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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • SC restricts ‘retrospective’ green clearances

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court on 29 July 2026 quashed, with prospective effect, the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that allowed ex post facto environmental clearances for projects built without prior approval. It held that the government cannot alter the mandatory environmental clearance regime through a mere administrative instruction. The ruling closes a route that had let project proponents regularise unauthorised construction through a recurring “amnesty,” while leaving open a narrow exception issued through proper notification.

    What did the 2021 Office Memorandum allow, and why did the court strike it down?

    1. What the OM did: The 2021 OM created a standard operating procedure allowing perpetual, recurring ex post facto environmental clearance for projects undertaken without prior environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Why it failed the legal test: The Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, held that the OM was “an administrative order” that “envisages a perpetual regime” and “supplants an earlier delegated legislation through an administrative instruction, which is impermissible in law.”
    3. No selection criteria: The OM applied indiscriminately to all permissible projects without laying down an intelligible differentia connecting selection to “supervening public interest,” making it disproportionate and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
    4. Weakened deterrence: The decriminalisation of the offence of breaching the prior clearance regime through the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 compounded the problem, since violators earlier faced up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, before the offence became a civil liability.

    What can the government still do to grant retrospective clearance?

    1. Narrow exception preserved: The Court held the Centre retains power under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to issue an appropriate, narrowly tailored amnesty notification in supervening public interest, as an exception to the 2006 notification, but not through an administrative memorandum.
    2. Selection requirement: Any future amnesty scheme must make a distinct, reasoned selection of projects, tested against proportionality and public interest, rather than covering all non-compliant projects uniformly.
    3. Accountability demand: The Court ordered that future amnesty schemes must provide effective deterrent measures against individual public servants, including disciplinary action and personal liability, wherever the state or its own instrumentalities violate the prior clearance regime.

    What happens to projects that already received clearance under the quashed OM?

    1. Prospective effect only: The Court quashed the 2021 OM prospectively, to avoid disrupting ongoing projects including the AIIMS Medical College and Hospital building in Odisha, the Centre of Excellence for Cancer Diseases in Tamil Nadu, Vijayapura Airport in Karnataka, and various medical colleges, slum rehabilitation and irrigation projects.
    2. Existing clearances remain valid: Retrospective clearances already granted under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM remain valid unless individually challenged in accordance with law.
    3. Litigation history: The ruling follows a back-and-forth: a May 2025 Division Bench judgment called such clearances a “gross illegality,” a November 2025 larger Bench recalled that ruling citing the “devastating effect” on public projects worth thousands of crores, and the present July 2026 judgment on review petitions restores the stricter position on the OM specifically.

    Does closing the OM route resolve the tension between environmental compliance and project continuity?

    1. Unresolved incentive: Because existing ex post facto clearances remain valid unless individually challenged, project proponents that already built without clearance retain the benefit of past regularisation, even as the route for future violators is closed.
    2. Enforcement gap remains: With the 2023 Jan Vishwas Act having decriminalised breaches of the prior clearance regime, the deterrent effect of closing the administrative amnesty route depends on how strictly future violations are now penalised as civil liabilities.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has closed the administrative route for open-ended retrospective environmental clearance while preserving a narrow, notification-based exception for genuine public interest cases. Whether this actually curbs future violations depends on how strictly the Centre applies the “narrowly tailored” and “intelligible differentia” tests the Court has now set, and whether civil penalties under the Jan Vishwas Act carry enough deterrent weight.

    Back2Basics:

    Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

    1. Enactment: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted after the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy, giving the Central government overarching powers to protect and improve the environment.
    2. EIA notification: The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, issued under Section 3 of this Act, mandates prior environmental clearance for specified categories of projects before construction begins.
    3. Jan Vishwas Act, 2023: This Act decriminalised minor offences across 42 laws, including converting the penalty for breaching the prior environmental clearance requirement from imprisonment to a civil liability.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) framework and the legal requirements governing environmental clearances. The article builds on the PYQ by analysing the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate open-ended ex post facto environmental clearances, reinforcing prior approval as the cornerstone of the EIA regime.

