💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • [28th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Form 26 and the statutory mandate

    [28th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Form 26 and the statutory mandate

    Question (2022, GS2 – 15 Marks): Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws.”
    Linkage: This is the most direct parallel. Under Article 329(b) and Section 80 of the RPA, 1951, courts are constitutionally barred from issuing writs mid-election—even if a Returning Officer’s rejection is arbitrary. The sole remedy available is an Election Petition filed in the High Court after the election concludes. Furthermore, the improper rejection of a nomination is an explicit ground under Section 100(1)(c) to declare an election void. 

    Mentor Comment

    The Returning Officer rejected Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan‘s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh because her Form 26 affidavit omitted a pending criminal complaint. The Supreme Court has dismissed her challenge. The case raises two questions: whether a form can demand more than its parent law, and whether courts must stay out even when a rejection is arbitrary.

    What is Form 26, and where does the disclosure duty come from?

    1. What it is: Form 26 is the affidavit every candidate files with the nomination paper, declaring criminal cases, assets, liabilities and education, like a sworn report card for voters.
    2. Why it exists: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) held that disclosure serves the voter’s right to an informed choice. It adds no new qualification for candidates.
    3. What followed: In 2002, Parliament wrote the disclosure duty into the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (ROPA) as Section 33-A. The same amendment added Sections 33-B, 75-A and 125-A.
    4. Form 26 prescribed: The government then amended the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, to prescribe Form 26.
    5. The takeaway: Form 26 is a tool to carry out a statutory duty, so its reach should match that duty.

    What happened in Natarajan’s case?

    1. Ground for rejection: The Returning Officer treated the omission as suppression of material information.
    2. The complaint: Filed in 2025, it alleged she failed to act against a party leader accused of misconduct.
    3. Court’s ruling: Dismissing her petition in June, the Court left her free to file an election petition under Section 100 of ROPA, a case challenging the result after the poll.

    Can a form demand more than the statute?

    1. What Section 33-A requires: Disclosure only of cases for offences punishable with two years or more, in which a court has already framed charges, meaning formally accused the candidate.
    2. What Form 26 now requires: A 2018 amendment to paragraph 5 demands disclosure of all pending criminal cases, whether or not charges are framed.
    3. Rule 4A: Rule 4A of the 1961 Rules requires Form 26 with every nomination. It is procedural and only implements Section 33-A, so it cannot create new duties.
    4. Limits of delegated legislation: Delegated legislation, rules the executive makes under a law, cannot enlarge that law.

    Should the Ponnuswami bar cover arbitrary rejections?

    1. The bar: In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952), a Constitution Bench read Article 329(b) to bar courts once the election process begins, leaving an election petition as the only remedy.
    2. Its purpose: The bar exists to stop courts from interrupting elections, not to shield a patently perverse administrative decision.
    3. Remedies at stake: Ambedkar called Article 32, the right to approach the Supreme Court, the Constitution’s “heart and soul”. Yet writs under it and Article 226, the High Court route, stay closed even against arbitrary rejections.
    4. Proposed exception: The Court should allow intervention where a Returning Officer acts without jurisdiction or with patent arbitrariness.

    Challenges

    1. Rule outruns statute: Voters gain wider disclosure, but candidates face rejection on a duty Parliament never enacted.
    2. Complaints are easy to file: Counting uncharged complaints lets rivals file cases to trap a nomination.
    3. Late remedy: An election petition comes after the poll, so a wrongly excluded candidate loses the contest itself.
    4. Returning Officer discretion: One officer decides on “material” suppression at scrutiny, with no quick review.

    Way Forward

    1. Align the form with the Act: Parliament should either amend Section 33-A to cover all pending cases or the rules should match it.
    2. Narrow exception to Ponnuswami: A larger Bench should allow writ review of patently arbitrary nomination rejections.
    3. Fast track petitions: High Courts should decide nomination rejection petitions within a fixed time.

    Conclusion

    Disclosure serves voters, but candidates now face a duty Parliament never set and a rejection no court reviews before polling. What to watch is whether the Supreme Court narrows its pre-poll bar, and whether Parliament aligns the statute with the form.

    Steps taken to tackle criminalisation of politics

    1. Immediate disqualification: Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) held that a sitting member convicted with a sentence of two years or more loses the seat at once.
    2. Public records: Parties must publish their candidates’ criminal backgrounds on their websites and in newspapers.
    3. Special courts: Dedicated courts try cases against legislators, aiming to finish within a year of charges being framed.
    4. None of the Above (NOTA): People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2013) introduced NOTA, a ballot option rejecting all candidates, to push parties toward clean candidates.

  • The pitfalls of mandatory FIRs

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has reiterated that police must register a First Information Report (FIR) on any report of a missing “person”, meaning every person, not only a child. This carries a presumption of abduction or trafficking, built for missing children, into cases where adults leave home by choice.

    What does the missing person FIR rule require?

    1. What an FIR is: An FIR is the first written police record of an offence, like opening a case file police must then pursue.
    2. No preliminary enquiry: The Court’s May directions in G. Ganesh v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others bar a preliminary enquiry, a short check of whether any offence occurred. Nor can police leave the family to search first.
    3. Supporting directions: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) must run a trafficking portal, and district anti human trafficking units (AHTUs) must be active. Recovered children are restored after Aadhaar verification.
    4. The takeaway: A safeguard built so no missing child is ignored now forces a criminal case for every missing adult.

    Where did the presumption of abduction come from?

    1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2013): The G. Ganesh directions repeat this case, which concerned only missing children. It made FIRs mandatory so police begin tracing at once.
    2. Presumption of a crime: Madhya Pradesh asked how the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), applied. The Court held a missing child is presumed abducted or trafficked until investigation shows otherwise.
    3. Child specific machinery: The directions also required:
      • each State sets up Special Juvenile Police Units;
      • each station has a trained Juvenile Welfare Officer;
      • a child untraced after four months goes to the AHTU.
    4. Why it fits children: A child’s consent has no legal relevance, so treating a disappearance as a cognisable offence, one police investigate without a court order, is justified.

    Why does the presumption fail for adults?

    1. Adult agency: Many adults leave home to live together or marry without parental consent, yet each is first reported missing.
    2. Tracing becomes a duty: A mandatory FIR obliges police to trace even an adult who left a note of consent.
    3. Honour killings: Some couples, once found, have been killed in the name of family honour, with or without police help.
    4. Presumption without evidence: A blanket presumption of kidnapping for every missing adult, without evidence, runs against the spirit of the statute.

    How did a child’s case reach adults?

