Punjab’s Governor assented in April 2026 to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, which provides punishment up to life imprisonment for sacrilege. The Act also covers words, signs, visible representations and electronic means, raising debate over the boundary between sacrilege and blasphemy.
What is the Act?
Applies to wilful and deliberate desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib.
Covers physical acts such as damage, defacement, burning, tearing and theft of Saroop.
Also covers certain spoken/written words, signs, visual representations and electronic acts.
Emerged against the backdrop of the 2015 Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala incidents.
Key Legal Provisions
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from July 2024.
Section 298: Offences involving injury/defilement of places of worship.
Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, including through electronic means.
Section 299 carries forward the substance of former Section 295A, IPC.
Constitutional Provisions
Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions, including for public order.
Article 25: Freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
Article 14: Equality before law.
Article 51A(e): Promotes harmony and common brotherhood.
Article 51A(h): Promotes scientific temper, inquiry and reform.
Secularism: Part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Sacrilege vs Blasphemy
Sacrilege: Physical or conduct-based desecration of something sacred.
Blasphemy: Expressive acts showing contempt or irreverence towards religious beliefs.
Concern: Punjab’s law potentially merges the two by treating certain expressive acts as sacrilege.
Historical Background of Section 295A
Rangila Rasul pamphlet triggered controversy in Lahore in 1924.
Section 295A IPC was enacted in 1927 to criminalise deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) under the Article 19(2) public order exception.
Key Concerns
Chilling effect on speech, scholarship and satire.
Subjective interpretation of religious hurt.
Potential misuse by organised complainants.
Risk of vigilante violence despite criminalisation.
Digital communication expands the potential reach of the offence.
Different States may prescribe different levels of punishment.
A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court agreed to use its Article 142 power to quash first information reports (FIRs) naming students who joined the nationwide protests against the NEET-UG paper leak. The move separates two categories the State had merged, peaceful student protesters and 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, and forces a question the criminal process itself had avoided, who decides where lawful dissent ends. The Court simultaneously moved from case specific relief toward standing rules, proposing a high powered committee to lay down guidelines and protocol for the police use of force.
What is Article 142 of the Constitution?
Plenary power to do complete justice: Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
Enforceable across India: Such a decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India in the manner prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament.
Ancillary powers under Article 142(2): The Court may secure the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of documents, and the investigation or punishment of contempt of itself.
Not bound by ordinary statutory limits: Prohibitions in ordinary law do not operate as limitations on the Article 142 power, which is why the Court can quash an FIR that a statutory route would not permit it to touch.
Discretionary and case specific: The power is exercised on the facts of the particular case and does not by itself create a general rule for later cases.
What is a Facial Recognition System (FRS)?
Biometric matching technology: A Facial Recognition System (FRS) captures a facial image and compares its measurable features against a stored database to return a probable identity match.
Deployment at the protest site: The police affidavit stated that FRS is not deployed for indiscriminate surveillance and does not automatically capture, create or maintain profiles of every individual present.
Database composition claimed: The police stated that the record covers faces of persons accused in serious offences, not those in petty matters such as traffic challans.
What is the proportionality test?
A four part judicial standard: The proportionality test asks whether a State measure pursues a legitimate aim, is rationally connected to that aim, is the least restrictive alternative, and strikes a fair balance between the aim and the rights burdened.
Distinct from a privacy claim: The Bench stated it will examine the FRS deployment on proportionality and not on Article 21, which narrows the enquiry to whether the means matched the stated policing purpose.
What is the current status of the right to protest in India?
Derived from two Fundamental Rights: The right to protest flows from Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression, read with Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Available only to peaceful assembly: The protection attaches to assembly that is peaceable and unarmed, and falls away where an assembly turns violent.
Subject to reasonable restrictions: Restrictions are permitted under Article 19(2) on grounds including public order, and under Article 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
No right to an indefinite occupation of public space: The settled position is that a designated protest site may be used, but a public road or thoroughfare cannot be occupied indefinitely.
The Court’s operative position in this case: The Bench stated it would protect students so long as they intended to hold a peaceful and lawful protest and raise demands they expected the authorities to hear.
Which constitutional provisions govern protest, policing and this jurisdiction?
Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): Guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions on those two rights, including on the ground of public order.
Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, the route through which privacy and bodily integrity claims against surveillance and force are usually raised.
Article 32: Gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights, the gateway through which these petitions reached it.
Article 142: Confers the plenary power to pass any order necessary for complete justice, the power the Bench invoked to quash the FIRs.
Article 144: Requires all civil and judicial authorities in India to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
Seventh Schedule, State List Entries 1 and 2: Place public order and police with the States, which is why the Delhi Police answered through the Union in the national capital.
What exactly did the Court direct on the FIRs?
Quashing confined to student only FIRs: The Bench sought a list of FIRs in which only students were named, and stated it would quash those by invoking Article 142.
Serious antecedents carved out: FIRs involving elements with serious criminal antecedents were left to be decided subject to discussion in court.
Investigation narrowed to a named number: The Solicitor General stated the police would confine investigation to 2,873 persons identified at the protest site with serious criminal backgrounds.
Charges specified for that set: The affidavit named murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and POCSO offences among the charges against those 2,873 persons.
Non disclosure of FIR details flagged: Counsel for the students stated the police had not shared even the FIR numbers despite promising no action against peaceful protesters.
Generic labels rejected: The Bench held that the State cannot refer to undesirable elements in generic terms and must at least identify them.
Why is the Court routing the inquiry through a high powered committee?
Proposed composition: The committee would comprise a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice and a retired police officer of Director General of Police rank.
Consent already secured: The Bench stated it had obtained the consent of a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a retired Director General of Police of an unconnected State.
Two names kept open deliberately: Both options were retained so that no allegation could later be raised against the presence of the CBI officer on the panel.
Mandate beyond this protest: The Bench identified laying down guidelines and protocol for the use of force as a task for the committee, alongside issues needing immediate attention.
Urgent items identified: Allegations of police personnel sexually molesting women protesters, and online harassment and victimisation of vulnerable persons, were listed for urgent examination.
Evidence to be transferred: The Court stated it would direct the authorities to hand over all digital and other materials to the committee.
What does the police affidavit claim about the use of force at Jantar Mantar?
Force described as graded: The affidavit stated the force employed was proportionate, reasonable, graded and in accordance with law, and used only after protesters resorted to violence.
Tear smoke shells as last resort: The police stated that tear smoke shells were used only as a last resort and that the lathi charge was limited and controlled.
Specific denials recorded: The affidavit denied the use of nail lathis and denied that officers manhandled women protesters.
Plainclothes personnel admitted: The police admitted deploying plainclothes personnel as spotters, describing this as a globally followed crowd control arrangement at large gatherings.
Hindsight objection raised: The police argued that instantaneous operational decisions cannot be misjudged later by selectively relying on isolated video clips or media reports.
Counter on accountability: Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the affidavit records no internal or administrative action against the personnel concerned.
Why has the Court framed the surveillance question as proportionality rather than privacy?
A narrower and faster enquiry: Testing proportionality asks whether FRS deployment matched its stated purpose, which the Bench can decide on the record without reopening the settled privacy jurisprudence.
Sequencing stated by the Bench: The primary question was identified as whether excessive force was used, with the FRS aspect to be examined after that.
The petitioners’ wider claim left untested: Counsel argued that FRS cannot be used at all and that data on persons other than the accused are also retained.
The storage objection: Counsel for a Rajya Sabha member submitted that the data were stored with private entities, a custody question a proportionality enquiry does not automatically reach.
The data the police disclosed: FRS returned 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, of whom 92 were involved in over 10 cases each and 47 of those 92 were history sheeters.
The unresolved consequence: A proportionality finding settles whether this deployment was excessive, not whether a permanent facial database of protest sites is constitutionally permissible.
What are the major debates surrounding Article 142 and the policing of protest?
Complete justice against statutory command: One position treats Article 142 as a residual equity power to fill gaps, the other holds that it cannot be used to supplant express statutory provisions.
Precedent versus one off relief: Counsel opposing the quashing asked whether this would be a one off order or a precedent, since a mass quashing of FIRs invites replication in every future agitation.
Remorse as a condition for relief: The objection that the students had not expressed a shred of remorse or regret raises whether contrition is a legitimate precondition for constitutional relief.
Lawfulness of the march itself: It was submitted that the 20 July march towards Parliament was unlawful, which reframes the dispute from excessive force to the legality of the assembly.
Individual accountability against institutional inquiry: Petitioners pressed for immediate action against identified officers, while the Bench held that giving directions now would curtail the committee’s own role.
Surveillance as ordinary policing: The police characterised FRS as a legitimate, bona fide and proportionate policing measure, which if accepted normalises biometric identification at every large gathering.
Challenges to the use of Article 142
Absence of a stated limiting principle: No settled test governs when the power may be used, so its exercise turns on the composition of the Bench, e.g. the 2016 direction banning liquor vends within 500 metres of national and State highways was substantially diluted by the Court itself in 2017.
Encroachment on the legislative domain: Orders made under Article 142 can create obligations Parliament never enacted, e.g. the 2016 direction making the National Anthem compulsory in cinema halls, which the Court made optional again in 2018.
No appeal against the order: A direction issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 is not appealable, so an error of fact in the underlying record survives uncorrected, e.g. sealed cover material relied on in several public interest matters was never tested by the affected parties.
Selective relief risk: Quashing an entire class of FIRs without a public list invites the charge that relief tracked the political salience of the protest, e.g. FIRs arising from other agitations of the same period, including the Siwan firing incident of 25 July, remain live.
Executive resistance to enforcement: An Article 142 order still depends on the executive for compliance, e.g. the April 2025 order deeming Tamil Nadu bills assented led to a Presidential Reference rather than settled implementation.
Displacement of ordinary remedies: Routine use encourages litigants to bypass High Court remedies under Article 226, e.g. FIR quashing petitions ordinarily lie under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court.
Conclusion
The Bench used an extraordinary constitutional power not to settle guilt but to draw a line the police investigation had not drawn, between a protest and the criminal record of individuals inside it. The unresolved question is institutional rather than factual, since a committee of retired judges and a retired police officer will now write the protocol for the use of force that no statute currently supplies. The proportionality enquiry into facial recognition, framed expressly outside Article 21, will decide whether biometric identification at a protest site is treated as a policing tool or as a rights question. The order framing the committee’s terms of reference was stated to be forthcoming the next day.
The Supreme Court has directed a fresh nationwide survey of elephant corridors, noting that several corridors remain impeded, blocked or obstructed despite existing guidelines of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).
The Court held that crop damage cannot justify placing obstacles in elephant movement paths, highlighting the conflict between wildlife conservation and local livelihood concerns.
What is an Elephant Corridor?
Meaning: A natural or narrow land passage connecting two elephant habitats, enabling movement between them.
Need: Elephants move over large areas in search of food, water and mineral licks.
Ecological role: Corridors maintain habitat connectivity and gene flow between elephant populations.
Legal status: Corridors are identified through ecological and movement studies but are not automatically Protected Areas.