  • Anti-defection law: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on Tenth Schedule merger interpretation

    Why in News

    The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by Kapil Sibal challenging the prevailing interpretation of the merger exception under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The plea, linked to the 2022 Goa defection case, argues that the current interpretation undermines the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law by allowing legislators to avoid disqualification without a genuine party merger.

    What is the Merger Exception?

    • Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule provides an exception to disqualification in cases of a merger.
    • A merger is protected when not less than two-thirds of the legislators of a political party agree to merge with another party.
    • The present dispute is whether a legislative party alone can claim a merger, or whether the original political party must also merge.

    About the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

    • Added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
    • Strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which removed the earlier exemption for one-third splits.
    • Seeks to curb political defections, ensure government stability, and uphold party discipline.
    • The Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides questions relating to disqualification.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Articles 102(2) and 191(2): Provide for disqualification of MPs and MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.
    • Tenth Schedule: Contains provisions relating to disqualification on grounds of defection.

    Landmark Judgments

    • Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and held that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review.
    • Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur (2020): Directed Speakers to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, ordinarily three months.

    Issues with the Current Law

    • Delay in deciding disqualification petitions.
    • Allegations of partisan conduct by the Speaker.
    • Ambiguity regarding the merger exception.
    • Weakens representative democracy when mass defections alter electoral mandates.

    [2013, GS2, 10M] The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention?”

    [2022] With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:

    1. The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.

    2. The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.

    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

  • Insurers seek first third party premium hike in four years

    Why in News?

    Non life insurers are pressing for their first motor third party premium hike in four years, citing a Supreme Court judgment recognising the economic value of homemakers’ unpaid domestic work.

    Key Highlights

    • In its 11 June 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court held that unpaid domestic work performed by homemakers has measurable economic value and must be fairly considered while awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
    • Insurers argue that the ruling is likely to increase compensation payouts, adding to existing underwriting losses.
    • They have requested an upward revision in motor third party insurance premiums, the first such increase in four years.
    • The Central Government, in consultation with the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), notifies third party premium rates.

    Motor Third Party (TP) Insurance

    • Mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for all motor vehicles operating in India.
    • Covers death, bodily injury, or property damage caused to a third party due to the insured vehicle.
    • Does not cover damage to the insured vehicle; that requires comprehensive motor insurance.
    • Premium rates are regulated by the Central Government, based on recommendations from IRDAI.

    Value Addition

    • IRDAI: Statutory regulator established under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
    • Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT): Adjudicates compensation claims arising from road accidents under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
    • Significance of the Supreme Court ruling: Strengthens recognition of the economic contribution of unpaid care work, advancing substantive gender equality and ensuring more equitable compensation in accident claims.

    [2026] With reference to different Committees in India, consider the following details :

    Sl. No.CommitteeObjectiveOrganization under which it was formed
    1R.N. Malhotra CommitteeComprehensive reforms of Insurance sector in IndiaInsurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India
    2L.C. Gupta CommitteePreparing a roadmap for the introduction of derivatives trading in IndiaSecurities and Exchange Board of India
    3Urjit R. Patel CommitteePreparing a roadmap for reforming bank lending to the Housing sectorReserve Bank of India
    4Y.H. Malegam CommitteePreparing a roadmap for reforms in Microfinance sector in IndiaReserve Bank of India


    In which of the above rows are all the details correctly matched ?

    [A] 2 only

    [B] 2 and 3

    [C] 1, 3 and 4

    [D] 2 and 4

  • Supreme Court on Abortion Law for Minor Rape Victims 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India has asked the Union government to consider removing the time limit on abortion in cases involving minor rape survivors, while hearing a case allowing termination of a 30 week pregnancy of a 15 year old survivor.