    1. The G. Ganesh facts: A toddler missing from Chennai stayed untraced for 14 years. The petitioner alleged police ignored the MHA’s 2013 guidelines.
    2. Adults never in issue: The case gave the Court no occasion to take up missing adults on its own motion (suo motu).
    3. States not heard: The May judgment does not show that the States, which run the police, were heard.

    Challenges

    1. Diverted investigators: Tracing adults who left by choice pulls police off genuine cases.
    2. Right to choose a partner: Forced tracing intrudes on adult autonomy. Eg. Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018).
    3. Real trafficking risk: Any filter for adult cases must not delay genuine trafficking cases.

    Way Forward

    1. Time bound preliminary enquiry: Allow police a week or a fortnight to filter out adult cases credibly showing no abduction or trafficking.
    2. Review of the direction: The Court should review its mandatory FIR direction for adults after hearing the States.
    3. Couple protection protocol: Police should record a found adult’s consent and withhold their location, per Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (2018).

    Conclusion

    The Court has turned a child protection rule into a presumption of crime against every adult who leaves home. The question to watch is whether police may verify an adult’s choice before treating it as a crime.

    Key numbers

    1. Information on cognisable offences: Section 154 CrPC, now Section 173 BNSS.
    2. Juvenile Welfare Officer: Section 63, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
    3. BNSS preliminary enquiry window: Up to 14 days.

    What is the FIR registration regime?

    1. About: A non cognisable offence gets only a diary entry, and police need a Magistrate’s order to investigate it.
    2. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013): A five judge Constitution Bench made FIRs mandatory, allowing preliminary enquiry only in narrow categories such as matrimonial disputes.
    3. Statutory preliminary enquiry: For offences punishable with three to seven years, the BNSS permits a preliminary enquiry with a senior officer’s permission.
    4. Zero FIR: An FIR can be lodged at any station and transferred to the right one.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026] Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct? 1. A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry. 3. Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically. Select the answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 only (d) 2 only Answer: D”

  • Should voting be a fundamental right?

    Why in the News

    A rift inside the Election Commission of India (EC) has surfaced, and 97 eligible voters in Goa stayed off the rolls because ECINet (the EC’s centralised software for managing electoral rolls) blocked corrections. The right to vote is only a statutory right, granted by ordinary law rather than the Constitution, so an excluded voter has weak protection. This has revived the case for making it a fundamental right.

    What is the right to vote, and how did India secure it?

    1. What it is: Article 326 gives every adult citizen the vote regardless of gender, caste, religion, education or property, which is universal adult suffrage.
    2. Contrast with the West: The United Kingdom and United States widened the vote over decades. Eg. British women voted from 1928.
    3. Making it work: The first Chief Election Commissioner, Sukumar Sen, enrolled 173 million largely illiterate voters, using election symbols they could recognise.
    4. Two laws: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA) governs electoral rolls; the 1951 Act governs elections and candidature.
    5. The takeaway: India gave everyone the vote at once, but the legal status of that vote was left open.

    How have the framers and courts classified it?

    1. Constituent Assembly choice: B.R. Ambedkar and K.T. Shah proposed placing it among fundamental rights; the Advisory Committee rejected the idea.
    2. Statutory right: In Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), a five judge Constitution Bench held the right to elect a statutory right. It rests on Section 62 of the RPA, 1951.
    3. Conflicting smaller Bench: A two judge Bench in Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2015) called it a constitutional right, but the larger Kuldip Nayar Bench prevails.
    4. Question not reopened: Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) declined to reopen it. Justice Ajay Rastogi’s dissent placed the vote in free expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and life and liberty (Article 21).
    5. Democratic imperative: Courts treat voting as inseparable from democracy. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) made democracy part of the basic structure, the core Parliament cannot amend away.

    What did the Goa episode expose?

    1. A split Commission: Two Election Commissioners recorded 14 objections over 10 months against the Chief Election Commissioner over unilateral rule changes, voter deletions and centralised data access.
    2. Decision rules: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 seeks unanimity. Where members differ, the majority decides.
    3. Software over officers: ECINet stopped Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), the local officials who maintain rolls, from reversing wrong deletions. Their emails flagged this, but entries stayed deleted.
    4. Loss beyond the ballot: The Goa Mediclaim Scheme uses the rolls for eligibility, so deletion costs that benefit too.

    Why do accurate rolls matter, and where does the law fall short?

    1. Constitutional guardian: Article 324 gives the EC superintendence, direction and control of elections. Section 21 of the RPA, 1950 empowers it to revise rolls.
    2. Who may register: Section 19 entitles any citizen aged 18 or above, “ordinarily resident” (normally living) in a constituency and not disqualified, to be enrolled.
    3. High bar for courts: Courts intervene only where roll errors “materially affected” the result, so a few excluded voters are not enough.
    4. Role of parties: Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (1985) urged parties to help keep rolls accurate.
    5. A design failure: The Goa exclusion came from software design, not a clerical slip, so this “substantial versus isolated” test misses it.

    What would fundamental right status change?

    1. Rooted in the Constitution: Scholars argue the vote flows from the Constitution itself, so any law regulating it must conform to Articles 325 and 326.
    2. Stricter review: Fundamental status keeps the EC’s power to clean rolls but invites heightened judicial review, meaning stricter court scrutiny of deletions.

    Challenges

    1. Settled precedent: Only a larger Bench can overturn Kuldip Nayar.
    2. Dilution by Parliament: A statutory right can be narrowed by an ordinary amendment to the RPA, 1951, with no constitutional bar.
    3. Weak remedies: An excluded voter has only the EC’s internal correction process to rely on.

    Way Forward

    1. Larger Bench reference: The Supreme Court should refer the vote’s legal status to a seven judge Bench.
    2. Officer override: Let EROs overrule automated deletions, with an audit trail.
    3. Time bound correction: Fix a deadline for restoring wrongly deleted voters, with appeal to a named officer.

    Conclusion

    A vote that exists only by statute leaves voters exposed, as the Goa exclusion showed. Whether a larger Bench reopens the question will decide if the vote becomes a fundamental right.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • EC appointment: Why SC placed matter before CJI

    Why in the News

    A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), to consider forming a Constitution Bench. The two judges split on whether a larger bench was needed at all, and agreed only on placing the matter before the CJI. The challenge answers Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). A five judge Constitution Bench in that case laid down an interim selection committee for appointments to the Election Commission, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI. The 2023 Act then replaced the CJI on that committee with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, giving the Union a 2:1 majority on a three member panel. The contested point is whether that replacement raises a constitutional question the Court has never answered, or merely applies a principle it settled in 2023.

    What is a Constitution Bench?

