SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has ruled that age limits prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 do not apply retrospectively to couples who had frozen their embryos and initiated the surrogacy process before January 25, 2022, the date when the law came into effect.
Case Background:
Petitions: Filed by three couples who had undergone IVF and frozen embryos before Jan 25, 2022, when the Surrogacy Act came into effect.
Issue: They became ineligible under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) (age limits: women 23â50, men 26â55).
Argument: Since embryos were created pre-2022, the process was already initiated and could not be retrospectively invalidated.
Court’s View: Recognised embryo freezing as a lawful start to surrogacy; held that new age restrictions cannot retroactively disqualify such couples.
Supreme Courtâs Observations and Constitutional Findings:
No Retrospective Disqualification: The age restrictions introduced by the 2021 law cannot apply retrospectively to cases where medical procedures had already begun.
Equality in Conception Modes: Justice Nagarathna emphasised that couples conceiving through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) must enjoy the same constitutional protection as those conceiving naturally.
Article 21 & Reproductive Autonomy: The Court reaffirmed that the right to reproductive choice including IVF, ART, or surrogacy, forms part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21.
Article 14 & Equality Before Law: Retrospective age-based exclusion was termed arbitrary and unreasonable, amounting to a violation of equality.
Parenting Competence Argument Rejected: The Court rejected the notion that older parents are inherently less capable, stating that state authorities cannot retrospectively judge parenting ability once medical procedures have been initiated lawfully.
Non-Retroactivity Principle: Reinforced the rule that unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, it operates prospectively.
Precedent Applied: Relied on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Court recognised reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity as constitutionally protected rights.
Back2Basics: Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021
Objective: To regulate surrogacy, prevent commercial exploitation, and ensure ethical, altruistic surrogacy based solely on medical necessity.
Legislative Intent: To promote ethical medical practices, protect the rights of surrogate mothers and children, and curb commercialisation while respecting constitutional morality and reproductive dignity.
Applicability: Extends to all surrogacy cases involving Indian citizens and permanent residents, and works alongside the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Key Provisions:
Type Permitted: Only altruistic surrogacy (no payment except medical expenses).
Eligibility for Couples: Married for at least five years; woman 23â50 yrs, man 26â55 yrs; no living biological, adopted, or surrogate child.
Single Women: Only widows or divorcees (35â45 yrs) are eligible; unmarried women excluded (under legal challenge).
Surrogate Requirements: Must be a close relative, married, with at least one biological child; age 25â35 years.
Certification: Requires Certificate of Essentiality, infertility proof, parentage order, and insurance for the surrogate.
Penalties: Commercial surrogacy banned; violation punishable by up to 10 yearsâ imprisonment and âš10 lakh fine.
Regulatory Bodies: Establishment of National and State Surrogacy Boards for implementation and oversight.
Issues Highlighted by the Supreme Court:
Absence of Transitional Provisions: The 2021 Act lacks a âgrandfather clauseâ protecting couples already in process before its commencement.
Inconsistent Standards: The Court questioned why adoption laws have no upper age limit, while surrogacy does, creating unequal treatment among parents.
Gender Discrimination: Restricting surrogacy access to only married couples and excluding unmarried women was flagged as a potential Article 14 violation.
Fundamental Rights Impact: Retrospective restrictions infringe upon the right to equality and reproductive freedom under Articles 14 and 21.
State Overreach: The Court cautioned that the stateâs intent to protect child welfare cannot override individual liberty or invalidate rights exercised under prior legal norms.
Significance of the Judgment:
Reinforcement of Reproductive Rights: Confirms that assisted reproduction and surrogacy fall within the ambit of reproductive autonomy and personal liberty.
Protection Against Legal Injustice: Shields couples who initiated lawful medical procedures from retrospective disqualification.
Constitutional Precedent: Establishes that statutory changes cannot nullify pre-existing lawful rights, strengthening Indiaâs jurisprudence on non-retroactivity.
Judicial Balance: Maintains a balance between ethical regulation of surrogacy and protection of individual autonomy.
Wider Applicability: Permits similarly placed couples to seek relief before respective High Courts, widening the rulingâs scope.
Affirmation of Constitutional Morality: The Court underscored that justice, equity, and good conscience must guide interpretation where legislation creates unintended inequities.
[UPSC 2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that women of the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, are entitled to inherit ancestral property, even where no explicit tribal custom confers this right.
Supreme Court Verdict on Gond Womenâs Inheritance Rights:
Background: Case concerned women of the Gond Scheduled Tribe seeking equal inheritance rights over their maternal grandfatherâs ancestral property.
Lower Court Rulings: The trial court and Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea, holding that no tribal custom granted such rights and placing the burden of proof on the women.
Supreme Court Review: On 17 July 2025, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi examined whether constitutional equality overrides unwritten tribal customs excluding women from succession.
Legal Context: Under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Scheduled Tribes are excluded unless specifically notifiedânone apply to Gondsâso the dispute was governed by customary tribal law.
Supreme Courtâs Ruling:
Presumption of Equality: The Court reversed lower findings, holding that equality must be presumed unless a proven, valid custom denies it.
Burden of Proof: Stated that custom cannot be presumed; it must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, proven through credible evidence.
Gender Justice: Rejected patriarchal inferences drawn from Hindu traditions, asserting such predispositions have âno placeâ in the case.
Guiding Principle: In absence of valid custom, courts must decide per âjustice, equity, and good conscience.â
Article 15(1):Â Prohibits sex-based discrimination; used to strike down exclusion of women.
Article 38: Mandates elimination of inequality across social and gender lines.
Article 46:Â Requires protection of Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and injustice.
Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cited for illustrating gender-equal intent, not direct applicability.
ConstitutionalâCustomary Balance:
Conflict: Between tribal autonomy under Fifth/Sixth Schedules and constitutional equality under Part III.
Precedent Shift: Unlike Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), which upheld male-only inheritance, the 2025 ruling held that when custom is unproven or discriminatory, Article 14 prevails.
Significance: Moves jurisprudence from deference to custom toward enforcement of constitutional morality, ensuring tribal womenâs equal property rights.
[UPSC 2023] Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws.
[UPSC 2015] Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The Supreme Court rejected a plea against a religious leader inaugurating Mysuru Dasara, reminding that the Preamble upholds secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as core ideals of unity.
Backgrounder:
The Karnataka government invited Banu Mushtaq, 2025 International Booker Prize winner, to inaugurate Mysuru Dasara Festival and perform the pooja.
A 2023 video resurfaced where she questioned the worship of Goddess Bhuvaneshwari, sparking controversy.