    Background

    • Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (amended in 2021):
      • Abortion allowed up to 24 weeks for special categories
        • Rape survivors
        • Minors
        • Women with disabilities

    Key Observations of the Court

    • State or doctors cannot decide for the survivor
    • Decision should rest with:
      • Survivor
      • Parents or guardians
    • Emphasised reproductive autonomy and dignity
    • Forcing continuation of pregnancy may cause lifelong trauma

    Court’s Suggestions

    • Amend law to:
      • Remove time limit for abortion in minor rape cases
      • Ensure speedy trial (within one week)
      • Provide compensation to victim (including property of accused)

    Legal and Constitutional Aspects

    Article 21

    • Right to life and personal liberty
    • Includes reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity
    • Reproductive Rights: Recognised as part of privacy and dignity

    Key Issues Highlighted

    • Conflict between: Foetal rights vs rights of the survivor
    • Importance of informed consent
    • Role of doctors: Provide medical guidance, not impose decisions

    Important Concepts

    • Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP): Legal framework governing abortion in India
    • Reproductive Autonomy: Right of a woman to make decisions about her body and pregnancy
    [2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one’s right to marry the person of one’s choice? 
    (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29

  • SC strikes down provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, tells govt. to set up panel

    Why In The News?

    Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, saying they gave government excessive control over tribunal appointments, functioning and salaries, undermining independence.

    1) About the Supreme Court Judgement on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

    • Striking Down Provisions: The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 that gave the Union government dominant control over appointments, functioning, and salaries of tribunal chairpersons and members.
    • Need for Independence: The Court held that Parliament must structure the tribunal system to ensure independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication as constitutional requirements.
    • Violation of Constitutional Principles: Laws that enable executive control, curtail tenure, or weaken autonomy violate foundational constitutional values.
    • National Tribunal Commission: The Bench directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure independence and transparency.
    • Repackaged Ordinance: The 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance struck down in July 2021.
    • Ignoring Defects: Parliament had ignored the defects pointed out earlier by the Supreme Court, transferring the same provisions into the 2021 Act with minor changes.
    • Rejection of Parliament’s Argument: The Court dismissed the claim that Parliament has discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
    • Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court insisted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot brush aside the supremacy of the Constitution.

    2) Power of Judicial Review:

    • Meaning: Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions of public authorities.
    • Process Review: It reviews how a decision was made, not the correctness of the decision itself.
    • Procedure Established by Law: A law is valid only if enacted following the proper legislative procedure.
    • Due Process of Law: Ensures that laws are fair and just; India follows Procedure Established by Law.
    • Scope: Extends to reviewing actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative bodies.
    • Functions: Helps legitimize government action and protects the Constitution from undue encroachment.
    • Basic Structure: Judicial review forms part of the basic structure doctrine (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975).
    • Judicial Functions: Includes interpretational and observer roles of the judiciary.
    • PILs and Suo Moto: Courts can intervene through Public Interest Litigation and suo moto cases.
    • Types:
      • Review of Legislative Actions: Ensures laws comply with the Constitution.
      • Review of Administrative Actions: Enforces constitutional discipline on administrative bodies.
      • Review of Judicial Decisions: Allows correction of prior judicial decisions.
    • Importance: Ensures supremacy of the Constitution, prevents misuse of power, protects rights, maintains federal balance, and upholds judicial independence.
    • Problems: May limit government functioning, create overreach, lead to rigidity, risk judicial bias, and diminish public faith through repeated interventions.
    • Indian Context: India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers, but has checks and balances empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

    3) Tribunals:

    • Nature: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies aimed at reducing caseloads and providing technical expertise.
    • Constitutional Basis: Articles 323A and 323B added via the 42nd Amendment (1976) empower creation of tribunals.
    • Article 323A: Enables Parliament to form administrative tribunals for service matters.
    • Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on subjects like taxation and land reforms.
    • 2010 SC Clarification: Subjects under Article 323B are not exclusive—legislatures may create tribunals for any subject in the Seventh Schedule.
    • Composition: Tribunals include judicial and technical members.
    • Jurisdiction: Defined, subject-specific jurisdiction; some have appellate powers.
    • Appeals: Generally lie with High Courts, though some go directly to the Supreme Court.
    • Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997): Appeals from tribunals must reach a division bench of High Courts.
    • Current Position: Tribunals may function as substitutes for High Courts or remain subordinate.