Land ownership: Many corridors pass through private, revenue, plantation or community land.
India:150 elephant corridors have been identified across 15 elephant range States.
What did the Supreme Court Direct?
Fresh nationwide survey of elephant corridors.
A comprehensive report on existing corridors and measures taken to prevent their obstruction.
Identification of corridors that have been blocked, choked or obstructed.
States cannot justify blocking elephant paths merely because of crop destruction.
The Court emphasised that elephants are a wide-ranging species and require unobstructed movement.
The matter will be considered again after six weeks.
Why are Elephant Corridors Important?
Habitat connectivity: Prevents isolation of elephant populations.
Gene flow: Allows breeding between different populations.
Conflict reduction: Functional corridors can prevent elephants from being forced into settlements.
Climate resilience: Connected habitats allow species to shift their range as environmental conditions change.
Resorts and other infrastructure: Restrict access to traditional movement paths.
Railways and highways: Increase collision and fragmentation risks.
Plantations and agriculture: Conversion of corridor land narrows movement routes.
Electric fencing: Illegal or poorly designed fencing can cause electrocution.
Mining and quarrying: Remove vegetation and fragment habitats.
Canals and irrigation structures: Create physical barriers, particularly for calves.
Settlements and encroachment: Increase human presence along traditional routes.
Elephant Conservation in India
The species and its status: The Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) is listed as Endangered on the IUCN Red List and is India’s National Heritage Animal, declared in 2010.
India’s share of the global population: India holds the largest wild Asian elephant population, about 29,964 individuals, roughly 60 per cent of the global population as per the 2017 census.
Population growth under the programme: Wild elephant numbers rose from about 25,000 in 1992 to about 30,000 in 2021 under Project Elephant.
State distribution:Karnataka holds the highest population, followed by Assam and Kerala.
Elephant Reserves: India has 33 elephant reserves covering about 80,777 sq km.
Corridors:150 corridors have been identified across 15 elephant range States.
Regional spread of corridors: The East central region holds 52 corridors, or 35 per cent of the total, the North East 48 corridors, or 32 per cent, Southern India 32 corridors, or 21 per cent, and Northern India 18 corridors, or 12 per cent.
State with the most corridors:West Bengal, with 26 corridors, about 17 per cent of the national total.
Why the elephant is a keystone species: It disperses seeds over long distances and opens forest canopy and waterholes that other species depend on.
Article 48A: Directs the State to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.
Article 51A(g): Places a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17B: Places protection of wild animals and birds on the Concurrent List after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, 1976.
Seventh Schedule, Concurrent List Entry 17A: Places forests on the Concurrent List, which is why State forest departments implement central wildlife law.
Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read to include a right to a clean and healthy environment, the basis for much environmental litigation.
Article 32 and Article 142: Give the Supreme Court the power to entertain writ petitions and to pass orders necessary for complete justice, the source of continuing mandamus in wildlife matters.
Article 253: Empowers Parliament to legislate to implement international conventions, the basis for wildlife law giving effect to treaty obligations.
Laws and Rules Governing Elephants and Their Habitat
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The primary law for protection of wild animals and plants and for the constitution of protected areas.
Key protection: The Indian elephant is listed in Schedule I, which carries the highest degree of protection and the strictest penalties.
2022 Amendment: Rationalised the schedules, gave effect to CITES obligations in domestic law, and regulated the transfer of captive elephants for religious and other purposes.
Project Elephant, 1992: A centrally sponsored scheme for protection of elephants, their habitat and corridors, and for management of human elephant conflict.
Coverage: It extends to 23 States and provides the framework under which elephant reserves are declared.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, renamed the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam: Requires prior central approval for diverting forest land, which governs infrastructure passing through corridors on forest land.
Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides the categories of reserved and protected forest through which many corridors run.
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises community rights in forest areas, including in landscapes that carry elephant movement.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides for eco sensitive zone notifications and environmental clearance conditions applicable to projects near protected areas.
Biological Diversity Act, 2002: Provides for conservation of biological diversity and equitable sharing of benefits, with biodiversity management committees at the local level.
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora: Lists the Asian elephant in Appendix I, barring commercial international trade in the species and its parts.
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals: Lists the Asian elephant in Appendix I, obliging range States to conserve and restore its habitats.
Back2Basics: Asian Elephant
Scientific and common name:Elephas maximus, the Asian or Asiatic elephant, of which the Indian elephant is the mainland subspecies.
IUCN Red List status:Endangered.
Convention on Migratory Species: Listed in Appendix I.
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: Listed in Schedule I, the highest protection category.
Global significance: India holds the largest wild Asian elephant population in the world, about 29,964 individuals, close to 60 per cent of the global total as per the 2017 census.
Range within India: Highest numbers in Karnataka, followed by Assam and Kerala, across 15 elephant range States.
Habitat: Tropical moist and dry deciduous forest, grassland, scrub and adjoining agricultural landscapes, with populations in fragmented forests, tea estates and farmland.
Social structure: Herds are matrilineal, led by an older female, and family units combine into clans and sub populations.
Communication: Elephants use over 60 distinct calls together with gestures and physical contact, including low frequency rumbles that carry over long distances.
Behavioural notes: Elephants comfort distressed companions, mourn their dead, cooperate in raising calves and adopt orphaned young, and individual animals show distinct personalities.
Recorded mortuary behaviour: Research in fragmented forests, tea estates and farmland near the Gorumara Wildlife Division and Buxa Tiger Reserve in West Bengal documented herds carrying calf carcasses and burying them in a legs upright position, then avoiding paths near the burial site.
Genetic structure: A recent study identified five genetically distinct populations of Asian elephants in India.
Conservation framework: Project Elephant, 1992, 33 elephant reserves over about 80,777 sq km, and 150 identified corridors.
Named corridors: Kaniyanpura to Moyar in Karnataka, Chilla to Motichur in Uttarakhand, Thirunelli to Kudarakote in Kerala, the Segur corridor in Tamil Nadu, Kuldiha to Hadgarh in Odisha, Edayarahalli to Doddasampige in Karnataka, and Mudahalli to Talavadi across Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
Major threats: Habitat loss and fragmentation, corridor blockage, railway collisions, electrocution, poaching for ivory, and retaliatory killing arising from crop and property damage.
Government Initiatives
Project Elephant, 1992: The umbrella centrally sponsored scheme for elephant protection, habitat and corridor management, and conflict mitigation across 23 States.
Elephant Reserves: 33 reserves notified over about 80,777 sq km, providing a landscape unit for management outside the protected area system.
Gaj Yatra: A national awareness campaign for securing elephant corridors, launched on World Elephant Day.
Haathi Mere Saathi: A public outreach campaign of the Ministry to build tolerance and awareness in elephant range landscapes.
Monitoring of Illegal Killing of Elephants: A site based monitoring programme run under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, in which India participates.
Surakshya portal: A national portal for real time reporting and collection of human elephant conflict data from the field.
Synchronised elephant population estimation: A periodic all India estimation exercise conducted jointly by range States using common protocols.
National Wildlife Action Plan 2017 to 2031: The national policy framework for wildlife conservation, including landscape level and corridor conservation.
Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority: Funds habitat improvement and conflict mitigation works, including barriers and water sources, in elephant landscapes.
Key Facts about Elephants in India
World Elephant Day: Observed on 12 August every year.
National Heritage Animal: The Indian elephant was declared India’s National Heritage Animal in 2010.
Project Elephant launch:February 1992, by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Largest land mammal in Asia: The Asian elephant is the largest terrestrial mammal on the continent.
Distinguishing feature: Only some male Asian elephants carry tusks, unlike the African elephant where both sexes commonly do.
Gestation: About 22 months, the longest of any land mammal, which makes population recovery slow.
Elephant reserves and corridors: 33 reserves and 150 identified corridors across 15 range States.
Gaj Yatra launch: Launched on 12 August 2017 as a nationwide corridor awareness campaign.
Global population share: India holds about 60 per cent of the world’s wild Asian elephants.
“[2022] With reference to Indian laws about wildlife protection, consider the following statements : 1. Wild animals are the sole property of the government. 2. When a wild animal is declared protected, such animal is entitled for equal protection whether it is found in protected areas or outside. 3. Apprehension of a protected wild animal becoming a danger to human life is sufficient ground for its capture or killing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ? (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 3 only
The Union government assured a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court that transgender identity cards issued before the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 came into force continue to remain valid. The assurance was given in a challenge arguing that the amendment, in force since 30 March, dismantles the right to self identification recognised in the National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014) line of cases. The dispute turns on whether gender identity is declared by the person or certified by the State.
What is the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026?
About: It amends the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the statute that governs recognition of transgender identity and the certificate of identity issued to a transgender person.
Commencement: It came into force on 30 March 2026.
Core objection to it: Petitioners argue that it dismantles the right to self identification and gives the State unfettered authority to determine gender identity.
Status of earlier cards: The Solicitor General assured the Court that identity cards issued before the amendment remain valid, and their validity is unaffected by the new law.
Judicial position so far: The Court had already indicated in the previous hearing that the 2026 law should not operate retrospectively to invalidate cards issued under the earlier legislation.
Forum: The challenge is before a three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.
What is self identification of gender?
About: Self identification is the principle that a person’s gender is determined by that person’s own declaration of identity, without any requirement of medical examination or third party certification.
Legal origin in India: The Supreme Court recognised it in National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014), holding that the right to determine one’s gender is integral to dignity under Article 21.
What is a transgender identity card?
About: A certificate of identity issued to a transgender person that provides official recognition of the person’s self identified gender.
Practical use: It is used to support changes to name and gender across official records, and the government’s transgender portal expressly enables such changes.
What is the current status of gender identity recognition in India?
Statutory basis: Recognition runs through the certificate of identity issued under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the rules made under it.
Application route: An application is made to the District Magistrate, who issues a certificate of identity as a transgender person and a revised certificate after gender affirming surgery.
Third gender status: Transgender persons are recognised as a third gender for the purposes of state welfare and identity documents.
Prohibition of discrimination: The 2019 Act bars discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, access to public goods and the right to residence.
Reservation position: No reservation in education or public employment has been extended to transgender persons as a class, despite the direction in the 2014 judgment to treat them as socially and educationally backward.
Position after the amendment: The 2026 Amendment Act is in force from 30 March 2026, and its validity is under challenge before a three judge Bench.
Position of existing card holders: Cards issued before the amendment continue to remain valid on the government’s own assurance to the Court.
Constitutional Provisions Related to gender identity
Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to every person, not only to men and women.
Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, with sex read to include gender identity.
Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and permits reservation for backward classes.
Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of expression, which includes expression of gender identity through dress, speech and behaviour.
Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, read to include dignity, personal autonomy and the right to determine one’s gender.
Article 15(4) and Article 16(4): Permit special provisions and reservation for socially and educationally backward classes, the route directed in the 2014 judgment.
Article 32: Provides the remedy through which the present challenge to the amendment has been brought.
Article 23: Prohibits trafficking and forced labour, relevant to the exploitation the community faces in the absence of livelihood options.
