that cease due to lapse of an Ordinance.
De Facto Doctrine: Judicial acts may continue to remain valid under the doctrine affirmed in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1980).
Institutional Litigation: Potential legal challenges may emerge regarding continuation of such appointments.
How has the Collegium’s decision to recommend appointments against Ordinance-created judicial posts generated constitutional concerns?
Anticipated Vacancies: Forthcoming retirements are expected to create regular vacancies in the Court.
Possible Regularisation: Some Ordinance-appointed judges may subsequently occupy these permanent posts.
Continuing Uncertainty: At least one appointment remains dependent on the validity of the Ordinance.
Expectation of Ratification: The decision assumes Parliament will replace the Ordinance with legislation.
Balancing Priorities: The Collegium sought to address judicial vacancies while relying on future legal regularisation.
Does judicial independence require more than formal constitutional safeguards?
Substantive Independence: Independence is not merely the legal authority to disagree with the executive.
Perception of Neutrality: Courts must remain visibly detached from political dependence.
Institutional Confidence: Public trust depends on the judiciary appearing free from executive patronage.
Constitutional Culture: Independence requires an instinctive separation from executive influence, not merely procedural safeguards.
Separation of Powers: Long-term legitimacy rests on maintaining clear constitutional boundaries among institutions.
Conclusion
The controversy is less about the competence of the appointed judges and more about the constitutional method through which their offices were created. The episode highlights the tension between addressing judicial vacancies and preserving judicial independence. A constitutional democracy requires not only an independent judiciary but also institutional arrangements that are visibly free from executive dependence and temporary political contingencies.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2014] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014 with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.
Linkage: The PYQ examines judicial independence and the constitutional principles governing appointments to the higher judiciary. The article questions whether appointments to Ordinance-created Supreme Court posts are consistent with the judiciary’s insistence on institutional independence reflected in the NJAC judgment.
PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2017] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy Linkage: The question examines the expansion of Article 21 and the constitutional status of informational privacy after the Puttaswamy judgment. The Right to be Forgotten is a direct extension of the right to informational privacy, raising questions about balancing privacy with open justice, transparency, and public access to judicial records.
Mentor’ Comment
A recent Delhi High Court order on the Right to be Forgotten has revived the debate over whether individuals can seek removal of their names from online court records. The case is significant because it brings into direct conflict two constitutional principles, the right to privacy recognised in the Puttaswamy judgment (2017) and the principle of open justice. This comes at a time when digitisation and search engines have made judicial records permanently accessible and searchable.
What is the Right to be Forgotten?
The Right to Be Forgotten (RTBF) is the legal concept that empowers individuals to request the removal, erasure, or de-indexing of their personal data from internet searches, databases, and public platforms when that information becomes outdated, irrelevant, or harmful to their reputation.
It is built on the principle of informational self-determination, allowing people to reclaim control over their digital narrative and move on from past events without facing lifelong social or professional stigma.
What is the Open Justice Principle?
The Open Justice Principle is a foundational legal rule stating that judicial proceedings and records must be open to the public and the media to guarantee transparency, fairness, and public trust in the legal system.
It is summarized by the classic legal maxim: “Justice must not only be done, but must manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
How Has Digitisation Transformed the Debate on Open Justice and Privacy?
Digital Permanence: Court records remain searchable indefinitely through search engines and online legal databases.
Expanded Accessibility: Judicial records are accessible globally to anyone with internet access.
Automated Archiving: Search engines and digital repositories replicate records across multiple platforms.
Enhanced Public Scrutiny: Facilitates public understanding of judicial processes and legal developments.
Persistent Reputational Impact: Allegations may remain associated with individuals even after acquittal or discharge.
Implication
The digital environment has transformed court publicity from a temporary consequence into a potentially permanent one
Why Does the Right to be Forgotten Conflict with the Principle of Open Justice?
Privacy Protection: Enables individuals to exercise control over personal information.
Transparency Requirement: Ensures judicial functioning remains open to public scrutiny.
Historical Record: Judicial decisions form part of the state’s official record.
Democratic Accountability: Open records strengthen public confidence in courts.
Freedom of Expression: Access to information supports informed public discourse.
Core Constitutional Tension
Right to Privacy
Open Justice
Protects personal dignity
Ensures transparency
Limits unnecessary exposure
Facilitates public scrutiny
Supports informational autonomy
Preserves public records
Prevents perpetual stigma
Maintains historical accuracy
Why Did the Delhi High Court Favour Greater Privacy Protection?
Search Engine Excerpts: Search engines may display isolated portions of judgments without context.
Name-Based Discovery: Public access does not necessarily require searching cases through an accused person’s name.
Replication Problem: Updating official records may not update copies stored on other websites.
Context Loss: Fragmented information can misrepresent judicial outcomes.
Digital Harm: Continuous association with allegations may affect reputation despite legal exoneration.
Judicial Concern
The Court recognized that merely updating records may not adequately protect privacy because digital content often persists across multiple platforms.