    Significance of Tribunals:

    • Specialization:
      • Ensures cases are handled by individuals with deep legal and technical expertise.
    • Speedy Resolution:
      • Enables timely resolution in crucial matters like tax, service disputes, and environmental issues.
    • Reduced Case Load:
      • Helps ease the burden on regular courts and reduces judicial backlog.
    • Accessibility:
      • Tribunals often have geographically dispersed benches, improving access for litigants.
    • Efficiency in Service Matters:
      • Bodies like CAT expedite government service-related disputes.

    Concerns with Tribunals:

    • Independence Issues:
      • Government-controlled appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
      • In 2019, the Supreme Court warned that lack of judicial dominance violates the separation of powers.
    • Pendency of Cases:
      • Example: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had 18,829 pending cases in 2021.
    • Human Resource Constraints:
      • Lack of staffing contributes to rising pendency.
    • Tenure Problems:
      • Short tenure and reappointment provisions increase executive control.
    • Non-Uniform Procedures:
      • Wide variations cause inconsistency and confusion for litigants.
    • Overlapping Jurisdictions:
      • Leads to conflicts between courts and tribunals.
    • Technical Member Issues:
      • Some technical members lack legal qualifications.
    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.

    2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a)  1 only (b) 2 only* (c)  Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • SC recalls verdict rejecting Green Clearances

    Why in the News?

    A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recalled its May 16 verdict that had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) to construction projects as a “gross illegality” and “anathema” to environmental laws. This decision had struck down a 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum of the Union Government that allows such retrospective clearances.

    Key Points of Decision

    1. Majority Opinion:
      • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled to recall the May 16 verdict, which had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) as illegal.
      • The majority emphasized the public interest in avoiding the demolition of ongoing construction projects, which could lead to significant financial losses and job cuts.
      • They argued that retrospective clearances should be an exceptional measure rather than a routine practice, and these projects could continue if heavy penalties were imposed for violations.
    2. Dissenting Opinion:
      • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, critiquing the majority for undermining environmental jurisprudence.
      • Justice Bhuyan argued that granting ex post facto ECs violates the precautionary principle and undermines sustainable development, as it encourages illegal constructions that bypass environmental laws.
      • He emphasized that environmental protection should not be compromised for development purposes.

    Implications of the Judgement

    • Development vs Environment: The decision underscores the tension between economic development and environmental protection, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development while addressing violations of environmental laws.
    • Environmental Governance: It raises questions on judicial review of executive actions, emphasizing the need for effective regulatory compliance and policy frameworks that balance growth with ecological safeguards.
    • Sustainability and Public Health: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect natural resources and public health, which is critical for India’s long-term sustainability and policymaking.

     

  • Supreme Court reserves verdict on defining Aravalli Hills and Ranges

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on the definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges, a critical environmental issue impacting Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.

    About the Aravallis:

    • Geology: The Aravalli Range is one of the oldest fold mountain ranges in the world, formed during the Proterozoic era.
    • Spread: It stretches for about 692 km, from Gujarat to Delhi, passing through Rajasthan and Haryana.
    • State-Wise Coverage: Around 80% of the range lies in Rajasthan, with the rest spread across Haryana, Delhi, and Gujarat.
    • Highest Peak: The tallest point is Guru Shikhar in Mount Abu, Rajasthan, with an elevation of 1,722 meters.
    • Natural Barrier Function: Acts as a green wall, preventing the spread of the Thar Desert into eastern Rajasthan and the Gangetic plains.
    • River Origins: Important rivers such as the Banas, Sahibi and Luni originate from the Aravallis.
    • Minerals: Rich in minerals like copper, zinc, lead, and marble.
    • Biodiversity: Home to 300+ bird species and key wildlife such as leopards, hyenas, jackals, wolves, civets, and Nilgai.
    • Prehistoric Significance: Contains cave art and tools from the Lower Palaeolithic period.