BJP and others opposed the invite, for her selective criticism of Hindu rituals and demanded withdrawal of the invite sent to her.
Supreme Courtâs Observations:
Secular Character: The Court reminded that the Preamble enshrines secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as unifying ideals.
Stateâs Neutrality: Dasara inauguration was a State event, not a private ritual. The State âmaintains no religion of its ownâ (echoing M. Ismail Faruqui, 1994).
Key Precedents Recalled:
Kesavananda Bharati (1973) & S.R. Bommai (1994): Secularism = basic feature of the Constitution.
R.C. Poudyal (1994): Even before âsecularâ was inserted (42nd Amendment, 1976), the Constitution upheld equal treatment of all faiths.
Dr. Balram Singh v. UOI (2024): State can intervene to curb religious practices impeding equality & development.
About the Preamble:
Nature: Introductory statement; reflects philosophy, vision, and objectives.
Origin: Based on Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 1946); adopted 1947.
Declarations: India as Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic ensuring Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.
Symbolism:
Source of Authority: âWe, the People of India.â
Nature of State: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic.
Amendment of the Preamble:
Permissible: Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) has held that Preamble is part of Constitution and can be amended without violating Basic Structure.
Only Amendment:42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 (during Emergency).
Added âSocialistâ and âSecularâ between Sovereign and Democratic.
Added âIntegrityâ to Unity of the Nation.
Key Judicial Pronouncements:
Berubari Union Case (1960): Preamble not a part of the Constitution; only a tool for interpretation.
Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Overruled Berubari; Preamble is part of the Constitution, embodies basic structure but cannot override provisions.
S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Secularism upheld as basic feature of the Constitution.
LIC of India Case (1995): Reaffirmed Preamble as integral, but non-justiciable (not enforceable in court).
[UPSC 2020] The Preamble to the Constitution of India is:
Options: (a) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect
(b) not a part of the Constitution and has no legal effect either
(c) part of the Constitution and has the same legal effect as any other part
(d) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts*
The Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted a double murder convict citing legal insanity under Section 84 of the IPC (Section 22 BNS), stressing the need to distinguish it from medical insanity and improve mental health investigations.
About Legal Insanity:
Definition: Legal insanity refers to a mental condition where the accused cannot understand the nature of the act or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offence.
Legal Basis: Codified under Section 22 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (formerly Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860); based on the McâNaughten Rule (1843) from English law.
Presumption of Sanity: Law presumes every person is sane unless proven otherwise; burden of proof lies on the accused (Section 105, Indian Evidence Act).
Timing Requirement: Insanity must be present at the time of the offenceânot before or after.
Legal vs. Medical Insanity: Legal insanity (court-recognised) is different from medical insanity (clinical diagnosis); only the former is valid for defence.
Terminology: Section 22 BNS uses the phrase âunsoundness of mindâ instead of âinsanityâ.
Exclusions: Mental illness, abnormal behaviour, or psychiatric history alone do not qualify.
Test Applied: Based on cognitive incapacityâwhether the person knew the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness (legal or moral) of the act.
Underlying Principle: Based on âActus non facit reum nisi mens sit reaâ â no crime without a guilty mind.
Important Judicial Precedents:
Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration (1969): Insanity defence rejectedâaccused made rational statements and showed no mental disorder post-crime.
Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra (2002): Accused had paranoid schizophrenia and was found incapable of understanding the actâacquitted under Section 84.
Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011): Court held that not all mentally ill persons qualify; only proven legal insanity is valid.
Kamala Bhuniya v. State of West Bengal (2015): Acquittal grantedâprosecution failed to prove sanity; accusedâs conduct supported unsoundness of mind.
[UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
1.When a prisoner makes out a sufficient case, parole cannot be denied to such a prisoner because it becomes a matter of his/her right. 2.State Governments have their own Prisoners Release on Parole Rules.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
The Honâble Supreme Court has ruled that any law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be considered an act of contempt of court.
Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Issue:
Context: The Court heard a 2012 contempt plea, alleging that the Chhattisgarh government violated its 2011 ruling against supporting Salwa Judum and arming tribals as SPOs.
Disputed Law: Petitioners argued the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011 violated the earlier ruling.
Courtâs Clarification: Passing a new law is within the plenary powers of legislatures and cannot be treated as contempt unless declared unconstitutional.
Proper Remedy: The correct approach is to challenge the lawâs validity, not to file for contempt.
Separation of Powers: The Court upheld that legislature can modify or override judgments through new laws, if they respect constitutional boundaries.
About Contempt of Court:
Purpose: Contempt of court refers to actions or behaviors that are disrespectful to, or that obstruct or interfere with, the administration of justice by a court. It protects the authority and dignity of the judiciary from acts that obstruct or interfere with justice.
Constitutional Basis:
Article 129 allows the Supreme Court to punish for its own contempt.
Article 215 grants the same power to High Courts.
Article 19(2) permits reasonable speech restrictions for contempt cases.
Legal Definition: The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines contempt; the 2006 amendment allows truth and good faith as defences.
Types:
Civil Contempt is the wilful disobedience of court orders.
Criminal Contempt involves actions that scandalise the court, interfere with proceedings, or obstruct justice.
Punishment: Offenders may face up to 6 months imprisonment, or a âš2,000 fine, or both.
What Is Not Contempt: Fair reporting and genuine criticism of judgments after disposal are not considered contempt.
[UPSC 2022] Consider the following statements:
1. Pursuant to the report of H.N. Sanyal Committee, the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was passed.
2. The Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court and the High Courts to punish for contempt of themselves.
3. The Constitution of India defines Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
4. In India, the Parliament is vested with the powers to make laws on Contempt of Court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 4* (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 3 only
The Golaknath case (IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967) is one of the most important judgments in Indiaâs constitutional history. It was the first time the Supreme Court said that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.
About the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case:
Case Name: IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history.
Background: The Golaknath family from Punjab challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which declared their land surplus under land ceiling laws.
Claim of Violation: They argued the law violated their Fundamental Right to property, protected under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
Ninth Schedule Issue: The Act was placed under the Ninth Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment, making it immune to judicial review.
Main Legal Question: Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, or are such amendments invalid under Article 13(2)?
Arguments: The petitioners claimed Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct, while the government asserted Parliamentâs full power to amend the Constitution.
Supreme Court Verdict: On February 27, 1967, in a 6:5 majority, the Court held that:
Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
Amendments are âlawâ and subject to Article 13(2).
The ruling would apply only prospectively, not to past amendments.
Overruled Judgments: The decision overturned earlier rulings in Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964) that allowed unrestricted amendments.