Is Discoverability the Real Problem, or Is It Incomplete Information?
The core issue is not public access itself but incomplete records.
Acquittal Visibility: Searches should reveal both allegations and subsequent acquittals.
Contextual Accuracy: Complete judicial history should accompany search results.
Information Integrity: Users should receive accurate and updated records.
Balanced Disclosure: Transparency should include final outcomes, not merely initial accusations.
Digital Correction: Records should evolve with judicial developments.
Example
If an individual is acquitted, anyone accessing the proceedings should also immediately find the acquittal order instead of only the original accusation.
Why Are Judicial Records Treated as Public Records of the State?
Official Character: Court records constitute official acts of the State.
Institutional Memory: They preserve the history of judicial administration.
Public Accountability: Citizens can assess judicial functioning.
Rule of Law: Transparent records strengthen trust in legal institutions.
Can Digital Accuracy Offer a Better Solution than Digital Erasure?
Key Measures
Record Updating: Reflect acquittals, discharges, settlements, and final outcomes prominently.
Database Synchronisation: Ensure legal repositories regularly update records.
Contextual Search Results: Display complete procedural history.
Judicial Oversight: Impose obligations on registries and legal information platforms.
Responsible Indexing: Ensure search engines provide context alongside judicial records.
Expected Outcome: Protects privacy without undermining transparency or historical recordkeeping.
How Does the European Experience Inform the Debate?
The concept gained massive global prominence following the landmark 2014 Google Spain v. AEPD ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). It is now strictly codified under Article 17 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) as the “Right to Erasure”
European Origin: RTBF emerged in response to persistent digital records.
Balancing Test: Privacy claims are assessed against freedom of expression and public interest.
Context-Based Approach: No absolute right to deletion exists.
Public Interest Exception: Information relevant to public accountability may remain accessible.
Proportionality Principle: Competing rights are balanced case-by-case.
Conclusion
The challenge is not whether judicial records should be accessible, but whether they should remain accurate and complete in the digital age. A balanced approach that preserves open justice while ensuring updated and contextualised records can protect both privacy and transparency, thereby strengthening public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law.
The Delhi High Court recently ruled that Google’s practice of allowing advertisers to purchase competitors’ registered trademarks as keywords for online advertisements can amount to trademark infringement.
How Did the Hindware-Google Trademark Dispute Originate?
Background of the dispute
Hindware Trademark: Hindware possessed a registered trademark with substantial market goodwill built over decades in the sanitaryware sector.
Discovery in 2013: Hindware found that competitors Grohe India Pvt. Ltd. and Cera Sanitaryware Ltd. had purchased the keyword “Hindware” through Google AdWords.
Search Result Diversion: Searches for “Hindware”, “Hindware Sanitary”, or related terms displayed competitors’ websites and advertisements prominently.
Consumer Impact: Users intending to purchase Hindware products were redirected toward rival brands.
Legal Objection: Hindware argued that its trademark was being commercially exploited without authorization.
How Does Google’s Keyword Advertising System Function?
Mechanism of Google AdWords
Keyword Advertising:Advertisers bid for specific words or phrases that trigger sponsored advertisements.
Auction-Based Model: Google conducts auctions among advertisers bidding for keywords.
Revenue Generation: Google earns revenue through a Cost-Per-Click (CPC) model.
Illustrative Example
Trademark Search: A user searching for “Nokia” or “Sony” may be shown advertisements from competitors if those companies purchased the trademark as a keyword.
Commercial Outcome: User attention may shift from the trademark owner to competing brands.
Why Did Hindware Consider Keyword Advertising a Trademark Infringement?
Hindware’s Legal Arguments
Registered Trademark Protection: Hindware argued that its trademark enjoys legal protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Unauthorized Commercial Use: Competitors used the trademark for generating advertising impressions without consent.
Diversion of Customers: Searches intended for Hindware products were redirected toward rival companies.
Misappropriation of Goodwill: Competitors benefited from brand value created through Hindware’s investments over decades.
Consumer Confusion: Users searching specifically for Hindware could be influenced toward alternative brands.
Trademark Law Basis
Advertising Use: Hindware argued that keyword bidding constitutes use of a trademark in advertising.
Section 29(6) Relevance: The practice falls within the statutory meaning of trademark use in advertising.
[About Section 29(6) of Trade Marks Act, 1999: Trademark is deemed to be used if a person
Affixes it to goods or packaging.
Offers goods or services under that trademark.
Imports or exports goods under that trademark.
Uses the trademark in advertising.]
What Defence Did Google Present Before the Court?
Backend Function Argument
Invisible Keywords: Google argued that keywords operate only as backend triggers.
No Visible Display: Users cannot see purchased keywords during searches.
Technical Facilitation: The platform merely facilitates ad placement based on advertiser-selected terms.
Consumer Awareness Argument
Sponsored Labels: Advertisements are marked separately from organic search results.
Distinct Identification: Users can distinguish advertisements from natural search results.