    About the Aravalli Case: Quick Backgrounder

    • Supreme Court Review: The Court is deciding on a uniform, legally enforceable definition of the Aravalli Hills and Ranges across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
    • Case Origin: Stems from the long-running M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2008) matter on illegal mining, encroachment, and ecological degradation in the Aravallis.
    • Judgment: The Court held Aravalli lands to be forest areas under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, restricting non-forest activities.
    • Existing Legal Protection: Notifications under the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 were upheld for safeguarding ecologically sensitive land.
    • Expert Committee (2024): SC directed MoEF&CC to set up a panel to develop a scientific definition for consistent protection across states.

    Proposed Legal Definitions of Aravalli Hills and Ranges

    (more…)

  • Madras HC calls Cryptocurrency ‘Property’

    Why in the News?

    In a historic first for India, the Madras High Court has recognized cryptocurrency as “property” under Indian law, providing judicial validation to digital assets long trapped in a regulatory grey zone.

    What is Cryptocurrency?

    • Overview: Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security, making it difficult to counterfeit or double-spend.
    • Nature: It is decentralized, operating on blockchain technology — a distributed ledger maintained across a network of computers.
    • Key Features: Pseudonymity, transparency, global accessibility, and independence from central banks.
    • Examples: Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), Ripple (XRP), and others.
    • Function: Used as a medium of exchange, store of value, or investment asset, depending on its design and acceptance.

    Case Details:

    • Case Title: Rhutikumari vs Zanmai Labs Pvt. Ltd. (WazirX Operator) — Madras High Court, October 25, 2025.
    • Context: WazirX froze the petitioner’s account after a $230 million crypto hack (July 2024), even though her assets (3,532 XRP) were unrelated to the theft.
    • Petitioner’s Argument: Her cryptocurrency holdings constituted private property wrongfully frozen without due process.
    • Respondent’s Defence: The freeze was a security measure, and disputes should be referred to Singapore arbitration.
    • Court’s Decision: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh ruled that cryptocurrencies, though intangible, qualify as property since they can be owned, possessed, transferred, and enjoyed.
    • Order: WazirX directed to deposit ₹9.56 lakh in escrow until arbitration concludes.
    • Precedents Cited:
      • Ruscoe v. Cryptopia Ltd (New Zealand): Crypto assets recognized as property held in trust.
      • AA v. Persons Unknown (UK): Bitcoin acknowledged as an asset capable of ownership and protection.

    Legal Implications of the Ruling:

    • Recognition of Ownership Rights: Establishes that cryptocurrency holders have property rights enforceable under Indian civil law.
    • Investor Protection: Enables crypto investors to seek injunctions, escrow relief, and proprietary claims in disputes with exchanges.
    • Liability of Exchanges: Exchanges can be held accountable for wrongful freezing or security failures; “force majeure” cannot justify loss of investor assets.
    • Insolvency Proceedings: Cryptocurrencies can now be treated as assets of an estate, strengthening recovery mechanisms in bankruptcy or liquidation.
    • Judicial Precedent: First Indian ruling to recognise crypto as legally protectable property, likely to influence future regulatory and tax interpretation.

    Legal Status of Cryptocurrency in India (as of 2025):

    • Legality: Cryptocurrencies are not legal tender but are legal to hold, trade, and invest within a regulated framework.
    • Taxation:
      • Classified as Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs) under the Finance Act, 2022.
      • 30% tax on gains; 1% TDS on trades above threshold limits.
    • Regulatory Oversight:
      • RBI: Monitors systemic risk; does not recognize crypto as currency.
      • SEBI: Supervises investment-related aspects.
      • FIU-IND: Enforces anti–money laundering compliance under PMLA (2023 extension).
    • Judicial Framework: Supreme Court (2020) struck down the 2018 RBI ban, enabling continued operation of exchanges.
    • RBI Policy Direction:
      • Promotes Digital Rupee (CBDC) as a regulated alternative.
      • Allows limited banking access to compliant crypto entities under strict KYC/AML rules.