Legacy of the Golaknath Case:
Judicial Restraint on Parliament: This was the first case to restrict Parliamentâs power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Judiciaryâs Role Strengthened: It reinforced the Supreme Courtâs duty to protect civil liberties and limit legislative overreach.
Prospective Overruling: Introduced the concept to ensure legal stability without undoing past amendments.
Constitutional Values Upheld: Affirmed that the Constitution has core values that must be protected, especially Fundamental Rights.
Influence on Future Cases:
Indira Gandhi Election Case (1975): Built upon the idea that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills Case (1980): Reaffirmed limits on Parliamentâs amending power and emphasised judicial review.
Foundational Impact: Although later rulings allowed some flexibility, the Golaknath case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Lasting Message: It ensured that Fundamental Rights remain untouchable, securing the heart of Indian democracy against future misuse.
[UPSC 2018] Consider the following statements:
1.The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.
2.The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court, and no judgment can be made on it.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Options: (a) 1 only *(b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
The Supreme Court of India ruled that 86,400 hectares of Zudpi Jungle lands in Eastern Vidarbha, Maharashtra, should be treated as forest land. However, existing structures (built before December 12, 1996) such as schools, homes, graveyards, and government offices were allowed to remain.
About Zudpi Jungles:
Location and Meaning: They are lands located in the eastern Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. The term âZudpiâ is Marathi for shrubs or bushes.
Vegetation and Soil: These lands have low-quality vegetation, mostly shrubs and dry plants. The soil, called Murmadi soil, is arid, filled with gravel and soft stones, and unsuitable for large trees.
Ecological Role: Despite sparse growth, Zudpi lands are ecologically important as wildlife corridors, allowing animals to move safely between forest patches.
Geographic Spread: Found in 6 Vidarbha districts: Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli.
Conservation Status: The Maharashtra government has treated them as forests since the 1980s. In 1987, it requested the Environment Ministry to exempt Zudpi lands from the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, acknowledging their forest-like value.
Biodiversity Importance: Environmental experts stress that small forest patches like this help maintain biodiversity and ecological balance.
Definition of Forests as per the Godavarman Case (1996):
Case Background: The T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India case began in 1995 over illegal deforestation in Tamil Nadu’s Nilgiris, leading to a landmark 1996 Supreme Court ruling.
Expanded Definition: The Court ruled that âforestâ includes all areas with forest-like features, not just those recorded as forest in official documents.
Included Areas: This includes private lands, plantations, uncategorized jungle lands, and corporate forests with significant vegetation.
Basis of Definition: It adopted the dictionary meaning of forest â âa large area covered chiefly with trees and undergrowth.â
Legal Protection: All such lands, regardless of ownership, are protected under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
Doctrine of Public Trust: The ruling applied this doctrine, stating the government must safeguard natural resources for current and future generations.
Constitutional Links: The Court linked environmental protection to Article 21 (Right to Life) and Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect forests and wildlife.
Impact: It brought millions of hectares of land under forest protection laws, creating a uniform national standard for forest classification and aiding conservation efforts.
[UPSC 2012] A particular State in India has the following characteristics:
1. It is located on the same latitude which passes through northern Rajasthan.
2. It has over 80% of its area under forest cover.
3. Over 12% of forest cover constitutes the Protected Area Network in this State.
Which one among the following States has all the above characteristics?
Recently, the Supreme Court struck down two orders from the Environment Ministry that had allowed industries to operate even after breaking environmental rules.
What did the Supreme Court strike down as illegal?
Notifications allowing industries to bypass prior environmental clearance: The Court struck down two Union Environment Ministry notifications that permitted industrial units to set up or expand operations without prior government approval, violating the core principle of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Eg: Industries were allowed to operate or change manufacturing practices without the mandatory prior environmental clearance.
Regularisation of violations through executive orders without parliamentary approval: The notifications enabled projects violating environmental laws to seek regularisation by paying fines, issued through executive orders instead of amending the Environment Protection Act (EIA), 2006 via Parliament. Eg: The 2017 âone-timeâ window and 2021 standard operating procedure allowed violative industries to avoid penalties by applying for clearance retrospectively.
Why did the Centre allow industries to bypass prior clearance?
One-time window for regularisation: In 2017, the Centre provided a âone-timeâ six-month window for industries without proper environmental clearances to apply retroactively.
Avoid disruption of economic activities: The Centre wanted to prevent the demolition of functioning plants that contribute to the economy and employment, as shutting them down abruptly could be disruptive.
Legal precedent for balanced approach: The government cited court rulings supporting a âbalancedâ approach in cases of violations, emphasizing regularisation over punitive action when feasible.
Heavy fines as deterrent: The 2021 standard operating procedure imposed heavy fines on violative projects applying for clearance, intending to discourage violations while still allowing formalisation.
Procedural challenges with previous attempts: Earlier attempts by the UPA government (2012-13) to regularise such projects were struck down by courts on procedural grounds, prompting the Centre to try executive orders as a workaround. Eg: The Jharkhand High Court and National Green Tribunal nullified prior regularisation efforts due to procedural flaws.
Who is impacted by the Courtâs verdict?
Industries regularised under 2017 and 2021 orders remain unaffected: Companies that used the one-time window or the standard operating procedure to regularise violations before the verdict will not face penalties due to the Courtâs ruling.
Future industrial projects must strictly follow prior clearance: The verdict reaffirms that all new or expanding projects must obtain mandatory prior environmental clearance, impacting industries planning to start or modify operations.
Regional environmental boards are under scrutiny: The ruling highlights the failure of local enforcement agencies to prevent illegal operations, signaling the need for better monitoring and compliance at the regional level. Eg: State pollution control boards will face greater pressure to enforce environmental laws rigorously.
Way forward:Â
Strengthen enforcement: Empower and equip regional pollution control boards to rigorously monitor and ensure strict compliance with environmental clearance norms.
Streamline clearance process: Simplify and expedite the prior environmental clearance procedure to balance industrial growth with environmental protection, reducing incentives for violations.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2023] The most significant achievement of modern law in India in the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court. Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws.
Linkage: The “constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court,” which refers to how the judiciary, through interpretation (often linking environmental protection to fundamental rights like the Right to Life under Article 21), has played a significant role in shaping environmental law and policy in India.
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Remission
Why in the News?
In a historic judgment, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that prisoners eligible for remission under state policies must be considered for release even if they do not apply for it.
This decision comes as part of the suo motu case “In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail”, initiated in 2021 to address prison overcrowding.
Supreme Courtâs Ruling: Key Takeaways
The SC overruled its earlier stance in:
Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) â Held that remission was not automatic and required a convictâs application.
Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) â Ruled that courts cannot grant remission suo motu.
The new ruling recognizes the existence of remission policies in states and holds that:
Prison superintendents must initiate remission proceedings for eligible convicts.
Failure to consider eligible prisoners for remission violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
What is Remission?
Remission refers to the reduction of a prison sentence without altering the conviction.
It is different from pardon or commutation, which may involve modifying or canceling the sentence entirely.
Legal Provisions on Remission
The power of remission is governed by:
Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023(formerly Section 432 of CrPC) â Grants state governments the power to remit sentences at any time under specific conditions.
Section 475 of BNSS(formerly Section 433A of CrPC) â Prevents remission for life convicts guilty of crimes punishable by death until they serve at least 14 years.
Articles 72 & 161 of the Constitution â Provide remission powers to the President and Governors at the Union and State levels.
Earlier, remission was initiated only when a prisoner applied for it, but the new ruling removes this necessity if states already have structured remission policies.
Impact of the Ruling on Prison Reforms
Indiaâs prison population far exceeds capacity, with a 131.4% occupancy rate (2022 NCRB data).
Over 75% of prisoners are undertrialsâthis ruling may not directly help them, but it could ease congestion by enabling timely release of eligible convicts.
The new ruling ensures all eligible prisoners get equal consideration, preventing biases in prison administration.
International standards (like UN Nelson Mandela Rules) emphasize prisoner rights and rehabilitation.
The judgment upholds fairness and reintegration into society.
PYQ:
[2014] Instances of the Presidentâs delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse.
ExplainedSC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Reservation in India; Fundamental Right;
Why in the News?
Recently, the Supreme Court stated that reservation is not a fundamental right. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution allow the government to provide reservations, but they do not make it mandatory. However, if the government decides not to give reservations, it must have valid reasons and supporting data to justify its decision.
What is the legal status of reservation in India?
Constitutional provisions:Â
Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Article 16(4) enables the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for SCs and STs.
Article 16(4A), introduced via the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, empowers the government to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in public services. This was later modified by the 85th Amendment in 2001 to include consequential seniority.
Article 338B gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
Article 342A empowers the President to notify the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for any state or union territory, which can only be amended by Parliament.
Article 46 states that the State shall promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.
Judicial precedence:Â
Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras (1951): The Supreme Court ruled against communal reservations, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(4).
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court capped caste-based reservations at 50%, ruling that reservations should not destroy the concept of equality. It also mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation benefits and stated that there should not be reservation in promotions.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) but stated that any reservation policy must ensure the SC/ST community is socially and educationally backward, not adequately represented in public employment, and that such policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from unreserved classes, even if it exceeds the 50% limit on total reservations.
Under what conditions can the state deny or grant reservations?
Based on Quantifiable Data: The State must collect quantifiable data to assess the underrepresentation of backward classes before granting reservations. Example:M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required the government to prove inadequate representation before providing reservations in promotions.
No Arbitrary Decisions: Reservations cannot be granted or denied arbitrarily and they must be backed by valid reasoning and legal justification. Example: The Supreme Court ruled in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) that reservation policies should be rational and not violate the right to equality.
Transparency in Public Employment: The government must clearly specify reservation details (total posts, reserved/unreserved categories) in job advertisements. If no reservation is provided, it must be justified. Example: The Supreme Court struck down a 2010 recruitment process in Palamu, Jharkhand for failing to mention reservation details, deeming it non-transparent.
How does the Supreme Court balance reservation with equality and fairness?
Reservations Are Enabling, Not Mandatory: The Court clarifies that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, meaning the State may grant reservations but is not obligated to do so.
Ensuring No Arbitrary Decisions: The State must base its decision on quantifiable data regarding underrepresentation. Arbitrary refusal or granting of reservations is unconstitutional.
50% Ceiling on Reservations: As per the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), reservations should not exceed 50%, ensuring fair opportunities for all, unless exceptional circumstances justify exceeding the limit.
Merit and Social Justice Balance: The Court emphasizes that reservation should uplift disadvantaged groups without compromising meritocracy in public employment and education.
Judicial Scrutiny to Prevent Abuse: Courts can strike down reservation policies if they are found to be politically motivated, lacking empirical justification, or violating Articles 14 and 16 (equality in public employment).
Way forward:Â
Data-Driven Reservation Policies: The government should ensure periodic empirical assessment of backwardness and representation to justify reservations, preventing misuse and ensuring targeted benefits.
Balancing Merit and Affirmative Action: Strengthen skill development, education, and economic empowerment programs to reduce long-term reliance on reservations while ensuring fair representation in public employment and education.
Mains PYQ:
Q Why are the tribals in India referred to as âthe Scheduled Tribesâ? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (UPSC IAS/2016)
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Doctrine of Pith and Substance
Why in the News?
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed theDoctrine of Pith and Substance, holding that the Centre cannot impose service tax on lottery distributors as the power to tax lotteries falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of state governments.
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the Centreâs Plea?
Lotteries Are Not a Service but Gambling: The court ruled that the relationship between states and lottery distributors is buyer-seller, not principal-agent, making service tax inapplicable.
Exclusive Taxing Power of States: The Constitution grants state legislatures the authority to tax betting and gambling, including lotteries.
Parliamentcannot override this through residuary powers (Entry 97 – List I) as taxation on lotteries is already covered under Entry 62 – List II.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance Applied: The court ruled that the dominant nature of lotteries is gambling, even if marketing and promotion involve service elements.
Since the primary focus remains within the State List, the Centre cannot impose service tax on it.
Sikkim High Court Ruling Upheld: The SC upheld the 2012 Sikkim HC decision, which declared Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended in 2010) unconstitutional, as it attempted to impose service tax on lottery-related activities.
What is Doctrine of Pith and Substance?
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance helps determine whether a lawâs dominant purpose falls within the legislative competence of the enacting government.
Key Features:
Examines the true nature of a law, rather than incidental overlaps.
Resolves Centre-State conflicts over legislative powers.
Allows minor encroachments if the primary subject falls within the legislatureâs authority.
Major Supreme Court Cases Applying the Doctrine:
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara (1951): Upheld a state alcohol prohibition law, despite minor overlaps with Union subjects.
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce (1947):Â Allowed incidental encroachment as long as the lawâs primary focus was within its jurisdiction.
Application in Lottery Taxation Case:
The Centreâs argument for taxing lotteries under Entry 97 – List I was rejected.
The dominant purpose of lottery transactions is gambling, which states exclusively regulate and tax.