Reduced Confusion Claim: Clear labeling minimizes the possibility of consumer deception.
Global Policy Argument
International Practice: Google highlighted that keyword advertising involving trademarks is permitted in several jurisdictions.
Policy Consistency: The company argued that its India policy aligns with broader global advertising practices.
Competition Argument
Market Access: Google contended that keyword bidding enables smaller firms to compete with established brands.
Restriction Concern: Prohibiting keyword purchases could reduce competitive advertising opportunities.
Why Did the Court Reject Google’s Position?
Recognition of Trademark Use
Commercial Exploitation: The Court held that keyword bidding amounts to trademark use in advertising.
Revenue Generation: Google earns direct revenue through auctions involving trademarked terms.
Advertising Function: Trademarked keywords serve as commercial tools for attracting consumers.
Free-Riding on Goodwill
Brand Investment: Trademark owners spend significant resources building consumer trust.
Unfair Advantage: Competitors benefit from that goodwill without making equivalent investments.
Monetization of Reputation: Google profits from the commercial value attached to others’ trademarks.
Consumer Diversion
Search Intent: Users searching for “Hindware” generally seek Hindware products.
Traffic Redirection: Sponsored advertisements can divert consumers toward competing brands.
Marketplace Distortion: Consumer attention shifts from the trademark owner to advertisers.
Judicial Observation
Free-Riding Finding: The Court observed that Google’s conduct effectively monetizes investments made by trademark owners.
Commercial Benefit: Google derives revenue from trademark popularity despite not owning the trademark itself.
What Did the Delhi High Court Ultimately Rule?
Trademark Protection: Restrained Google from using “Hindware” or combinations of related words as advertising keywords.
Infringement Recognition: Treated such use as capable of constituting trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act.
Goodwill Protection: Reinforced legal protection for brand reputation and consumer association.
Significance of the Judgment
Digital Trademark Jurisprudence: Establishes an important precedent for online trademark disputes.
Platform Accountability: Expands scrutiny of intermediary business models.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling marks an important step in adapting trademark law to the digital economy. By recognizing keyword advertising as potential trademark use, the judgment strengthens brand protection while raising important questions about competition, platform accountability, and consumer choice in online markets.
Value Addition
Trademark
Definition: A sign, symbol, word, phrase, logo, design, or combination distinguishing goods or services of one entity from another.
Legal Basis: Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Validity: Registration valid for 10 years and renewable indefinitely.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Ecosystem in India
Constitutional Basis:
Article 300A: Protects property rights.
Legal Shield: Guarantees no property deprivation without legal authority.
IP Inclusion: Covers both tangible and intellectual property
Institutional Framework
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT):
Ministry: Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Status: Non-statutory body (Central Government Department).
Policy Maker: Formulates and amends all national IPR policies.
Parent Body: Oversees the functioning of the CGPDTM and CIPAM.
Global Liaison: Represents India at international forums like WIPO.
Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM)
Ministry: Ministry of Commerce and Industry (attached office of DPIIT).
Status: Statutory body.
IP Registry: Manages statutory offices for Patents, Designs, Trade Marks, and Geographical Indications.
E-Filing Hub: Operates the centralized online registration portals.
Quasi-Judicial Power: Hears and decides intellectual property disputes and oppositions.
Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM)
Ministry: Ministry of Commerce and Industry (professional body under DPIIT).
Status: Non-statutory body (Executive Agency).
Policy Executor: Implements targets set by the National IPR Policy.
Public Outreach: Conducts IP awareness campaigns across schools and universities.
Enforcement Training: Trains police, customs, and judiciary staff to curb piracy.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2024] What is the present world scenario of Intellectual Property Rights with respect to life materials? Although India is second in the world to file patents, still only a few have been commercialized. Explain the reasons behind this less commercialization.
Linkage: The PYQ examines the protection, commercialization, and enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in a rapidly evolving technological environment. The Delhi High Court’s ruling extends trademark protection to digital advertising practices, addressing new-age IPR challenges in the platform economy.
General N.S. Raja Subramani assumed charge as India’s third Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and Secretary, Department of Military Affairs.
Key Highlights
He paid tribute at the National War Memorial after assuming office.
A ceremonial Tri Services Guard of Honour was accorded at South Block.
He emphasised the “Whole of Nation” approach for strengthening India’s national security.
What is “JAI”?
General Subramani highlighted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision of:
Jointness
Aatma Nirbharta
Innovation
About the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS)
CDS is the highest-ranking military officer in India.
Acts as the Principal military adviser to the Defence Minister on tri-service matters.
Heads: Department of Military Affairs (DMA).
Permanent Chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee
Department of Military Affairs (DMA)
Created in 2019.
Functions under Ministry of Defence.