    Conclusion:

    • Crypto is legal to own and trade, taxable as VDA, non-tender, and subject to compliance norms.
    • The Madras High Court ruling elevates its status from a digital asset to a judicially recognized form of property, filling a key legal gap in India’s crypto regulation.
    [UPSC 2020] Discuss how emerging technologies and globalisation contribute to money laundering. Elaborate measures to tackle the problem of money laundering both at national and international levels?

    [UPSC 2019] What is Cryptocurrency? How does it affect global society? Has it been affecting Indian society also?

     

  • SC exempts pre-2022 Surrogacy Cases from Age Restrictions

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has ruled that age limits prescribed under the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 do not apply retrospectively to couples who had frozen their embryos and initiated the surrogacy process before January 25, 2022, the date when the law came into effect.

    Case Background:

    • Petitions: Filed by three couples who had undergone IVF and frozen embryos before Jan 25, 2022, when the Surrogacy Act came into effect.
    • Issue: They became ineligible under Section 4(iii)(c)(I) (age limits: women 23–50, men 26–55).
    • Argument: Since embryos were created pre-2022, the process was already initiated and could not be retrospectively invalidated.
    • Court’s View: Recognised embryo freezing as a lawful start to surrogacy; held that new age restrictions cannot retroactively disqualify such couples.

    Supreme Court’s Observations and Constitutional Findings:

    • No Retrospective Disqualification: The age restrictions introduced by the 2021 law cannot apply retrospectively to cases where medical procedures had already begun.
    • Equality in Conception Modes: Justice Nagarathna emphasised that couples conceiving through assisted reproductive technologies (ART) must enjoy the same constitutional protection as those conceiving naturally.
    • Article 21 & Reproductive Autonomy: The Court reaffirmed that the right to reproductive choice including IVF, ART, or surrogacy, forms part of personal liberty and privacy under Article 21.
    • Article 14 & Equality Before Law: Retrospective age-based exclusion was termed arbitrary and unreasonable, amounting to a violation of equality.
    • Parenting Competence Argument Rejected: The Court rejected the notion that older parents are inherently less capable, stating that state authorities cannot retrospectively judge parenting ability once medical procedures have been initiated lawfully.
    • Non-Retroactivity Principle: Reinforced the rule that unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, it operates prospectively.
    • Precedent Applied: Relied on Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), where the Court recognised reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity as constitutionally protected rights.

    Back2Basics: Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021

    • Objective: To regulate surrogacy, prevent commercial exploitation, and ensure ethical, altruistic surrogacy based solely on medical necessity.
    • Legislative Intent: To promote ethical medical practices, protect the rights of surrogate mothers and children, and curb commercialisation while respecting constitutional morality and reproductive dignity.
    • Applicability: Extends to all surrogacy cases involving Indian citizens and permanent residents, and works alongside the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
    • Key Provisions:
      • Type Permitted: Only altruistic surrogacy (no payment except medical expenses).
      • Eligibility for Couples: Married for at least five years; woman 23–50 yrs, man 26–55 yrs; no living biological, adopted, or surrogate child.
      • Single Women: Only widows or divorcees (35–45 yrs) are eligible; unmarried women excluded (under legal challenge).
      • Surrogate Requirements: Must be a close relative, married, with at least one biological child; age 25–35 years.
      • Certification: Requires Certificate of Essentiality, infertility proof, parentage order, and insurance for the surrogate.
      • Penalties: Commercial surrogacy banned; violation punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and ₹10 lakh fine.
      • Regulatory Bodies: Establishment of National and State Surrogacy Boards for implementation and oversight.