PYQ:
[2016] The Parliament of India acquires the power to legislate on any item in the State List in the national interest if a resolution to that effect is passed by the:
(a) Lok Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership
(b) Lok Sabha by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its total membership
(c) Rajya Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership
(d) Rajya Sabha by a majority of not less than two thirds of its members present and voting
SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Article 22 of the Indian Constitution
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional obligation, not a mere formality. Failure to comply makes the arrest illegal, violating Articles 22(1) and 21, which protect fundamental rights and personal liberty.
About Article 22 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution ensures protection to individuals against arbitrary arrest and preventive detention.
It has two parts:
1. Article 22(1) & 22(2) â Protection in Ordinary Arrests:
The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
The person has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
They must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
2. Article 22(3) to 22(7) â Preventive Detention Provisions:
Preventive detention without trial cannot exceed 3 months, unless approved by an Advisory Board.
The government may deny disclosure of reasons if it affects public interest.
Parliament can extend detention beyond 3 months in special cases.
Key Highlights of Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right.
Non-compliance violates both Articles 22(1) and 21 (Right to Liberty), rendering the arrest invalid.
Grounds of arrest must be clearly conveyed in an effective manner.
Providing the grounds in writing is the best practice (as suggested in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India).
As per Section 50A of CrPC, the accusedâs family or nominated person must also be informed to allow legal representation.
Magistrates must ensure compliance. If Article 22(1) is not followed, the arrest is illegal, and the accused must be released.
Violation of Article 22(1) is a ground for Bail. Even if statutory restrictions on bail exist, courts can grant bail if fundamental rights are violated.
If the accused claims non-compliance, the Investigating Officer must prove that Article 22(1) was followed.
Relevant Supreme Court Judgments:
Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India (2023): SC advised that grounds of arrest should ideally be provided in writing.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): “Procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997): Established guidelines to prevent custodial abuse and ensure due process.
Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar (1965): Distinguished between law and order (individual impact) and public order (societal impact).
PYQ:
[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such an accused is locked up in a police station, not in jail.
During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Article 200
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has criticized Tamil Nadu Governor for creating an âimpasseâ by withholding assent to state bills and later referring them to the President, questioning his handling of state bills under Article 200 of the Constitution. The Governor has withheld 12 Bills, primarily concerning higher education and the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in State universities.
Judicial Precursor: Rameshwar Prasad Case (2005)
Article 361 provides immunity to Governors from court proceedings for actions taken in their official capacity.
However, in Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court ruled that:
Immunity under Article 361 does not prevent judicial review of the Governorâs actions.
If a Governor withholds assent with malicious intent, the decision can be deemed unconstitutional.
Governors must provide valid reasons for withholding assent, as they cannot act arbitrarily.
What is Article 200?
Article 200 governs the Governorâs options when a Bill passed by the State Legislature is presented for approval.
It outlines the Governorâs discretionary powers regarding assenting, withholding, returning, or reserving Bills.
Provisions and Features:
The Governor has four options when presented with a State Legislature Bill:
Assent to the Bill: The Bill becomes law.
Withhold Assent: The Governor can refuse approval.
Return the Bill: If it is NOT a Money Bill, the Governor can send it back to the State Legislature for reconsideration.
Reserve the Bill for the Presidentâs Consideration:Â If the Bill-
Violates the Constitution or a Central law.
Affects national interests or is ultra vires.
Opposes the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
Concerns compulsory property acquisition under Article 31A.
Endangers the position of the State High Court (mandatory reservation).
Article 201 deals with Bills reserved for the Presidentâs approval, granting the President the power to:
Assent to the Bill or withhold assent.
Return the Bill for reconsideration by the State Legislature.
Key Constitutional Debates:
No time limit exists for the Governor to act, leading to delays and constitutional challenges.
Judicial scrutiny has questioned prolonged withholding of assent, as seen in recent Supreme Court cases.
PYQ:
[2014] Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?
Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the Presidentâs rule
Appointing the Ministers
Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India
Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Mains level: Forest Right; Forest Cover;
Why in the News?
On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court ordered Rajasthan’s Forest Department to map all sacred groves using satellite and ground surveys based on their cultural and ecological importance, regardless of their size.
Note: In Rajasthan, sacred groves, locally known as ‘orans’, are estimated to number around 25,000, covering approximately 6 lakh hectares across the state.
What are the implications of the December 18 order?Â
Conflict with the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 â The order contradicts the FRA, which was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights with gram sabhas. Instead, the decision shifts control from communities to the Forest Department.
Loss of Community Autonomy â Sacred groves, which have been traditionally protected by local communities, will now be governed by state authorities, potentially disrupting cultural conservation practices.
Potential Erosion of Traditional Governance Systems â The transfer of management could weaken customary laws and traditional conservation practices that have preserved these groves for generations.
Legal Precedence for Future Cases â By prioritizing the Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, over the FRA, this order may set a precedent for other community-managed lands to be taken over by the Forest Department.
Impact on Livelihoods and Religious Practices â Communities that depend on sacred groves for religious, medicinal, and cultural purposes may face restrictions under the new classification as âcommunity reservesâ.
What did T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India establish about the definition of âforest landâ?Â
Broad Definition: The Supreme Court established that âforest landâ includes not only areas understood as forests in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in government records, regardless of ownership.
Expert Committees: The ruling directed state governments to form expert committees to identify areas that fit this definition of âforest landâ.
How are sacred groves traditionally conserved by communities?
Watershed & Ecological Functions: Many sacred groves protect natural water sources, prevent soil erosion, and regulate local climate. Example: Orans (Rajasthan) â These groves support perennial water streams and serve as critical grazing lands for livestock.
Strict Protection through Customary Laws & Taboos: Communities impose strict prohibitions on tree felling, hunting, or resource extraction in sacred groves. Example: Sarpa Kavu (Kerala) â These groves are dedicated to serpent deities, and cutting trees is considered a bad omen.
Religious & Cultural Practices for Conservation: Rituals, festivals, and community prayers reinforce the spiritual importance of these groves. Example: Devara Kadu (Karnataka) â Annual worship ceremonies maintain local participation in conservation efforts.
Community Governance & Management: Local elders, priests, or village councils oversee the maintenance and enforcement of protection norms. Example: Jahera (Odisha, Chhattisgarh) â Tribal communities like the Gonds and Santhals manage these groves as sacred spaces.
Role in Biodiversity Preservation: The groves act as biodiversity hotspots, protecting endemic flora, fauna, and medicinal plants. Example: Law Kyntang (Meghalaya) â Khasi communities conserve these forests, which shelter rare orchids and medicinal herbs.