Responsible for:
Promoting jointness among armed forces
Military staffing and training matters
Integration of services
[2024] What are the duties of the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) as Head of the Department of Military Affairs? 1. Permanent Chairman of Chiefs of Staff Committee 2. Exercise military command over the three Service Chiefs 3. Principal Military Advisor to Defence Minister on all tri-Service matters Select the correct answer using the code given below:
PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of Public Interest Litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciaryLinkage: The PYQ examines the expanding role and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, which lies at the core of the present debate on pendency and judicial burden.The article discusses judicial reforms and institutional capacity of the Supreme Court. Efficient justice delivery is essential for preserving judicial independence and constitutional governance.
Mentor’s Comment
The Union government has recently increased the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, reviving an old debate on judicial reforms: Can more judges solve India’s mounting judicial pendency? The issue has direct relevance for judicial reforms, separation of powers, access to justice, and constitutional governance in India.
What is the Constitutional Provision Governing the Number of Supreme Court Judges?
Article 124(1): Establishes the Supreme Court and provides for a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.
Parliamentary Power: The Constitution does not fix a permanent number of judges. It authorises Parliament to determine the number of judges by law.
Flexible Institutional Design: Enables periodic expansion of judicial strength based on rising caseload, pendency, and administrative requirements.
How has the Number of Supreme Court Judges Increased?
Ordinary Legislation: Increase in judicial strength requires amendment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
No Constitutional Amendment Required: Since Article 124 empowers Parliament, increase occurs through ordinary parliamentary legislation, not a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Recent Change (2025): Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2025, increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.
Ordinance Route: The President promulgated an ordinance under Article 123 before Parliament formally completed the process, despite Parliament expected to convene shortly.
How Has the Supreme Court’s Strength Increased Over Time?
Year
Strength of SC Judges
1950
8 (including CJI)
1956
11
1960
14
1977
18
1986
26
2009
31
2019
34
2025
38
What Does This Trend Indicate?
Rising Caseload: Expansion reflects increasing litigation and constitutional responsibilities.
Persistent Pendency: Repeated increases have not prevented rising backlog, indicating structural inefficiencies beyond numerical shortage.
Shift in Institutional Role: Expansion coincides with the Supreme Court increasingly functioning as a general appellate court, rather than primarily a constitutional court.
Can Increasing Judicial Strength Alone Reduce Pendency in the Supreme Court?
Judicial Capacity: Increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges enhances disposal capacity and may reduce waiting time for hearings.
Limited Impact: Pendency of nearly 94,000 cases suggests backlog is structural rather than merely numerical.
Historical Continuity: Successive governments have periodically increased judicial strength, yet pendency continues to rise.
Institutional Limitation: More judges do not automatically improve efficiency unless accompanied by procedural reforms.
Concerns Over Ordinance Route: The government introduced the increase through an ordinance, despite Parliament being expected to convene soon, raising concerns about legislative bypass.
Has the Supreme Court Drifted from Its Intended Constitutional Role?
Constitutional Design: The Supreme Court was envisioned primarily as a constitutional court, dealing with substantial constitutional interpretation.
Article 136 Expansion: The Court’s extraordinary power under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) has expanded its jurisdiction significantly.
Routine Appeals: A substantial share of the Court’s docket is now occupied by SLPs, converting the Court into a de facto regular appellate court.
Judicial Observation (2016): A Constitution Bench refused to restrict Article 136, observing that no effort should be made to reduce the Court’s powers.
Consequences: Excessive appellate workload diverts attention from constitutional matters of national significance.
Do Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Contribute to Judicial Backlog?
Extraordinary Remedy: SLPs were designed as exceptional remedies under Article 136 for rare cases involving grave injustice.
Judicial Overreach of Scope: SLPs now dominate a substantial portion of Supreme Court litigation.
Absence of Guidelines: Lack of strict admission standards has encouraged indiscriminate filing.
Case Example: Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware: A contractual employment dispute reached the Supreme Court despite involving issues more suited for lower courts.
Constitutional Concern: Excessive admission of routine matters dilutes the Court’s constitutional focus.
Does Government Litigation Worsen Judicial Pendency?
Largest Litigant: Governments remain among the largest litigants in Indian courts.
National Litigation Policy Failure: The proposed National Litigation Policy (NLP) aimed to reduce avoidable government litigation but was never effectively implemented.
Routine Appeals Culture: Government departments frequently pursue appeals even in settled legal matters.
Administrative Inconsistency: Frequent changes in legal officers produce contradictory litigation strategies.
Institutional Burden: Excessive state appeals consume judicial time and prolong case disposal.
Illustration: Cases often remain pending for years before reaching the Supreme Court because High Courts do not conclusively settle disputes.
Will More Benches Improve Consistency or Create Conflicting Judgments?
Expanded Bench Strength: More judges imply greater number of division benches.
Potential Benefit: Greater benches may increase disposal rates and reduce waiting time.
Risk of Fragmentation: Larger bench numbers may generate inconsistent judicial interpretations.
Polyvocality Challenge: Different benches may reach different conclusions on similar legal principles.
Need for Coordination: Greater reference to larger Constitution Benches becomes essential for doctrinal consistency.
Can Institutional Reforms Address Pendency More Effectively Than Numerical Expansion?
Filtering Mechanism: Strengthens scrutiny of frivolous litigation, particularly under Article 136.
Case Prioritisation: Ensures only cases involving substantial constitutional questions reach the Supreme Court.
Written Submissions: Reduces prolonged oral arguments and judicial time consumption.
Bench Management: Facilitates better coordination among benches to reduce conflicting rulings.
High Court Empowerment: Encourages High Courts to decisively settle disputes rather than passing litigation upward.
Case Illustration: State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010): Supreme Court stressed that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) must serve genuine public causes and not personal interests.
Can Judicial Appointments Improve Gender Representation?
New Opportunity: Four additional judicial positions create scope for increasing women’s representation.
Gender Gap: High Courts continue to have relatively low numbers of senior women judges.
Transparency Need: Judicial appointments require greater openness and diversity considerations.
Convention Bias: Seniority norms have often disadvantaged women in elevation to higher courts.
Conclusion
Increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges may improve disposal rates and reduce immediate workload pressures, but pendency is fundamentally a structural and institutional challenge rather than a purely numerical one. Sustainable reform requires restoring the Court’s constitutional role through stricter filtering of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), reducing excessive government litigation, strengthening High Courts, improving case management, and ensuring doctrinal consistency. Judicial expansion can facilitate faster justice only when accompanied by systemic reforms that enhance efficiency, coherence, and access to justice.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of the government’s retrospective 28% GST levy on online real-money gaming, reviving tax demands of nearly ₹2.5 lakh crore against gaming companies, fantasy sports platforms, and casinos. The ruling is significant because it overturns relief granted by the Karnataka High Court .
Understanding Online Gaming in India: What is Being Regulated?
Online gaming refers to digital games played over the internet through mobile applications, websites, or gaming platforms.
In India, the sector includes real-money gaming, fantasy sports, skill-based games (rummy, poker), casino-style betting, and casual entertainment gaming.
The regulatory challenge arises because gaming falls at the intersection of technology, taxation, public order, consumer protection, and gambling laws, with different legal treatment depending on the nature of the game.
How is online gaming regulated in India?
Constitutional Position:Betting and gambling fall under the State List (Entry 34, List II, Seventh Schedule), allowing states to enact their own laws. This has created a fragmented regulatory landscape.
Central Regulation: The Union government regulates aspects relating to intermediary liability, digital platforms, taxation, cybersecurity, money laundering, and online content.
IT Rules Framework: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, amended in 2023, introduced provisions for regulation of online real-money games, due diligence by intermediaries, and verification mechanisms.
State-Level Variation: States adopt differing approaches:
Permissive Approach: States such as Sikkim and Nagaland license certain online skill games.
Restrictive Approach: States such as Tamil Nadu and Telangana imposed restrictions on some online money games citing addiction and public welfare concerns.
Tax Regulation: Since October 2023, online gaming, casinos, and horse racing attract 28% GST on the full face value of bets/deposits, rather than only platform commissions.
What is the difference between a ‘Game of Skill’ and a ‘Game of Chance’?
Game of Skill
A game in which success predominantly depends upon a player’s knowledge, training, strategy, judgment, or expertise, even if some chance element exists.
Examples:
Rummy: Recognised by courts as substantially skill-based.
Fantasy Sports (Dream11): Judicial rulings have treated team selection requiring statistical judgment as skill-oriented.
Chess, Bridge, E-sports: Depend primarily on cognitive ability and strategy.
Judicial Position: Courts have held that a game remains one of skill if skill predominates over chance.
Game of Chance
A game in which outcomes depend predominantly on luck, randomness, or uncertain events, with limited influence of player expertise.
Examples:
Roulette
Slot machines
Lottery
Casino gambling
These activities are generally treated as betting or gambling and face stricter regulation.
Why does the skill-versus-chance distinction matter?
Legal Treatment: Games of skill generally receive greater constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/business), whereas gambling may face prohibition.
Taxation: The GST dispute emerged because gaming firms argued that skill-based games should be taxed on Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) rather than total player deposits.
State Regulation: Several states permit skill games while prohibiting gambling and betting.
Consumer Welfare: Governments increasingly view even skill-based money gaming through a public health lens due to addiction concerns.
Why has the Supreme Court verdict become a watershed moment for India’s online gaming sector?
Retrospective Tax Validation: Upholds the constitutional validity of the 28% GST levy retrospectively, reviving tax notices worth approximately ₹2.5 lakh crore against gaming firms, fantasy sports companies, and casinos.
Judicial Finality: Settles a prolonged legal dispute by dismissing petitions filed by gaming companies challenging GST demands and retrospective tax notices.
Reversal of Earlier Relief: Overturns relief granted by the Karnataka High Court to Gameskraft, which had challenged a ₹21,000 crore GST notice.
Massive Fiscal Exposure: Creates unprecedented liabilities for firms such as Dream11, which reportedly faced notices of around ₹40,000 crore, and Delta Corp, which received notices totalling ₹23,204 crore.
How did the dispute over GST liability on online gaming emerge?
Taxation Ambiguity: Emerged from disagreement over whether GST should apply only on platform fees/commissions (Gross Gaming Revenue-GGR) or on the full value of deposits/bets placed by users.
Industry Position: Argued that taxation should apply prospectively from 1 October 2023, following GST Council amendments.
Government Position: Treated real-money gaming involving uncertain outcomes as betting and gambling, irrespective of skill elements.
Skill vs Chance Debate: The industry maintained that games such as fantasy sports and rummy involve skill and should be taxed differently from gambling.
Supreme Court Position: Accepted the government’s interpretation by treating online money gaming involving uncertain outcomes as taxable similarly to betting activities.
Why is taxation on the ‘full face value’ of bets controversial?
Commercial Unsustainability: Imposes GST on the entire deposited amount rather than platform earnings, substantially increasing tax liability.
Revenue Mismatch: Creates tax demands many times higher than cumulative revenues generated by companies.
Retrospective Burden: Applies liabilities to past operations, creating sudden and severe liquidity pressures.
Consumer Pricing Constraints: Restricts firms’ ability to transfer increased tax burdens to users due to market competition and affordability concerns.
Business Viability Risk: Forces firms to reconsider business models, downsize operations, or shift to alternative sectors.
Illustration: A platform earning only a small commission on player deposits may still face taxation on the total deposited amount, sharply inflating liabilities.
Does the verdict strengthen fiscal governance or undermine ease of doing business?
Revenue Protection: Enhances government capacity to prevent tax avoidance and regulatory arbitrage.
Consumer Protection: Aligns with state concerns regarding gambling addiction and financial vulnerability among youth.
Retrospective Taxation Concerns: Raises questions regarding predictability of taxation, a core element of investment confidence.
Ease of Doing Business: Creates apprehensions regarding sudden regulatory shifts affecting emerging digital sectors.
Regulatory Signalling: Indicates stronger state oversight over digital platforms operating in legally grey areas.
How has India’s regulatory approach towards online gaming evolved?
Tax Tightening: GST Council introduced 28% GST on online gaming based on the face value of bets.
Security Concerns: Authorities flagged concerns relating to digital wallets, cryptocurrency-based transfers, illicit fund movement, and money laundering.
National Security Risks: Identified gaming platforms as potential communication channels for organised criminal and extremist activities.
Legal Restrictions: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 introduced strict restrictions on online money gaming platforms.
Financial Restrictions: Prohibits banks and financial institutions from facilitating transactions linked to prohibited platforms.
Penal Consequences: Provides imprisonment and financial penalties for operators, promoters, and facilitators of prohibited gaming activities.
Can India balance innovation in digital gaming with regulatory safeguards?
Regulatory Clarity: Requires a transparent legal distinction between games of skill and games of chance.
Consumer Safeguards: Ensures age verification, spending limits, addiction prevention, and grievance redressal.
Proportionate Taxation: Supports sustainable taxation aligned with actual revenue generation.
Technology Oversight: Strengthens anti-money laundering (AML) and cybersecurity frameworks.
Economic Potential: Recognises gaming as part of India’s digital economy, employment generation, and technology ecosystem.
Federal Coordination: Requires harmonisation between central taxation policies and state gambling laws.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court verdict represents more than a taxation dispute; it signals a decisive shift in India’s governance of emerging digital sectors. While the judgment strengthens regulatory clarity and fiscal oversight, the retrospective nature and scale of tax liabilities raise concerns regarding investment certainty and innovation. India’s challenge lies in designing a framework that simultaneously ensures consumer protection, revenue integrity, and sustainable growth of legitimate digital enterprises.
The Supreme Court on May 21, 2026, clarified that courts may resume proceedings in pending sedition cases under Section 124A of the IPC if the accused voluntarily consent, partially relaxing the 2022 stay order. The development has revived debate over free speech and misuse of sedition while its constitutional validity remains pending before the Court.
What is Sedition?
Sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 historically criminalised acts bringing “hatred, contempt or disaffection” against the government established by law. Although Section 124A stands repealed with the enforcement of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, a comparable provision now exists under Section 152 of the BNS, titled “Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India.” The Supreme Court’s recent clarification primarily concerns pending Section 124A IPC cases, while the constitutional debate has now expanded to include Section 152 of the BNS.
Feature
Section 124A IPC
Section 152 BNS
Law
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
Offence Name
Sedition
Acts Endangering Sovereignty, Unity and Integrity of India
Why has sedition remained controversial since colonial times?
Colonial Origins: Sedition traces back to the Statute of Westminster, 1275, and later became part of British colonial criminal law.
Colonial Instrument: Used by British authorities against Indian nationalists including Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Mahatma Gandhi.
Nehru’s Criticism: Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru described sedition in Parliament (1951) as “highly objectionable and obnoxious.”
Democratic Contradiction: Critics argue sedition criminalises legitimate criticism of government.
Recent Misuse Example: A former independent MP and her husband reportedly faced sedition charges after allegedly threatening to recite the Hanuman Chalisa outside a former Maharashtra Chief Minister’s residence.
How has the Supreme Court’s May 21 clarification altered the status of sedition proceedings?
Judicial Clarification: Permits courts to continue trials, appeals, and proceedings under Section 124A if the accused person voluntarily consents.
Partial Revival: Modifies the effective pause imposed by the Supreme Court’s May 2022 interim order, which had directed governments to refrain from registering fresh FIRs and coercive action under sedition.
Case Illustration: The clarification emerged in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kanhaiya Lal, where accused persons convicted under sedition sought appeal proceedings.
Procedural Shift: Allows High Courts and lower courts to proceed selectively rather than maintaining a blanket suspension.
Why had sedition proceedings been effectively paused since 2022?
Constitutional Challenge: Multiple petitions led by S.G. Vombatkere v. Union of India questioned Section 124A for violating fundamental rights, especially free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Executive Reconsideration: The Union Government informed the Supreme Court in 2022 that it intended to re-examine the sedition provision.
Interim Judicial Protection: The Court expected governments not to register new FIRs, continue investigations, or take coercive action during reconsideration.
Protection Against Misuse: Intended to prevent arbitrary criminalisation of speech while constitutional validity remained unresolved.
How does a consent-based revival create unequal legal consequences?
Legal Disparity: Creates different legal outcomes between accused persons who consent to proceedings and those who refuse due to fear of imprisonment.
Coercive Choice: Places vulnerable accused persons between two difficult outcomes:
Consent to trial: Risk imprisonment under a constitutionally contested law.
Refusal to consent: Remain indefinitely trapped in legal limbo.
Judicial Inconsistency: Produces uneven implementation of Section 124A across courts and states.
Why is prolonged delay in deciding sedition’s constitutionality problematic?
Rule of Law Concerns: Citizens remain subject to prosecution under a law whose constitutional status remains undecided.
Violation of Personal Liberty: Prolonged uncertainty potentially affects Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Administrative Burden: Courts and police continue managing pending cases without legal clarity.
Judicial Delay: The S.G. Vombatkere petitions have remained unresolved for nearly four years despite the law’s immense constitutional significance.
Constitutional Ambiguity: Creates uncertainty regarding permissible limits of dissent and criticism.
What constitutional safeguards currently govern sedition law?
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): Supreme Court upheld sedition but restricted it only to speech involving incitement to violence or public disorder.
Protection of Criticism: Mere criticism of government policies, measures, or actions does not amount to sedition.
Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on free speech in interests of sovereignty, integrity, and public order.
Article 21 Linkage: Excessive restrictions on speech may indirectly affect liberty and dignity.
Judicial Balancing: Courts attempt to reconcile national security with democratic dissent.
Should sedition continue in a constitutional democracy?
Arguments Supporting Retention
National Security: Ensures legal protection against secessionism, violent insurgency, and anti-state mobilisation.
Public Order: Enables state intervention against speech directly inciting violence.
Sovereignty Protection: Addresses organised attempts to destabilise constitutional authority.
Arguments Supporting Repeal
Chilling Effect: Discourages legitimate criticism and democratic dissent.
Colonial Legacy: Retains a law originally designed to suppress anti-colonial voices.
Redundancy: Provisions relating to terrorism, unlawful activity, criminal conspiracy, and incitement to violence already exist.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s clarification on resuming pending Section 124A IPC (sedition) proceedings for consenting accused has reopened concerns over free speech, legal certainty, and constitutional fairness. A democratic constitutional order requires that restrictions on dissent remain narrowly defined, judicially consistent, and proportionate, making an early adjudication on the validity of Section 124A IPC and Section 152 of the BNS, 2023 essential to balance national security with civil liberties.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2014] What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it also cover hate speech? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.
Linkage: This PYQ examines freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions under Article 19, central to the sedition debate. Sedition similarly concerns limits on speech vis-à-vis public order, sovereignty, and democratic dissent.
In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India unanimously upheld the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) authority to conduct a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?
The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a massive, door-to-door voter list verification and clean-up exercise conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI). Its core philosophy is to ensure that “no eligible citizen is left out while no ineligible person is included in the Electoral Roll“.
The ECI typically uses two different methods to maintain voter lists:
Summary Revision (Routine): Done annually or before minor elections. It updates the voter list mostly at a desk level, adding new 18-year-olds or processing forms submitted voluntarily by citizens without visiting every home.
Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An extraordinary, physically demanding exercise. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) must physically visit every single household in a designated region to manually verify the identity and status of every registered voter.
The Step-by-Step SIR Process:
Pre-Enumeration: The ECI prints unique, pre-filled Enumeration Forms (EFs) for every registered voter using existing databases.
House-to-House Verification: Government-appointed Booth Level Officers (BLOs) make at least three distinct visits to every home. They hand over the EFs, help family members link entries with older historical lists, and note down changes.
Data Collection: The BLOs mark down and flag voters who fall into the “ASDD” category: Absent, Shifted, Dead, or Duplicate. New eligible voters are provided Form 6 to register immediately.
Draft and Hearings: A purged “Draft Electoral Roll” is published. Anyone whose name is dropped or flagged is issued an official notice and given a fair hearing to provide supportive documentation (like Aadhaar, government IDs, or old birth records) to prove their eligibility.
Final Roll Publication: Once all claims, disputes, and appeals are legally settled by District Magistrates, the finalized, clean voter list is published.
Why has the Supreme Court upheld Bihar’s SIR as constitutionally valid?
Constitutional Mandate: Recognises that the ECI has a constitutional obligation to conduct free and fair elections, which requires maintaining accurate and updated electoral rolls.
Citizenship Requirement: Affirms that citizenship constitutes a precondition for enrolment in electoral rolls, making scrutiny of citizenship legally permissible during roll revision.
Article 324 Authority: Strengthens the ECI’s powers under Article 324, which grants superintendence, direction, and control over elections.
Electoral Integrity: Accepts that electoral democracy depends not merely on polling but also on accurate voter identification and authentic electoral rolls.
Judicial Validation: Rejects the argument that SIR amounts to a “backdoor citizenship screening exercise”, holding that such verification falls within EC’s legitimate powers.
Why did Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision become politically and legally controversial?
Voter Exclusion Concerns: Critics argued that SIR risked excluding legitimate voters through stringent verification measures.
Citizenship Screening Allegation: Petitioners claimed the exercise indirectly imposed a citizenship verification process under the guise of electoral revision.
Pending Judicial Challenge: The second phase of SIR commenced even while legal challenges remained pending before the Supreme Court, intensifying political contestation.
Political Opposition: Opposition parties termed the verdict a setback for electoral inclusiveness and democratic participation.
Federal Implications: Concerns emerged regarding possible replication of such exercises in other States, potentially altering electoral politics.
What constitutional and legal reasoning did the Supreme Court rely upon?
Electoral Roll Purity: The Court held that maintaining a clean electoral roll remains essential to constitutional democracy.
Constitutional Competence: Recognised ECI’s authority to examine citizenship issues only for electoral enrolment purposes, without replacing statutory citizenship authorities.
Citizenship Adjudication: Clarified that disputed citizenship cases requiring determination under the Citizenship Act, 1955 must be referred to competent authorities.
Representation of the People Framework: Linked EC’s powers to the Representation of the People Act, 1950, governing electoral registration.
Judicial Interpretation of Article 324: Expanded the interpretation of Article 324 as a continuous supervisory power extending beyond election-day management.
How serious were inaccuracies in Bihar’s electoral rolls that justified the SIR exercise?
Large-Scale Migration: The Court recognised substantial migration patterns affecting voter records.
Demographic Change: Acknowledged shifts in population and residence affecting electoral eligibility.
Death and Non-reporting: Identified failures in removing deceased voters due to inadequate reporting systems.
Massive Scale of Electoral Revision: Bihar’s final electoral roll published in September 2024 recorded nearly 7.42 crore electors, compared with approximately 7.89 crore voters notified in June 2025, indicating substantial revision.
Purged Voter Data: Around 65 lakh electors were reportedly excluded after verification, making the exercise politically sensitive and administratively significant.
Does the judgment expand the Election Commission’s institutional power?
Institutional Strengthening: Enhances EC’s constitutional legitimacy in undertaking intensive roll verification exercises.
Supervisory Expansion: Interprets Article 324 broadly to include continuous oversight over electoral machinery.
Administrative Responsibility: Places responsibility on ECI to balance electoral purity with inclusiveness.
Future Precedent: Creates judicial precedent for similar voter verification exercises in other States.
Accountability Requirement: Simultaneously requires procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary deletions or disenfranchisement.
What concerns remain regarding the implementation of SIR?
Risk of Exclusion: Vulnerable populations, migrants, marginalised communities, and those lacking documents may face exclusion risks.
Documentation Challenges: Citizenship and residence verification may disproportionately burden poorer citizens.
Administrative Discretion: Excessive discretion by local officials may produce errors or politically motivated exclusions.
Electoral Trust Deficit: Perceived bias in revision exercises may reduce confidence in electoral neutrality.
Democratic Balance: Ensures electoral integrity but requires safeguards to preserve universal franchise.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s endorsement of Bihar’s SIR reinforces the Election Commission’s constitutional authority to preserve electoral integrity through accurate voter rolls. However, the legitimacy of such exercises will depend on procedural fairness, transparency, and safeguards against wrongful exclusion. The challenge lies in balancing electoral purity with inclusive democratic participation.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2022] Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct
Linkage: This question links to the constitutional powers and institutional autonomy of the ECI under Article 324, which the present judgment substantially expands in the context of electoral roll verification.