What did the National Legal Services Authority judgment establish?
Recognition of a third gender: The Supreme Court held in April 2014 that transgender persons must be recognised as a third gender for the purposes of law.
Right to self identification: It held that the gender to which a person belongs is to be determined by that person’s own identification and not by biological or medical criteria.
Constitutional grounding: It located the right in Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21, treating gender identity as an aspect of dignity and personal autonomy.
Backward class direction: It directed the Centre and the States to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward for the purposes of reservation.
Positive obligations: It directed provision of separate public toilets, medical facilities, welfare schemes and measures to address social stigma.
The wider line of cases: Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) recognised privacy and decisional autonomy, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same sex relations, and Arunkumar v Inspector General of Registration (2019) upheld the marriage rights of a transgender person.
What do the petitioners argue against the 2026 amendment?
Loss of self determination: The amendment allows the State unfettered authority to determine gender identity, displacing the person’s own declaration.
Conflict with binding precedent: Self identification was recognised as a constitutional right in 2014, and a statute cannot narrow a right located in Article 21.
Value of existing documents: The importance of transgender identity cards already issued cannot be trifled away, since name and gender across official records depend on them.
Retrospective effect: Any reading that invalidates earlier cards would strip recognition already granted under a previous legislation.
Who is before the Court: The petitioners include community members and activists, so the challenge is brought by the group the law regulates.
Can the State certify gender identity without displacing the right to determine it?
Two claims in tension: The State has an interest in a verifiable identity document, and the individual has a constitutional right to declare gender without external validation.
Where certification becomes control: A certificate that records a declaration is administrative, and a certificate that decides the declaration is determinative of the right itself.
Documentary dependence: Name and gender in every other official record follow from the certificate, so control over the certificate is control over legal personality.
Precedent against statute: The right was recognised through Article 21 in 2014, and the amendment operates on the same subject through ordinary legislation.
The retrospectivity carve out: Protecting existing cards resolves the immediate hardship of current holders and leaves the question of future applicants untouched.
The unresolved core: The assurance settles who keeps a card already issued, not who will be entitled to one under the amended procedure.
Major debates surrounding gender self identification
Declaration against certification: Whether recognition should follow a self declaration or require screening by a district authority.
Medicalisation of identity: Whether any surgical or medical requirement for a revised certificate is consistent with autonomy under Article 21.
Appeal and remedy: Whether refusal of a certificate by a District Magistrate should carry a statutory appeal, which the 2019 Act was criticised for omitting.
Reservation for transgender persons: Whether the 2014 direction to treat the community as socially and educationally backward requires a horizontal reservation across categories.
Penalty asymmetry: Whether the lower punishment for sexual violence against transgender persons under the 2019 Act compared with the general criminal law is constitutionally sustainable.
Family and residence: Whether the requirement to reside with the natal family or in a rehabilitation centre respects the autonomy of adults who leave hostile homes.
Data and enumeration: Whether recognition can be operationalised at all without accurate population data, since the last enumeration of the community was in Census 2011.
Challenges to the transgender rights framework
Certification bottleneck: Recognition depends on a single district officer with no statutory appeal against refusal. e.g. applicants under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 have reported long delays in issue of the certificate of identity.
Absence of reservation: The 2014 direction on backward class status has not been operationalised at the national level. e.g. Karnataka became the first State to provide a one per cent reservation in public employment in 2021, and most States have not followed.
Weak penalty structure: Offences against transgender persons carry lower punishment than equivalent offences in the general criminal law. e.g. the 2019 Act prescribes six months to two years for sexual abuse of a transgender person.
Healthcare exclusion: Gender affirming care and mental health support are unevenly available and rarely insured. e.g. Ayushman Bharat TG Plus was created precisely because transgender persons were excluded from mainstream health coverage.
Livelihood and employment: Discrimination pushes the community towards begging and sex work despite a statutory bar on discrimination. e.g. the SMILE scheme’s livelihood component was designed to move persons out of begging.
Documentation mismatch: Records in education certificates, bank accounts and property documents do not update automatically after a change in gender. e.g. the government’s transgender portal exists specifically to enable name and gender changes across records.
Data invisibility: Policy runs on a 2011 count with no subsequent enumeration. e.g. Census 2011 recorded 4.88 lakh transgender persons, a figure widely regarded as an undercount.
Conclusion
The assurance protects existing card holders and leaves the constitutional question untouched, since the dispute is about whether gender identity is declared or certified. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 remains in force from 30 March 2026, and its validity is pending before a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court on a challenge grounded in the 2014 line of cases. The Court has recorded that the law should not operate retrospectively and the government has accepted that position on the record. The source names no next date for the hearing, so the stage reached is the government’s undertaking and the pending challenge.
[2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy? (a) Article 15 (b) Article 16 (c) Article 19 (d) Article 21
The 22nd report of the amicus curiae to the Supreme Court records 4,192 criminal cases pending trial against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies, with 519 pending for more than a decade. The figure has stayed above 4,000 every year since 2018, through three rounds of Supreme Court directions creating special courts, designated courts and suo motu monitoring. The report therefore shifts the question from what should be ordered to why nine years of orders have not moved the number.
Who is an amicus curiae?
About: An amicus curiae is a senior lawyer appointed by a court to assist it impartially in a matter, rather than to represent any party before it.
Role here: The amicus in this public interest litigation collects pendency data from every High Court, audits compliance with earlier directions and files periodic reports with recommendations.
What is a designated court for cases against legislators?
About: A designated court is an existing Sessions or Magisterial court identified in each district to hear criminal cases against sitting and former legislators on priority.
Difference from a special court: A special court is constituted exclusively for such cases, while a designated court continues to carry its ordinary docket alongside them.
What does the 22nd amicus report record?
Total pendency:4,192 cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs are pending trial across the country.
The oldest bracket:519 cases have been pending for more than a decade.
Cases still under investigation:700 cases are pending investigation, of which 360 have stayed at that stage for more than three years without a chargesheet.
Source of the data: The figure is drawn from information received from High Courts and their websites, and the High Court websites together show 4,442 pending cases.
A gap in reporting: The Allahabad High Court did not submit a report, so its figure of 1,171 cases is taken from its website as of February 2024.
Reach into high office: Chief Ministers of 14 of 28 States have criminal cases pending trial against them.
Where the case is listed: The matter was referred to a three judge Bench in February 2025 and was listed before that Bench on 18 August.
What is the full pendency profile in the data?
Cases pending for 5 to 10 years:754.
Cases pending for 3 to 5 years:562.
Cases pending for less than 3 years:1,095.
State wise concentration: Uttar Pradesh leads with 1,171 cases, followed by Kerala at 543, Bihar at 373, Maharashtra at 364 and Odisha at 330.
Chief Ministers facing cases: The Telangana Chief Minister faces the highest number at 89, followed by the West Bengal Chief Minister at 29, the Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh Chief Ministers at 19 each and the Kerala Chief Minister at 18.
The trend line: Pendency rose from 4,075 in December 2018 to 5,140 in November 2022 before settling at 4,192 in July 2026, remaining above 4,000 throughout.
Scale in the sitting Houses:251 of 543 members of the Lok Sabha and 75 of 233 members of the Rajya Sabha have criminal cases against them.
Data caveat: The cut off dates for the State figures vary, so the totals are indicative rather than a single day snapshot.
What has the Supreme Court already directed since 2017?
Special courts in 2017: The Court ordered the setting up of 12 special courts in 10 States and Union Territories for speedy trial of criminal cases involving legislators.
Designated courts in December 2018: It directed that one designated Sessions Court and one designated Magisterial Court be identified in every district to try such cases on priority.
Suo motu monitoring in November 2023: It directed the Chief Justices of all High Courts to register suo motu cases to monitor early disposal and empowered special benches to issue directions for expeditious trial.
Reference in February 2025: The matter went to a three judge Bench after an earlier amicus report flagged the absence of effective monitoring by most High Courts.
The outcome so far: Pendency has remained at roughly the same level across all three rounds of directions.
Why has pendency stayed above 4,000 since 2018?
Designated courts carry ordinary work: Courts identified for legislators’ cases continue to handle their regular judicial docket, so priority exists on paper only.
Repeated adjournments: Hearings are deferred at the instance of parties without effective cost or consequence.
Non appearance of accused persons: Accused legislators fail to appear on listed dates, and the trial cannot proceed in their absence.
Delays in securing witnesses: Witnesses are not produced on the dates fixed, breaking the continuity of evidence.
Inadequate High Court monitoring: Most High Courts have not run the suo motu monitoring the Court ordered in November 2023.
What does the amicus recommend?
Exclusive trials: Designated courts should conduct trials involving lawmakers exclusively until their backlog is cleared.
Day to day hearing: Cases pending for more than three years should be heard on a day to day basis.
Non bailable warrants: Courts should issue non bailable warrants where an accused lawmaker fails to appear on two consecutive dates.
Nodal prosecution officer: A nodal prosecution officer should be appointed to secure the attendance of witnesses.
Real time data upload: Case data and order sheets should be uploaded in real time on High Court websites.
Trial within one year: Trials should be completed within one year of the framing of charges.
Monthly monitoring: High Courts should monitor cases pending for more than three years every month.
Micro monitoring: Individual delayed cases should be tracked separately rather than only in aggregate.
Does prioritising legislators’ cases sit comfortably with equal treatment of all undertrials?
Two competing claims: Legislators exercise public power and merit faster scrutiny, while ordinary undertrials suffer longer custody and have a stronger claim under Article 21.
Fixed judicial capacity: Exclusive trials for legislators redirect court time within an unchanged pool of judges, so another category of case slows down.
The trigger for priority: A legislator’s continuation in office turns on conviction under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which no ordinary accused faces.
Delay as a strategy: Prolonged trial protects the incumbent, so the beneficiary of delay is the accused who holds power.
Why the equality objection is limited: The priority attaches to the office and its power over the criminal justice system, not to the person’s status as a citizen.
The unresolved part: Neither the special courts of 2017 nor the designated courts of 2018 came with additional judges, so the priority was ordered without the capacity to deliver it.
Challenges to expeditious trial of legislators
No additional judicial capacity: Priority was mandated without creating new posts. e.g. the 2017 order created only 12 special courts across 10 States and Union Territories for a national caseload above 4,000.
Investigation stalling before trial: A case never reaches the designated court if the chargesheet is not filed. e.g. 360 cases have stayed under investigation for more than three years without a chargesheet.
Prosecutorial dependence on the executive: Public Prosecutors are appointed by State governments that the accused may lead. e.g. Chief Ministers of 14 of 28 States face pending criminal cases.
Witness hostility and intimidation: Witnesses turn hostile where the accused holds local power. e.g. India still has no operational witness protection framework beyond the 2018 scheme approved in Mahender Chawla v Union of India.
Withdrawal of prosecution: Section 360 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permits withdrawal with the court’s consent. e.g. Uttar Pradesh moved to withdraw a large batch of political cases in 2020, prompting High Court scrutiny.