Way forward:
Harmonizing Legal Frameworks â Amend policies to ensure the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, and Wildlife Protection Act (WLPA), 1972, work in tandem, recognizing gram sabhasâ authority in managing sacred groves while ensuring ecological conservation.
Community-Centric Conservation â Strengthen traditional governance systems by legally empowering local communities to manage sacred groves, integrating scientific conservation methods with cultural practices.
Mains PYQ:
Q Examine the status of forest resources in India and its resultant impact on climate change. (UPSC IAS/2020)
However, the seven-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud, emphasized that this must be grounded on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” rather than political motivations.
Why sub-classification is necessary?
Addressing Inequality Within SCs: The Supreme Court ruling emphasizes that SCs are not a homogeneous group. Instead, there are significant disparities in socio-economic and educational status among different castes within the SC category.
Sub-classification allows for the identification of those who are more disadvantaged and ensures that benefits are equitably distributed among them.
Equitable Distribution of Benefits: States have argued that despite existing reservations, certain castes remain grossly underrepresented compared to others.
Sub-classification aims to create separate quotas for these underrepresented groups within the SC quota, thereby promoting fairness and equity in the distribution of affirmative action benefits.
Legal Precedent and Historical Evidence: The majority opinion of the Supreme Court referenced historical and empirical evidence indicating that specific castes within the SCs face greater oppression and discrimination.
Judicial Oversight: The ruling stipulates that any sub-classification must be based on “quantifiable and demonstrable data” regarding levels of backwardness and representation, ensuring that the process is transparent and justifiable.
What does the creamy layer principle say?
Exclusion of the Creamy Layer: The creamy layer principle refers to the exclusion of the more affluent and advanced members within a backward class from receiving reservation benefits. This principle is currently applied to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) but has been suggested for implementation within SCs and STs as well.
Achieving True Equality: Justice B.R. Gavai, in his concurring opinion, emphasized the need for states to identify and exclude the creamy layer among SCs and STs to ensure that affirmative action benefits reach those who are genuinely disadvantaged.
Historical reason: The creamy layer principle has been upheld in various Supreme Court judgments (Indra Sawhney judgment in 1992), which have recognized that certain individuals within reserved categories may have advanced socio-economic status and should not benefit from reservations intended for the disadvantaged.
Way forward:Â
Data Collection and Analysis: States should prioritize the collection of comprehensive and quantifiable data on the socio-economic status of different castes within the SC and ST categories.
Policy Framework for Creamy Layer Exclusion: States should develop clear policies to identify and exclude the creamy layer within SCs and STs from reservation benefits.
SC Judgements | Polity | Mains Paper 2: Indian Constitution - historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Section 125 CrPC; Alimony; Right to Equality.
PC: Hindustan Times
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has ruled that a divorced Muslim woman is entitled to seek maintenance from her husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The court asserted that any discrimination against Muslim women in matters of alimony under the secular laws of the country would be regressive and against gender justice, equality.
Story so far:
The Supreme Court bench rejected the argument that Section 125 of the CrPC does not apply to Muslims because they have their own personal law.
The court ruled that the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, does not override the secular law.
Key Points of the Judgment
Legal Standing: “There cannot be the disparity in receiving maintenance on the basis of the law under which a woman is married or divorced.”
Application of Section 125: Justice Nagarathna emphasized, “Section 125 of the CrPC cannot be excluded from its application to a divorced Muslim woman irrespective of the law under which she is divorced.”
Role of the 1986 Act: The judgment underscored that rights granted under the 1986 Act to receive maintenance during ‘iddat’ are in addition to, not in derogation of, those under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986:
Purpose:
To protect the rights of Muslim women who have been divorced by, or have obtained a divorce from, their husbands.
To provide for matters connected with or incidental to their divorce.
Key Provisions:
Maintenance:
During Iddat Period: A Muslim woman is entitled to a reasonable and fair provision and maintenance from her husband during the iddat period (a waiting period after divorce).
Post-Iddat Maintenance: If she cannot maintain herself after the iddat period, she can claim maintenance from her relatives who would inherit her property on her death. If no relatives are available, the State Wakf Board is responsible for her maintenance.
Mehr (Dower): The woman is entitled to the payment of mehr (dower) that was agreed upon at the time of marriage.
Return of Property: The woman is entitled to all the properties given to her before or at the time of marriage or after the marriage by her relatives, friends, husband, or any other person.
Rights of Children: The Act also provides for the maintenance of children born out of the marriage until they reach the age of two years.
Application to Magistrate:
A divorced woman, or someone acting on her behalf, can apply to a Magistrate for an order under the Act.
The Magistrate has the authority to make orders for payment of maintenance, mehr, and return of property.
Criticisms and Issues:
Limited Scope: Critics argue that the Act’s provisions are limited to the iddat period and do not ensure long-term maintenance.
Dependence on Relatives: Post-iddat maintenance depends on relatives, which might not always be practical or feasible.
Role of Wakf Board: The effectiveness of the Wakf Board in providing maintenance has been questioned due to administrative and financial constraints.
Violation of Right to Equality: The MWPRD Act has been criticized for creating discriminatory practices by limiting the maintenance period for Muslim women compared to women of other communities, thus violating the Right to Equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Context and Historical Perspective:
Shah Bano Case (1985): The court referenced the landmark Shah Bano case, which affirmed Muslim women’s right to maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Danial Latifi Case (2001): It highlighted subsequent interpretations ensuring that the 1986 Act does not deprive Muslim women of rights under Section 125.
Rejection of Restrictions: The court rejected restrictive interpretations that could hinder gender justice and emphasized the importance of providing adequate maintenance, not minimal amounts, to destitute Muslim women.
Continuation of Section 144: The judgment noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which has replaced the CrPC, retains the older provision on alimony under Section 144.
Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Purpose:
Maintenance Orders: Section 125 of the CrPC provides for the maintenance of wives, children, and parents who are unable to maintain themselves.
Key Provisions:
Eligible Persons:
Wife: Includes a divorced wife who has not remarried.
Legitimate and illegitimate minor children.
Adult children are unable to maintain themselves due to physical or mental abnormalities.
Parents: Includes both father and mother who are unable to maintain themselves.
Conditions:
The person liable to pay maintenance has sufficient means.
The person liable has neglected or refused to maintain the eligible person.
Order: The Magistrate can order a monthly allowance for the maintenance of the eligible person.
Maximum Amount: There is no fixed maximum amount; it is determined by the Magistrate based on the circumstances.
Significance:
Social Justice: It aims to prevent vagrancy and destitution by ensuring that dependents are provided for.
Secular Applicability: It applies to all religions and is not specific to any particular religion.
Implications and Legal Precedent
Equality under Law: The judgment reinforces the principle that Muslim women have the same legal recourse as women of other faiths under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Additional Remedies: It affirmed that provisions like the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, do not exclude rights under Section 125.
PYQ:
[2020] Customs and traditions suppress reason leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?
[2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards oneâs right to marry the person of oneâs choice?
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Article 300A, 44th Constitutional Amendment, Right to Property
Mains level: NA
Why in the news?
The Supreme Court’s ruling safeguards landowners from arbitrary government acquisition, emphasizing adherence to Article 300A, ensuring the constitutional right to property and sub-rights compliance.
Procedural Sub-Rights under Right to Property
These seven rights are foundational components of a law that is in tune with Article 300A, and the absence of one of these or some of them would render the law susceptible to challenge:
Right to Notice: Individuals must be informed about the intention to acquire their property.
Right to Be Heard: Affected individuals have the right to voice objections.
Right to a Reasoned Decision: The government must justify the acquisition with a reasoned decision.
Public Purpose Justification: Acquisitions must serve a demonstrable public purpose.
Right of Restitution or Fair Compensation: Landowners are entitled to fair compensation for their property.
Right to An Efficient and Expeditious Process: Acquisition procedures should be efficient and adhere to set timelines.
Right of Conclusion: The process concludes with the physical transfer of property; failure to take possession renders the acquisition incomplete.
Back2Basics:Right to Property in India
The Right to Property was initially a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, included in Part III (Articles 19 and 31).
Through the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, this right was removed from the list of fundamental rights. It was reclassified as a constitutional right under Article 300A.
About Article 300A:
Article 300A was introduced to the Constitution, stating that “No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.”
Legal Framework: This implies that the government can still acquire private property, but this acquisition must be done through a law that justifies the acquisition and provides for fair compensation to the affected parties.
Current Legal Status
Not a Fundamental Right: The Right to Property is no longer a fundamental right, which means it cannot be directly enforced through the Supreme Court or High Court under Article 32 or Article 226. However, it remains a constitutional right.
Protection under Law: Any person deprived of his property under any state enactment can approach a High Court challenging the legality of the act under Article 300A.
Legal Recourse: Affected individuals have the right to legal recourse if they believe that the acquisition was not justified or that the compensation was inadequate.
Recent Judgment: Human RightsÂ
Case Background: The judgment supported a Calcutta High Court decision that dismissed an appeal by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation regarding the acquisition of private land.
Court’s Order: The Corporation was ordered to compensate with âš5 lakh for costs within 60 days.
Human Rights Perspective: The right to property is not only protected as a constitutional right but has also been recognized as a human right by a âBench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Aravind Kumarâ.
Legal Interpretations and Clarifications
Justice Narasimha clarified that the phrase ‘authority of law’ in Article 300Aextends beyond the state’s power of eminent domain.
It necessitates a proper legal framework for property acquisition.
The ruling underscored that mere possession of eminent domain power and the provision of compensation do not justify compulsory acquisition if due processes are not followed.
PYQ:
[2021] What is the position of the Right to Property in India?â
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Features of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and its applicability
Mains level: NA
Why in the news?
The Supreme Court recently emphasized the sacredness of Hindu marriage, stating it is not merely a social event but a ‘samskara’ and a sacrament of significant value in Indian society.
The court’s observations came in response to a case involving two commercial pilots seeking a divorce decree without a valid Hindu marriage ceremony.
About Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Details
Enactment
Passed by the Parliament of India on May 18, 1955.
Purpose
Amendment and codification of laws related to marriage among Hindus and others.
Applicability
Applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and others NOT governed by Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or Jewish laws.
NOTE: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 applies to all citizens of India, irrespective of religion, faith, or belief. It facilitates inter-religious and inter-caste marriages.
Conditions for Marriage
Section 5 specifies conditions including age, mental capacity, consent, and absence of prohibited relationships.
Features of the HMA
Guardianship for Marriage
Section 6 outlines the persons entitled to give consent for a bride’s marriage.
Solemnization of Marriage
Section 7 recognizes customary rites and ceremonies for Hindu marriage.
Registration of Marriage
Section 8 allows for the registration of Hindu marriages for facilitating proof.
Ceremonies for a Hindu Marriage
Explains the special varieties of ceremonies that may be done to solemnize a Hindu marriage. Ex. âSaptapadiâ
It acknowledges each conventional and court-registered marriage.
Restitution of Conjugal Rights
Section 9 permits application for restitution of conjugal rights if one spouse withdraws without excuse.
Judicial Separation
Section 10 provides for judicial separation based on certain grounds.
Nullity of Marriage and Divorce
Grounds for voidable marriages and divorce specified in Sections 11-13.
Mutual Divorce
Section 13B allows mutual divorce by consent of both parties.
Alimony and Maintenance
Sections 24-25 enable spouses to seek maintenance and alimony post-divorce.
Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010
Proposed amendments for easier divorce on grounds of irretrievable breakdown.
Judicial Review
Supreme Court rulings on divorce petitions and exercise of powers under Article 142.
Essence of Hindu Marriage: Supreme Courtsâ Observations
Denouncement of Unrecognized Marriages:
The Supreme Court denounced the practice of seeking marital status without a valid ceremony.
Emphasized that marriage is a lifelong commitment and not to be treated lightly.
Sacred Character of Hindu Marriage:
Hindu marriage is termed as a ‘sacrament’ with a sacred character.
It symbolizes the unity of two individuals into a dignified, equal, and consensual union.
Institutional Importance:
Viewed as a vital institution for procreation, family consolidation, and fostering fraternity within communities.
Adherence to Rites and Ceremonies:
The court reiterated that a Hindu marriage must adhere to the rites and ceremonies prescribed under the Hindu Marriage Act.
For instance, the ‘saptapadi’ ceremony is essential for validity.
Role of Marriage Registration:
Marriage registration aids in providing evidence of the wedding.
However, it does not confer legitimacy if the marriage is not solemnized according to the Hindu Marriage Act.
PYQ:
[2020] Customs and traditions suppress reason leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?
[2015] Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizen a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy.
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Jim Corbett National Park
Mains level: Key points related the judgment
Why in the news?Â
In its March ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the corrupt collaboration between politicians, forest officials, and local contractors that led to the illegal felling of 6,000 trees in the Jim Corbett National Park in Uttarakhand.
Key points related the judgment
Shift from Anthropocentrism to Eco-centrism: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for an eco-centric approach rather than anthropocentrism in ecotourism management.
Ban on Tiger Safaris in Core Areas: : The court disagreed with the 2019 guidelines of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) permitting tiger safaris on the lines of a zoo in national parks, The court directed the banning of tiger safaris in core areas of national parks, aiming to minimize environmental damage and disturbance to wildlife habitats.
Committee Formation for Feasibility Study: A committee was constituted to explore the feasibility of permitting tiger safaris in peripheral areas of national parks across India, indicating a cautious approach towards balancing tourism with conservation goals.
What the court missed
Absence of Well-Defined Methodology: The court’s decision to recover the cost of restoration from errant individuals and officers lacks a well-defined methodology, making it challenging to accurately assess the damage done to the green cover of Jim Corbett.
Suggestive measuresÂ
Need for Ecosystem Services-Based Valuation: In light of growing degradation of biodiversity hotspots and support for revenue-generating eco-tourism, there is a need for a valuation method based on ecosystem services, which includes benefits like food, water, and climate regulation.
Precedent on Ecosystem Services: The court could have set a precedent by prioritizing ecosystem services over eco-tourism or highlighting the need for a precise law and policy regarding ecosystem services, which play a crucial role in environmental conservation and sustainable development.
Reference to International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ruling: The reasoning provided by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (2018) regarding the compensability of damage to the environment could have been used to better understand methodologies for evaluating environmental damage and loss of ecosystem services
ConclusionÂ
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Jim Corbett underscores a shift towards eco-centric ecotourism management, banning tiger safaris in core areas. However, the absence of a clear restoration methodology and the need for ecosystem services-based valuation remain unaddressed, suggesting room for improvement.
Mains PYQÂ
Q How does biodiversity vary in India? How is the Biological Diversity Act,2002 helpful in conservation of flora and fauna? (UPSC IAS/2018)
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Section 377, LGBTQ+ Rights
Mains level: Sexual Minorities and their Social Rights
Why in the news-
The Supreme Court issued a cautionary directive to judges regarding court-ordered counselling for LGBTQ+ individuals, emphasizing the need to respect their identity and sexual orientation.
Context
Petition: The verdict stemmed from a habeas corpus petition filed by a Kerala-based woman seeking the whereabouts of her same-sex partner, highlighting the challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in asserting their rights.
Coercion Concerns: Concerns were raised about court-ordered counselling potentially being used to coerce individuals against their sexual orientation or chosen partners, prompting the Supreme Court to address these apprehensions.
Counselling to LGBTQ+ Persons:Â
[A] Guidelines and Observations
Avoiding Identity Suppression: Judges were cautioned against using counselling as a tool to coerce individuals into rejecting their LGBTQ+ identity or relationships, particularly when they are in distress or facing familial separation.
Upholding Constitutional Values: CJI underscored the importance of upholding constitutional values, urging judges to refrain from imposing their personal biases or societal prejudices during legal proceedings.
Empathy and Compassion: The verdict emphasized that judges must demonstrate sincere empathy and compassion towards LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring that the principles of justice and equality guide legal decisions.
[B] Guidelines for Courts
Embracing Diversity: Courts were directed to eschew social morality influenced by homophobic or transphobic views, prioritizing the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
Respecting Chosen Families: Acknowledging the significance of chosen families for LGBTQ+ individuals, the court highlighted the need to recognize and respect these relationships, especially in cases involving familial rejection or violence.
LGBTQ+ Persons (Sexual Minority) Rights in India: An Overview
Decriminalization of Homosexuality: A watershed moment occurred on September 6, 2018, when the Supreme Court of India partially struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which criminalized consensual same-sex relationships. This historic decision marked a crucial step towards recognizing the dignity and autonomy of LGBTQ+ individuals.
Recognition of Transgender Rights: In 2014, the Supreme Court recognized transgender individuals as the third gender and affirmed their fundamental rights under the Constitution in the landmark case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014). This judgment laid the foundation for legal recognition and protection of transgender rights in India.
Several key legal cases and judgments have shaped the evolution of LGBTQ rights in India:
Naz Foundation Govt. v. NCT of Delhi (2009): The Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377 of the IPC violated fundamental rights guaranteedunder the Indian Constitution, including privacy and equality. This judgment was a crucial step forward in recognizing the rights of LGBTQ individuals.
Suresh Kumar Koushal vs Naz Foundation (2013): The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court’s judgment, recriminalizing homosexuality. This decision was met with widespread criticism and sparked renewed activism for LGBTQ rights in India.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014): This landmark judgment recognized transgender individuals as the third gender and affirmed their fundamental rights under the Constitution. It laid the groundwork for ensuring equality and non-discrimination for the transgender community.
K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017): This case affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The judgment recognized that discrimination based on sexual orientation is unconstitutional and emphasized the dignity and autonomy of individuals.
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The Supreme Court decriminalized homosexuality and struck down Section 377 of the IPC. The court recognized the rights of LGBTQ individuals to intimacy, autonomy, and identity, setting a precedent for equality and non-discrimination.
Future ProspectsÂ
[A] Extension of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) Rights Â
The Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Rights bill, as currently formulated, does not adequately extend to LGBTQ+ persons due to several factors:
Definition of Commissioning Couple: It restricts access to ART services to “infertile married couples,” excluding same-sex couples and individuals in same-sex relationships.
Requirement of Legal Marriage: Since same-sex marriage isn’t recognized in India, LGBTQ+ couples are automatically excluded from accessing ART services.
Narrow Definition of Infertility: The bill’s definition overlooks the unique reproductive challenges faced by LGBTQ+ individuals and couples.
Gender-Binary Language and Restrictions: Gender-binary language and restrictions exclude transgender and gender non-conforming individuals from accessing ART services.
Lack of Recognition of Diverse Identities: The bill fails to accommodate the diverse identities within the LGBTQ+ community, neglecting their specific needs and concerns regarding assisted reproduction.
[B] Child AdoptionÂ
National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR): It had opposed the adoption rights of same-sex couples.
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act): It allows heterosexual married couples, and single and divorced persons to adopt.
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA): It permits any male or female Hindu of sound mind to adopt, and for couples to adopt with the consent of their spouse.
Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA): It permits applications from adoptive parents in live-in relationships, which it examines on a case-to-case basis.
However, in October 2023 the Supreme Court ruled that Regulation 5(3) of the CARA Regulations, insofar as it prohibited unmarried and queer couples from adopting, violated Article 15 of the Constitution.
While Indiaâs Supreme Court declined to legalise same-sex marriage and did not explicitly grant gay couples adoption rights.
PYQ:
2020: Customs and traditions suppress reason leading to obscurantism. Do you agree?
Practice MCQ:
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which sought to decriminalize homosexuality was struck down in the landmark case of-