    1. Composition and trigger: Under Article 145(3), a Constitution Bench of five or more judges decides a “substantial question of law” involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
    2. The question must be unsettled: A case does not go to a larger bench merely because it involves the Constitution. The question must be one the Court has never authoritatively answered before.
    3. Precedential weight: Constitution Bench rulings carry greater weight than ordinary judgments.
    4. How a split verdict reaches one: When two judges cannot agree, the matter goes to the Chief Justice of India, who decides whether to send it to a larger bench. The split by itself does not automatically warrant a Constitution Bench.

    What did the 2023 Act change about appointments to the Election Commission?

    1. The constitutional gap: Article 324(2) provides that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed by the President, subject to any law Parliament may make. Parliament made no such law for 73 years, and appointments were made under the executive’s own framework.
    2. The litigation: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging the absence of such a law was filed in 2015. A two judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench in 2018.
    3. What Anoop Baranwal held: The Constitution Bench delivered its judgment in March 2023, holding that appointments to the Election Commission cannot remain under “exclusive executive control”. It underlined that those entrusted with conducting elections must be insulated from executive influence.
    4. The statutory answer: Parliament passed the Act in December 2023. The selection committee it created comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition.

    What did Justice Dipankar Datta hold?

    1. The present Bench could decide: He took the view that the petitions could be decided by the present Bench itself. The governing constitutional principle was already settled in Anoop Baranwal, and the remaining question was only whether the 2023 law complies with it.
    2. No bar on the present Bench: That exercise was “no more than the application of the settled principles of law to the facts of the case”. He held that “neither any Constitutional bar nor a precedent precludes hearing of these petitions by the present Bench”.
    3. The panel’s internal balance: A minister bound by collective responsibility “cannot be expected to defy his own nominator”. The presence of the Leader of Opposition on the selection committee therefore becomes “largely ornamental”.
    4. The perception test: He emphasised that “it is not enough for the ECI to be independent, it must also appear to be independent”. On the argument that the law gives the executive overwhelming influence over appointments, he said it “does appear to have substance”, while stating that these were prima facie observations.
    5. The collegium comparison rejected: He rejected the government’s comparison between the Election Commission selection process and the collegium system for judicial appointments. Judicial appointments involve the executive at multiple stages, and he described the popular notion that “judges appoint judges” as a “myth”.
    6. Why the comparison fails: The absence of a neutral member in the collegium cannot justify the absence of a neutral member in the Election Commission appointment process. He described the government’s comparison as “disingenuous, evasive and disquieting”.

    What did Justice Satish Chandra Sharma hold?

    1. A first time question: He held that the challenge must be referred to a Constitution Bench, because the Court is examining the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act for the first time. “There is no authoritative decision of this court till date pronouncing on the constitutional validity of the said Act,” he said.
    2. The key question: For him the key question was whether Parliament was justified in not including a neutral selector in the selection committee. He called that “an important question arising for the first time before this court”.
    3. Why Article 145(3) binds: Since the question “has not been dealt with in any precedent”, Article 145(3) left “no room for a decision on such question finally by the present combination” of two judges.
    4. What else needs a larger bench: He viewed the government’s arguments on separation of powers, and its comparison with the collegium system, as issues requiring examination by a larger bench.
    5. The petitioners’ counter: The petitioners had argued that the central legal question, that the selection must be an independent process, was already decided by the 2023 Constitution Bench ruling.

    Why did both judges still send the matter to the CJI?

    1. A three judge bench would add nothing: They held that sending the issue first to a three judge bench would be of “little worth” and would only delay a final decision on the important constitutional questions raised.
    2. The record on delay: They flagged the long delays in deciding constitutional references. The Anoop Baranwal case took eight years to reach a final judgment, and they cited other references that remained pending for years.
    3. The characterisation: They called such delays “a source of institutional embarrassment”.
    4. The structural suggestion: They urged the CJI to consider setting up a permanent five judge bench for constitutional cases.

    What do earlier split verdicts show about referral?

    1. The hijab case: The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab case in October 2022. The matter was referred to a larger bench and remains pending more than four years later.
    2. The Prevention of Corruption Act reference: A split verdict earlier this year on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also went to a larger bench.
    3. What referral does not settle: Referral moves the question; it does not schedule the answer. Both examples are the delay the present Bench cited as its reason for skipping an intermediate step.

    Conclusion

    The referral leaves the substantive question where it was: whether a selection panel on which the executive holds the majority can produce an Election Commission that appears independent. One judge holds that the question is already answered in principle and needs only application. The other holds that it has never been put to the Court at all. What the CJI now decides is not the validity of the 2023 Act but how long the country waits for a ruling on it, and the Bench’s own warning about how long constitutional references take is why that matters.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India

    1. Constitutional basis: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, the State legislatures, the office of President and the office of Vice-President in the Election Commission of India.
    2. Composition: It consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may fix. It has functioned as a three member body since 1993.
    3. Tenure: The Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners hold office for six years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier.
    4. Removal: The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. An Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019, GS2, 10 marks] Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain.”

  • 1986 ruling holds, can’t penalise for not singing: SC at Vande Mataram hearing

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has said that a person who declines to recite one or all stanzas of the national song cannot be subjected to “criminal consequences”. A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India said it will examine whether refusal to sing the Vande Mataram can carry penal consequences. The Bench was hearing a challenge by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna to the law mandating the singing of all six stanzas. The Centre has amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, extending to Vande Mataram the same legal protection that Jana Gana Mana carries. The Bench reminded the Centre of Bijoe Emmanuel and Others vs State of Kerala and Others (1986). It said the law declared in that case will govern the amended Act. The contest is between an elected legislature’s power to declare what the national song is and an individual’s freedom not to sing it.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. Amended Section 3: Section 3 now extends to Vande Mataram the same legal protection the Act already gave Jana Gana Mana.
    2. A new expression in the statute: The amendment introduced the expression “national song” into the Act. The Act itself does not define what a national song is.
    3. The operative guideline: The requirement to sing all six stanzas at official functions rests on an office memorandum. That memorandum is not gazetted and cites no enabling provision.
    4. Custom and usage: By custom and usage the national song has always been understood as Vande Mataram.

    What did Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) settle?

    1. The facts: Students belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem. They had stood respectfully in silence during the anthem.
    2. The holding: The Supreme Court held that the expulsion violated their fundamental rights.
    3. Its standing today: The declaration of law in that case has not yet been questioned, the Bench said. It expects that declaration to govern the amended Act.
    4. What is not in dispute: The Bench said that what the national song is, is not in dispute before it.

    Why did the Bench not take up the secularism argument?