Inconsistent High Court reporting: Monitoring cannot work without uniform data. e.g. the Allahabad High Court, holding the largest caseload at 1,171, did not submit a report at all.
Conviction does not follow speed: Faster trials do not by themselves improve the quality of investigation. e.g. pendency fell from 5,140 in November 2022 to 4,192 in July 2026 without any recorded rise in convictions.
Conclusion
The report shows an institutional pattern rather than a backlog problem, since pendency has stayed above 4,000 through three separate rounds of Supreme Court directions since 2017. Priority listing without additional judges, an independent prosecution and enforceable attendance simply redistributes delay. The matter now stands listed before a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court on 18 August, where the amicus has sought exclusive trials, day to day hearing of cases older than three years and completion of trial within one year of charge framing. The number to watch after that hearing is the count of cases older than a decade, currently 519.
“[2024, GS2, 15 marks] Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?”
The Supreme Court held that ridding the electoral process of black money is a responsibility of the Election Commission of India (ECI) and issued a set of binding directions on how election season seizures must be reported, investigated and tried. The Court linked unaccounted money directly to the quality of the voter’s choice, holding that a choice made under gratification is not a free choice. The ruling shifts the problem from detection at the checkpoint to conviction in court, where election money cases have historically stalled.
What did the Supreme Court hold about black money and the electoral process?
Core holding: Black money in the electoral process compromises democracy, the rule of law and the electoral process itself.
Effect on the voter: A choice is not free where ill gotten money is involved, since it is clouded by gratification, monetary or otherwise, or by promises that are sometimes genuine and sometimes misleading.
Where responsibility rests: Ridding the electoral process of black money is placed on the Election Commission of India rather than treated as an ordinary police function.
What the Court sought: Timely investigation and conclusion of criminal cases relating to recovery of ill gotten money during elections.
Bench: The judgment was delivered by a Bench of two judges and authored by the presiding judge of that Bench.
What is a Static Surveillance Team?
About: A Static Surveillance Team is a fixed check post team deployed by the district election machinery during the election period to intercept the movement of cash, liquor, drugs and gifts.
Composition and function: It is staffed by police and magisterial personnel with videography, and it works alongside mobile Flying Squads that respond to complaints.
What is election expenditure monitoring?
About: Election expenditure monitoring is the machinery through which the Election Commission tracks candidate spending against the statutory ceiling from the date of nomination to the declaration of result.
Instruments used: It combines Expenditure Observers, shadow observation registers, daily account inspections and coordination with the Income Tax Department and enforcement agencies.
What directions has the Court issued on seizures and prosecutions?
Reporting within 24 hours: The authority effecting a seizure must report it to the District Magistrate, Additional District Magistrate or the court of competent jurisdiction within 24 hours.
Written reasons on record: The report must carry written reasons disclosing the prima facie nexus between the cash or asset seized and the suspected electoral offence.
Threshold for tax referral: Where Static Surveillance Teams find money in excess of Rs 10 lakh during checks, the information must be forwarded to the Income Tax authorities.
Investigation deadline: Once an FIR is registered, the investigating officer must make every endeavour to complete the investigation within a year.
Quarterly reporting to the ECI: The investigating officer must submit a quarterly status report on the investigation to the electoral body.
Compliance affidavits: The Election Commission and State governments must file compliance affidavits by 18 November.
Role of the High Courts: High Courts are directed to ensure speedy trial of election related black money cases.
Why did the case arise from the 2014 Bellary seizures?
Origin of the plea: The proceedings arose from a plea filed by the Karnataka government relating to the 2014 Lok Sabha election.
The trigger: Black money was seized on a large scale during polling in Bellary district, a mining region with a long record of election money cases.
Why it reached the Court: Seizure alone produced no completed prosecution, so the issue moved from enforcement to judicial supervision.
What it exposed: Cash intercepted during an election rarely connects to an identified candidate, so the seizure ends in a tax proceeding rather than an electoral offence.
Why the timeline matters: A case that outlives the term of the legislature it was meant to police delivers no deterrence at all.
Why does money power distort the voter’s choice?
Direct inducement: Cash and gifts distributed close to polling day convert a political choice into a transaction.
Entry barrier: High unaccounted spending prices out candidates without access to such funds, narrowing the field before voters choose.
Post election recovery: A candidate who spends unaccounted money has a standing incentive to recover it through office.
Ceiling evasion: The statutory ceiling applies to the candidate and not to the party or third parties, so spending shifts outside the accounted channel.
Weak evidentiary link: Seized cash is difficult to attribute to a specific candidate, so corrupt practice petitions under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 rarely succeed.
Federal enforcement gap: Police are under State control while the election is run by a central constitutional body, which weakens follow through on investigation.
Challenges to curbing black money in elections
Attribution of seized cash: Interception rarely produces evidence linking the money to a named candidate. e.g. the 2014 Bellary seizures produced no concluded electoral offence trial in more than a decade.
No ceiling on party expenditure: Candidate limits are enforceable while party and third party spending is effectively uncapped. e.g. the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ceiling of Rs 95 lakh for a Lok Sabha candidate does not restrict what the party spends on the same seat.
Opacity of political funding: Donor identity remains partly shielded even after reform. e.g. the Supreme Court struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme in February 2024 for violating the voter’s right to information.
Cash intensity of the rural economy: Legitimate and illegitimate cash movement look identical at a check post. e.g. Static Surveillance Teams routinely seize traders’ working capital that is later released.
Investigative capacity and turnover: Election duty officers are transferred out before investigations mature. e.g. the Court had to specify a one year deadline precisely because probes drift beyond the life of the House.
Corrupt practice standard of proof: An election petition requires proof almost to a criminal standard. e.g. very few election petitions on bribery under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 end in a declaration that the election is void.
In kind inducement: Money is increasingly replaced by goods, liquor and services that leave no trail. e.g. the Commission’s seizure data in recent general elections shows drugs and precious metals outweighing cash in value terms.
Conclusion
The judgment moves the problem of election money from interception to prosecution and fixes named officers with dated obligations at each step. The Court has placed the responsibility on the Election Commission of India, set a 24 hour reporting rule, a Rs 10 lakh referral threshold and a one year investigation deadline, and required quarterly status reports. The next milestone is the compliance affidavit due from the Election Commission and the State governments by 18 November. The measure of the ruling will be the number of election money cases that reach conviction, not the value of cash seized.
Election Expenditure Monitoring in India
About: Election expenditure monitoring is the system through which the Election Commission enforces the statutory ceiling on candidate spending and intercepts the flow of inducements during the election period.
How it works: Every candidate maintains a day to day account of expenditure, which is compared against a shadow observation register maintained by the district election machinery.
Field machinery: Expenditure Observers, Assistant Expenditure Observers, Flying Squads, Static Surveillance Teams, Video Surveillance Teams and Accounting Teams operate in each constituency.
Current ceilings: Candidate expenditure is capped at Rs 95 lakh for a Lok Sabha seat and Rs 40 lakh for an Assembly seat in larger States, revised in 2022.
No party ceiling: There is no statutory limit on what a political party may spend on general propaganda.
Scale of seizures: Seizures during the 2024 general election crossed Rs 10,000 crore in cash, liquor, drugs, precious metals and freebies, the highest recorded for a national election.
Consequence of default: Failure to file the account of election expenses within 30 days of the result can attract disqualification for up to three years under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Constitutional Framework Governing Free and Fair Elections
Article 324: Vests superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission of India, the source of its power to issue enforcement instructions.
Article 325: Bars a separate electoral roll or exclusion from it on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
Article 326: Provides for adult suffrage as the basis of elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies.
Article 327: Empowers Parliament to legislate on all matters relating to elections, including corrupt practices.
Article 329(b): Bars challenge to an election except by an election petition presented to the High Court after the poll.
Article 19(1)(a): Grounds the voter’s right to know the antecedents and funding of candidates, as read by the Supreme Court.
Article 21: Grounds the right to a speedy trial, which the Court invoked in setting investigation and trial timelines.
Laws and Rules Governing Election Funding and Expenditure
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the conduct of elections, corrupt practices, disqualification and election petitions.
Landmark provisions under the 1951 Act: Section 77 requires an account of election expenses, Section 78 requires its lodging, Section 123 defines corrupt practices including bribery and undue influence, and Section 8 provides disqualification on conviction.
Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961: Prescribe the manner of maintaining and lodging the account of election expenses and the expenditure ceiling.
Companies Act, 2013: Section 182 governs corporate political contributions and their disclosure in the profit and loss account.
Income Tax Act, 1961: Section 13A exempts political party income subject to maintenance of accounts and reporting of contributions above the prescribed threshold.
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010: Regulates receipt of foreign contributions by political parties and candidates.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Provides for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime, including in election money cases.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Governs seizure, investigation, chargesheet timelines and trial in criminal cases arising from election seizures.
Electoral Bond Scheme, 2018: Notified for anonymous political donations through banking channels and struck down by the Supreme Court in February 2024.
Back2Basics: Election Commission of India
Constitutional status: A permanent constitutional body established under Article 324 on 25 January 1950.
Composition: A Chief Election Commissioner and two Election Commissioners, deciding by majority where they differ.
Appointment law: Governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023.
Tenure: Six years or up to the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
Removal: The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applicable to a Supreme Court judge.
Jurisdiction: Elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President.
Quasi judicial role: It advises the President or Governor on post election disqualification of a sitting member under Article 103 and Article 192.
Government Initiatives
Election Seizure Management System: A digital platform that records and reconciles every seizure made by enforcement agencies during the election period.
cVIGIL: A citizen application allowing time stamped and geotagged reporting of cash distribution and other Model Code of Conduct violations.
Expenditure Monitoring Division of the ECI: The dedicated division that issues instructions, deploys observers and compiles seizure data.
Integrated deployment of enforcement agencies: The Income Tax Department, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Narcotics Control Bureau, State excise and police are co ordinated through a district election expenditure monitoring committee.
Suvidha portal: Provides a single window for candidates and parties to seek permissions for rallies, vehicles and campaign material, creating an auditable record.
Mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents: Parties and candidates must publish criminal cases in newspapers and on television under the Supreme Court’s 2020 directions.
Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation: Runs voter awareness campaigns against accepting cash and gifts for votes.
Key Facts about Money Power in Indian Elections
Expenditure ceilings: Rs 95 lakh for a Lok Sabha candidate and Rs 40 lakh for an Assembly candidate in larger States, revised in January 2022.
Seizure record: Seizures crossed Rs 10,000 crore during the 2024 Lok Sabha election, more than three times the 2019 figure.
Electoral bonds: Struck down on 15 February 2024 in Association for Democratic Reforms v Union of India for violating Article 19(1)(a).
Disclosure threshold: Political parties must report contributions above Rs 20,000 to the Election Commission under Section 29C of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Electoral trusts: Introduced under the Electoral Trusts Scheme, 2013 to route corporate donations with disclosure.
Committee record: The Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998) recommended State funding of elections in kind, and the Law Commission’s 255th Report (2015) recommended tighter regulation of party finance.
Challenges in Regulating Election Finance
Unregulated party spending: The ceiling binds the candidate alone. e.g. a party’s national advertising campaign is not counted against any constituency limit.
Cash donations below threshold: Parties report large shares of income as small anonymous contributions. e.g. donations below Rs 20,000 need no donor disclosure under Section 29C.
Absence of a legal audit mandate: Party accounts are not subject to statutory audit by an independent auditor appointed by the Commission. e.g. the Law Commission’s 255th Report recommended exactly this in 2015 without follow up.
Slow prosecution of seizure cases: Election money FIRs drift beyond the term of the House. e.g. the 2014 Bellary case required Supreme Court intervention twelve years later.
In kind inducement outside cash: Liquor, drugs and precious metals substitute for currency. e.g. drug seizures outweighed cash seizures in value in several States during the 2024 general election.
Weak deterrence from disqualification: Disqualification for failing to lodge expense accounts is rarely applied to sitting members. e.g. Section 10A action is used against a very small number of candidates each cycle.
Federal split in enforcement: The Commission directs, the State police investigate and the High Courts try. e.g. the present judgment had to separately direct High Courts to ensure speedy trial.
Way Forward
Complete the compliance loop: Treat the 18 November compliance affidavit as a baseline and publish a public dashboard of election seizure cases by stage.
Cap party expenditure: Extend a statutory ceiling to political party and third party spending per constituency, as recommended by successive committees.
Mandate independent audit: Require party accounts to be audited by auditors from a panel maintained by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Lower the disclosure threshold: Reduce the anonymous contribution limit and require reporting of donor identity for aggregate annual contributions.
Create dedicated election offence courts: Designate courts to try election money cases exclusively until the backlog is cleared, mirroring the special courts for legislators.
Strengthen the seizure to prosecution link: Require every seizure above the referral threshold to result in a recorded decision to prosecute or release, with reasons.
Move towards partial State funding: Provide in kind support for campaign essentials, as the Indrajit Gupta Committee recommended, to reduce dependence on unaccounted money.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2025, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice.”
A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union government and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) on whether the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025 can bar constitutional courts from awarding fair compensation to victims of a nuclear accident. The Act caps operator and government liability and exempts suppliers, which sets a statutory ceiling against the constitutional power to award damages for a legal wrong. The Bench also asked whether Section 17(4), which lets the government appoint the AERB Chairperson and Members, creates a conflict of interest.
What is the SHANTI Act, 2025?
About: The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025 is the statute that replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 as the law governing liability for nuclear damage in India.
Core function: It fixes who pays for a nuclear accident, how much they pay, and the outer financial limit of that obligation.
Operator ceiling: Liability of the largest plant operator in India is capped at Rs 3,000 crore.
Government residual liability: The Union government’s residual liability is capped at 300 million Special Drawing Rights, stated in the proceedings as about Rs 4,500 crore.
Supplier position: Suppliers, manufacturers and similar entities are exempted from liability under the Act.
Regulatory provision:Section 17(4) vests in the government the power to appoint the Chairperson and Members of the AERB.
What are Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)?
About: Special Drawing Rights are an international reserve asset created by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), whose value is set by a basket of major currencies.
Use here: Nuclear liability ceilings are expressed in SDRs because international nuclear liability conventions use the unit, which keeps the ceiling insulated from movement in any single national currency.
What is the doctrine of absolute liability?
About: Absolute liability holds an enterprise carrying on a hazardous activity fully liable for harm caused by that activity, with no exceptions and no ceiling on the amount.
Origin: The Supreme Court laid it down in the oleum gas leak case, M.C. Mehta v Union of India (1987), rejecting the older English rule that allowed defences such as an act of a stranger.
Relevance to the case: The petitioners argue that capping the liability of a nuclear operator directly contradicts this settled principle.
What is channelling of liability?
About: Channelling means directing all legal liability for a nuclear accident to one named party, the operator, so that victims sue a single identified entity instead of tracing fault across the supply chain.
The trade off: Channelling gives victims a quick and certain defendant, and it simultaneously insulates equipment suppliers from any claim for a defective part.
Who is the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)?
About: The AERB is the national regulator for radiation and nuclear safety, constituted in 1983 under the powers of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
Mandate: It frames safety codes, licenses nuclear installations and enforces radiation safety across nuclear and non nuclear users of radioactive material.
Structural feature: It is a body created by executive notification rather than by a standalone statute, and it reports to the Atomic Energy Commission.
What exactly did the Supreme Court ask?
The compensation question: The Bench asked whether the statutory thresholds in the SHANTI Act preclude constitutional courts from determining a fair and just compensation after a nuclear mishap.
The reasoning offered: The Chief Justice of India observed that a constitutional court can always grant suitable compensation against a legal tort, and that a cap imposed by Parliament does not by itself bar the courts.
The regulator question: The Bench separately asked whether the power under Section 17(4) to appoint the AERB Chairperson and Members creates a conflict of interest.
Parties noticed: Notice was issued to the Union government and the AERB on both issues.
The petition: The challenge is to the provisions limiting the liability of operators, suppliers and manufacturers of nuclear installations.
Why do the petitioners say the caps are inadequate?
The Chernobyl comparison: The loss from the Chernobyl nuclear disaster has been estimated at between $235 billion and $700 billion.
The Fukushima comparison: Cleanup costs at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident of 2011 in Japan have been estimated at approximately $400 billion to $445 billion.
The mismatch: Against these magnitudes, the Act caps the largest Indian operator’s liability at Rs 3,000 crore.
The residual cap: The government’s residual liability of 300 million Special Drawing Rights was described as ensuring that victims of death, injury or property damage cannot recover even a small fraction of actual losses.
The supplier exemption: Exempting suppliers from any liability is argued to encourage manufacturers and suppliers to maximise profit without bearing accident risk.
How does a liability cap change operator behaviour?
The moral hazard argument: A known ceiling converts an unlimited risk into a budgeted cost, so the incentive to spend beyond that ceiling on safety falls away.
The submission made: Petitioners argued that unless the court states that the liability of operators, suppliers and the government will be judicially determined regardless of the cap, operators and suppliers will cut corners that endanger lives.
The precedent invoked: Indian law has held that a person running a hazardous industry bears absolute and unlimited liability for an accident arising from it.
The claimed violation: Petitioners submitted that this principle has been clearly violated by the statutory ceiling.
Concentration of exposure: With suppliers exempt and the operator capped, the residual cost of a large accident falls on the exchequer and on victims.
Why is the regulator’s independence in question?
Appointment power: Section 17(4) gives the government the power to appoint the Chairperson and Members of the AERB, and the government is also the promoter of nuclear power in India.
Operator and regulator overlap: The AERB itself has a role connected to nuclear plants while also playing a significant role in regulating them.
International benchmark: Petitioners submitted that this arrangement violates the principle of independence of the regulatory body laid down in international conventions.
Long standing criticism: The absence of a statutorily independent nuclear regulator has been flagged in India for over a decade, including by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Consequence: A regulator dependent on the promoter for appointments has weaker authority to halt or penalise a plant it supervises.
Does a liability cap serve investment or does it shift risk to victims?
The investment rationale: The court observed that the limit may exist only to make the nuclear project more attractive to foreign investors.
The counter position: Petitioners argued that investment should not come at the cost of the safety of thousands of lives.
The design logic of caps: Nuclear vendors demand a liability ceiling because unlimited exposure makes an insurance market for the risk impossible to build.
The distributional effect: A cap does not reduce the cost of an accident, it decides who absorbs the part of the cost above the ceiling.
The constitutional question this raises: The dispute is whether Parliament can, by fixing a financial ceiling, foreclose the remedy a constitutional court can grant under Article 32 or Article 226.
What alternative did the petitioners place before the court?
Solar potential: The government’s own assessment puts India’s solar power potential at 3,343 gigawatts (GW) using 6 per cent of wasteland.
Scale comparison: That potential is 14 times India’s peak power demand of 256 GW.
Build time: Solar capacity can be built in about three months, against the multi year construction cycle of a nuclear plant.
Cost comparison: The per unit cost of solar power was stated as one fifth that of nuclear energy.
Risk comparison: Solar generation carries no comparable accident hazard, so it raises no liability question at all.
Challenges to the SHANTI Act, 2025 framework
Insurance market depth: The Indian Nuclear Insurance Pool has limited capacity, so even the capped liability may not be fully insurable domestically. e.g. the pool set up in 2015 was capitalised at only about Rs 1,500 crore at inception.
Supplier exemption and quality control: Removing supplier liability weakens the commercial incentive to guarantee component quality. e.g. the supplier recourse clause of the 2010 law was the reason foreign vendors stayed away from Jaitapur and Kovvada for over a decade.
Claims administration capacity: A nuclear claims process needs medical registries and long term follow up that India has struggled to sustain. e.g. Bhopal gas leak claims took decades of adjudication and revision of the settlement figure.
Absence of a statutory regulator: The AERB derives authority from executive notification rather than its own Act. e.g. the Nuclear Safety Regulatory Authority Bill, 2011 lapsed and was never re enacted.
Land acquisition and local consent: New reactor sites face sustained local opposition that liability caps do not address. e.g. the protests at Kudankulam delayed commissioning of the first unit by several years.
Radioactive waste management: India has no operating deep geological repository for high level waste. e.g. spent fuel from operating reactors is stored on site in pools and in away from reactor storage facilities.
Private entry and accountability: Opening the sector to private operators multiplies the number of entities whose safety culture the regulator must supervise. e.g. the sector so far has been run almost entirely by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and its joint ventures.
Conclusion
The dispute is whether a statutory financial ceiling can displace the constitutional power of a court to award compensation for a legal wrong. The Act does not reduce the cost of a nuclear accident, it decides who bears the part of that cost above the ceiling, and at present that is the victim and the exchequer. The measure has reached the stage of an enacted and operating law facing a constitutional challenge, having already replaced the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010. The next milestone is the response of the Union government and the AERB to the notice issued on the compensation and Section 17(4) questions.
Nuclear Energy in India
About: Nuclear energy is generated by fission of heavy nuclei such as uranium 235 and plutonium 239, releasing heat that raises steam to drive a turbine.
Three stage programme: India follows a three stage programme designed by the founder of its atomic energy programme, moving from pressurised heavy water reactors, to fast breeder reactors, to thorium based reactors.
Resource logic: The design exists because India has modest uranium reserves and among the world’s largest thorium reserves, concentrated in the monazite sands of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha.
Installed base: India operates around 24 nuclear power reactors with an installed capacity of about 8.18 GW, contributing roughly 3 per cent of total electricity generation.
Stated target: The government has set a target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047 as part of the energy transition plan.
Institutional structure: The Department of Atomic Energy administers the sector, NPCIL builds and operates plants, and the AERB regulates safety.
Global position: India is among the few countries operating a closed fuel cycle with reprocessing, and it operates outside the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty while holding a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Constitutional and Statutory Framework Governing Nuclear Liability
Entry 6 of the Union List: Places atomic energy and mineral resources necessary for its production exclusively with Parliament.
Article 21: Guarantees the right to life, read to include a right to compensation for violation caused by a hazardous activity.
Article 32: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs and award compensation for violation of fundamental rights.
Article 226: Gives High Courts a parallel and wider writ power, including the award of compensation in public law.
Article 48A and Article 51A(g): Direct the State and citizens respectively to protect and improve the environment.
Article 253: Enables Parliament to legislate to implement international conventions, the basis for aligning Indian liability law with the Convention on Supplementary Compensation.
Article 246 with Entry 13 of the Union List: Covers participation in international conferences and implementation of decisions taken there.
Laws and Rules Governing Nuclear Energy in India
Atomic Energy Act, 1962: Gives the Union exclusive control over atomic minerals, production and use of atomic energy, and the licensing of nuclear installations.
Atomic Energy (Radiation Protection) Rules, 2004: Set radiation dose limits and licensing conditions for radiation facilities.
Atomic Energy (Factories) Rules, 1996: Govern safety in factories handling radioactive material.
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010: Created a no fault liability regime channelled to the operator, with a right of recourse against the supplier.
Section 17(b): Allowed the operator recourse against a supplier for a patent or latent defect, the clause foreign vendors objected to.
Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025: Replaced the 2010 Act, capped operator and government liability and exempted suppliers.
Draft rules under the Act: Released by the Department of Atomic Energy for public comment, with the comment window closing on 4 September 2026.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides the environmental clearance and pollution control regime applicable to nuclear installations.
Disaster Management Act, 2005: Places nuclear and radiological emergencies within the national disaster response framework.
Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage: Ratified by India in 2016, providing a tier of international funds after national compensation is exhausted.
Back2Basics: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB)
Governing Act: Constituted under the powers conferred by the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
Year established:1983, by an executive order of the Government of India.
Headquarters: Mumbai.
Reporting line: Reports to the Atomic Energy Commission, and its Chairperson is appointed by the government.
Jurisdiction: Covers nuclear power plants, research reactors, fuel cycle facilities, and every industrial and medical user of radiation sources in India.
Mandate: Frames safety codes and standards, grants consent at each stage from siting to decommissioning, conducts regulatory inspections and enforces compliance.
Enforcement powers: Can suspend or cancel authorisation and direct shutdown of a facility that violates safety conditions.
Government Initiatives in the Nuclear Sector
Nuclear Energy Mission for Viksit Bharat: Announced with an outlay of about Rs 20,000 crore for research and development of small modular reactors, targeting five indigenously designed reactors by 2033.
Bharat Small Reactors: Compact reactors planned for captive use by energy intensive industry, to be set up in partnership with private players on their own land.
Three Stage Nuclear Programme: The long term plan to use natural uranium, then plutonium in fast breeder reactors, and finally the domestic thorium reserve.
Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam: The stage two demonstration project built by Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited.
Joint venture route: ASHVINI, the joint venture of NPCIL and NTPC, was created to add nuclear capacity using public sector balance sheets.
Indian Nuclear Insurance Pool: Formed by general insurers with GIC Re to provide insurance cover for operator and supplier liability.
Fleet mode construction: Bulk approval of ten pressurised heavy water reactors of 700 MW each to build in series and cut per unit cost.
Key Facts about Nuclear Energy in India
First reactor:Apsara, commissioned in 1956 at Trombay, was Asia’s first research reactor.
First power station: The Tarapur Atomic Power Station in Maharashtra, commissioned in 1969, is India’s oldest nuclear power plant.
Largest station:Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu, built with Russian cooperation, is India’s largest nuclear power station by capacity.
Indigenous workhorse: The 700 MW pressurised heavy water reactor, first at Kakrapar in Gujarat, is the indigenous standard design.
Fuel type: Indian pressurised heavy water reactors use natural uranium as fuel and heavy water as moderator and coolant.
Safeguards status: India signed a safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2009 after the civil nuclear cooperation waiver.
Sector regulator: AERB, with the Directorate of Radiation Safety in some States handling medical radiation sources.
Challenges in India’s Nuclear Energy Sector
Slow capacity addition: Nuclear capacity has grown far slower than the targets repeatedly announced. e.g. installed capacity remains near 8 GW against a 2047 target of 100 GW.
Fuel supply constraint: Domestic uranium is limited and of low grade, forcing dependence on imports. e.g. India imports uranium from Kazakhstan, Russia, Canada, France and Uzbekistan under bilateral agreements.
Cost and time overruns: Long gestation and heavy civil works push project costs well beyond estimates. e.g. the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam has slipped many years past its original commissioning date.
Public opposition and land acquisition: Communities near proposed sites resist acquisition and fear radiation exposure. e.g. the Jaitapur project in Maharashtra has faced sustained local opposition since 2010.
Waste management gap: No permanent disposal route exists for high level radioactive waste. e.g. spent fuel remains in interim storage rather than a deep geological repository.
Regulatory independence: The safety regulator lacks statutory autonomy from the promoter of the sector. e.g. the Comptroller and Auditor General flagged the AERB’s dependence on the Department of Atomic Energy in a 2012 performance audit.
Liability and vendor hesitation: Uncertainty over the liability regime has stalled foreign built projects. e.g. the Kovvada and Jaitapur projects agreed with United States and French vendors have not reached financial close.
Human resource pipeline: Reactor operations need specialised health physicists and reactor engineers trained over years. e.g. a fleet mode expansion to 100 GW would require a multiple of the current trained workforce.
Way Forward
Enact a statutory nuclear regulator: Replace the executive constituted AERB with an authority created by its own Act, with fixed tenure and financial autonomy.
Index and review the liability ceiling: Provide a statutory mechanism to revise the operator and government caps periodically, so the figures do not lose meaning with inflation.
Preserve judicial remedy expressly: Clarify that the statutory ceiling governs the no fault claim route and does not oust the writ jurisdiction of constitutional courts.
Deepen the insurance pool: Expand the Indian Nuclear Insurance Pool with reinsurance support so the capped liability is genuinely backed by paid capacity.
Build a claims administration system: Establish standing medical registries and a claims commissioner framework in advance rather than after an accident.
Commit to a waste repository programme: Begin site characterisation for a deep geological repository with a published timeline.
Balance the energy mix: Pair nuclear expansion with the far faster and cheaper solar build out, treating nuclear as firm baseload rather than the primary route to the clean energy target.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2018, GS3, 15 marks] With growing energy needs should India keep on expanding its nuclear energy programme? Discuss the facts and fears associated with nuclear energy.”
The Union government reiterated before the Supreme Court that the creamy layer exclusion does not apply to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe classification. The position runs against a separate opinion in the 2024 sub categorisation ruling that urged the Court to consider extending the exclusion. The tension is between the constitutional premise that Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe disadvantage is social rather than economic, and evidence that reservation benefits concentrate within a few advanced sub groups.
What is the creamy layer?
About: The creamy layer is the economically and socially advanced section within a reserved category, excluded from reservation benefits so that the quota reaches the genuinely disadvantaged.
Origin: The exclusion was mandated for Other Backward Classes in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992).
Mechanism: Exclusion operates through an income and status ceiling, currently Rs 8 lakh of annual family income for Other Backward Classes, alongside constitutional post and service rank criteria.
Point of dispute: The doctrine has never been extended to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, whose identification rests on untouchability and social exclusion rather than income.
Current Status of Reservation in India
Category shares: Scheduled Castes hold 15 per cent, Scheduled Tribes 7.5 per cent, and Other Backward Classes 27 per cent subject to the creamy layer exclusion.
Economically Weaker Sections: A further 10 per cent applies to those outside the reserved categories, introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.
Ceiling position: The 50 per cent ceiling set in Indra Sawhney stands, and the Economically Weaker Sections quota was upheld in 2022 as sitting outside it.
Sub categorisation: States may sub categorise within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe lists after the 2024 ruling, but exclusion of individuals remains barred.
Central practice: The only central use of sub categorisation within the Scheduled Tribe quota is in Eklavya Model Residential Schools, which reserve minimum representation for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.
Constitutional Provisions Related to Reservation
Article 15(4) and 15(5): Permit special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, including in educational institutions.
Article 16(4): Permits reservation in appointments for any backward class not adequately represented in state services.
Article 16(4A): Permits reservation in promotion with consequential seniority for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Article 335: Requires that claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered consistently with the maintenance of administrative efficiency.
Article 341 and Article 342: Empower the President to specify the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for each state, with Parliament alone able to include or exclude from the list.
103rd Constitutional Amendment, 2019: Inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) creating the Economically Weaker Sections quota.
What did the Davinder Singh ruling actually decide?
Sub categorisation permitted: A seven judge Bench in August 2024 held that states may sub categorise within the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe lists to give preference to the most backward within them.
Homogeneity rejected: The Bench held that Scheduled Castes are not a homogeneous class, which is the premise sub categorisation rests on.
The separate opinion: One judge wrote separately that the creamy layer principle applied to Other Backward Classes in Indra Sawhney should be considered for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Status of that view: The separate opinion did not create a binding direction, which is the gap the current litigation is testing.
What is the government’s stated objection?
Parliamentary competence: The power to include or exclude any community or individual from the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe lists rests solely with Parliament under Articles 341 and 342.
Precedent claim: No binding judicial precedent has ever mandated a creamy layer for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
Process objection: Any change should follow a holistic review and an empirical study, and should not arrive through judicial direction.
Basis of identification: Scheduled Caste status derives from the disability of untouchability, which income does not extinguish.
Major debates surrounding creamy layer extension
Social versus economic disadvantage: Whether caste based exclusion persists after income rises is the empirical question the entire dispute turns on.
Benefit capture: Sub categorisation was permitted precisely because a few advanced sub groups were found to be capturing a disproportionate share of the quota.
Consistency argument: The Economically Weaker Sections quota already applies an income exclusion, which is the same logic being resisted for Scheduled Castes.
Institutional route: Whether the change should come from Parliament under Article 341, from the executive, or from judicial interpretation.
Empirical gap: The Justice G Rohini Commission, set up in 2017 to examine Other Backward Classes sub categorisation, submitted its report three years ago and it remains unpublished.
Political mobilisation: The Reservation Hatao Andolan, an online movement with over five million followers, demands replacing caste based reservation with income based reservation.
Challenges to reservation policy design
Absence of current data: Caste wise socio economic data has not been published in usable form since 1931 for most categories. e.g. the Socio Economic and Caste Census of 2011 whose caste data was never released.
Ceiling pressure: State legislations repeatedly breach the 50 per cent ceiling and are struck down. e.g. the Maratha reservation law set aside by the Supreme Court in 2021.
Backlog vacancies: Reserved posts remain unfilled while the quota is nominally in force. e.g. the recurring backlog vacancies reported in central government establishments.
Promotion quota litigation: The requirement to demonstrate inadequacy of representation before reserving in promotion generates continuous litigation. e.g. the Jarnail Singh line of cases refining the M Nagaraj test.
Sub categorisation without data: States may now sub categorise but lack the empirical base to defend a specific split. e.g. the unpublished Rohini Commission report on Other Backward Classes sub categorisation.
Private sector exclusion: Reservation does not extend to private employment, which now accounts for most new job creation. e.g. the repeated but unlegislated demand for reservation in the private sector.
Conclusion
The dispute is not about whether advanced sub groups capture a disproportionate share of the Scheduled Caste quota, which the 2024 ruling accepted, but about who may act on that finding and on what evidence. The government’s position keeps the exclusion power with Parliament under Article 341 and makes the missing empirical study the precondition for any change. The next milestone is the Supreme Court’s decision on whether the creamy layer question survives as a live issue after the government’s stand.
Back2Basics: Justice G Rohini Commission
Constituted in October 2017 under Article 340 to examine sub categorisation of Other Backward Classes.
Mandated to examine the uneven distribution of reservation benefits among castes within the central Other Backward Classes list.
Also tasked with working out a scientific approach for sub categorisation and correcting errors in the central list.
Received repeated extensions and submitted its report to the President in July 2023.
The report has not been made public or acted upon, which is central to the current debate on evidence.
Way Forward
Publish the empirical base: Release caste wise socio economic data and the Rohini Commission report so any exclusion rests on evidence rather than assertion.
Legislate rather than litigate: Settle the exclusion question through Parliament under Article 341, which the government itself identifies as the competent authority.
Complete sub categorisation frameworks: Give states a model methodology for defensible sub categorisation after the 2024 ruling.
Fill backlog vacancies: Address unfilled reserved posts, since unused quota undercuts arguments on both sides of the debate.
Track outcomes, not intake: Report reservation performance through completion, retention and promotion data, not through admission and appointment counts alone.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2026] Consider the following statements about provisions pertaining to SC/STs in India: 1. Provisions for Tribal Areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram are in the Fifth Schedule. 2. Some tribes of India are entitled to exemption from paying Income Tax on certain incomes. 3. The Constitution provides for reservation of seats in Panchayats for women belonging to SCs and STs. (a) There are two correct statements, that include statement 2 (b) There are two correct statements, that are statements 1 and 3 (c) There is only one correct statement (d) All three statements are correct Answer: (a)”
The Bar Council of India directed every State Bar Council to stop enrolling the 2026 graduating batch of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, after about 450 of its students objected to the Chief Justice of India attending their convocation as chief guest. The directive was withdrawn within a day, but it had already treated a peaceful protest as a bar on entry to a profession, a ground the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise. The Supreme Court barred coercive action against the students and gave the Council two weeks to explain itself.
What is the Bar Council of India?
About: It is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the legal profession and legal education in India.
Composition: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India are ex officio members, and each State Bar Council elects one member to it.
Core functions: It lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, exercises disciplinary jurisdiction, and recognises universities whose law degrees qualify a person for enrolment.
Supervisory role: Section 7(1)(g) gives it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils.
What it cannot do: No provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 gives it the power to enrol a person as an advocate.
What is the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)?
About: It is a national law university at Hyderabad, created by a State Act in 1998, and among the earliest institutions built on the five year integrated law degree model.
Relevance here: Its 2026 graduating batch was the subject of the enrolment freeze directed at all State Bar Councils.
What is moral turpitude?
About: It refers to conduct that is inherently base or depraved and contrary to accepted standards of honesty and justice, judged by the nature of the act rather than the length of the sentence.
Statutory use: Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 bars enrolment of a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
What is a chilling effect?
About: It is the deterrent effect a threatened penalty has on lawful speech, where a person stays silent to avoid risk rather than because the speech is unlawful.
Why withdrawal does not cure it: The deterrent operates from the moment the threat is made, so revoking the order does not restore the confidence it removed.
What is the current status of the right to practise a profession in India?
The right: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
Permissible limits: Article 19(6) allows reasonable restrictions in the public interest, including professional or technical qualifications prescribed by law.
Entry to the Bar: Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 fixes the qualifications for enrolment, which include Indian citizenship, completion of 21 years of age and a law degree from a recognised university.
The only bars: Section 24A lists the disqualifications, and each of them lapses two years after the disqualifying event.
The gatekeeper: Enrolment is granted by a State Bar Council under Section 6(1)(a), not by the Bar Council of India.
The added filter: The All India Bar Examination must be cleared for a certificate of practice after enrolment.
Which constitutional provisions govern free expression and entry to a profession?
Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to protest peacefully.
Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations, which covers student bodies and campus collectives.
Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practise a profession.
Article 19(2): Permits restrictions on speech only on eight enumerated grounds, and every restriction must be reasonable.
Article 19(6): Permits reasonable restrictions on the right to a profession, including prescribed qualifications.
Article 14: Bars arbitrary state action, which reaches a statutory body imposing a collective penalty.
Articles 32 and 226: Provide direct recourse to the Supreme Court and the High Courts against the action of a statutory body.
What exactly did the Bar Council of India direct, and how did it unravel?
The first letter: The Council’s chairperson wrote to the NALSAR Vice Chancellor seeking a report identifying the persons who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign against the Chief Justice of India.
The enrolment bar: The same letter prohibited State Bar Councils from enrolling any 2026 passed out student of NALSAR until further orders.
The two hour reversal: A second communication issued within two hours declared the vast majority of NALSAR students innocent, while retaining the direction to hold an inquiry and submit a report.
The university’s response: NALSAR stated that it would have to examine the constitutionality of such an inquiry.
Full withdrawal: The Council withdrew both letters entirely the following day and closed the proceedings.
The stated reason: The Council accepted that it was not proceeding under Section 24A, and argued that enrolment during a pending inquiry would create a fait accompli.
Why does the power to enrol sit with State Bar Councils and not the Bar Council of India?
Two tier design: Section 3 creates State Bar Councils and Section 4 creates the Bar Council of India, with distinct functions assigned to each.
The enrolling authority: Section 6(1)(a) makes the admission of persons as advocates on its roll a function of the State Bar Council.
The apex body’s list: Section 7 confines the Bar Council of India to professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils, promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
No enrolment power: None of those provisions gives the Bar Council of India the power to enrol a person as an advocate.
Individual assessment: Every application has to be dealt with independently, and an applicant who meets the statutory requirements is entitled to be enrolled.
Limits of supervision: Section 48B permits directions to State Bar Councils, but a direction cannot create a bar that the Act itself does not contain.
What are the only statutory grounds on which enrolment can be denied?
Conviction for moral turpitude: Section 24A bars a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
Untouchability offences: A conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 is a separate statutory bar.
Dismissal from service: Dismissal or removal from government employment on a charge involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person.
Time limit: The disqualification lapses two years after the release, dismissal or removal.
Nothing on dissent: The list contains no ground relating to protest, opinion or a campus campaign.
Conduct before enrolment: Such conduct becomes relevant only when it attracts a statutory disqualification, and a peaceful protest or an expression of opinion does not.
Where does the Bar Council of India legitimately enter the enrolment process?
The carve out: Section 26 requires a State Bar Council’s enrolment committee that proposes to reject an application to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India with a statement of the grounds of refusal.
Binding opinion: Section 26(3) requires the State Bar Council to dispose of the application in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India.
Reasons in writing: Section 26(2) requires the State Bar Council to record its grounds for refusing enrolment in writing.
Only after a proposed refusal: The referral arises only once a State Bar Council has decided to reject an individual application.
No advance freeze: Section 26 does not contemplate a blanket bar on an entire graduating class before any application has been filed.
Removal from the roll: Where a name already on the roll is to be removed for fraud or misrepresentation, the person must first be given a hearing.
Why do the Council’s disciplinary powers not reach a law graduate?
Chapter V: It deals with disciplinary proceedings, and Sections 35 to 37 cover misconduct by advocates, the powers of the disciplinary committee and appeals from disciplinary orders.
Whom they bind: Those provisions apply only to persons already enrolled on a State roll.
Status of a graduate: A law graduate who has not yet been enrolled is not an advocate.
Consequence: The disciplinary framework does not extend to a student, so a campus protest cannot be treated as professional misconduct.
Effect of the letters: They attempted to add the expression of dissent as a fresh ground of disqualification for enrolment.
What did the Supreme Court settle when the Council last created a disqualification?
The case: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
The rule struck down: The Court invalidated a Bar Council of India rule barring persons above 45 years of age from enrolment.
The reasoning: Rule making power under Section 49 cannot be used to create an additional disqualification that the Advocates Act does not provide.
The jurisdictional holding: Admission of persons to the roll and removal of their names lie within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils.
The parallel: The age bar and the batch bar both add a disqualification by executive direction rather than by statute.
How did the Court and the legal community respond this time?
Interim protection: A three judge Bench barred the Council from taking coercive action against NALSAR students, faculty and administrators on the basis of the incidents named in the letters.
Explanation sought: The Council was given two weeks to file an affidavit explaining its actions.
The Court’s position: The fundamental right to a profession cannot be threatened for expressing dissent, and students have the right to protest.
Jurisdictional rebuke: The Chief Justice of India described the Council’s intervention as unnecessary interference in a dialogue between the students and himself.
The petitioners’ case: Neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the Rules of Legal Education permits the Council to regulate students’ conduct or to direct universities to inquire against them.
Institutional criticism: The university’s alumni called the letters arbitrary and high handed, and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad asked the Council to act only on facts, due process and a fair inquiry.
Editorial demand: The episode was described as a misuse of statutory power for which the chairperson’s exit is the minimum course correction.
Does the withdrawal of the directive settle the question it raised?
The case for closure: The letters stand withdrawn, the proceedings are closed, and the 2026 graduates may now seek enrolment in the ordinary course.
The case against closure: A regulator has demonstrated that it will use enrolment as leverage over student speech, and that demonstration survives the withdrawal.
Speed as the problem: The bar was imposed and lifted without any meeting of the full Council, using interim powers meant for supervisory emergencies.
The absent remedy: No accountability attaches to a direction withdrawn before it is tested, so the cost of issuing it is zero.
The deterrent that remains: A student weighing a future campus campaign now knows that entry to the profession can be made the subject of an inquiry.
The unresolved question: Whether a supervisory power over State Bar Councils can ever be used to suspend a statutory function that those councils alone hold.
What are the major debates surrounding regulatory control over entry to the legal profession?
Supervision against exclusivity: Section 7(1)(g) and Section 48B give the Council supervisory control, while Section 6(1)(a) gives State Bar Councils exclusive power over enrolment.
Rule making against statute: The 1995 ruling confines Section 49 rules to what the Act permits, and successive Council rules have tested that boundary.
The Bar examination question: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College (2023) upheld the All India Bar Examination as a valid precondition for practice, unsettling the earlier view that only Parliament could add entry conditions.
An elected regulator: The Council is elected by practising advocates, which makes independent enforcement of discipline against advocates contested.
Education and practice in one body: The Council both recognises law degrees and regulates practitioners, concentrating academic and professional gatekeeping in a single institution.
Speech of future professionals: How far a professional regulator may police the political expression of persons not yet within its jurisdiction remains untested.
Opening the profession: The 2023 rules permitting foreign lawyers in non litigious matters reopened the question of who defines the boundaries of the profession.
Challenges to the Bar Council of India
Jurisdictional overreach: The Council repeatedly claims powers that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer, e.g. the rule barring entrants above 45 years of age, struck down in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
Decisions by individual direction: Rule 18 interim powers of the chairperson allow directions of general effect without a Council meeting, e.g. the enrolment bar on the 2026 NALSAR batch, issued and withdrawn within a day in August 2026.
Disciplinary delay: Section 36B transfers a misconduct case to the Council if a State disciplinary committee does not conclude it within a year, which pushes complaints further from the complainant, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recorded that this one year limit is routinely missed.
Unverified enrolments: State rolls carry names that cannot be matched to verified degrees, e.g. the verification drive under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015 found large numbers of enrolled advocates who never filed verification papers.
Strikes by the Bar: Court boycotts continue despite a binding ruling against them, e.g. the boycott by advocates in Delhi district courts after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019, which stalled hearings for several days.
Legal education oversight: Approvals of law colleges have outpaced inspection capacity, e.g. the Council imposed a moratorium on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
Collision with university autonomy: The education mandate is used to direct internal university action, e.g. the letter requiring NALSAR to inquire into and report on the students behind a campus campaign, which the university said raised constitutional questions.
Conclusion
The Bar Council of India used a supervisory power over State Bar Councils to suspend a function that only those councils hold, and it did so to penalise speech that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise as a disqualification. The withdrawal closed the file without answering the question, because the deterrent created by a regulator that can threaten entry to a profession does not lapse with the letter. What must change is the source of the power: a disqualification can come only from statute, and an interim supervisory order cannot be used to manufacture one.
Regulation of the Legal Profession in India
About: The legal profession is a statutory self regulating profession governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, which created a single unified Bar for the whole country.
Structure: State Bar Councils enrol and discipline advocates, and the Bar Council of India supervises them and sets professional standards.
Scale: India has more than 15 lakh enrolled advocates and over 1,700 approved law colleges, among the largest legal professions in the world.
Entry route: A five year integrated law degree after school or a three year degree after graduation, followed by enrolment with a State Bar Council and the All India Bar Examination.
Single class of practitioners: The Act abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders and attorneys, leaving advocates as the only recognised class, divided into senior advocates and other advocates.
National law universities: The model began with the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in 1987 and now covers more than 25 such universities.
Statutory Framework Governing Enrolment of Advocates
Section 3: Constitutes a Bar Council for each State and sets its composition and term.
Section 4: Constitutes the Bar Council of India, with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as ex officio members.
Section 6: Lists the functions of a State Bar Council, including the admission of persons as advocates on its roll under Section 6(1)(a).
Section 7: Lists the functions of the Bar Council of India, including professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g), promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
Section 24: Prescribes the qualifications for admission as an advocate on a State roll.
Section 24A: Prescribes the disqualifications for enrolment and the two year period after which they lapse.
Section 25: Names the authority to which an application for enrolment must be made.
Section 26: Governs disposal of applications, reference of a proposed refusal to the Bar Council of India, and removal of a name obtained by misrepresentation.
Sections 35 to 37: Govern punishment of advocates for professional misconduct, the powers of disciplinary committees and appeals to the Bar Council of India.
Section 48AA: Allows the Bar Council of India or its committees, other than a disciplinary committee, to review any order within sixty days.
Section 48B: Allows the Bar Council of India to give directions to a State Bar Council in exercise of its general supervision.
Section 49: Confers general rule making power on the Bar Council of India to discharge its functions.
Laws, Acts and Rules Governing the Legal Profession in India
Advocates Act, 1961: Created a unified national Bar, established the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, and consolidated the law on legal practitioners.
Advocates Act, 1961, landmark change: It abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders, attorneys and revenue agents, leaving a single class of advocates with an all India right to practise under Section 30.
Bar Council of India Rules: Framed under Section 49, covering standards of professional conduct and etiquette, legal education and the internal working of the Council.
Bar Council of India Rules, key provisions: Rule 15 gives the chairperson general control and supervision over the Council’s affairs, and Rule 18 allows interim orders in revisional and supervisory matters.
Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008: Govern recognition of law degrees, the five year and three year course structures, and inspection of colleges.
All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010: Made the examination a condition for the certificate of practice for advocates enrolled after 2009.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Created the National, State and District Legal Services Authorities and the Lok Adalat mechanism for free legal aid.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines civil and criminal contempt and governs the conduct of advocates before courts.
Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: A conviction under it is a statutory disqualification for enrolment under Section 24A.
Bar Council of India Rules for Registration of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms, 2022, amended in 2023: Permit foreign lawyers to advise on foreign law and international arbitration in non litigious matters.
Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023: Repealed the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 and inserted provisions empowering courts to frame and act against lists of touts.
Back2Basics: Advocates Act, 1961
Enacted: 1961, on the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee, 1953 and the Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission of India.
Purpose: Consolidated the law relating to legal practitioners and created a single class of advocates for the whole country.
Bodies created: State Bar Councils under Section 3 and the Bar Council of India under Section 4.
Right to practise: Section 30 gives an advocate on a State roll the right to practise before all courts, tribunals and authorities in India.
Senior advocates: Section 16 divides advocates into senior advocates and other advocates, with designation by the Supreme Court or a High Court.
Discipline: Chapter V provides for disciplinary committees, punishment for professional misconduct, and appeals to the Bar Council of India and then to the Supreme Court.
Autonomy: The Bar Council of India is an independent statutory authority and not a department of government.
Government Initiatives for Legal Education and Access to Justice
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Provides free legal aid to eligible persons under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and organises Lok Adalats for settlement of pending and pre litigation disputes.
Tele-Law: Connects citizens in rural areas to panel lawyers through Common Service Centres for free advice before litigation begins.
Nyaya Bandhu: A pro bono legal services programme that links volunteer advocates with litigants who cannot afford representation.
Legal Aid Defense Counsel System: Provides full time defence counsel at the district level for accused persons who cannot afford a lawyer.
e-Courts Mission Mode Project: Digitises case records, enables virtual hearings and publishes case status through the National Judicial Data Grid.
Nyaya Vikas: Centrally sponsored scheme funding court halls and residential units for judicial officers of district and subordinate courts.
Pan India Legal Awareness and Outreach Campaign: A village level drive by NALSA to inform citizens of their legal entitlements and aid options.
Key Facts about the Bar Council of India
Established: 1961 under the Advocates Act, 1961, with its headquarters in New Delhi.
Ex officio members: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India.
Elected members: One member elected by each State Bar Council from among its own members.
Office bearers: The chairperson and the vice chairperson are elected by the Council for a term of two years.
All India Bar Examination: Introduced in 2010 and required for the certificate of practice.
First national law university: National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, established in 1987.
Landmark ruling on enrolment: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
Landmark ruling on strikes: Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) held that advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts.
Challenges in Regulating Legal Education and the Legal Profession in India
Uneven quality of law colleges: Approvals have expanded faster than inspection capacity, so degree standards vary sharply, e.g. the moratorium the Council imposed on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
Fake and unverified degrees: Rolls carry entries that cannot be matched to a verified degree, e.g. the verification exercise under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015, in which lakhs of advocates did not submit verification papers.
Cost of entry: Enrolment fees, examination costs and unpaid junior years restrict first generation entrants, e.g. the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) capped State Bar Council enrolment fees at ₹750 for general category candidates and ₹125 for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
Under representation of women: Women form a small share of the senior Bar, e.g. women constitute about 3.4 per cent of senior advocates in India.
Court boycotts and strikes: Work withdrawal continues despite a binding ruling against it, e.g. the Delhi district courts boycott after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019.
Case backlog and delay: Adjournment practice by the Bar contributes directly to pendency, e.g. more than five crore cases were pending across Indian courts as recorded on the National Judicial Data Grid.
Regulatory overlap: Legal education is governed simultaneously by the Council and the University Grants Commission, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recommended a separate body for legal education to end the overlap.
Way Forward
Codify the limits of supervisory power: Amend Section 48B to state that a direction to a State Bar Council cannot suspend a function that Section 6(1)(a) confers on it.
Require a Council resolution for general directions: Confine Rule 18 interim orders to individual revisional matters and require a full Council decision for any direction of general effect.
Separate legal education from professional regulation: Create a distinct legal education council with academic membership, as recommended by the Law Commission’s 266th Report.
Enforce time bound discipline: Make the one year limit in Section 36B operational through mandatory public reporting of pending complaints and their age.
Publish enrolment data: Require every State Bar Council to publish the number of applications received, decided and refused, with the recorded grounds of refusal.
Protect lawful student expression: Frame a rule under Section 49 stating that lawful expression before enrolment is neither a ground for refusal nor a basis for inquiry.
Create an appellate route: Provide a statutory appeal against general directions of the Bar Council of India, so that every affected person is not forced to approach the Supreme Court.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2022] With reference to India, consider the following statements : 1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates. 2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
A recent reflection has revisited the Supreme Court’s four-decade legacy of environmental jurisprudence. This raises questions over whether recent rulings are departing from its established environmental doctrines.
What are the core doctrines of Indian environmental law?
Absolute liability: An enterprise engaged in a hazardous activity is fully liable for harm, established after the Bhopal disaster.
Polluter pays principle: The cost of pollution and remediation falls on the polluter.
Precautionary principle: Lack of scientific certainty is no reason to defer measures against environmental harm.
Public trust doctrine: The state holds natural resources as a trustee for the public.
Where do these doctrines come from constitutionally?
Article 48A: Directs the state to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g): Makes environmental protection a fundamental duty of citizens.
42nd Amendment, 1976: Inserted both provisions into the Constitution.
Article 21: Read to include the right to a clean environment.
What is the tension?
Development pull: Recent rulings are read as leaning toward clearing infrastructure over precaution.
Amnesty concern: Environmental amnesty for past violations is questioned as inconsistent with the polluter pays principle.
Consistency critique: The Court is charged with applying its own doctrines unevenly across cases.
Conclusion
The central claim is that the Court built strong environmental doctrine but now applies it inconsistently. What remains unresolved is whether the Court restores precaution as the default in development disputes.
Back2Basics
Foundational Context: environmental jurisprudence in India
Judicial origin: Much of Indian environmental law is judge-made through public interest litigation.
Landmark cases: M.C. Mehta cases, Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, and the Bhopal litigation shaped the doctrines.
Sustainable development: The Court fused environmental protection with development as a constitutional balance.
Expansion of Article 21: The Supreme Court progressively interpreted the right to life to include the right to a clean, healthy and pollution-free environment
Landmark Cases
M.C. Mehta cases: Developed principles of environmental liability and protection.
Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Recognised the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle as essential features of sustainable development.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987): Established the doctrine of absolute liability.
M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): Strengthened the public trust doctrine.
PYQ Relevance
“[2010] Sustainable development is described as the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In this perspective, inherently the concept of sustainable development is intertwined with which of the following concepts?
