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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • UGC equity rules being reconsidered: Centre to SC

    Why in the News

    The Centre told the Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 that it is reconsidering the University Grants Commission regulations framed to prevent caste discrimination in higher education institutions. The regulations name the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes as the protected groups, and that naming is what general category petitioners have challenged as exclusion.

    What are the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026?

    1. What they do: The University Grants Commission (UGC) (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 impose a compliance framework on higher education institutions to prevent and redress discrimination against students and faculty.
    2. Notification and stay: They were notified on 13 January 2026 and stayed by the Supreme Court on 29 January 2026, which revived the 2012 framework until further orders.
    3. Two definitions inside them: Regulation 3(1)(c) defines caste based discrimination as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Clause 3(e) defines discrimination more broadly, covering unfair or differential treatment on the ground of caste against any stakeholder.
    4. Present position: The Centre has told the Court that the regulations are being reconsidered, so they stand stayed and unenforced.

    What is a "separate yet equal" classification?

    1. Separate yet equal: A "separate yet equal" classification permits separate facilities for different groups on the argument that the facilities provided are of equal quality. Constitutional courts treat the act of separation as the injury, since equality of facilities does not cure the stigma of being set apart.

    How far are students currently protected against caste discrimination on campus?

    1. Governing regulations restored: The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 are back in force, requiring institutions to constitute an Equal Opportunity Cell and to publish an anti discrimination policy.
    2. Criminal protection: The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 covers caste based insult, intimidation and social boycott, including inside educational institutions, and is tried by Special Courts. Its 2015 Amendment added new offences and mandated Exclusive Special Courts and time bound trial.
    3. Separate ragging machinery: The UGC (Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2009 mandate an Anti Ragging Committee and an Anti Ragging Squad in every institution, alongside an anti ragging affidavit from every student and parent.
    4. Reservation in admission: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 reserves 15 per cent of seats for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5 per cent for the Scheduled Tribes and 27 per cent for the Other Backward Classes, alongside 10 per cent for the Economically Weaker Sections.
    5. Reservation in teaching posts: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 restored the institution rather than the department as the unit for computing reservation in faculty recruitment.
    6. No standalone statute: India has no dedicated anti discrimination Act for education, so protection is assembled from regulations, criminal law and reservation statutes.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Equality and Non-Discrimination

    1. Preamble: Declares equality of status and of opportunity, and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual.
    2. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person.
    3. Article 15(1): Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    4. Article 15(4): Enables special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    5. Article 15(5): Enables reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions, other than minority institutions.
    6. Article 15(6): Enables reservation of up to 10 per cent of seats for the Economically Weaker Sections.
    7. Article 16(4): Enables reservation in public employment for any backward class not adequately represented in State services.
    8. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
    9. Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, read to include the right to live with dignity.
    10. Article 29(2): Bars denial of admission to a State maintained or State aided educational institution on grounds of religion, race, caste or language.
    11. Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    12. Article 338 and Article 338A: Establish the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes to investigate and monitor constitutional safeguards.

    Why were the 2026 Regulations framed?

    1. Origin in litigation: The regulations stem from a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula.
    2. The two deaths: Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula died by suicide over alleged caste based discrimination in 2019 and 2016 respectively.
    3. Relief sought: The petition asked for enforcement of robust anti discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions.
    4. Gap in the earlier framework: The 2012 regulations relied on Equal Opportunity Cells without naming caste based discrimination as a distinct wrong.
    5. Regulatory answer: The 2026 regulations responded by carving out caste based discrimination as a separate defined category rather than leaving it inside general discrimination.

    Why did the Supreme Court stay the regulations rather than let them operate?

    1. Sweeping consequences: The bench said the issue raised important questions that, if left unexamined, could have very sweeping consequences and could divide society.
    2. Prima facie ambiguity: The order recorded that on a prima facie consideration some provisions of the impugned regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and that the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out.
    3. Status quo preserved: The Court directed that the 2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders, so institutions were not left without an equity framework.
    4. Notices issued: Notices were issued to the Centre and to the University Grants Commission, so the challenge proceeds on merits rather than by administrative withdrawal.
    5. Narrow target of challenge: The petitions, filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, primarily challenge Regulation 3(1)(c) and not the regulations as a whole.

    Why has an anti-discrimination rule drawn objections from protected and general categories alike?

    1. General category objection: Naming the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in Regulation 3(1)(c) is read as excluding general category students and faculty from specific protection against caste based discrimination.
    2. The broader clause cuts against the narrower: Clause 3(e) already covers unfair or differential treatment on the ground of caste against any stakeholder, so the narrower clause adds a group specific label without adding a group specific remedy.
    3. Dalit and Other Backward Class objection: Sections of Dalit and Other Backward Class opinion oppose the stay and any rollback, since deleting the named categories would dissolve the recognition the regulation created.
    4. Division within the protected groups: Some Dalit opinion opposes bringing the Other Backward Classes under the same protective umbrella, treating caste discrimination against the Scheduled Castes as a distinct harm.
    5. Absent machinery: The regulations create a named category of caste based discrimination without prescribing a distinct complaint, inquiry or penalty procedure for it.

    What questions has the Supreme Court framed for examination?

    1. Nexus of Regulation 3(1)(c): Whether Clause 3(1)(c) bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 Regulations, particularly since no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste based discrimination as against the exhaustive and inclusive definition of discrimination in Clause 3(e).
    2. Effect on sub classification: Whether introducing the term caste based discrimination has any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and whether the new rules provide adequate and effective safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage.
    3. Segregation and the equality guarantees: Whether including the expression segregation in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non discriminatory criteria, would amount to a separate yet equal classification infringing the guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14 and 15 and the Preamble.
    4. Omission of ragging: Whether omitting the term ragging as a specific form of discrimination is a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission, and whether that omission creates an asymmetry in access to justice for victims of discrimination and so falls foul of Articles 14 and 21.

    Why has the issue become an electoral question in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar?

    1. Upper caste protest: The rules triggered protests among sections of the upper castes, who argued that the explicit reference to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes amounted to exclusion of general category students.
    2. Dalit disquiet over rollback: There is concern within the ruling party that the stay and any rollback may cause disquiet among Dalit communities.
    3. Election calendar: Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections are due next year, which places the dispute inside an active campaign in the largest State.
    4. Bypoll reading: One reason attributed within the ruling party for its defeat in the recent Bankipur Assembly bypoll in Bihar was upper caste dissatisfaction over the University Grants Commission issue.
    5. Cost in both directions: Retaining the clause loses general category support and withdrawing it loses Dalit and Other Backward Class support, which is why reconsideration rather than defence is the chosen route.

    Major debates surrounding caste discrimination in higher education

    1. Group specific against universal protection: Whether an anti discrimination rule should name the historically excluded groups, or state a caste neutral prohibition that any student can invoke, is the live legal fault line.
    2. Sub classification within the Scheduled Castes: The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh permitted States to sub classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation, and the debate now extends to whether protection against discrimination can be similarly graded.
    3. Creamy layer for the Scheduled Castes: Judicial opinion is divided on extending the creamy layer exclusion, applied to the Other Backward Classes since Indra Sawhney (1992), to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    4. Merit against representation: The framing of open competition as merit and reservation as compensation is contested by the argument that access to coaching, language and schooling already prices the entry test.
    5. Institutional autonomy against central regulation: Whether a central regulator can prescribe internal grievance machinery binding on State and private universities is disputed by State governments.
    6. Empirical gap: Caste wise data on discrimination complaints and on student suicides in higher education institutions is not published in consolidated form, so the scale the dispute turns on is itself contested.

    Challenges to enforcing the UGC Equity Regulations

    1. Grievance machinery controlled by the respondent: Equal Opportunity Cells are constituted by the same administration that a complaint is frequently directed against. Eg. In the Rohith Vemula case, the suspension from the hostel that preceded his death in January 2016 came from the University of Hyderabad's own disciplinary machinery.
    2. Retaliation risk suppresses reporting: A complaint against senior faculty or residents is made inside a hierarchy that controls the complainant's evaluation. Eg. Payal Tadvi's complaint at BYL Nair Hospital in Mumbai in 2019 named senior residents in her own department.
    3. Regulatory reach ends at grant conditionality: University Grants Commission regulations bind institutions that seek its recognition and grants, and enforcement over State universities is weak. Eg. The 2012 regulations required every institution to publish an anti discrimination policy, and publication was never made a condition for release of grants.
    4. A stayed regulation does not operate: A judicial stay leaves the earlier and weaker framework in charge for the entire period of litigation. Eg. The 2026 regulations have been suspended since 29 January 2026, so the 2012 framework they were written to replace still governs every campus.
    5. Faculty representation shortfall: A grievance system staffed almost entirely by unreserved category faculty carries limited confidence among complainants. Eg. Central universities have reported persistent backlogs of unfilled reserved category professor and associate professor posts in successive parliamentary replies.
    6. Definitional contest displaces the remedy: Litigation on who is covered has consumed the entire period in which the compliance machinery was to be built. Eg. Seven months after notification the regulations have produced no Equal Opportunity Cell restructuring, no complaint procedure and no penalty.

    Conclusion

    A regulation written to give caste discrimination a name has become unworkable because targeted protection and formally neutral protection are being demanded of the same clause. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 are being reconsidered, so the measure stands stayed and the 2012 framework continues in force until further orders. What remains unresolved is the defect the Court itself identified, that the regulations create a distinct category of caste based discrimination without prescribing any distinct procedure to act on it.

    What is Substantive Equality?

    1. About: Substantive equality treats equality as an outcome the law must produce, so it permits differential treatment where identical treatment would preserve entrenched disadvantage.
    2. Rationale: Formal equality applies the same rule to unequally placed persons, which reproduces the existing distribution of advantage; substantive equality asks what the rule does to those on whom the disadvantage already falls.
    3. Redressing disadvantage: The first dimension asks whether a measure removes the material and social disadvantage a group carries, rather than whether it treats everyone alike.
    4. Countering stigma, prejudice and violence: The second dimension asks whether a measure reduces the humiliation, stereotype and hostility attached to group membership.
    5. Enhancing voice and participation: The third dimension asks whether the affected group has a say in the institutions that decide for it, since exclusion from decision making sustains the disadvantage.
    6. Accommodating difference through structural change: The fourth dimension asks whether the institution itself is altered to fit the group, rather than requiring the group to conform to an existing design.

    Key Concerns Regarding Substantive Equality

    1. Ceiling on affirmative action: The 50 per cent limit set in Indra Sawhney (1992) restricts how far redistribution can go, and the 10 per cent Economically Weaker Sections quota upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022) breached it for a non caste category.
    2. Benefit capture within the beneficiary group: Reservation gains concentrate among the better placed sections of a reserved category, which is the argument behind creamy layer and sub classification demands.
    3. Absence of enumeration: Caste wise socio economic data has not been published since 1931 in a full Census, so the extent of disadvantage the doctrine seeks to redress is inferred rather than measured.
    4. Reach limited to the public sector: Reservation binds the State and State aided institutions, and the bulk of new employment and higher education capacity has grown in the private sector.
    5. Conflict with efficiency claims: Article 335 requires that claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, which is repeatedly invoked against extending measures.
    6. Enforcement gap in horizontal relations: Constitutional equality guarantees bind the State, and discrimination between private individuals on a campus or in housing has no general statutory remedy.

    Laws and Rules Governing Anti-Discrimination in Higher Education

    1. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Establishes the Commission and empowers it to coordinate and determine standards in universities.
    2. Section 26 gives the Commission power to make regulations, which is the source of both the 2012 and the 2026 equity regulations.
    3. Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Penalises the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability, including in educational institutions.
    4. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 16 requires educational institutions to provide inclusive education and reasonable accommodation.

    Government Initiatives for Equity in Higher Education

    1. Post Matric Scholarship for Scheduled Caste students: Meets tuition and maintenance costs of Scheduled Caste students pursuing post matriculation courses, targeted at students below a stated family income ceiling.
    2. National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students: Funds Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy research by students of these categories in recognised universities.
    3. PM Young Achievers Scholarship Award Scheme for Vibrant India (PM YASASVI): Supports school and higher secondary education of Other Backward Class, Economically Backward Class and De notified Tribe students, feeding the higher education pipeline.
    4. National Overseas Scholarship: Funds postgraduate and doctoral study abroad for Scheduled Caste, De notified Tribe, landless agricultural labourer and traditional artisan category students.
    5. Dr Ambedkar Centres of Excellence: Provide free civil services examination coaching to Scheduled Caste students in selected universities.
    6. Remedial Coaching and Equal Opportunity Cells: University Grants Commission supported cells run bridge and remedial courses for students from reserved categories in colleges and universities.

    Challenges in Ensuring Equity in Higher Education

    1. Enrolment gap by category: Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education remains below the national average for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Eg. The All India Survey on Higher Education for 2021-22 recorded an overall Gross Enrolment Ratio of 28.4 per cent, against 25.9 per cent for the Scheduled Castes and 21.2 per cent for the Scheduled Tribes.
    2. Language of instruction: Professional and postgraduate programmes are taught almost entirely in English, which disadvantages students from State board schooling in regional languages. Eg. Engineering and medical curricula translated into Indian languages under the National Education Policy, 2020 cover a small share of programmes and enrolment.
    3. Financial barriers and delayed disbursal: Scholarship money arrives after fees fall due, forcing students into private borrowing. Eg. Post Matric Scholarship disbursal depends on release of the State share, and delays in that release have stalled payments across academic years.
    4. Residential segregation on campus: Hostel allotment and mess arrangements reproduce caste separation informally even where no rule prescribes it. Eg. The Supreme Court has framed the allocation of hostels, classrooms and mentorship groups as a separate yet equal question in the present case.
    5. Mental health and support systems: Counselling capacity in most institutions is not staffed to the size of the student body, and first generation learners carry the heaviest adjustment burden. Eg. Successive parliamentary replies have recorded student suicides in central institutions, with a disproportionate share from reserved categories.
    6. Growth outside the reservation perimeter: Capacity expansion has been largest in private unaided institutions, where implementation of Article 15(5) reservation is uneven. Eg. The provision was upheld for private unaided institutions in Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) and again in Pramati Educational Trust (2014), and compliance is not centrally monitored.

    Back2Basics: University Grants Commission (UGC)

    1. Formation: Set up in 1953 and given statutory status by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which came into force on 3 November 1956.
    2. Parent ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Education, with its headquarters in New Delhi and six regional offices.
    3. Constitutional basis: Draws from Article 246 read with Entry 66 of the Union List, which covers coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
    4. Composition: Consists of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and ten members appointed by the Central Government.
    5. Mandate: Coordinates and determines standards in universities, disburses grants, frames regulations and advises the Union and State governments on higher education.
    6. Recognition function: Recognises institutions under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the Act, which determines their eligibility for central grants.
    7. Proposed replacement: A Higher Education Commission of India has been proposed to subsume its regulatory functions, with grant disbursal moved to a separate body.

    Way Forward

    1. Prescribe a distinct procedure: Attach a dedicated complaint, inquiry and penalty procedure to caste based discrimination, since the absence of one is the core defect the Court has framed.
    2. Independent grievance forum: Place the inquiry authority outside the institution's own administration, with an external member drawn from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe commission panel.
    3. Keep the broad clause as the residual protection: Retain the wide definition in Clause 3(e) as the universal guarantee, so no category of student is left without a remedy. The group specific recognition created by Regulation 3(1)(c) is retained alongside it.
    4. Make compliance a grant condition: Tie release of central grants and continuation of Section 12(B) status to the constitution and reporting of a functioning equity mechanism.
    5. Publish disaggregated data: Require every institution to report complaints, outcomes, dropouts and student deaths by category in an annual public return.
    6. Fill reserved faculty posts in mission mode: Run a time bound special recruitment drive for the backlog of reserved category teaching posts, since representation among decision makers is what makes a grievance forum credible.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018, GS2, 10] Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.”

  • Former SC judge-led panel to probe ‘police excesses’ against protesters

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has constituted a five member High-Powered Enquiry Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge to examine alleged excesses and disproportionate use of force by police and security personnel at Jantar Mantar and other locations during last month’s protests over the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (Undergraduate) paper leak. The Court framed twelve issues for the inquiry, covering both police conduct and violence by protesters. The order therefore turns a policing controversy into an examination of the constitutional limits on how the State may respond to assembly.

    What is the High-Powered Enquiry Committee?

    1. What it is: The High-Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) is a fact finding body constituted by the Supreme Court to examine allegations of excessive force by police and security personnel during the protests, and to report back to the Court.
    2. Who heads it and who sits on it: It is headed by former Supreme Court judge R Subhash Reddy. Its members are former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha, former Delhi High Court judge Justice Shalinder Kaur, former Central Bureau of Investigation Director Rishi Kumar Shukla, and retired Director General of Police of Meghalaya L R Bishnoi.
    3. How it must function: The inquiry is not to be a one time exercise. The Committee is to undertake a continuous and periodic assessment of the enumerated issues and submit interim findings periodically, so the Court can issue directions as warranted.
    4. What it does not displace: The Court clarified that the constitution of the Committee shall in no way deter or debar police authorities or security forces from taking administrative or disciplinary action against officers found in contravention of the rules governing their conduct.

    What is the current status of the right to protest in India?

    1. The right itself: The right to protest is drawn from Article 19(1)(a), the freedom of speech and expression, and Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably and without arms, read together.
    2. The condition built into the text: The assembly must be peaceable and without arms, so the protection falls away for an assembly that turns violent or armed.
    3. The limits on the right: Restrictions may be imposed under Article 19(2) on speech and Article 19(3) on assembly, and the restriction must be reasonable and imposed by law rather than by executive discretion alone.
    4. No right to occupy a public space indefinitely: The Supreme Court in Amit Sahni v Commissioner of Police (2020) held that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied indefinitely, and that demonstrations must take place in designated areas.
    5. A blanket ban on a protest site is not permissible: In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v Union of India (2018) the Court set aside an absolute prohibition on demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and directed that guidelines be framed regulating rather than eliminating protest there.
    6. Force must be proportionate and compensable: In Anita Thakur v State of Jammu and Kashmir (2016) the Court held that use of excessive force by police against demonstrators violates Article 21 and awarded compensation to the injured.
    7. The operative statutory levers: Prohibitory orders are issued under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and speech and assembly prosecutions have been brought under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to the Right to Protest and Police Accountability

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees to all citizens the freedom of speech and expression, from which the right to voice dissent is drawn.
    2. Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    3. Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations or unions, under which protest organisations operate.
    4. Article 19(2): Permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression on enumerated grounds.
    5. Article 19(3): Permits reasonable restrictions on the right of assembly in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India or public order.
    6. Article 21: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, the provision under which bodily harm caused by disproportionate force is examined.
    7. Article 22: Provides safeguards on arrest and detention, including the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner.
    8. Article 20(3): Protects a person accused of an offence against being compelled to be a witness against himself.
    9. Article 32 and Article 226: Provide the remedies before the Supreme Court and the High Courts through which protest related grievances and monitored inquiries are brought.
    10. Seventh Schedule, State List Entry 1 and Entry 2: Place public order and police within the legislative and executive competence of the States, which is why a national inquiry into police conduct proceeds through the Court rather than through a central department.

    What is Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

    1. What it does: Section 163 empowers a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate to issue a written order directing a person or the public generally to abstain from a specified act, where there is an apprehension of obstruction, annoyance, danger to human life or a disturbance of public tranquillity.
    2. Its limits: An order under the section is temporary and cannot ordinarily remain in force beyond two months, and it corresponds to the power earlier exercised under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

    What is Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?

    1. What it criminalises: Section 152 punishes acts that excite secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities or separatist feelings, or that endanger the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, with punishment extending to life imprisonment or seven years with fine.
    2. What it replaced: It came into force on 1 July 2024 in place of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the sedition provision inserted in 1870, and its constitutional validity is under challenge on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth.

    What are metallic kinetic projectiles?

    1. What they are: Metallic kinetic projectiles, commonly called pellets, are small metal shot fired in a scattering pattern from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, used as a crowd control weapon.
    2. Why they are contested: The scatter pattern makes the point of impact uncontrollable, so injuries to the eyes and upper body are common and the resulting harm is often irreversible.

    What are the twelve issues the Committee will examine?

    1. Issue 1, excessive force: Alleged use of excessive force and violence against protesters by police authorities and other agencies, including deployment of pellet guns, electric batons, lathi charges and tear gas without adequate warning or proportionality, resulting in severe bodily harm and injuries, some alleged to be of a grievous and lasting nature.
    2. Issue 2, proportionality of response: Ensuring a proportionate and measured police response during protests, public gatherings and peaceful assemblies, so as to strike an appropriate balance between maintaining public order and exercising the constitutional right to peaceful dissent.
    3. Issue 3, banning pellets: The desirability of banning the use of metallic kinetic projectiles or pellets fired from pump-action rifles or projectile-action guns, having regard to the grave and at times irreversible bodily harm they cause.
    4. Issue 4, identification of officers: The necessity of ensuring that police and security personnel wear proper uniforms and visible nameplates while effecting arrests or using force during crowd control operations, to secure accountability and enable identification of individual officers.
    5. Issue 5, surveillance: Allegations of monitoring and surveillance of protesters by police personnel, and the extent to which such measures were consistent with the protesters’ constitutional rights to privacy and free assembly.
    6. Issue 6, female protesters: Alleged incidents of targeted violence, harassment, molestation and secondary victimisation directed against female protesters, which warrant a focused and expeditious enquiry.
    7. Issue 7, medical support and compensation: The provision of medical and other requisite support, including award of compensation, to victims of alleged police abuse, and the manner and adequacy of the support extended so far.
    8. Issue 8, prohibitory orders: Regulation of the issuance of blanket prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to prevent their use as a routine or pre-emptive measure that forecloses peaceful assembly rather than as a proportionate response to a real and imminent threat to public order.
    9. Issue 9, thresholds for Section 152: The establishment of strict constitutional thresholds and safeguards to prevent Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from being invoked to stifle political dissent and peaceful protest, so that it is not permitted to operate as a chilling restraint on constitutionally protected speech and assembly.
    10. Issue 10, violence by protesters: Alleged use of force and violence by protesters against police officers and other security personnel.
    11. Issue 11, damage to property: Damage to public property caused by the actions of protesters, including destruction of and injury to government installations, vehicles and other assets belonging to the State and to private citizens alike.
    12. Issue 12, injuries to police: The injuries sustained by police forces in the course of discharging their duties, and the consequent mental and emotional trauma borne by their families.

    Which issues has the Court told the Committee to take up first?

    1. The two priority issues: The Committee is to address Issue 1 on excessive force and Issue 6 on targeted violence against female protesters on a priority basis, bearing in mind the sensitivity attendant on them.
    2. The first deliverable: The Committee has been asked to complete its inquiry and deliberations on those two issues and submit its First Interim Report at the earliest.
    3. The additional head opened: The Committee may also examine the grant of interim compensation to those injured on either side, whether police personnel or protesters.
    4. The reporting design: Interim findings are to be submitted periodically rather than a single report at the end, so the Court can issue directions while the inquiry continues.
    5. When the order was made: The order is dated 19 August 2026 and was released on 20 August 2026.

    Why does the Court’s framing place police conduct and protester conduct on the same list?

    1. The list is symmetrical by design: Nine issues concern police and State conduct and three concern protester conduct, so the inquiry is not framed solely as an investigation of the police.
    2. The compensation head runs both ways: Interim compensation is opened for those injured on either side, which places an injured constable and an injured student within the same remedial frame.
    3. Trauma is recognised on the police side: Issue 12 extends to the mental and emotional trauma borne by the families of injured police personnel, a head rarely written into an inquiry mandate.
    4. Symmetry is not equivalence: The two issues marked for priority treatment are both allegations against the police, so the sequencing signals which set of allegations the Court treats as most urgent.
    5. The disciplinary channel stays open in parallel: The Court expressly preserved the power of police authorities to take administrative or disciplinary action against their own officers, so the inquiry does not become a reason to suspend departmental accountability.
    6. The tension the design carries: A committee asked simultaneously to judge police excess and protester violence must apply one standard of proportionality to an armed disciplined force and another to an unorganised crowd, without a settled test for either.

    Major debates surrounding the right to protest and the use of force

    1. Regulation against prohibition: One position holds that designated protest sites and prior permission are reasonable regulation of a public space, and the other holds that permission requirements convert a right into a licence.
    2. Two rulings pulling in opposite directions: Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (2018) struck down a blanket prohibition at a protest site, and Amit Sahni (2020) held that public ways cannot be occupied indefinitely, so the boundary between the two remains contested.
    3. The proportionality standard for lethal and less lethal weapons: There is no settled judicial test fixing when tear gas, water cannon, batons or pellets may be used, so proportionality is assessed after the event rather than fixed in advance.
    4. Whether pellet weapons can be regulated or must be banned: One position accepts them as a less lethal alternative to firearms, and the other holds that an uncontrollable scatter pattern makes proportionate use impossible in principle.
    5. Prohibitory orders as prevention against pre-emption: Section 163 is defended as a preventive power against imminent threats and contested as a routine instrument that forecloses assembly before any threat materialises.
    6. Whether the narrowing of sedition survives its replacement: The Kedar Nath Singh (1962) requirement of incitement to violence narrowed the old sedition provision, and whether that narrowing automatically transfers to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is unsettled.
    7. Command responsibility against individual liability: Accountability for crowd control failures is contested between the individual officer who used force and the supervising officer who ordered the deployment.
    8. The evidentiary gap the dispute turns on: Without uniforms carrying visible identification, body worn cameras and a contemporaneous record of orders, allegations on both sides rest on competing testimony rather than on documented fact.

    Challenges to the inquiry delivering accountability

    1. A fact finding committee is not a prosecuting authority: The Committee reports to the Court and cannot itself frame charges or convict, so accountability depends on what follows the report. Eg. The Court has separately preserved the departmental power to take disciplinary action, which sits outside the Committee’s control.
    2. Evidence degrades with time in crowd control cases: Injury records, video footage, control room logs and deployment orders have to be secured early or they cease to be reliable. Eg. Issue 4 arises precisely because officers using force were allegedly not identifiable by uniform or nameplate.
    3. Prosecution of police officers requires sanction: Proceeding against a public servant for acts done in the discharge of official duty depends on prior sanction from the government that employs him. Eg. The requirement of prior sanction has historically been the reason many custodial and encounter cases do not reach trial.
    4. Police is a State subject and the incidents spanned States: The Committee’s findings must be implemented by multiple State governments, each of which controls its own force. Eg. The mandate covers Jantar Mantar and other locations across the country during the same protest wave.
    5. Compensation without a fixed scale invites disparity: Interim compensation awarded case by case, on both sides, has no published scale to anchor it. Eg. In Anita Thakur (2016) compensation was fixed by the Court itself in the absence of any statutory schedule for excessive force.
    6. Monitored inquiries lose momentum once attention moves: A periodic assessment mandate depends on the Court continuing to list and act on interim reports over years. Eg. The Prakash Singh directions on police reform were issued in 2006 and remain incompletely implemented across States two decades later.
    7. The unresolved statutory questions sit outside the Committee’s power: Issues 8 and 9 ask for constitutional thresholds on Section 163 and Section 152, which only the Court or Parliament can settle. Eg. The constitutional challenge to Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is pending separately before the Supreme Court.

    Conclusion

    The Committee stands constituted with five members under an order dated 19 August 2026, and its immediate task is a First Interim Report on excessive force and on targeted violence against female protesters. The mandate is unusually wide, covering not only what the police did but also the statutory instruments through which protest was restricted, namely prohibitory orders under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and prosecutions under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The constitutional question the order raises is whether the State can be held to a proportionality standard in crowd control when no such standard exists in written form. Until that standard is fixed in advance, each episode will continue to be judged after the fact by a fresh committee.

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

  • In a 5-4 ruling, Supreme Court for tweaking the definition of industry, exempts pending matters

    Why in the News

    A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court held on 20 August 2026, by a 5:4 margin, that the expansive 1978 interpretation of the term industry will not govern the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The ruling preserves that interpretation for disputes already pending under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and withdraws it from every case that follows.

    What is the ‘triple test’ laid down in Bangalore Water Supply (1978)?

    1. Origin: A seven-judge Constitution Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), authored by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, read Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 expansively.
    2. The three conditions: An undertaking qualifies as an industry where there is systematic activity, organised by cooperation between employer and employee, for the production or distribution of goods or services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes.
    3. What the test ignores: Profit motive is irrelevant to the classification. Purely spiritual or religious activity stays outside the definition.
    4. Reach: The test brought hospitals, educational institutions and municipalities within the fold of industry, exempting only core sovereign activities such as the judiciary, law and order and defence, in order to protect the state’s functional autonomy.

    What is the Industrial Relations Code, 2020?

    1. About: The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 consolidates the law on trade unions, standing orders and the settlement of industrial disputes into a single statute, and came into force in November 2025.
    2. The operative provision: Section 2(p) of the Code carries its own definition of industry, taking over the function that Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act performed for 48 years.

    What did the Supreme Court actually hold on the reach of the 1978 definition?

    1. A clean slate for the new Code: The majority held that industry under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 would not be burdened by the 1978 interpretation of Section 2(j) of the 1947 Act.
    2. No sheet anchor: The Chief Justice of India stated that the 1978 judgment and its conclusion would not act as the sheet anchor or the foundation for any future interpretation of Section 2(p).
    3. A refinement, not a reversal: The majority found that the essential framework of the 1978 interpretation had withstood the test of time, and that some of its constituent elements could have been articulated differently to better reflect the scope and contours of Section 2(j).
    4. Prospective operation: The refined triple test evolved in the opinion of the Chief Justice of India will operate prospectively, and the modified definition will not apply to pending cases.
    5. Pending disputes protected: All matters presently pending before courts, tribunals and labour authorities under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are to be adjudicated in accordance with the triple test as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply.
    6. Maintainability settled: The majority held that the reference questioning the correctness of the 1978 ruling was maintainable.
    7. Text still awaited: The fine print of the ruling prescribing the new formulation of the definition has not yet been released.

    Why was the 1978 definition sent to a nine-judge Bench at all?

    1. Docket explosion: Later Benches found that the 1978 definition produced what they called a docket explosion, bringing far more cases to the labour courts.
    2. A failed legislative narrowing: Parliament attempted to narrow the definition through the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1982, excluding several organisations from its scope.
    3. The 2005 admission: The Centre told the Court in 2005 that no alternative dispute resolution mechanism existed for employees who would fall outside the amended definition, so the 1978 position continued to hold.
    4. Divergent readings: Subsequent rulings interpreted the 1978 judgment differently, and the case was referred to a nine-judge Bench for reconsideration.

    What three questions did the reference place before the Bench?

    1. Correctness of the test: Whether the test laid down in Bangalore Water Supply remains the correct interpretation of industry, and whether later legislative developments have any bearing on it.
    2. Welfare schemes: Whether welfare schemes run by the government count as an industrial activity.
    3. Sovereign function: What constitutes a sovereign function of the state, and whether such functions fall outside the ambit of labour law altogether.
    4. When framed: The Court identified these three broad questions for consideration in February 2026.

    Why does preserving the 1978 test only for pending cases divide the workforce in two?

    1. Two regimes running side by side: A dispute already filed under the 1947 Act is decided on the wide 1978 definition. An identical dispute arising under the Code is decided on a definition that has not yet been written out.
    2. The Court’s own reason: The majority stated that it did not intend to displace the governing legal position on pending proceedings, since doing so would create artificial discrimination.
    3. What the wide net secured: The 1978 definition enabled workers across a wide range of jobs to obtain legal recourse on wages, working hours, strikes, collective bargaining and protection against arbitrary dismissal.
    4. What the clean slate removes: Workers whose disputes arise after the Code’s commencement lose the settled presumption that their workplace is an industry, and must establish it afresh under Section 2(p).

    What does the dissent argue about the State as an employer?

    1. Reference itself questioned: Justice B.V. Nagarathna found the reference against the 1978 verdict unwarranted and not maintainable, and held that the ruling required no interference or modification.
    2. Identity of the employer is irrelevant: The dissent held that merely because a function is performed by the State, it cannot be exempted from the definition of industry, so the test of who carries out the activity is not relevant.
    3. Nature of the activity governs: Social welfare activities and schemes undertaken by government departments or their instrumentalities can be construed as industrial activities for the purpose of Section 2(j), depending on the nature of the activity and all other relevant factors.
    4. Why it matters now: The dissent held that it was important, now more than ever, to retain the inclusive definition of industry to safeguard workers’ rights.
    5. Split within the majority side: Justice Joymalya Bagchi recorded disagreement with the majority on the reformulation of the triple test, and Justices Dipankar Dutta and Ujjal Bhuyan wrote dissenting opinions.

    What challenges follow from redefining ‘industry’ under the new Code?

    1. Coverage uncertainty until the operative text arrives: The modified formulation was pronounced without the wording that prescribes it being available, so adjudicating authorities have no text to apply. Eg. The hour-long pronouncement on 20 August 2026 ended with the fine print of the new formulation still awaited.
    2. Identical workplaces treated differently by filing date: The cut-off is the date of the proceeding, not the nature of the work, so two workers in the same undertaking can face different definitions. Eg. A dispute in a municipal water supply undertaking filed under the 1947 Act is decided on the triple test, and one arising afterwards is not.
    3. No fallback forum for excluded categories: Narrowing the definition removes workers from the industrial adjudication machinery without putting anything in its place. Eg. The Centre itself told the Court in 2005 that no alternative dispute resolution mechanism existed for employees who would fall outside a narrowed definition.
    4. Threshold effects that discourage firms from growing: The Code applies its stricter obligations only above stated headcounts, which gives firms a reason to stop hiring below the line. Eg. Standing orders now apply at 300 employees and prior approval for layoff, retrenchment and closure applies at 300 workers, both raised from far lower thresholds.
    5. The sovereign function boundary left to case-by-case litigation: The Court has framed the question of what a sovereign function is without settling a workable test for it. Eg. Whether a government-run welfare scheme is an industrial activity was one of the three questions placed before the Bench in February 2026.
    6. A definition built for a standard employment relation: The triple test turns on cooperation between employer and employee, which platform-mediated work does not fit. Eg. Gig and platform workers are addressed through the Code on Social Security, 2020 rather than through the industrial dispute machinery.

    Conclusion

    The Court has separated the past from the future of a single statutory term, keeping Justice Krishna Iyer’s wide definition alive for disputes already in the system and denying it any authority over the Code that now governs Indian industrial relations. The substantive contest has therefore moved from the judiciary to the text of Section 2(p) and to whoever interprets it first. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 has been in force since November 2025, and the next milestone is the release of the full text of the judgment carrying the refined formulation of the triple test.

    “[2024, GS3, 15] Discuss the merits and demerits of the four ‘Labour Codes’ in the context of labour market reforms in India. What has been the progress so far in this regard?”

  • Supreme Court asks Centre to institutionalise National Testing Agency reforms, cites the Union Public Service Commission as the model

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to file an affidavit within three weeks setting out what it has done to implement the recommendations of the expert committee headed by a former Chairperson of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Bench held that reforms must be institutionalised and carried forward by successive officers rather than restarted with each new committee after each failure.

    What is the National Testing Agency (NTA)?

    1. Status: The National Testing Agency (NTA) is an autonomous testing organisation set up in 2017 under the Ministry of Education and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to conduct entrance examinations for higher education institutions.
    2. Examinations conducted: It conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG), the Joint Entrance Examination Main, the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test, and the Common University Entrance Test, among others.
    3. Why it is before the Court: The agency has been under the Supreme Court’s scanner since the NEET-UG 2026 paper leaks, with petitioners describing the failure as recurring and systemic rather than isolated.

    What is a sovereign database?

    1. Meaning: A sovereign database is one whose servers, storage and control remain within the jurisdiction and ownership of the sovereign authority, rather than on infrastructure owned or operated by a third party or located abroad. The Bench asked whether the NTA has one and where question papers are stored.

    Why did the National Testing Agency come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    1. The trigger event: The 2026 NEET-UG question paper leaks led to cancellation of the examination and left over 23 lakh medical college aspirants stranded.
    2. Criminal process: A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe was ordered into the leaks and arrests were made.
    3. Political consequence: The leaks led to nationwide protests and a police crackdown on students, and ultimately to the resignation of the then Union Education Minister.
    4. The petitioners’ framing: The Court was hearing petitions by the Federation of All India Medical Association and the United Doctors Front, which characterised the 2026 leak as part of a recurring, systemic and catastrophic failure of the NTA in conducting NEET-UG.

    Why does the Court treat committee hopping as the problem rather than the solution?

    1. The Bench’s central objection: The Court held that it should not be that a committee gives recommendations and a new committee is then formed which removes the old one lock, stock and barrel.
    2. The specific sequence at issue: A seven member committee formed in 2024 under a former ISRO Chairperson recommended structural reforms in the NEET system, and the Centre has since constituted a task force under an Infosys co founder for new technological reforms.
    3. The Court’s fix, not replacement but review: The new task force must review the earlier committee’s recommendations and improve on them where necessary, and the earlier committee’s chairperson could be made part of the new body.
    4. The pattern is older than these two: The Bench pointed out that there were two more committees before the 2024 committee, and that recommendations must not remain on paper but must translate into action.
    5. The Solicitor General’s position: The Union government agreed on the need for a permanent mechanism to introduce reforms and maintain their continuity, and stated that it had already accepted the 2024 committee’s recommendations.

    What does the Court mean by institutional memory in an examination body?

    1. The failure mode named: A set of reforms implemented for one examination is undone in the next when senior NTA officers are shifted out, so continuity depends on individuals rather than on the institution.
    2. The standard set: Reforms must be vibrant, institutionalised and carried on within the NTA by successive officers, and must flow down from one generation of officers to the next.
    3. The comparator used: The Court cited the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which has conducted examination after examination without a hitch because it holds institutional memory and institutional expertise.
    4. What the earlier committee already said: The 2024 committee had itself focused on ways to build institutional memory and had identified the problem as systemic rather than logistical.

    What specific institutional gaps did the Bench probe?

    1. Technology capability: The Bench asked how the agency was facing new technological challenges, and whether the necessary infrastructure and software systems were in place.
    2. Data security and storage: It asked about cybersecurity and storage, whether the NTA has a sovereign database, and where question papers are stored.
    3. Physical premises: It asked where the agency’s office is situated and pressed on the need to secure office premises and operational infrastructure.
    4. Manpower: It asked how many officers the body has, how much staff is available, whether the various director and joint director positions had been filled, and how many had taken charge.
    5. Candidate facing systems: It stressed training and preparing personnel for the long term, candidate friendly arrangements and a grievance mechanism, and the strengthening of physical and intellectual capacity.
    6. The government’s response on hiring: The Solicitor General said hiring for scaling up digital infrastructure was under way and that the chief technology officer and chief financial officer had already been selected.

    What has the Centre placed on record?

    1. Earlier affidavit: The Court referred to an affidavit of 4 August filed by the Union government listing several senior appointments to be made to the NTA.
    2. Fresh affidavit directed: The Secretary must file an affidavit within three weeks, containing all details and indicative timelines, on steps taken to implement the 2024 committee’s suggestions as reflected and nuanced by the new task force.
    3. Measures claimed: The Centre’s affidavit described the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and the constitution of the new task force as landmark measures against future paper leaks.
    4. Mandate of the new task force: It has been constituted to recommend end to end reforms focused on leveraging advanced technology such as artificial intelligence and blockchain to strengthen examination security and integrity.
    5. Limits on redesigning NEET-UG: Any structural change in the design of NEET-UG would be undertaken only in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Union Health Ministry and the National Medical Commission.
    6. Assurance to candidates: The Union government committed to giving candidates adequate advance notice of any change in the mode or design of the examination.
    7. The residual admission: The Solicitor General submitted that the system in place is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.

    Challenges to institutionalising reform in the National Testing Agency

    1. Officer rotation defeats continuity: Reforms owned by a posting rather than a post are reversed on transfer, which is precisely the failure the Court described. e.g. reforms implemented for one examination cycle being undone in the next after senior NTA officers were shifted out.
    2. No statutory foundation: The NTA is a registered society rather than a body created by statute, so its powers, tenure protections and accountability are weaker than those of a constitutional or statutory examination body. e.g. the UPSC derives its independence from Article 315 of the Constitution, which the NTA has no equivalent of.
    3. Recommendations without an implementation tracker: Successive committees have produced reports with no published mechanism to show which recommendation was executed and when. e.g. the Court had to direct an affidavit with indicative timelines three weeks out simply to learn the status of the 2024 committee’s recommendations.
    4. The human link in an otherwise sealed chain: Security design can cover technology and logistics but not the conduct of every person with access. e.g. the Solicitor General’s own submission that the system is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.
    5. Vendor and outsourcing dependence: Question paper printing, transport and centre operations run through private contractors whose staff sit outside the agency’s disciplinary reach. e.g. arrests following the NEET-UG leak extended beyond the agency’s own personnel.
    6. State level examinations remain outside the frame: The Court’s directions bind the NTA, and state recruitment and board examinations run on separate legal and administrative regimes. e.g. the Jharkhand government’s cancellation of 22 recruitment examinations over alleged irregularities in the same week.

    Conclusion

    The Court has shifted the remedy from constituting committees to building an institution, holding that reforms must survive the officers who introduced them. The immediate stage is a directed affidavit from the Secretary within three weeks, setting out implementation of the 2024 committee’s recommendations as nuanced by the new task force, with indicative timelines. Whether the NTA acquires a sovereign database, filled senior posts, secured premises and a grievance mechanism is the test the Court has set. Committee count is not the measure of reform; institutional memory is.

    [2024, GS2, 15 marks] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

  • Dignity in death: Supreme Court upholds hanging under Article 21

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has dismissed a public interest litigation arguing that death by hanging is scientifically unreliable and violates the right to a dignified death under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling holds that a method of execution devised in colonial India still satisfies the constitutional promise of dignity, while leaving the question open to a future challenge built on fresh scientific material.

    What is the long drop method of hanging?

    1. The colonial inheritance: Hanging is the prescribed method of executing death sentences in India and derives from British Common Law.
    2. The older short drop method: Historically, hanging was carried out through a short drop, which causes death by asphyxiation.
    3. What the long drop is meant to do: A longer drop is calibrated to snap the second and third cervical vertebrae, the C2 and C3, and with them the spinal cord, rendering the person immediately unconscious.
    4. Why calibration decides the outcome: The drop must be matched to the individual’s weight and height, since a drop that is too short causes prolonged strangulation and one that is too long risks decapitation.
    5. The protocol afterwards: Standard prison protocols require the body to be left hanging for 30 minutes after the trap door opens.

    What is the current status of capital punishment and the right to die with dignity in India?

    1. Executions carried out: 971 executions have taken place in India between 1947 and 2025.
    2. Executions in this century: Only six executions have taken place since 2001, the most recent in 2020, of the four convicts in the Delhi gang rape and murder case.
    3. Sentences imposed: 1,281 convicts were sentenced to death between 2016 and 2025, which is far larger than the number of executions carried out.
    4. The sentencing threshold: The death penalty may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, the standard laid down in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980).
    5. The statutory command: Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides that where a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
    6. How old the clause is: The clause has barely changed since it was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1861 and has survived multiple amendments.
    7. The recognised right: The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and consequently to die with dignity.
    8. The limits on that right: The right to die with dignity does not extend to a right to take one’s own life, and its recognised application is to end of life decisions rather than to the manner of a lawful execution.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Capital Punishment

    1. Article 21: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and this procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
    2. Article 14: Requires that the classification of offences and offenders attracting the death penalty be reasonable and non arbitrary.
    3. Article 20(1): Bars the imposition of a penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at the time the offence was committed.
    4. Article 22: Provides procedural protections on arrest and detention, including the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.
    5. Article 72: Empowers the President to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment, and to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death.
    6. Article 161: Empowers the Governor to grant pardon and to commute sentences, though the power to pardon a death sentence rests with the President.
    7. Article 134: Provides an appeal to the Supreme Court in a criminal proceeding where a High Court has reversed an acquittal and imposed a death sentence.
    8. Article 136: Provides for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment or order in any cause or matter.
    9. Article 137: Provides the power of review, under which death row convicts are entitled to an open court hearing of a review petition.
    10. Concurrent List, Entry 1 and Entry 2: Place criminal law and criminal procedure in the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and State legislatures may legislate on them.

    What did the petition argue?

    1. The relief sought: A declaration that the provision prescribing hanging is unconstitutional, on the ground that Article 21 includes a right to die through a dignified procedure.
    2. The characterisation of the method: The method was described as accompanied by intense physical torture and pain, and as inherently unpredictable.
    3. The scientific material relied on: A 1992 study of the remains of 34 people hanged in England between 1882 and 1945.
    4. What the study found: Fractures at C2 and C3 were common, but the hangman’s fracture, assumed to cause near instant death, appeared in only three of the 34 cases, and six died of asphyxiation instead.
    5. The inference drawn: Hanging is therefore neither quick nor controllable in the way the law assumes it to be.
    6. The intervenor’s evidence: The Executive Director of a university death penalty clinic that intervened in the proceedings stated that researchers examining the remains of executed prisoners found that people had not died by an instant breaking of the neck, and that a range of painful and long drawn causes had produced their deaths.

    Why did the Court decline to revisit the 1983 precedent?

    1. The binding precedent: A three judge bench in Deena vs Union of India (1983) had upheld hanging as a constitutional mode of execution.
    2. What Deena examined: That bench considered medical evidence, expert opinion and comparative execution methods before ruling.
    3. What Deena held: Hanging, when properly administered, is a quick and certain method, causes no greater pain than any other known method, and avoids barbarity, torture and degradation.
    4. The legislative hurdle: Parliament chose to retain hanging while enacting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which is a recent legislative reaffirmation of the method.
    5. The evidentiary finding: The new scientific material did not displace the basis on which Deena was decided.
    6. The comparative finding: The material did not establish that lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas or shooting offered any advantage over hanging.
    7. The constitutional conclusion: The existing method continues to satisfy the State’s obligation to carry out a death sentence with decency and decorum and without degradation or brutality.

    What is the Union government’s position?

    1. The claim made: Hanging remains the safest and quickest available method of execution.
    2. The domestic record cited: No botched execution has ever been recorded in India.
    3. The comparative argument: Lethal injection in the United States carries a well documented history of failures.
    4. What this position implies: The burden of demonstrating that an alternative is measurably less painful and more reliable rests on the challenger, not on the State.

    What did the Court leave open?

    1. No permanent closure: The bench stopped short of treating the question as settled forever.
    2. The ground for a future challenge: Constitutional law evolves, and a future challenge may succeed if new scientific, medical or empirical material fundamentally alters the assumptions on which Deena was decided.
    3. The executive route: The Court left it open to the Union government to examine alternative methods of execution should it choose to do so.
    4. What this means in practice: The method now depends on the state of the evidence rather than on the age of the precedent.

    What do other countries’ execution methods show about the search for a humane method?

    1. Hanging’s reach: A 2012 Cornell Law School database identified 60 countries that authorised hanging as a method of execution, concentrated in jurisdictions influenced by British Common Law, including India, Singapore and Japan.
    2. Lethal injection: The primary method in several United States states where the death penalty is allowed and heavily used in China, administering an anaesthetic, then a paralytic, then potassium chloride, and frequently botched where venous access is compromised.
    3. Shooting: Used in China, North Korea, Somalia and parts of West Asia, visually violent and traumatic for executioners, with proponents citing near instantaneous cardiac or neurological destruction.
    4. Beheading: Carried out with a sword in Saudi Arabia, and reliant entirely on the executioner’s precision.
    5. Nitrogen hypoxia: Recently introduced in the United States, using inhalation of pure nitrogen to cause asphyxiation without triggering the hypercapnic alarm response, the panicked sensation of suffocation, and criticised as insufficiently vetted and amounting to human experimentation.
    6. The abolition trend: More than two thirds of the world’s nations, around 113, have ended the death penalty in law or in practice, according to Amnesty International.
    7. The countervailing trend: A 2025 Amnesty International report recorded a 12 percent increase in executions over the previous year, so fewer states execute while those that do execute more.
    8. The 2025 concentration: The countries recording the most executions in 2025 were Iran at 2,159 or more, Saudi Arabia at 356 or more and Yemen at 51 or more, with China’s total running into the thousands and not published.
    9. What the comparison establishes: Every available method carries its own scientific and ethical controversy, which is why no alternative could be shown to be superior to hanging.

    Major debates surrounding capital punishment and the method of execution

    1. Retribution against reform: The claim that the gravest offences require the ultimate sanction stands against the claim that the state’s own conduct must not replicate the violence it punishes.
    2. Deterrence unproven: The deterrent effect of capital punishment has not been empirically established, which weakens the principal utilitarian justification offered for it.
    3. Two rulings in tension: Gian Kaur (1996) recognises a right to die with dignity within Article 21, while Deena (1983) holds that a method causing potential asphyxiation satisfies the same Article, and the present ruling resolves that tension in favour of the earlier precedent.
    4. Judge centric sentencing: The rarest of rare test is applied unevenly across benches, which makes the sentence depend in part on the composition of the court.
    5. Delay as cruelty: Prolonged delay in deciding mercy petitions has been held to be a ground for commutation, which converts the length of the process itself into a constitutional question.
    6. Socio economic profile of death row: A disproportionate share of death row prisoners come from poor and marginalised backgrounds with inadequate legal representation, which raises an equality question under Article 14.
    7. Irreversibility and wrongful conviction: The penalty cannot be corrected after execution, and acquittals in appeal after years on death row demonstrate that error occurs.
    8. The evidence gap the present dispute turns on: No systematic post mortem study of executions in India exists, so both the State’s claim of no botched execution and the petitioner’s claim of prolonged suffering rest on foreign data.
    9. Legislative expansion against judicial restriction: Parliament has extended the death penalty to more offences while the courts have narrowed the circumstances in which it may be imposed.

    Challenges to ensuring a constitutional mode of execution

    1. No Indian evidence base: India has no published forensic study of executions, so the constitutional question is argued on English data from 1882 to 1945. e.g. the 1992 study relied on by the petitioners examined 34 remains from England, not from any Indian prison.
    2. Calibration depends on execution skill: The drop length must be computed for each individual, so the outcome varies with the competence of prison staff. e.g. the official drop tables in use derive from colonial era manuals rather than from contemporary biomechanical evidence.
    3. Every alternative carries its own failure mode: No method has been shown to be reliably painless. e.g. lethal injection executions in the United States have taken over an hour where venous access failed.
    4. Absence of monitoring: No independent medical observation or record of the execution process is published. e.g. prison protocols require the body to hang for 30 minutes without any requirement to record the time or cause of death.
    5. Delay converts the sentence into a separate punishment: Prisoners spend years under sentence while appeals and mercy petitions are pending. e.g. the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) commuted 15 death sentences on the ground of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions.
    6. Unequal access to competent defence: The quality of representation at the sentencing stage decides who receives the sentence. e.g. mitigating circumstances are often not placed on record at all in trial courts, which the Supreme Court addressed in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh (2022).
    7. Legislative expansion without sentencing guidance: New offences attract the death penalty without any accompanying sentencing framework. e.g. the death penalty was extended to the rape of a child below twelve years by the amendment to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in 2019.

    Conclusion

    The Court has held that hanging under Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 remains constitutional, on the twin grounds that Deena (1983) has not been displaced and that Parliament reaffirmed the method when it enacted the new Sanhita. The scientific material placed before it was found insufficient to dislodge the assumptions on which the 1983 ruling rests, and no alternative method was shown to be superior. The petition is dismissed, but the question is not closed, since a future challenge may succeed on fresh scientific, medical or empirical material. The Union government has also been left free to examine alternative methods of execution should it choose to do so.

    What is the rarest of rare doctrine?

    1. About: The rarest of rare doctrine is the sentencing standard under which the death penalty may be imposed only where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
    2. Rationale: It exists because the Constitution permits capital punishment while Article 21 requires that its imposition be exceptional, reasoned and non arbitrary, so life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception.
    3. Where it comes from: Laid down in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty by a majority while confining it to the rarest of rare cases.
    4. The named typology it rests on:
      • Aggravating circumstances: Factors relating to the crime, such as extreme brutality, premeditation and the vulnerability of the victim, which weigh in favour of the maximum sentence.
      • Mitigating circumstances: Factors relating to the offender, such as age, mental condition, socio economic background and the probability of reform, which weigh against it.
      • The five categories in Machhi Singh v State of Punjab (1983): Manner of commission, motive, anti social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime, and personality of the victim.
      • The balancing requirement: The court must weigh aggravating against mitigating circumstances and record why life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

    Laws Governing Capital Punishment in India

    1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: The procedural code governing trial, sentencing, confirmation and execution of the death sentence, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    2. Section 393(5): Directs that a person sentenced to death be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
    3. Confirmation requirement: A death sentence passed by a Sessions Court has no effect until it is confirmed by the High Court.
    4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: The substantive penal code listing the offences that carry the death penalty, including murder, waging war against the Government of India, and certain aggravated forms of rape.
    5. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Provides the death penalty for a terrorist act resulting in death.
    6. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Provides the death penalty for repeat offences involving specified commercial quantities, made discretionary rather than mandatory after judicial challenge.
    7. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: As amended in 2019, provides the death penalty for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.
    8. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018: Extended the death penalty to repeat rape offences and to the rape of a child below twelve years respectively.
    9. Army Act, 1950, Navy Act, 1957 and Air Force Act, 1950: Provide the death penalty for specified offences under military law, where the alternative method of shooting is available.
    10. Prisons Act, 1894 and State prison manuals: Govern the conditions of confinement of death row prisoners and the procedure at the place of execution.

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

  • Supreme Court makes school students the instrument for changing household waste behaviour

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has directed the Department of School and Higher Education to integrate theoretical and practical instruction on solid waste management so that students train their own family members. The order rejects the assumption that solid waste is a problem for sanitary workers alone, holding that a minuscule number of sanitary workers cannot handle the waste generated by a population of 1.4 billion. The order was passed on 18 August and released on Wednesday.

    What are the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026?

    1. About: The Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2026 are the subordinate rules that set the national standards for the segregation, collection, transport, processing and disposal of municipal solid waste.
    2. Benchmark for audit: The Court treated these Rules as the extant standard against which existing waste infrastructure must be completely audited and upgraded.
    3. Where implementation power sits: The Court agreed with the Additional Solicitor General that the true power to implement the Rules lies with householders, local body officers and every direct and indirect contributor of waste, not with the municipal machinery alone.

    What are the five categories of waste the Court identified?

    1. Biodegradable waste: Organic waste from kitchens, markets and gardens that decomposes and is treatable by composting or biomethanation.
    2. Non biodegradable waste: Plastics, metals, glass and packaging that persist and require material recovery or recycling.
    3. Hazardous waste: Waste with toxic, corrosive, reactive or infectious properties requiring specialised handling and treatment.
    4. Electronic waste: Discarded electrical and electronic equipment carrying both recoverable metals and toxic components.
    5. Construction waste: Debris from building, renovation and demolition, which is the heaviest stream by volume in a growing city.
    6. The Court’s conclusion from the set: The volume and complexity of these five streams have outgrown what any single class of workers can be expected to handle.

    Why did the Court call the sanitary worker assumption constitutionally unethical?

    1. The prevailing assumption: The Bench held that the assumption that solid waste is a problem for sanitary workers alone, while the rest of the population remains passive generators, is neither legally correct nor practically sustainable, and is constitutionally unethical.
    2. The general feeling in society: The Court described the regrettable attitude as one where a person is entitled to generate but not to cooperate and control the impact of solid waste management at the threshold.
    3. Arithmetic of the mismatch: Every human being and their activities result in pollution, yet all contributors expect a minuscule percentage of sanitary workers to handle it.
    4. The responsibility it fixed: The Court held that this perception shall be eradicated and that waste management shall be the responsibility of all contributors.
    5. The public health warning: Continued complacency would lead to pandemic and endemic situations.

    What monitoring machinery has the Court already put in place?

    1. Trigger for the committee: The imbalance between the volume of waste generated and the infrastructure to collect it alarmed the Court on 25 May, when it constituted a monitoring committee.
    2. Five Union Secretaries: The committee comprises the Secretaries of the Ministries of Housing and Urban Affairs; Environment, Forest and Climate Change; Jal Shakti; and Panchayati Raj and Rural Development; and the Department of Drinking Water and Sanitation.
    3. Pollution regulator: The Member Secretary of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) is the sixth member.
    4. Design logic of the composition: Urban services, environmental standards, water and sanitation, and rural local government are placed in a single body because waste crosses all four jurisdictions.

    Why did the Court fall back on education rather than penalty?

    1. The limit of law: The Bench accepted the reality that law alone could not induce good civic behaviour, and that the change had to come from within.
    2. The instrument chosen: The Court held that an educated child is the most effective and least coercive instrument for educating a parent or a relative.
    3. The tension this creates: Rules, standards and a five Secretary committee are enforceable instruments with fixed accountability, while behavioural change through schoolchildren has no compliance date and no defaulter.
    4. The reversal of the usual direction: Compliance is being routed through the household rather than through the municipal contractor, which shifts the burden to the very generators the Rules had earlier treated as passive.

    What directions did the Court issue?

    1. Curriculum integration: The Department of School and Higher Education must integrate, with immediate effect, both theoretical and practical knowledge on solid waste management.
    2. Students as trainers: Students are to be equipped to train their own family members in waste handling at the household stage.
    3. Teachers as trainers of trainers: Teachers are to be trained so that they can deliver the practical component.
    4. District level engagement: District Collectors must engage with households and educational institutions.
    5. Infrastructure audit: The waste infrastructure needs a complete audit and upgradation to meet the extant standards of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026.

    Conclusion

    The Court has reclassified solid waste from a service delivery failure of municipal sanitation into a generation side behavioural failure of 1.4 billion contributors, and has held the passive generator assumption to be constitutionally unethical. Its enforceable directions are the curriculum mandate on the Department of School and Higher Education, the engagement duty on District Collectors and the infrastructure audit against the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026. The five Secretary committee constituted on 25 May continues to monitor the volume and infrastructure mismatch. The next stage will turn on whether the Department reports a dated curriculum integration plan, since the order carries an immediate effect direction but no separate compliance schedule.

    “[2018, GS3, 10 marks] What are the impediments in disposing the huge quantities of discarded solid wastes which are continuously being generated? How do we remove safely the toxic wastes that have been accumulating in our habitable environment?”

  • The myth called ‘perfect victim’

    Why in the News

    The Goa Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 6 August set aside a 2021 trial court judgment and convicted a former magazine editor of raping a former colleague, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court termed the trial court’s ruling perverse and held that it had fallen for the notion that a sexual assault complainant must be a ‘perfect victim’ and conduct herself in a certain way to appear credible. The ruling sets the evidentiary record against a stereotype of expected victim behaviour that has shaped Indian adjudication for four decades.

    What is the ‘ideal victim’ concept?

    1. Who theorised it: The Norwegian criminologist Nils Christie set out the concept of the ‘ideal victim’ or ‘perfect victim’ in a chapter of the same name in the book From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, published in 1986.
    2. What it claims: Victimhood is not an objective state established by the facts of the offence, it is a status that society grants or denies according to how far the complainant matches an expected profile.
    3. Where it is produced: The idea is propagated by the media, social media, films and the larger society, and race, class and gender determine who is cast as innocent and deserving and who as undeserving of sympathy.
    4. Why it matters in court: Once the profile becomes the test of credibility, a complainant who departs from it has her account doubted regardless of the evidence on record.

    What five attributes did Nils Christie assign to the ‘ideal victim’?

    1. Weakness relative to the offender: The victim is often female, disabled, very young or very old, and is therefore weak in relation to the offender.
    2. Respectability of activity: The victim is engaged in what society treats as respectable activities at the time of the offence.
    3. Blamelessness of location: The victim cannot reasonably be blamed for being where she was during the crime.
    4. No prior acquaintance: The victim does not know the offender personally.
    5. A stereotypically bad offender: The victim is attacked by a perpetrator who is big and bad.
    6. The additional condition: While being weak, the victim must have enough social power to influence sympathy and have her victim status recognised, which is why the poorest complainants are least often believed.

    What is the current status of protection for sexual assault survivors in India?

    1. The governing offence: Rape is defined and punished under Section 63 and Section 64 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, with the minimum sentence set at ten years of rigorous imprisonment.
    2. Consent defined in statute: Consent is defined as an unequivocal voluntary agreement, and the absence of physical resistance does not by itself amount to consent.
    3. Past sexual history excluded: Evidence of a complainant’s general immoral character or previous sexual experience is no longer relevant to the question of consent, following the amendment of the evidence law in 2003 and its retention in the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
    4. The presumption on consent: Where sexual intercourse is proved in specified aggravated cases and the woman states she did not consent, the court presumes the absence of consent.
    5. Procedural protections: Trials are held in camera, the survivor’s identity may not be disclosed, and her statement is to be recorded by a woman officer, with a two month outer limit for completing the trial.
    6. The workplace framework: Sexual harassment at the workplace is governed by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which codified the Vishakha guidelines.
    7. The gap that persists: None of these provisions govern the inferences a judge may draw from a survivor’s demeanour, which is what the Supreme Court’s report of 3 August 2026 addresses.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Gender Justice and Fair Adjudication

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, the basis for challenging a differential standard of credibility applied to women complainants.
    2. Article 15(1): Prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex.
    3. Article 15(3): Permits the State to make special provision for women and children.
    4. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, read to include the right to live with dignity and bodily integrity.
    5. Article 39(a) and 39(d): Direct the State to secure an equal right to an adequate means of livelihood and equal pay for equal work for men and women.
    6. Article 39A: Directs the State to secure equal justice and free legal aid so that opportunities for securing justice are not denied by economic or other disabilities.
    7. Article 42: Directs the State to make provision for just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief.
    8. Article 51A(e): Places a fundamental duty on every citizen to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women.
    9. Article 141: Makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts, the route through which the Vishakha guidelines operated before Parliament legislated.

    How has the ‘ideal victim’ standard shaped Indian judgments?

    1. Mathura, 1979: In the custodial rape case of a teenager, the Sessions Court relied on the survivor’s previous sexual experience to reason that she had likely consented, describing her as habituated to sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court, while acquitting the accused policemen, noted the absence of any alarm or resistance from the survivor and of injuries on her body.
    2. Bhanwari Devi, 1992: In the gang rape of a social worker, the Jaipur District and Sessions Court in 1995 acquitted the accused of gang rape, reasoning that it was unlikely that upper caste men would pollute themselves by having sexual relations with a Dalit woman. Her caste status was what made her an unlikely ‘ideal victim’ in the court’s eyes.
    3. What that case nonetheless produced: The Bhanwari Devi case became the catalyst for the formulation of the Vishakha guidelines and later for the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
    4. The Jindal case, 2017: A Punjab and Haryana High Court division bench, in an interim order, suspended the sentences and granted bail to three former law school students convicted of gang raping and blackmailing a classmate, describing the survivor’s behaviour as having a perverse streak.
    5. The reasoning in that order: The bench acknowledged that the allegations of threat and blackmail lent sufficient diabolism to the offence, but read her statement as offering an alternate conclusion of misadventure stemming from a promiscuous attitude and a voyeuristic mind, placing her sexual behaviour at the centre of its assessment.
    6. The trial court in the present case, 2021: The Goa Sessions Court noted several discrepancies in the survivor’s versions, and held that while she had claimed to be in shock and trauma after exiting the lift on 7 November 2013, the closed circuit television footage showed her composed and smiling.
    7. The common thread: Each ruling demanded a performance of trauma from the survivor, and treated any departure from the expected behaviour as a reason to doubt her credibility rather than to examine the evidence.

    Why did the High Court call the trial court’s reasoning perverse?

    1. What the trial court examined: It focused on the complainant’s conduct, her reactions and her personal background rather than on the evidence on record.
    2. What the High Court held about that: It termed the ruling perverse, and identified the specific error as the assumption that a complainant must conduct herself in a certain way to appear credible.
    3. The finding on trauma response: The High Court noted that a survivor has already faced trauma and might feel too ashamed, nervous or confused to respond clearly when questioned repeatedly in an unfamiliar environment.
    4. What that does to the demeanour evidence: Composure on camera minutes after an assault ceases to be evidence of consent once trauma is recognised as producing varied responses.
    5. The outcome: The conviction was recorded and a sentence of ten years of rigorous imprisonment imposed on the former editor for raping a former colleague.

    Why does the ‘ideal offender’ stereotype collapse in this case?

    1. The mirror concept: Christie held that the ‘ideal offender’ must be framed as purely bad, dangerous and a stranger to the victim, so that it becomes easy for society not to like him.
    2. When the frame breaks: Where the offender is a familiar person with a good background story, the ideal dynamic breaks down.
    3. How it broke here: The accused’s social status and his image as a liberal intellectual complicated the stereotype of the ‘ideal offender’.
    4. The consequence for the complainant: On Christie’s argument, when there is no ideal offender to hate, it becomes hard to perceive an ideal victim to sympathise with, so the doubt is transferred to the complainant.
    5. Why this is the core of the item: The two stereotypes operate as a single mechanism, and a complainant’s credibility is set not by her evidence but by how easily society can dislike the man she accuses.
    6. The structural result: This produces a hierarchy of victimisation in which those thought undeserving are perceived as having contributed to the situation and receive less sympathy or none at all.

    How is the judiciary correcting course?

    1. The institutional apology: In 2025, a former Chief Justice of India apologised on behalf of the judiciary for the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Mathura case, calling it a moment of institutional embarrassment.
    2. The report of 3 August 2026: The Supreme Court issued a report recommending greater gender sensitivity in judicial writing.
    3. What it cautions against: It cautions judges against drawing adverse conclusions from delayed reporting, from a lack of physical injuries, from inconsistencies in testimony, or from a survivor’s demeanour.
    4. The reasoning it supplies: It records that trauma affects people differently, which removes the empirical basis for treating a uniform behavioural response as a test of truthfulness.
    5. What the present ruling adds: The Bombay High Court applied that reasoning to set aside a completed acquittal, which converts a recommendation about judicial writing into an operative ground of appeal.

    Major debates surrounding the credibility of sexual assault survivors

    1. Demeanour as evidence: One position treats a complainant’s behaviour after the offence as relevant corroboration, the other holds that trauma responses vary so widely that demeanour carries no evidentiary value.
    2. The sole testimony rule: Indian law permits conviction on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix if found reliable, and the contest is over what makes testimony reliable when there is no medical or electronic corroboration.
    3. Delay in reporting: Delay is read by one line of reasoning as weakening the complaint and by another as the ordinary consequence of shame, dependence and fear of the accused’s social position.
    4. Character evidence in practice: The statutory bar on past sexual history has not removed the use of a complainant’s background and conduct as a proxy, which is precisely the defect the High Court identified here.
    5. Class and caste in the assessment: The Bhanwari Devi ruling turned on the improbability of upper caste men assaulting a Dalit woman, which shows social hierarchy operating as an evidentiary presumption.
    6. Judicial training against judicial discretion: Prescribing what inferences a judge may not draw is defended as necessary correction and resisted as an intrusion on the appreciation of evidence.
    7. The absence of measurement: There is no systematic dataset on how often acquittals turn on demeanour or conduct reasoning, so the scale of the problem is argued from a succession of named cases rather than from evidence.

    Challenges to eliminating victim stereotyping in adjudication

    1. Reasoning migrates to sentencing and bail: Barred from the finding on consent, stereotype reasoning reappears in orders on bail and on suspension of sentence. e.g. the 2017 Punjab and Haryana High Court interim order suspending the sentences of three convicted law students on a reading of the survivor’s promiscuous attitude.
    2. Social hierarchy operating as evidence: Caste and class assumptions are treated as improbability findings rather than as prejudice. e.g. the 1995 Jaipur District and Sessions Court reasoning that upper caste men would not pollute themselves with a Dalit woman.
    3. Electronic evidence read against the survivor: Footage recorded minutes after an assault is used to test a trauma response against an expected script. e.g. the 2021 Goa Sessions Court relying on closed circuit television footage showing the complainant composed and smiling after exiting the lift.
    4. Status of the accused shaping the inquiry: A respected or well connected accused shifts the burden of explanation onto the complainant. e.g. the present case, where the accused’s standing as a magazine editor and liberal intellectual complicated the stereotype of the ideal offender.
    5. Recommendations without binding force: A report on judicial writing does not bind a trial court in the way a statutory provision does. e.g. the Supreme Court’s report of 3 August 2026, whose recommendations reach trial judges only through appellate correction.
    6. Time to correction: Reversal comes at the appellate stage, years after an acquittal. e.g. the 6 August 2026 High Court conviction reversing a trial court ruling of 2021 on an incident of November 2013.
    7. Attrition before trial: Complainants withdraw under social pressure long before any court examines the evidence, so the reported cases understate the problem. e.g. the Mathura case, whose 1979 acquittal produced the nationwide campaign that led to the criminal law amendment of 1983.

    Conclusion

    The ‘ideal victim’ framework explains why Indian courts have repeatedly assessed a complainant’s respectability, caste, prior sexual history and post assault demeanour rather than the evidence on record. The High Court’s reversal on 6 August is the first appellate ruling to name that framework as the reason a trial verdict was perverse, and it applies the Supreme Court’s report of 3 August 2026 on gender sensitivity in judicial writing to an operative outcome. What remains unaddressed is that the correction arrives only on appeal, years after an acquittal, and that a report on judicial writing does not bind a trial court in the way a statutory bar does.

    What is Victimology?

    1. About: Victimology is the systematic study of the victim of a crime, the victim’s relationship with the offender, and the treatment the victim receives from the criminal justice system and from society.
    2. Rationale: It emerged because criminal law is framed as a contest between the State and the accused, which leaves the person actually harmed without a defined position in the proceedings.
    3. Primary victimisation: The harm caused by the offence itself.
    4. Secondary victimisation: The further harm caused by the response of the police, the courts, the media and the community, including hostile cross examination and disbelief.
    5. Victim precipitation: An older strand of the discipline that examined the victim’s own conduct as a contributing factor, now largely discredited in sexual offence contexts for shifting responsibility onto the complainant.
    6. Victim typologies: Classifications of victims by vulnerability and by perceived blameworthiness, of which Christie’s ‘ideal victim’ is the best known.

    Key Concerns Regarding Victimology in India

    1. No statutory standing for the victim: The victim is a witness in the prosecution’s case rather than a party, so the conduct of the trial rests with the State.
    2. Uneven victim compensation: Compensation schemes framed under the criminal procedure law vary widely between States in quantum and in disbursal time.
    3. Secondary victimisation in trial practice: Repeated questioning in an unfamiliar environment and cross examination on conduct reproduce the harm the trial is meant to remedy.
    4. Absence of support services: Trained counsellors, support persons and witness protection are unevenly available across districts.
    5. Blame allocation persists in reasoning: Discredited victim precipitation logic survives in judicial language about conduct, demeanour and lifestyle.
    6. No data on outcomes by victim profile: Conviction rates are not disaggregated by the survivor’s caste, class or relationship to the accused, so disparities cannot be measured.

    Laws and Rules Governing Sexual Offences and Survivor Protection in India

    1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defined rape under Section 375 and punished it under Section 376 until its replacement in 2023.
    2. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983: Enacted after the Mathura acquittal, it created the offence of custodial rape and introduced a presumption against consent in specified cases.
    3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as amended in 2003: Removed the provision permitting evidence of the prosecutrix’s general immoral character in a rape trial.
    4. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Provides civil remedies including protection, residence and monetary orders.
    5. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: Creates gender neutral offences against children with child friendly trial procedures and special courts.
    6. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: Enacted on the recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma Committee, it widened the definition of rape and created offences of stalking, voyeurism and acid attack.
    7. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Codified the Vishakha guidelines and requires an Internal Committee in every workplace with ten or more employees.
    8. It also requires a Local Committee at the district level for establishments below that threshold and for the unorganised sector.
    9. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018: Introduced the death penalty for the rape of a girl below twelve years and raised minimum sentences.
    10. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with rape defined in Section 63 and punished in Section 64.
    11. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and retains the bar on evidence of the complainant’s past sexual history.
    12. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Carries the trial procedure, including in camera proceedings and the recording of the survivor’s statement by a woman officer.

    Key Facts about Gender Justice Jurisprudence in India

    1. Vishakha versus State of Rajasthan, 1997: Laid down binding guidelines on workplace sexual harassment under Article 141, which governed the field for sixteen years until Parliament legislated in 2013.
    2. Tukaram versus State of Maharashtra, 1979: The Mathura acquittal, which triggered an open letter from four law professors and the nationwide campaign leading to the 1983 amendment.
    3. State of Punjab versus Gurmit Singh, 1996: Held that the testimony of a rape survivor is on the same footing as that of an injured witness and needs no corroboration as a rule.
    4. Justice J.S. Verma Committee, 2013: Constituted after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape, it reported within 29 days and its recommendations shaped the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013.
    5. Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes, 2023: Issued by the Supreme Court, it lists stereotyped terms used in judgments and supplies the neutral alternatives.
    6. International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women: Observed on 25 November, marking the start of the sixteen days of activism ending on Human Rights Day.
    7. National Commission for Women: Established under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990 as the statutory body for the review of legal safeguards for women.

    Back2Basics: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013

    1. What it is: A central statute creating a civil mechanism for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at the workplace.
    2. Origin: It codified the Vishakha guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997, which themselves arose from the gang rape of a social worker in Rajasthan in 1992.
    3. Administering ministry: The Ministry of Women and Child Development.
    4. Internal Committee: Mandatory in every workplace employing ten or more persons, headed by a senior woman employee, with at least half its members being women and one member drawn from a non governmental organisation.
    5. Local Committee: Constituted by the District Officer for establishments with fewer than ten employees and for complaints against the employer.
    6. Coverage: It extends to the organised and unorganised sectors, to domestic workers, and to clients, customers and visitors at a workplace.
    7. Timelines: A complaint is to be filed within three months of the incident, the inquiry completed within ninety days, and action taken within sixty days of the report.
    8. Duties on the employer: Providing a safe working environment, displaying the penal consequences of harassment, organising awareness programmes and filing an annual report.

    Way Forward

    1. Convert the report into a practice direction: Issuing the 3 August 2026 recommendations as a binding practice direction under Article 141 would reach trial courts directly rather than through appeal.
    2. Mandatory reasoning standards in acquittals: Requiring a trial court to record why the evidence on record, and not the complainant’s conduct, produced an acquittal would make stereotype reasoning visible on the face of the order.
    3. Gender sensitisation in judicial academies: Sustained modules in State judicial academies for trial judges and public prosecutors, using the Supreme Court’s handbook on gender stereotypes as the syllabus.
    4. Trauma informed examination protocols: Recording the survivor’s evidence through a support person and in a single sitting reduces the repeated questioning the High Court identified as producing confused responses.
    5. Statutory bar on demeanour inference: An express evidentiary provision that a survivor’s demeanour is not relevant to consent would close the gap that the bar on past sexual history left open.
    6. Disaggregated conviction data: Publishing outcomes by the survivor’s caste, class and relationship to the accused would replace argument from named cases with measured disparity.
    7. Strengthen victim support infrastructure: Fully staffed one stop centres, district witness protection under the 2018 scheme, and timely compensation reduce the attrition that removes cases before trial.

    “[2014, GS4, 10 marks] We are witnessing increasing instances of sexual violence against women in the country. Despite existing legal provisions against it, the number of such incidences is on the rise. Suggest some innovative measures to tackle this menace.”

  • Supreme Court orders a time bound eviction framework for Agasthyamalai encroachments

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that clearing encroachments inside the protected areas of the Agasthyamalai landscape requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework. Encroachments have survived decades of directions from the Madras High Court and the top court, so the Court has shifted from ordering eviction to removing the benefits that keep illegal occupation viable. The Court also raised the option of using paramilitary forces to carry out the evictions.

    What is the Central Empowered Committee?

    1. About: The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) is a body that examines forest and wildlife compliance matters and reports its findings and recommendations directly to the Supreme Court.
    2. Mandate in this case: The Court directed it last year to survey the entire Agasthyamalai landscape and identify every non forestry activity running contrary to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
    3. Output: It submitted an interim report carrying division wise findings and recommended a time bound, division wise encroachment eviction plan.

    What did the Central Empowered Committee find on the ground?

    1. Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary: An area of 427.40 hectares stands encroached, with 237.09 hectares caught in litigation. Verified maps of the reserve forest are not available.
    2. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: As per official records of 2020, around 4,595 individuals are encroaching upon 5,071.27 hectares of reserved forest land.
    3. Nature of the occupation: The encroachments there are old, with many holdings under permanent cultivation of silk cotton, cardamom and beans.
    4. Structures inside forest land: A total of 116 government and public utility structures have been constructed inside forest lands without prior approval.
    5. Encroachers on the government payroll: A total of 118 individuals listed as encroachers were identified as serving or retired government employees, including personnel from the Army, the Police, the Forest Department and other State departments.
    6. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: The total extent of encroachment is 10.16 hectares by 998 families.

    Why does encroachment in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai carry consequences beyond the forest boundary?

    1. Upper catchment function: The Committee recorded the reserve as one of the most ecologically vulnerable areas because it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    2. Downstream dependence: The Vaigai is a critical water source for five downstream districts, so degradation of the catchment transfers the cost to users outside the forest.
    3. Permanent cultivation: Standing plantation crops convert a temporary trespass into a settled land use that resists seasonal eviction.
    4. Enforcement record: Despite clear orders from the Madras High Court to remove encroachments, no significant progress has been made so far.

    What did Tamil Nadu offer in its defence?

    1. Detailed affidavit: The State filed an affidavit listing the steps its authorities had already taken against encroachment.
    2. Resistance on the ground: It acknowledged resistance from encroachers as a live obstacle to eviction drives.
    3. Pending litigation: It cited ongoing court cases that block action on specific parcels.
    4. Social profile of encroachers: It stated that many encroachers were landless and drawn from economically weaker sections.
    5. Law and order risk: The Committee separately recorded that law and order problems arose whenever the Forest Department attempted evictions, making a joint effort necessary.

    Can the difficulty of rehabilitation justify indefinite postponement of eviction?

    1. The Court’s acceptance: The Bench accepted that the complexity of the rehabilitation task is real and cannot be understated.
    2. The limit it set: That complexity cannot serve as a perpetual justification for the indefinite postponement of legally mandated eviction and restoration measures.
    3. What the two positions expose: The State’s constraint is genuine and its cost falls on the forest, so every year of delay converts an unlawful occupation into a settled claim.
    4. The shift in remedy: The Court moved from repeating an eviction order that had failed for decades to withdrawing the entitlements that make continued occupation rational.

    What has the Supreme Court directed?

    1. Action against government servants: Disciplinary and legal action must be initiated against all 118 identified government servants found to be encroachers.
    2. Moratorium on state benefits: A blanket moratorium was sought on the extension of welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply and infrastructure support within encroached forest areas, so that illegal occupation is neither incentivised nor legitimised.
    3. Freeze on new activity: A complete prohibition was ordered on the approval or commencement of any new non forestry activity within Agasthyamalai.
    4. A monitored framework: The matter requires a structured, time bound and closely monitored framework rather than periodic directions.
    5. Force option: The Court went as far as to suggest using the paramilitary to evict the encroachers and protect the ecologically sensitive region.

    Why has the political economy of eviction defeated three decades of orders?

    1. Benefits without title: Welfare schemes, electricity and transport reaching encroached parcels signalled state acceptance, which is precisely what the moratorium now targets.
    2. Enforcers as beneficiaries: With 118 serving or retired government employees among the encroachers, including Forest Department personnel, the enforcing agency contained a section of the offenders.
    3. Numbers as leverage: Evicting 4,595 individuals in a single reserve converts a forest law question into a mass displacement question that no district administration will initiate alone.
    4. Electoral exposure: The newly formed coalition government in Tamil Nadu faces two major Dravidian parties in the Opposition that are likely to resist an eviction touching thousands of families.
    5. Restoration burden: Beyond eviction, the State carries the task of resettling and rehabilitating the displaced families and restoring the original forest cover.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has accepted that a repeated eviction order is not a remedy when the State’s own benefit delivery keeps encroachment viable, so it has attacked the incentive rather than only the occupation. The directions now require disciplinary action against 118 government servants, a freeze on welfare and utility extension inside encroached forest, and a prohibition on fresh non forestry activity in Agasthyamalai. The State must now produce a division wise, time bound eviction and restoration plan while simultaneously resettling landless families it has itself described as economically weak. Whether the moratorium survives the political cost of enforcing it is the test the next hearing will apply.

    Protected Area Governance in India

    1. About: A protected area is a legally notified tract managed primarily for the conservation of wildlife and its habitat, with human use restricted by statute rather than by administrative discretion.
    2. Four statutory categories: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 provides for National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Conservation Reserves and Community Reserves, each with a different level of permitted human activity.
    3. Scale: India’s protected area network covers a little over 5 percent of the country’s geographical area, while recorded forest cover is close to a fifth of it.
    4. Tiger reserves: A tiger reserve is constituted with a core or Critical Tiger Habitat, kept inviolate, and a buffer zone allowing regulated coexistence.
    5. Diversion control: Any use of forest land for a non forest purpose requires prior central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which is why the 116 unapproved structures in Agasthyamalai are themselves an offence.
    6. Judicial supervision: Forest governance in India has been supervised continuously by the Supreme Court since the 1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad proceedings, which extended statutory forest protection to all land recorded as forest.

    Laws and Rules Governing Forests and Wildlife in India

    1. Indian Forest Act, 1927: Provides for the constitution of reserved forests, protected forests and village forests, and defines forest offences and their penalties.
    2. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: Establishes protected areas, prohibits hunting of scheduled species and regulates trade in wildlife articles.
    3. 2006 amendment: Created the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the statutory concept of Critical Tiger Habitat.
    4. 2022 amendment: Restructured the species schedules and gave effect to India’s obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
    5. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Bars the dereservation of reserved forest and the use of forest land for non forest purposes without prior approval of the Union government.
    6. Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 2023: Renamed the 1980 Act and exempted specified categories of land and strategic projects from prior approval.
    7. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006: Recognises individual and community forest rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers and provides the only lawful route for settling occupation claims.
    8. Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act, 2016: Governs the use of funds collected as compensatory afforestation and net present value from diverted forest land.
    9. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Provides the umbrella power under which eco sensitive zones around protected areas are notified.

    Key Facts about Protected Areas in India

    1. Project Tiger was launched in 1973 and Project Elephant in 1992.
    2. The National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau are the two central bodies created under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and its amendments.
    3. Critical Tiger Habitat is notified under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 on the basis of scientific evidence.
    4. The Western Ghats were inscribed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2012 under the natural criteria.
    5. Wildlife Week is observed from 2 to 8 October every year.
    6. India’s biosphere reserves follow the core, buffer and transition zoning of the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme.

    Back2Basics: The Agasthyamalai Landscape

    1. Location: It occupies the southern end of the Western Ghats, straddling the Tamil Nadu and Kerala border, and is named after the Agastyamalai peak.
    2. Designation: The Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve was designated in 2001 and was added to the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves in 2016.
    3. Protected areas on the Tamil Nadu side: Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary.
    4. Protected areas on the Kerala side: Neyyar, Peppara and Shendurney Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    5. Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 1988 as Tamil Nadu’s first tiger reserve, it is often called a river sanctuary for the number of streams rising within it.
    6. Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve: Notified in 2021 as Tamil Nadu’s fifth tiger reserve, it forms the upper catchment of the Vaigai river.
    7. Species: The landscape holds the endemic lion tailed macaque, the Nilgiri tahr and the Nilgiri langur, alongside tiger and elephant populations.
    8. Communities: The Kani tribal community lives in the landscape and is associated with the traditional knowledge of the Arogyapacha plant.

    Challenges in Protected Area Management in India

    1. Encroachment and regularisation pressure: Long standing occupation acquires political protection and becomes practically irreversible. e.g. the 427.40 hectares encroached in Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, of which 237.09 hectares sit in litigation.
    2. Unauthorised construction inside forest land: Public agencies themselves build without the prior approval the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 requires. e.g. the 116 government and public utility structures recorded inside Agasthyamalai forest land.
    3. Linear infrastructure fragmentation: Roads and railway lines cut habitat into blocks and raise animal mortality. e.g. animal deaths on the national highway running through Kaziranga National Park during the annual Brahmaputra floods.
    4. Human wildlife conflict: Crop and life losses on the periphery erode local support for strict protection. e.g. repeated elephant deaths on the Madukkarai railway stretch near Coimbatore.
    5. Rights settlement conflicting with eviction: Claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and eviction drives run on separate tracks with no sequencing. e.g. the Supreme Court’s February 2019 order in Wildlife First v Union of India directing eviction of rejected claimants, which was stayed within weeks.
    6. Invasive species: Alien plants suppress native fodder and degrade grazing habitat. e.g. the spread of Lantana camara and Senna spectabilis across Bandipur and Wayanad.
    7. Frontline capacity deficit: Vacancies and weak equipment leave beat level protection thin. e.g. the Forest Department in Agasthyamalai being unable to conduct evictions without a joint force because of law and order risk.

    Way Forward

    1. Division wise time bound plan: Adopt the Committee’s recommendation of a division wise eviction schedule with named officers, fixed dates and monthly reporting to the Court.
    2. Sequence rights settlement before eviction: Complete the disposal of individual and community claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in each division first, so eviction proceeds only against occupation that has no legal basis.
    3. Rehabilitation package before displacement: Notify a resettlement package with alternative land, housing and livelihood support before any eviction of landless families, on the pattern of the voluntary village relocation model used in tiger reserves.
    4. Departmental accountability: Complete disciplinary proceedings against the 118 serving and retired government employees within a fixed period and publish the outcome.
    5. Verified cadastral mapping: Prepare and publish verified maps of the reserve forest boundaries of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary using satellite imagery, since the absence of maps is itself an enabler of encroachment.
    6. Utility linkage audit: Audit every electricity connection, road and welfare scheme extended into forest parcels and terminate those inside notified boundaries.
    7. Catchment restoration: Fund assisted natural regeneration of the vacated Vaigai upper catchment through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund, with downstream district water users as monitored stakeholders.

    “[2020] Among the following Tiger Reserves, which one has the largest area under “Critical Tiger Habitat”?

    (a) Corbett

    (b) Ranthambore

    (c) Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam

    (d) Sunderbans

  • Why is the Supreme Court examining polygamy again?

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition challenging the constitutional status of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law. The court additionally asked the Centre to consider legislative steps to abolish the practice for all citizens, irrespective of religion. The dispute sets a religion specific statutory exemption against the equality guarantees the Constitution extends to every citizen.

    What is the legal basis of polygamy in India?

    1. The practice: Polygamy is the contracting of a further marriage by a person whose earlier marriage is still subsisting.
    2. The permitting provision: Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 applies Shariat rules to matters of marriage and dissolution for Muslims, and it is under this provision that polygamy is permitted.
    3. The prohibiting provision: Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes marrying another person during the subsistence of an existing marriage with imprisonment up to seven years, and it applies to non Muslims.
    4. The asymmetry at issue: The same act is a criminal offence for one set of citizens and a protected personal law entitlement for another.

    What is the current status of polygamy law in India?

    1. Permitted for Muslim men alone: Polygamy remains lawful for Muslim men under the 1937 Act, with the scriptural ceiling being four wives.
    2. A criminal offence for everyone else: Bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, carrying up to seven years, and applies to Hindus, Christians, Parsis and citizens married under civil law.
    3. No compulsory registration: Muslim marriages and divorces are not universally required to be registered with State authorities, so a subsisting marriage is often not on any official record.
    4. Related practices already struck down: Instant triple talaq was invalidated by the Supreme Court in August 2017, and the Centre followed by framing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, making the practice a punishable offence.
    5. Polygamy and nikah halala left open: The 2017 bench refrained from ruling on polygamy and nikah halala even though both had been sought, which is why the question returns to the court now.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Personal Law and Gender Equality

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person within India.
    2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    3. Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
    4. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read by the Supreme Court to include dignity and autonomy within marriage.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and expressly permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform.
    6. Article 44: Directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India, as a Directive Principle.
    7. Entry 5, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places marriage, divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.

    What are the petitioners seeking?

    1. Criminalisation of polygamy: The five petitioners want polygamy treated as a criminal offence under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for all citizens.
    2. Striking down the enabling provision: They have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 16.
    3. Annulment of the exemptions: They have sought annulment of the exemptions granted to polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.
    4. Compulsory registration: They want compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces with State authorities, so that a second or subsequent marriage by a man with a subsisting marriage can be prevented.
    5. Protection of the first family: Where registration is flouted, they want the first wife and her children to have the first and lasting right to the matrimonial home.
    6. Codification of Muslim Personal Law: They want the court to direct the Law Commission of India or the Union government to prepare a draft codifying Muslim Personal Law so that marriage, divorce and succession align with constitutional principles of gender equality.

    How has the Supreme Court ruled on plural marriage before?

    1. Sarla Mudgal (1995): The Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after converting to Islam, without dissolving the first marriage, is void, prohibiting conversion undertaken purely to marry again.
    2. Lily Thomas versus Union of India (2000): The court reiterated the Sarla Mudgal position, holding that a second marriage contracted after a feigned conversion to Islam was illegal and punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    3. Shayara Bano (2017): The court invalidated instant triple talaq on the argument that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women, on a petition in which two of the present activists were also involved.
    4. The gap the rulings leave: All three rulings addressed the abuse of conversion or the mode of divorce, none tested the validity of polygamy itself under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

    Does Islamic scripture itself sanction polygamy?

    1. The scriptural position: The Quran encourages monogamy and does not encourage polygamy, contrary to the common contention.
    2. The narrow permission: It permits a man up to four wives in special circumstances, such as marrying a widow or an orphan.
    3. The condition attached: It makes complete equality between wives incumbent on the man, and because that is a practical impossibility, it asks men to desist from multiple marriages.
    4. The text relied on: Verse 3 of Surah Nisa states that if a man fears he will fail to maintain justice, he should content himself with one wife, a verse revealed when many men had multiple spouses running into three figures.

    Major debates surrounding polygamy and personal law reform

    1. Equality against religious freedom: One position reads Articles 14, 15 and 16 as overriding a religion specific exemption, the other reads Article 25 as protecting a practice integral to a community's personal law.
    2. Judicial invalidation against legislative codification: The court can strike down Section 2 of the 1937 Act, but a durable settlement requires Parliament to codify Muslim Personal Law, which is what the petitioners are actually asking for.
    3. The essential religious practices test: The dispute turns on whether polygamy is an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 or a permitted social custom open to reform, and the two characterisations produce opposite outcomes.
    4. Uniform Civil Code against pluralism: The court's suggestion that the Centre abolish the practice for all citizens irrespective of religion moves the question toward Article 44, which reopens the standing dispute over a Uniform Civil Code.
    5. The evidence gap: There is no reliable national dataset on the current prevalence of polygamy, so both sides argue from contested estimates rather than measured incidence.
    6. Gender justice inside communities: The debate over whether reform of a minority's personal law is best driven by the courts, by Parliament or by the community itself remains unsettled.

    Challenges to abolishing polygamy through law

    1. Absence of marriage registration: Without compulsory registration, a subsisting marriage cannot be proved, so a bigamy prosecution collapses at the evidence stage. e.g. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has historically produced very few convictions because the prosecution must first prove a valid first marriage and then a valid second one.
    2. The essential practices doctrine: Courts must first decide whether the practice is essential to the religion before they can regulate it, which is a theological inquiry judges are poorly placed to conduct. e.g. the Sabarimala reference of 2019 sent exactly this question to a larger bench, where it remains pending.
    3. Standing and enforcement: A first wife who depends on her husband economically has little incentive to complain, so a criminal provision goes unused. e.g. the low prosecution rate for dowry related matrimonial offences despite a wide statutory framework.
    4. Community resistance to codification: Attempts to codify a minority's personal law are read as an intrusion on identity rather than a gender reform. e.g. the reversal of the Shah Bano ruling through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
    5. Displacement rather than abolition: Criminalisation can push plural unions outside the legal record, leaving second wives and their children without maintenance or inheritance rights. e.g. Hindu bigamy has continued through unregistered customary unions despite being an offence since 1955.
    6. Federal complexity: Marriage and divorce sit on the Concurrent List, so State level marriage registration laws vary and a national standard needs Parliamentary action.

    Conclusion

    The dispute before the court is not about the scriptural permissibility of polygamy but about whether a statutory exemption can hold when the same conduct is a criminal offence for other citizens. A judicial strike down of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 would remove the permission without supplying the registration and maintenance machinery that makes a prohibition workable. The Centre's response to the notice, and whether it accepts the court's invitation to legislate for all citizens, is the next milestone in the case.

    What is Personal Law in India?

    1. About: Personal law is the body of rules governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, succession and inheritance, applied to a person according to their religious community rather than their territory.
    2. Rationale: It survived as a distinct legal category because the colonial state declined to legislate on the family affairs of religious communities, and the Constitution retained it while placing the subject on the Concurrent List.
    3. The four principal systems:
    4. Hindu law: Codified through four statutes in 1955 and 1956, covering Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
    5. Muslim law: Largely uncodified, applied through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, with limited statutory intervention on divorce and maintenance.
    6. Christian law: Governed by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
    7. Parsi law: Governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
    8. The secular alternative: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 offers any two citizens a civil marriage independent of religion, along with a uniform succession regime.

    Key Concerns Regarding Personal Law

    1. Unequal entitlements between citizens: Rights on divorce, maintenance and inheritance differ by religion, so two women in identical situations receive different legal protection.
    2. Gender asymmetry within systems: Several personal law systems give men wider rights over the dissolution of marriage and over property than they give women.
    3. Uncodified rules resist reform: Where the law is not written into a statute, amending it requires either judicial intervention or community consensus, both of which are slow.
    4. Weak registration infrastructure: Absent compulsory registration across all communities, the State has no record against which to enforce even the rules it has enacted.
    5. Article 44 remains unimplemented: The Directive Principle on a Uniform Civil Code has produced State level initiatives rather than a national framework, leaving the constitutional aspiration unfulfilled.

    Laws and Rules Governing Marriage and Personal Status in India

    1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869: Governs the dissolution of marriage among Christians.
    2. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Governs the solemnisation of Christian marriages.
    3. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Applies Shariat rules to Muslims in matters including marriage, dissolution, maintenance and succession.
    4. Section 2 is the provision under challenge, since it is the route through which polygamy is permitted.
    5. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Governs marriage and divorce among Parsis.
    6. Special Marriage Act, 1954: Provides a civil marriage available to any two citizens irrespective of religion, with its own divorce and succession rules.
    7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Codified Hindu marriage law and made bigamy void and punishable.
    8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Codified intestate succession for Hindus, amended in 2005 to make daughters coparceners by birth.
    9. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Enacted after the Shah Bano ruling to govern maintenance for divorced Muslim women.
    10. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Sets the minimum age of marriage and makes child marriage voidable at the option of the minor party.
    11. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Made the pronouncement of instant triple talaq void and a punishable offence.
    12. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 82 punishes bigamy with up to seven years, replacing Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

    Back2Basics: Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

    1. What it is: A short central statute that directs courts to apply Muslim personal law to Muslims in the matters it lists.
    2. Enacted: 1937, by the Central Legislative Assembly in British India.
    3. Subjects covered: Intestate succession, special property of females, marriage, dissolution of marriage including talaq, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and wakfs.
    4. Effect of Section 2: It displaces custom and usage in these matters and substitutes Shariat as the rule of decision.
    5. What it does not do: It does not codify Muslim personal law, it only directs which body of rules applies, which is why the substantive rules remain uncodified.
    6. Present relevance: It is the statute whose Section 2 is under constitutional challenge in the polygamy petition before the Supreme Court.

    Way Forward

    1. Enact compulsory marriage registration: A uniform registration requirement for all marriages and divorces, irrespective of religion, creates the record without which any bigamy prohibition is unenforceable.
    2. Codify Muslim Personal Law: A codified statute drafted with the community, as the petitioners seek from the Law Commission of India, converts contested custom into reviewable law.
    3. Secure the first family's rights first: Statutory protection of the first wife's and children's right to the matrimonial home and to maintenance addresses the harm even where the marriage itself is not annulled.
    4. Use the Special Marriage Act, 1954 route: Simplifying and publicising civil marriage gives couples an existing exit from personal law without waiting for its reform.
    5. Build the evidentiary base: A national survey of the prevalence of plural marriage would replace contested estimates with measured data on which any legislation must rest.
    6. Sequence reform through Parliament: A legislative framework, rather than a bare judicial strike down, supplies the transitional provisions, penalties and remedies that a court order cannot create.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[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 Answer: (b)”

  • A secular republic’s sacrilege problem and the legal price of criticising holy writ

    Why in the News

    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.