    1. The petition’s ground: The plea argues that the guideline on singing all six stanzas violates the constitutional principle of secularism. The last four stanzas carry explicit Hindu references.
    2. The Bench’s view: A national song expressing homage to a particular God or form of God would not perhaps impact secularism, the Bench said.
    3. The Centre’s position: The Solicitor General argued that secularism “will never be this narrow”.
    4. The question taken up instead: The Bench said the question whether a conscientious objector, meaning a person who refuses on grounds of conscience, can be subjected to penal consequences may require examination.

    What is the vagueness objection to the amended law?

    1. An undefined term in a penal statute: A penal statute cannot operate in the realm of vagueness. The Act makes conduct punishable and leaves the expression at the centre of that offence undefined.
    2. Risk of misuse: Counsel for the petitioner called the absence of a definition a serious lacuna in the Act that can be misused.
    3. A change in settled scope: The national song has been understood as two stanzas. For the first time after 80 years it is being presented as more than two.
    4. Consensus before penalty: Use of the term national requires the building of public opinion and consensus. It cannot be thrust on citizens with penal consequences attached.

    Where does the line fall between the legislature’s choice and the individual’s right?

    1. The legislature’s domain: It is for the democratically elected state to decide what the national song is, whether two stanzas or four, the Bench said.
    2. The Court’s limited remit: It is not the remit of the Court to second guess the national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram.
    3. The individual’s protection: Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25 and Article 26 rights would be subjected to penal consequences. The same protection extends to a conscientious objector who declines to recite one or all stanzas.
    4. Extent of penalty reserved: The extent of penal consequences requires examination, the Bench said.
    5. Scope of the hearing: The Bench declined to take note of the Solicitor General’s remark that “lawmaking cannot be as per Naxalite’s ideas”. It confined itself to the constitutional issue before it.

    Conclusion

    A statute can borrow the authority of the word national without saying in law what that word covers. That is the gap this hearing has exposed. The Court has split the question in two, leaving the choice of the national song to the elected legislature and signalling that an individual’s refusal to sing it cannot be punished. The Centre has been asked to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks, and the extent of penal consequences is what the Bench has reserved for itself to decide.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS2, 15 marks] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.”

  • Reiterating the basics of criminalisation

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 is “still-born” and that proceedings under it cannot survive. A two-judge Bench decided this in Shiv Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Himanshu Srivastava vs. State of U.P. The Bench found that the Act never created an offence at all. Who counts as a gangster was fixed by Rules framed under the Act, so the determination was left to the “ipse dixit of the Executive”, an assertion resting on official say-so rather than on proof. The Act had governed gangsters and anti-social activities in the State for four decades. The contest is between a State’s claim to a special law against organised crime and the constitutional requirement that only a legislature may create a crime.

    What is the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986?

    1. Subject matter: The Act was the State’s dedicated special law against gangsters and anti-social activities in Uttar Pradesh.
    2. Determination of a gangster: The Act defines a gangster. Who is a gangster for the purpose of punishment is prescribed in the Rules framed under the Act.
    3. Gang chart: Chapter 3 prescribes the procedure for preparing the gang chart. This is the document through which administrative and police authorities record a person as a gangster.
    4. Section 23: Section 23 carries special provisions for trial and bail, together with the rule-making power.

    Why did the Court call the Act “still-born”?

    1. Creation of the crime: A penal law must create the crime by explicitly identifying the act made punishable. The Court applied the definition of “offence” in the General Clauses Act and concluded, “We cannot find any offence having been created.”
    2. Criminal law-making as a legislative function: Making an act or omission subject to penal consequences is “essentially a legislative function”. The Court held that this function “cannot be thrown away and left to sprout in the thicket of subordinate legislation”.
    3. Exclusion of the executive: The Rules left the determination of who a gangster is to the executive. The Court treated the exclusion of the executive from rule-making and from guilt determination as the desirable position.
    4. Punishment must follow the statute: The Court held that punishment must accord with what the penal law itself prescribes. A subordinate instrument cannot supply it.

    Why is criminal law-making reserved to the legislature?

    1. The definitional role: The role of defining crime and punishment is “assigned primarily and broadly to the legislature, secondarily and interstitially to the courts, and to no one else”. That formulation comes from Herbert L. Packer’s The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968).
    2. Deliberation before enactment: Enacting a criminal law through the legislature forces detailed debate and due deliberation. Subordinate legislation supplies neither.
    3. Unquestioned executive opinion: The problem arises when the opinions of the executive are accepted without question on categorisation and on punitive action.

    How does the principle of legality bar an executive-defined crime?

    1. Principle of legality: Criminalisation is rooted in the principle of legality. It requires the act and its punishment to exist in law before the conduct occurs.
    2. Two maxims: The principle draws on nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without law, and nulla poena sine lege, no punishment without law. An administrative classification satisfies neither.
    3. Bar on retrospective criminalisation: The principle also prohibits ex-post facto legislation. Conduct cannot be made punishable after it has taken place.
    4. Article 20(1): Article 20(1) creates a right against conviction except for violation of a law in force at the time of the act charged as an offence. It also bars a penalty greater than what the law in force prescribed.

    How did the Act turn a criminal trial into a formality?

    1. Status as the punishable thing: The Act punished mere status. That status was settled by administrative and police authorities rather than in court.
    2. Nothing left for the judge: Once the status is so determined, “nothing remains to be considered by the judicial officer but to punish him”, the Court held.
    3. A foregone conclusion: The Court described the end result of a trial under the Act as “a foregone conclusion, a statutory imprimatur to punish”.
    4. Culpability without reasons: Challenges in this and in earlier cases argued that executive authorities reached conclusions of culpability without verifiable evidence or reasoning.

    Can the gravity of a social menace justify an executive-defined offence?

    1. No licence for arbitrary action: However compelling or threatening the social menace, a penal enactment to curb it “cannot lead to arbitrary and capricious actions against the one, alleged with the commission of an offence”, the Court held.
    2. Loose labelling in public life: Indian public discourse applies labels such as deshdrohi and “urban naxal” at will. Precise definition of categories such as crime and offence is what keeps that habit out of statute.
    3. A reform agenda: The ruling sets out an agenda for reform of the Gangsters Act. It also restates the limits within which enforcement agencies may operate.

    Conclusion

    A State penal law can name a social danger without ever defining the act it punishes. That is what this ruling ends. The reform it invites is legislative, because the offence, its ingredients and its punishment have to sit in the statute a legislature passes rather than in rules the executive writes afterwards. The marker to watch is whether Uttar Pradesh re-enacts its special law with the offence on the face of the statute, and whether other State special laws that punish a status recorded by police are now tested on the same ground.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] A legislation which confers on the executive or administrative authority an unguided and uncontrolled discretionary power in the matter of application of law violates which one of the following Articles of the Constitution of India? (a) Article 14 (b) Article 28 (c) Article 32 (d) Article 44 (a)”

  • How SC has strengthened safeguards around re-arrest

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that an accused released because the grounds of arrest were not communicated is not released on bail. Such a person is released from an “illegal and unconstitutional detention”. A two judge Bench held that the safeguards under Article 22(1) are “fundamental principles which are required to be followed” whenever a person’s liberty is curtailed. The ruling builds on Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which settled that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing under all statutes. The Bench was hearing an appeal by an accused in a POCSO case in Punjab, a prosecution under the child sexual offences law. The contested point is whether an investigating agency retains any power to correct its own breach by arresting the same person again.

    What do Article 21 and Article 22 require on arrest?

    1. Right to life and personal liberty: Article 21 protects the right to life and personal liberty. The arrest safeguards operate at the point where that liberty is curtailed.
    2. Article 22(1), grounds of arrest: Article 22(1) requires the police to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest. It also provides for legal representation.
    3. Article 22(2), production before a magistrate: Article 22(2) requires that an arrested person be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

    How did the written grounds requirement evolve through the Court’s rulings?

    1. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023): The question of a written copy of the grounds of arrest first arose here. Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a person to be informed “of the grounds of such arrest” without specifying how that information is conveyed.
    2. The reasoning in Pankaj Bansal: The Court held that the safeguard would mean little if the grounds were merely read out and not handed over. A written copy must be furnished “as a matter of course and without exception”.
    3. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023): That position was diluted. The Court held that Pankaj Bansal would apply only prospectively, so an arrest predating it was validly made by reading the grounds out without furnishing a copy.
    4. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024): The Court reaffirmed that an arrested person must be provided the grounds of arrest in writing at the earliest.
    5. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2025): The Court settled the position. Communicating the grounds of arrest in writing, in the language the arrestee understands, is mandatory for arrests under all statutes, and non-compliance renders “the arrest and subsequent remand… illegal”.
    6. The oral exception: Mihir Rajesh Shah allowed grounds to be conveyed orally in exceptional cases. A written copy must follow within a reasonable time, and at least two hours before the accused is produced for remand.

    What did the Court hold, and why is the release not bail?

    1. Violation invalidates the arrest itself: Any violation of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) invalidates the arrest. The Court held that any breach “would entail immediate release of the arrested person because such arrest is unconstitutional.”
    2. No power to tinker with the safeguard: The Bench recorded that it cannot tinker with “the most important safeguards provided under Article 22”.
    3. Release without conditions: A release on bail is conditional. Here the arrest is invalid in law, so the accused stands in the position of a person who was never arrested.
    4. Rejection of the blanket immunity argument: The State argued that the seriousness of the offence meant Article 22(2) should not give the accused “blanket immunity” from re-arrest. The Court rejected this and held that the police cannot simply re-arrest an accused on their own where the arrest was unconstitutional.
    5. Weight of the safeguard in serious offences: The requirement of written grounds matters most in serious offences, where securing bail is often difficult. The safeguard is what allows an accused to challenge the arrest or oppose remand.

    What procedure must an agency now follow to re-arrest?

    1. Grounds furnished first: An agency that believes custody is necessary must first furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused.
    2. Prior magisterial approval: The agency must then move the jurisdictional magistrate with an application explaining the need for custody. The application must also state the reasons for the earlier non-compliance.
    3. Endorsement by a superior officer: The application requires endorsement by the officer’s immediate superior.
    4. Transfer of the investigation: The judgment requires the investigation to be transferred to a different officer. It also requires a departmental enquiry.

    What remedy does the ruling open for an unconstitutional arrest?

    1. Compensation as a public law remedy: High Courts may award compensation “as part of the public law remedy in a case of violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution”.
    2. Private civil remedy preserved: The accused retains liberty to pursue a remedy under private civil law in addition to the public law remedy.
    3. A right needs a consequence: Breach of a constitutional provision must carry a consequence, since a right without a remedy and a result is not enforced.
    4. Judicial supervision over police power: The decision places the judiciary in supervision over the State’s power to deprive a person of liberty. It does not extend to supervision over the integrity of the investigation itself.

    Challenges to the Article 22 arrest safeguards

    1. Compensation is rarely awarded: The public law remedy depends on courts using it, and courts do not award compensation often enough in cases of illegal arrest or detention. Eg. The ruling permits a High Court to award compensation and leaves the award to its discretion.
      The Fix: Require a reasoned order wherever a court finds an arrest unconstitutional and declines to award compensation.
    2. Repeated dilution of the standard: The written grounds requirement has been raised and then narrowed across successive rulings, so the content of the safeguard has depended on which judgment governed a given arrest. Eg. The “without exception” rule in Pankaj Bansal was confined to future arrests within the same year.
      The Fix: Write the written grounds requirement, its language and its timing into statutory arrest procedure, so the standard does not turn on the date of the arrest.
    3. Scope of the oral exception: Grounds may be conveyed orally in exceptional cases, and the arresting agency decides in the first instance whether a case is exceptional. Eg. The written copy is due only within a reasonable time, at least two hours before remand.
      The Fix: Require the agency to record in writing, at the time it relies on the exception, why oral communication was unavoidable.
    4. Supervision stops at the arrest: The judicial check operates on the power to detain and not on the investigation, so an unconstitutional arrest does not by itself disturb the case built around it. Eg. The remedy prescribed is transfer of the probe to another officer rather than any consequence for the material already gathered.
      The Fix: Attach the magistrate’s finding on the earlier non-compliance to the officer’s service record, so a repeated breach carries a cost beyond the single case.
    5. Pressure for offence-specific exceptions: The argument that a grave offence should narrow the safeguard will recur in every serious case, since the cost of releasing such an accused is what makes the safeguard contested. Eg. The appeal itself arose from a prosecution for a child sexual offence.
      The Fix: Treat any offence-specific exception as a matter for Parliament rather than for a case by case reading of the constitutional provision.

    Conclusion

    An arrest that fails the constitutional requirement is now void rather than curable, and the investigating agency can no longer repair it by arresting the same person again. The safeguard’s weight has shifted to two actors outside that agency. The magistrate decides whether fresh custody is justified, and the High Court decides whether an unconstitutional detention carries a monetary consequence. The measure to watch is how often compensation is actually awarded, since a remedy that exists but goes unused leaves the safeguard where it was before the ruling.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS2, 15 marks] ”The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society”. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.”

  • Why did the SC reject methanol rules?

    Why did the SC reject methanol rules?

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has struck down Maharashtra government rules requiring methanol to be denatured with a colourant and a bitterant before sale to non drug manufacturers. A Bench including Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held the measures disproportionate and lacking sufficient connection with the problem they sought to address, and allowed the writ petitions filed by methanol based product manufacturers. The rules struck down are Rules 18A and 18B of the Maharashtra Poisons Rules, 1972, introduced by a 2011 amendment after a 1991 hooch tragedy in Mumbai in which around 93 people died after consuming spurious liquor containing methanol. The tension is that the State’s regulatory power over poisons was upheld while the specific measure was voided, because the misuse the rules target happens in the unregulated field and the burden of the rules falls entirely on licensed industry.

    What did Rules 18A and 18B require?

    1. Rule 18A(1), licence verification: It required verification of a purchaser’s Form A licence before methanol could be sold.
    2. Rule 18A(2), mandatory additives: It required methanol sold to non drug manufacturers to be mixed with a colourant and a bitterant, so the substance would be identifiable and unpalatable.
    3. Rule 18B, confiscation: Any possession of methanol without a Form A licence was made liable to confiscation.
    4. The statutory source: The rules were framed under the Poisons Act, 1919, which permits State governments to make rules regulating the possession and sale of poisons.

    Why were these controls introduced in the first place?

    1. The triggering tragedy: Maharashtra tightened controls on methanol after the 1991 Mumbai hooch tragedy, in which around 93 people died from spurious liquor containing methanol.
    2. The inquiry: A committee headed by the then Additional Director General of Police P.R. Parthasarthy was constituted to examine the causes of the tragedy and suggest measures.
    3. The amendment: In 2011, Maharashtra amended its Poisons Rules and introduced Rules 18A and 18B.
    4. The dual character of the chemical: Methanol, or methyl alcohol, is a highly toxic substance and is also a widely used industrial raw material in products including formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, paints and resins, which is why a blanket ban was never the option on the table.

    What did the two sides argue?

    1. The manufacturers on product integrity: Companies told the Court that colour contamination could make products unacceptable to the paint and pharmaceutical industries.
    2. The manufacturers on technical effect: They argued that the additives could affect catalysts and laboratory and pharmaceutical applications, so the denaturing damages legitimate use rather than merely marking the substance.
    3. The State on lethality: The State argued that the rules were necessary because methanol could be mixed with liquor and cause fatal poisoning.
    4. The State on deterrence by design: It argued that making methanol identifiable and bitter would itself help prevent misuse, so the additive was a preventive rather than a punitive measure.

    On what reasoning did the Court strike each rule down?

    1. The constitutional question: The central question was whether Rules 18A and 18B violated Article 14, whose basic tenet is fairness in action and non arbitrariness, and Article 19(1)(g), which protects the right to carry on an occupation, trade or business.
    2. Rule 18A(1) fails on fit: The Court held that merely verifying a Form A licence did not establish how the purchaser would use methanol, so the restriction on legitimate industrial users was disproportionate.
    3. Rule 18A(2) fails on nexus: The Court held the additive requirement had no reasonable and proximate nexus with preventing the misuse of methanol in illicit liquor, and that the State failed to show the additives would prevent diversion or the manufacture of spurious liquor.
    4. The Court’s own formulation: It observed that the rules prescribe a framework that “does not prevent the misuse of methanol in liquor which takes place in the unregulated field”, and that even in the best case of full compliance the sub rule cannot prevent the misuse it aims at.
    5. Rule 18B fails on internal contradiction: Confiscation for possession without a Form A licence could conflict with lawful possession under a Form B permit and effectively render that permit redundant, so it too failed the proportionality test.
    6. The framework applied: Applying the proportionality framework laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Court held that preventing loss of life from methanol adulterated liquor is a legitimate aim, while the restrictions were neither suitable nor necessary to achieve it.
    7. The governing principle recorded: The Court noted that a policy which is irrational, lacks rational justification, or violates any constitutional, statutory or other provision of law is liable to be struck down.

    What did the Court direct States to do instead?

    1. Enforcement across departments: States should work together through the prohibition, excise, police, transport, industries and health departments, along with non governmental organisations, to prevent illegal liquor.
    2. Where enforcement should sit: This includes checking State borders, stopping illegal transport, identifying places where illicit liquor is made or stored, and monitoring industrial units that may illegally supply the chemicals used.
    3. Licensing discipline: Licences should be granted only after proper verification and should be regularly reviewed, with suspension or cancellation for violations.
    4. Stock accountability: Industrial users should return unused or excess methanol and maintain proper stock and consumption records.
    5. Transport controls: Methanol should be transported in dedicated tankers under excise supervision and sealed in a way that prevents theft, diversion or tampering.
    6. Demand side and victim support: The Court called for more addiction treatment centres, support for affected families, and local counselling centres.
    7. The stated limit of the direction: The Court added that while it could issue directions, effective implementation ultimately depends on the police and enforcement machinery.

    Challenges to controlling methanol diversion in India

    1. The diversion happens outside the licensed chain: Illicit liquor is made from methanol that has already left the regulated market, so a control applied at the point of lawful sale never reaches it. Eg. Hooch deaths have recurred in Tamil Nadu, Bihar and Gujarat in years when licensed methanol sale rules were already in force.
      The Fix: Move to end to end electronic tracking of every methanol consignment from the manufacturer’s gate to the consuming unit, with reconciliation of stock against declared consumption.
    2. Rules are made State by State for a chemical that moves across States: A tight regime in one State pushes sourcing to a neighbouring State with lighter controls. Eg. Methanol used in hooch tragedies has repeatedly been traced to consignments purchased outside the State where the deaths occurred.
      The Fix: Frame a model set of Poisons Rules under the Poisons Act, 1919 for adoption by all States, so licensing thresholds and transport conditions do not diverge at the border.
    3. Prohibition raises the payoff from adulteration: Where lawful liquor is banned or heavily taxed, an illicit market grows and the incentive to substitute methanol for ethanol rises with it. Eg. Bihar has recorded repeated mass poisoning episodes since prohibition was imposed in 2016.
      The Fix: Pair any prohibition regime with a funded enforcement and surveillance budget and a public health reporting system for suspected poisoning clusters, rather than relying on the ban alone.
    4. Detection capacity is thin outside major cities: Confirming methanol poisoning requires laboratory testing that district hospitals often cannot perform in time to treat. Eg. The antidote regimen depends on early confirmation, and delays convert survivable exposure into blindness or death.
      The Fix: Stock fomepizole or ethanol antidote kits and rapid methanol assays at district hospitals in districts with a recorded history of illicit liquor production.
    5. Legitimate industrial demand is large and growing: Methanol is a bulk feedstock and a candidate transport fuel, so volumes in circulation rise faster than the licensing machinery expands. Eg. The methanol blending programme promoted by NITI Aayog envisages methanol use in transport and cooking fuel.
      The Fix: Tie licence capacity at the State drugs and excise departments to declared industrial consumption volumes, so inspection frequency scales with the quantity in circulation.

    Conclusion

    The ruling leaves the State’s power over poisons intact and removes the particular instrument it chose. What it establishes is that a restriction on a lawful trade must be shown to work against the mischief it names, and that a regulator cannot rely on the seriousness of the harm to carry a measure that cannot reach it. The next marker is whether States revise their Poisons Rules along the licensing, stock and transport lines the Court set out, or leave the existing rules untouched until the next poisoning episode.

    Back2Basics

    1. The proportionality test: Laid down in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), it is the standard for testing whether a State restriction on a fundamental right is constitutionally permissible.
    2. Legitimate aim: The measure must pursue a goal the Constitution permits the State to pursue, which the Court accepted here in the prevention of deaths from adulterated liquor.
    3. Suitability and necessity: The means chosen must be rationally connected to that aim, and there must be no less restrictive alternative that would achieve it equally well.
    4. Balancing: The extent of the restriction must be proportionate to the benefit secured, and the State carries the burden of demonstrating that it is.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.”

  • SC raises bar on re-arrests, stresses Art 22

    SC raises bar on re-arrests, stresses Art 22

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that the safeguards provided under Article 22 cannot be “tinkered with”, and has laid down strict guidelines for arresting a person again after an earlier release for failure to supply the grounds of arrest. A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar held in a 69 page ruling that an accused released for a violation of fundamental rights is not “enlarged on bail” but released from illegal and unconstitutional detention. The ruling answers Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (November 2025), which had settled that written grounds of arrest must be furnished across all offences and statutes in a language the arrestee understands. That judgment made the failure fatal to the arrest; this one decides what the State may do next. The tension is that the police now need a Magistrate’s prior sanction to correct their own constitutional lapse, in cases the State argues are too serious for the police to “face fetters”.

    What does Article 22 guarantee an arrested person?

    1. Production before a Magistrate: Article 22 requires an accused to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
    2. Grounds of arrest: Article 22(1) requires the accused to be informed of the grounds of arrest, and the settled position is that those grounds must be in writing and in a language the arrestee understands.
    3. Access to counsel: It provides the right to legal representation, meaning consultation with and defence by a legal practitioner of the person’s choice.
    4. The consequence of breach: Any breach or non compliance entails immediate release of the arrested person, because such an arrest is unconstitutional.

    Why did the Court treat the safeguard as constitutional rather than procedural?

    1. Not a formality: The Court held that Article 22(1) is not a mere formality or a matter of procedure, but a mandatory binding constitutional safeguard.
    2. No prejudice test: Where there is a violation of the Constitution, the question of prejudice or demonstrable prejudice does not arise, so an accused need not show that the lapse harmed the defence.
    3. Not statute specific: Article 22(1) applies across the spectrum, including offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and under special enactments, and is not tied to any one statute.
    4. Gravity is irrelevant: The Court held that a violation of the Constitution cannot be countenanced and has to be dealt with strictly, and that the obligation does not depend on the nature or gravity of the offence.

    What procedure must the police now follow to arrest the person again?

    1. Written grounds first: The accused must first be provided written grounds of arrest, curing the original defect before any fresh step is taken.
    2. An application to the Magistrate: An application must be filed before a Magistrate explaining why a fresh arrest is necessary and why the grounds were not furnished the first time.
    3. Endorsement by the superior officer: To rule out foul play or collusion, the application must carry the endorsement of the immediate superior authority, so that authority knows the officer violated a constitutional provision.
    4. The Magistrate’s test: The Magistrate may allow a fresh arrest only on being satisfied that “for bona fide reasons” the grounds could not be furnished at the first instance but were furnished after release, and that the accused needs to be arrested again.
    5. A fixed decision window: The Magistrate must decide such an application within a week.
    6. The investigation changes hands: The superior officer giving the endorsement must hand over the investigation to another officer and direct a departmental enquiry into the lapse.
    7. Consequences for the officer: An adverse finding in that enquiry entails departmental action with an entry in the officer’s service book.
    8. Compensation as a remedy: High Courts across the country have been directed to grant “suitable mandatory compensation” where arrests violate procedural safeguards.

    Why did the Court refuse to leave the decision with the police?

    1. The violator cannot cure its own violation: The Court held that the power to arrest again must not be “left to the discretion of the very same authority who had violated the said provision of the Constitution”.
    2. Judicial sanction as the test: It held that the decision must have “the judicial imprimatur”, which converts an internal police call into an order a court records and can be reviewed against.
    3. Separating remedy from punishment: The release for breach and the departmental enquiry run together, so the individual’s liberty is restored while the officer’s conduct is examined separately.
    4. The State’s contrary case: The Punjab government argued that given the serious nature of the allegations the police “should not face fetters” while arresting an accused, and the Court rejected that as a ground for relaxing the safeguard.

    How did this case reach the Supreme Court?

    1. The underlying matter: The Bench was hearing an appeal by an accused in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) in Punjab.
    2. The first release: The local Magistrate released the accused on the ground that he was not provided the reasons for his arrest, and then allowed the police to arrest him again on complying with procedural safeguards.
    3. The High Court stage: The accused challenged that permission before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which on 29 May allowed the police to arrest him again.
    4. The appeal: The accused then moved the Supreme Court against that High Court order, which is the appeal this ruling decides.

    How has the Court’s position on grounds of arrest evolved?

    1. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, October 2023: The Court held that all arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) require a written copy of the grounds of arrest to be furnished “as a matter of course and without exception”.
    2. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement, December 2023: A later order diluted the rule, holding that grounds need not always be supplied in writing, and treated the Pankaj Bansal ruling as prospective in nature.
    3. Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), May 2024: The Court reaffirmed that an arrested person must be provided the grounds of arrest in writing.
    4. Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra, November 2025: The position was settled, with written grounds required across all offences and statutes in a language the arrestee understands, and failure rendering both the arrest and the subsequent remand illegal.

    Challenges to enforcing the Article 22 safeguards

    1. The remedy depends on the arrested person reaching a court: A safeguard enforced only on application benefits those who can retain counsel within the first 24 hours. Eg. Undertrials form the large majority of India’s prison population, and most are represented through legal aid rather than counsel of choice.
      The Fix: Make the legal services authority’s duty counsel present at the first remand hearing mandatory, so the grounds of arrest are checked by a lawyer before remand is granted.
    2. Written grounds can be reduced to a printed template: A requirement met by handing over a pre printed form with the section numbers filled in satisfies the letter of the rule and tells the arrestee nothing. Eg. Arrest memos under the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) directions became standardised forms within a few years of that judgment.
      The Fix: Require the grounds to state the specific allegation and the material relied on, and make the remand court record that it read them before authorising custody.
    3. Departmental enquiry rarely reaches an adverse finding: An enquiry ordered and conducted within the same force has weak incentives to record a finding that damages a colleague’s service record. Eg. Police complaints authorities recommended under Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) remain unconstituted or non functional in several States.
      The Fix: Route the enquiry into a constitutional lapse to the State Police Complaints Authority rather than the officer’s own superior, so the finding is recorded outside the chain of command.
    4. Compensation has no fixed measure: A direction to award mandatory compensation without a scale produces widely different awards for the same violation across High Courts. Eg. Compensation in custodial violation matters has ranged from token sums to several lakh rupees with no stated basis.
      The Fix: Notify a statutory schedule of minimum compensation by duration of unlawful detention, recoverable from the State with a right of recovery against the erring officer.
    5. The rule bites hardest where evidence is time sensitive: In offences against children and in organised crime, a week’s delay for a Magistrate’s sanction can allow interference with witnesses. Eg. The case that produced this ruling arose under POCSO, where the complainant is a child.
      The Fix: Allow the Magistrate to impose interim protective conditions on the released accused while the application for a fresh arrest is pending, so witness safety does not depend on custody.

    Conclusion

    The judgment shifts the cost of a defective arrest from the accused to the State and to the individual officer. Its practical weight rests on the Magistrate, who now decides whether a constitutional lapse was in good faith and whether custody should resume, on a record that can be tested on appeal. The marker to watch is whether High Courts settle a common scale for the mandatory compensation the ruling directs, since an unquantified remedy is the part of this line of cases that has consistently failed to hold.

    Back2Basics

    1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): It is the general criminal code of India, replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and it came into force on 1 July 2024.
    2. The companion statutes: It was enacted alongside the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
    3. Ministry and route: The three laws were piloted by the Ministry of Home Affairs and passed by Parliament in December 2023.
    4. Why it appears here: The Court held that the Article 22(1) obligation is not statute specific, so it binds arrests under the BNS and under special enactments alike.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023] Consider the following statements:

    1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances.

    2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to person being held for preventive detention

    3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence.

    How many of the above statements are correct?

    (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None

  • Supreme Court asks Tamil Nadu to comply with order to identify land for Navodaya schools

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has asked the Tamil Nadu government to comply with its order to identify land for establishing Navodaya schools in every district of the State, and has given it three months to do so. A two judge Bench framed the direction around the need to strengthen cooperative federalism, and asked the Centre and the State to settle their differences on language policy and funding through dialogue. The direction continues a chain that began with a Madras High Court order of 11 September 2017, which asked the State to identify an appropriate place and building for the school and thereafter to allocate suitable land in every district. The Supreme Court had itself asked the State to identify the land in December 2025, and the State came back seeking a recall of that order rather than compliance. The contest is over what a national residential school brings with it: the State’s stated objection is not to Hindi being taught but to Hindi being taught as the predominant language in higher classes, while the Court’s position is that an additional school network cannot lower the State’s own standards.

    What is the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme?

    1. About: Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas are fully residential, co educational schools funded by the Union government to give talented rural children access to quality schooling without paying for it.
    2. Administration: The schools are run by the Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, and are affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
    3. Coverage design: The scheme provides for one school in each district of the country, with the State supplying the land and the Centre funding construction and running costs.
    4. Entry: Admission is at Class 6 through the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Selection Test, with a majority of seats in each district reserved for rural candidates.

    What did the Court direct, and what was it responding to?

    1. Compliance, not recall: The State asked the Court to recall its earlier direction to identify land, and the Court refused, giving the State three months to identify the land instead.
    2. Scope of the direction: The obligation is to identify land in all districts, which is the same two step sequence the Madras High Court laid down: fix a place and a building first, then allot suitable land.
    3. Dialogue as the route: The Bench asked the State’s Secretary to speak with Central officials, and directed that differences on language policy and funding be resolved through discussion rather than through further litigation.

    Why has Tamil Nadu resisted the schools?

    1. Language policy, not Hindi teaching: Counsel for the State told the Court that the objection is not to Hindi being taught, but to Hindi being taught as the predominant language in higher classes.
    2. The Court’s factual answer: The Bench pointed out that Hindi is already taught in many schools in the State, and said the State should change its mindset on the question.
    3. A middle position was offered: The Bench indicated that a demand for Tamil as a second language inside the school is a matter that can be considered.
    4. Beyond language: The Court grouped funding alongside language as a live Centre State difference to be settled by discussion, so the dispute is not confined to the medium of instruction.

    How did the Court frame this as a federal question?

    1. Cooperative federalism as the stated ground: The Court underlined the need to strengthen cooperative federalism as the reason for asking the State to comply, rather than treating the matter as a bare question of executing a High Court order.
    2. Addition, not substitution: The Bench held that more schools of another type in the State would only enhance its education network and expand opportunity for students, and would not lower the standard of education there.
    3. Neither side is being displaced: The Bench recorded that the order alienates neither the State nor the Centre, adding that people in Chennai should not alienate Delhi and the reverse should not happen either, and that everybody must ultimately work together.

    Challenges to the Navodaya Vidyalaya Scheme

    1. Dependence on State land allotment: The Centre funds and runs the school but cannot open one until the State allots land, so a State that withholds land blocks the scheme completely. Eg. Tamil Nadu has no Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya despite the scheme having run since 1986.
      The Fix: Write a land allotment timeline into the scheme guidelines against a named nodal secretary in each State, so the step produces a dated decision rather than an open file.
    2. A single entry point: General admission happens only at Class 6 through one selection test, so a child who misses that year has no ordinary route in later. Eg. Entry at Class 9 is confined to seats left vacant in a school.
      The Fix: Reserve a fixed share of Class 9 seats in every school for lateral entry, advertised on the same calendar as the Class 6 test.
    3. Scale against district demand: One school per district cannot absorb the demand for free residential schooling in a populous district. Eg. A standard Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya admits about 80 students a year at Class 6.
      The Fix: Sanction a second school in districts where applications exceed a set multiple of the sanctioned intake.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is no longer about whether the schools are good for students. It is about whether a State can decline a centrally funded institution because of the language package attached to it. The Court has converted that into a procedural question with a deadline: identify the land in three months, and take the language and funding disagreement to the officials rather than back to the Bench. What to watch is whether the State’s Secretary and the Central officials produce a settled position on the second language inside these schools before the three months run out.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS2, 15] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.”