    Issues Highlighted by the Supreme Court:

    • Absence of Transitional Provisions: The 2021 Act lacks a “grandfather clause” protecting couples already in process before its commencement.
    • Inconsistent Standards: The Court questioned why adoption laws have no upper age limit, while surrogacy does, creating unequal treatment among parents.
    • Gender Discrimination: Restricting surrogacy access to only married couples and excluding unmarried women was flagged as a potential Article 14 violation.
    • Fundamental Rights Impact: Retrospective restrictions infringe upon the right to equality and reproductive freedom under Articles 14 and 21.
    • State Overreach: The Court cautioned that the state’s intent to protect child welfare cannot override individual liberty or invalidate rights exercised under prior legal norms.

    Significance of the Judgment:

    • Reinforcement of Reproductive Rights: Confirms that assisted reproduction and surrogacy fall within the ambit of reproductive autonomy and personal liberty.
    • Protection Against Legal Injustice: Shields couples who initiated lawful medical procedures from retrospective disqualification.
    • Constitutional Precedent: Establishes that statutory changes cannot nullify pre-existing lawful rights, strengthening India’s jurisprudence on non-retroactivity.
    • Judicial Balance: Maintains a balance between ethical regulation of surrogacy and protection of individual autonomy.
    • Wider Applicability: Permits similarly placed couples to seek relief before respective High Courts, widening the ruling’s scope.
    • Affirmation of Constitutional Morality: The Court underscored that justice, equity, and good conscience must guide interpretation where legislation creates unintended inequities.
    [UPSC 2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?

    (a) Article 15 (b) Article 16 (c) Article 19 (d) Article 21*

     

  • SC upholds Property Inheritance Rights for Gond Tribal Women

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India has affirmed that women of the Gond community, a Scheduled Tribe under Article 342, are entitled to inherit ancestral property, even where no explicit tribal custom confers this right.

    Supreme Court Verdict on Gond Women’s Inheritance Rights:

    • Background: Case concerned women of the Gond Scheduled Tribe seeking equal inheritance rights over their maternal grandfather’s ancestral property.
    • Lower Court Rulings: The trial court and Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the plea, holding that no tribal custom granted such rights and placing the burden of proof on the women.
    • Supreme Court Review: On 17 July 2025, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi examined whether constitutional equality overrides unwritten tribal customs excluding women from succession.
    • Legal Context: Under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act (1956), Scheduled Tribes are excluded unless specifically notified—none apply to Gonds—so the dispute was governed by customary tribal law.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling:

    • Presumption of Equality: The Court reversed lower findings, holding that equality must be presumed unless a proven, valid custom denies it.
    • Burden of Proof: Stated that custom cannot be presumed; it must be ancient, certain, and reasonable, proven through credible evidence.
    • Gender Justice: Rejected patriarchal inferences drawn from Hindu traditions, asserting such predispositions have “no place” in the case.
    • Guiding Principle: In absence of valid custom, courts must decide per “justice, equity, and good conscience.”

    Constitutional Principles Applied:

    • Article 14: Ensures equality before law; male-only inheritance lacks rational basis.
    • Article 15(1):  Prohibits sex-based discrimination; used to strike down exclusion of women.
    • Article 38: Mandates elimination of inequality across social and gender lines.
    • Article 46:  Requires protection of Scheduled Tribes from exploitation and injustice.
    • Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 cited for illustrating gender-equal intent, not direct applicability.

    Constitutional–Customary Balance:

    • Conflict: Between tribal autonomy under Fifth/Sixth Schedules and constitutional equality under Part III.
    • Precedent Shift: Unlike Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar (1996), which upheld male-only inheritance, the 2025 ruling held that when custom is unproven or discriminatory, Article 14 prevails.
    • Significance: Moves jurisprudence from deference to custom toward enforcement of constitutional morality, ensuring tribal women’s equal property rights.
    [UPSC 2023] Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws.

    [UPSC 2015] Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizens a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy.