💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Judiciary

  • The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its

    The power of the Supreme Court of India to decide disputes between the Centre and the States falls under its:

  • Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India

    Who/Which of the following is the custodian of the Constitution of India?

  • In India, Judicial Review implies

    In India, Judicial Review implies

  • With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following

    With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

  • With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements

    With reference to the Constitution of India, consider the following statements:

    1. No High Court shall have the jurisdiction to declare any central law to be constitutionally invalid.
    2. An amendment to the Constitution of India cannot be called into question by the Supreme Court of India.

    Which of the statements given above is / are correct?

  • In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens

    In India, Legal Services Authorities provide free legal services to which of the following type of citizens?
    1. Person with an annual income of less than Rs 1,00,000
    2. Transgender with an annual income of less than Rs 2,00,000
    3. Member of Other Backward Classes (OBC) with an annual income of less than ₹ 3,00,000
    4. All Senior Citizens
    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  • With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements

    With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission from the President of India.
    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment, as the Supreme Court does.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • With reference to India, consider the following statements

    With reference to India, consider the following statements :
    1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
    2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

  • [29th May 2026] The Hindu OpED: Will increasing the strength of the SC solve the pendency problem

    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?

    1. Article 124(1): Establishes the Supreme Court and provides for a Chief Justice of India (CJI) and other judges.
    2. Parliamentary Power: The Constitution does not fix a permanent number of judges. It authorises Parliament to determine the number of judges by law.
    3. 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?

    1. Ordinary Legislation: Increase in judicial strength requires amendment of the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956.
    2. No Constitutional Amendment Required: Since Article 124 empowers Parliament, increase occurs through ordinary parliamentary legislation, not a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
    3. Recent Change (2025): Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2025, increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges.
    4. 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?

    YearStrength of SC Judges
    19508 (including CJI)
    195611
    196014
    197718
    198626
    200931
    201934
    202538

    What Does This Trend Indicate?

    1. Rising Caseload: Expansion reflects increasing litigation and constitutional responsibilities.
    2. Persistent Pendency: Repeated increases have not prevented rising backlog, indicating structural inefficiencies beyond numerical shortage.
    3. 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?

    1. Judicial Capacity: Increasing sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 judges enhances disposal capacity and may reduce waiting time for hearings.
    2. Limited Impact: Pendency of nearly 94,000 cases suggests backlog is structural rather than merely numerical.
    3. Historical Continuity: Successive governments have periodically increased judicial strength, yet pendency continues to rise.
    4. Institutional Limitation: More judges do not automatically improve efficiency unless accompanied by procedural reforms.
    5. 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?

    1. Constitutional Design: The Supreme Court was envisioned primarily as a constitutional court, dealing with substantial constitutional interpretation.
    2. Article 136 Expansion: The Court’s extraordinary power under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) has expanded its jurisdiction significantly.
    3. 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.
    4. Judicial Observation (2016): A Constitution Bench refused to restrict Article 136, observing that no effort should be made to reduce the Court’s powers.
    5. Consequences: Excessive appellate workload diverts attention from constitutional matters of national significance.

    Do Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Contribute to Judicial Backlog?

    1. Extraordinary Remedy: SLPs were designed as exceptional remedies under Article 136 for rare cases involving grave injustice.
    2. Judicial Overreach of Scope: SLPs now dominate a substantial portion of Supreme Court litigation.
    3. Absence of Guidelines: Lack of strict admission standards has encouraged indiscriminate filing.
    4. Case Example: Vijaya Bank v. Prashant B. Narnaware: A contractual employment dispute reached the Supreme Court despite involving issues more suited for lower courts.
    5. Constitutional Concern: Excessive admission of routine matters dilutes the Court’s constitutional focus.

    Does Government Litigation Worsen Judicial Pendency?

    1. Largest Litigant: Governments remain among the largest litigants in Indian courts.
    2. National Litigation Policy Failure: The proposed National Litigation Policy (NLP) aimed to reduce avoidable government litigation but was never effectively implemented.
    3. Routine Appeals Culture: Government departments frequently pursue appeals even in settled legal matters.
    4. Administrative Inconsistency: Frequent changes in legal officers produce contradictory litigation strategies.
    5. Institutional Burden: Excessive state appeals consume judicial time and prolong case disposal.
    6. 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?

    1. Expanded Bench Strength: More judges imply greater number of division benches.
    2. Potential Benefit: Greater benches may increase disposal rates and reduce waiting time.
    3. Risk of Fragmentation: Larger bench numbers may generate inconsistent judicial interpretations.
    4. Polyvocality Challenge: Different benches may reach different conclusions on similar legal principles.
    5. Need for Coordination: Greater reference to larger Constitution Benches becomes essential for doctrinal consistency.

    Can Institutional Reforms Address Pendency More Effectively Than Numerical Expansion?

    1. Filtering Mechanism: Strengthens scrutiny of frivolous litigation, particularly under Article 136.
    2. Case Prioritisation: Ensures only cases involving substantial constitutional questions reach the Supreme Court.
    3. Written Submissions: Reduces prolonged oral arguments and judicial time consumption.
    4. Bench Management: Facilitates better coordination among benches to reduce conflicting rulings.
    5. High Court Empowerment: Encourages High Courts to decisively settle disputes rather than passing litigation upward.
    6. 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?

    1. New Opportunity: Four additional judicial positions create scope for increasing women’s representation.
    2. Gender Gap: High Courts continue to have relatively low numbers of senior women judges.
    3. Transparency Need: Judicial appointments require greater openness and diversity considerations.
    4. 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.

  • Why SC online gaming tax verdict could be a final death blow to sector

    Why in the News?

    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?

    1. Online gaming refers to digital games played over the internet through mobile applications, websites, or gaming platforms.
    2. In India, the sector includes real-money gaming, fantasy sports, skill-based games (rummy, poker), casino-style betting, and casual entertainment gaming. 
    3. 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?

    1. 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.
    2. Central Regulation: The Union government regulates aspects relating to intermediary liability, digital platforms, taxation, cybersecurity, money laundering, and online content.
    3. 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.
    4. State-Level Variation: States adopt differing approaches:
      1. Permissive Approach: States such as Sikkim and Nagaland license certain online skill games.
      2. Restrictive Approach: States such as Tamil Nadu and Telangana imposed restrictions on some online money games citing addiction and public welfare concerns.
    5. 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

    1. A game in which success predominantly depends upon a player’s knowledge, training, strategy, judgment, or expertise, even if some chance element exists.
    2. Examples:
      1. Rummy: Recognised by courts as substantially skill-based.
      2. Fantasy Sports (Dream11): Judicial rulings have treated team selection requiring statistical judgment as skill-oriented.
      3. Chess, Bridge, E-sports: Depend primarily on cognitive ability and strategy.
      4. Judicial Position: Courts have held that a game remains one of skill if skill predominates over chance.

    Game of Chance

    1. A game in which outcomes depend predominantly on luck, randomness, or uncertain events, with limited influence of player expertise.
    2. Examples:
      1. Roulette
      2. Slot machines
      3. Lottery
      4. Casino gambling
    3. These activities are generally treated as betting or gambling and face stricter regulation.

    Why does the skill-versus-chance distinction matter?

    1. Legal Treatment: Games of skill generally receive greater constitutional protection under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/business), whereas gambling may face prohibition.
    2. 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.
    3. State Regulation: Several states permit skill games while prohibiting gambling and betting.
    4. 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?

    1. 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.
    2. Judicial Finality: Settles a prolonged legal dispute by dismissing petitions filed by gaming companies challenging GST demands and retrospective tax notices.
    3. Reversal of Earlier Relief: Overturns relief granted by the Karnataka High Court to Gameskraft, which had challenged a ₹21,000 crore GST notice.
    4. 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?

    1. 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.
    2. Industry Position: Argued that taxation should apply prospectively from 1 October 2023, following GST Council amendments.
    3. Government Position: Treated real-money gaming involving uncertain outcomes as betting and gambling, irrespective of skill elements.
    4. Skill vs Chance Debate: The industry maintained that games such as fantasy sports and rummy involve skill and should be taxed differently from gambling.
    5. 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?

    1. Commercial Unsustainability: Imposes GST on the entire deposited amount rather than platform earnings, substantially increasing tax liability.
    2. Revenue Mismatch: Creates tax demands many times higher than cumulative revenues generated by companies.
    3. Retrospective Burden: Applies liabilities to past operations, creating sudden and severe liquidity pressures.
    4. Consumer Pricing Constraints: Restricts firms’ ability to transfer increased tax burdens to users due to market competition and affordability concerns.
    5. Business Viability Risk: Forces firms to reconsider business models, downsize operations, or shift to alternative sectors.
    6. 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?

    1. Tax Certainty: Strengthens clarity by resolving prolonged legal ambiguity regarding GST treatment.
    2. Revenue Protection: Enhances government capacity to prevent tax avoidance and regulatory arbitrage.
    3. Consumer Protection: Aligns with state concerns regarding gambling addiction and financial vulnerability among youth.
    4. Retrospective Taxation Concerns: Raises questions regarding predictability of taxation, a core element of investment confidence.
    5. Ease of Doing Business: Creates apprehensions regarding sudden regulatory shifts affecting emerging digital sectors.
    6. Regulatory Signalling: Indicates stronger state oversight over digital platforms operating in legally grey areas.

    How has India’s regulatory approach towards online gaming evolved?

    1. Tax Tightening: GST Council introduced 28% GST on online gaming based on the face value of bets.
    2. Security Concerns: Authorities flagged concerns relating to digital wallets, cryptocurrency-based transfers, illicit fund movement, and money laundering.
    3. National Security Risks: Identified gaming platforms as potential communication channels for organised criminal and extremist activities.
    4. Legal Restrictions: The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming (PROG) Act, 2025 introduced strict restrictions on online money gaming platforms.
    5. Financial Restrictions: Prohibits banks and financial institutions from facilitating transactions linked to prohibited platforms.
    6. 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?

    1. Regulatory Clarity: Requires a transparent legal distinction between games of skill and games of chance.
    2. Consumer Safeguards: Ensures age verification, spending limits, addiction prevention, and grievance redressal.
    3. Proportionate Taxation: Supports sustainable taxation aligned with actual revenue generation.
    4. Technology Oversight: Strengthens anti-money laundering (AML) and cybersecurity frameworks.
    5. Economic Potential: Recognises gaming as part of India’s digital economy, employment generation, and technology ecosystem.
    6. 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.