💥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

  • Supreme Court orders SOPs against digital arrest cyber fraud and mule accounts

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court directed the Centre, States, and Union Territories to implement Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) within four weeks to curb digital arrest cyber fraud, including freezing mule accounts, strengthening grievance redressal, and improving cybercrime coordination.

    What is a Digital Arrest Scam?

    • A cyber fraud where scammers impersonate police or enforcement agencies through video/audio calls.
    • Victims are falsely told they are under “digital arrest” and coerced into transferring money.

    What is a Mule Account?

    • A bank account used to receive and transfer proceeds of cyber fraud.
    • Often opened by unsuspecting or paid individuals.
    • Banks can impose temporary debit holds to prevent fraudulent withdrawals.

    What is the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)?

    • A nodal agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for coordinating India’s response to cybercrime.
    • Operates the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP) and the 1930 Cyber Helpline.

    Supreme Court Directions

    • Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to issue SOPs for temporary debit holds on mule accounts.
    • States/UTs to operationalise:
      • State Cyber Crime Coordination Centres.
      • e-Zero FIR mechanism.
    • Strengthen grievance redressal, money restoration, and public awareness.

    Challenges

    • Cross-border cybercrime networks.
    • Rapid movement of funds through mule accounts and cryptocurrencies.
    • Weak inter-agency coordination.
    • SIM spoofing and fake identities.
    • Low public awareness, especially among the elderly.

    Value Addition

    e-Zero FIR

    • Enables registration of a cybercrime complaint without jurisdictional barriers.
    • The complaint is later transferred to the appropriate police station.

    Citizen Response to Financial Cyber Fraud

    • Call 1930 immediately.
    • Report the incident on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP).
    • Early reporting increases the chances of freezing fraudulent transactions.

    Back2Basics: Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)

    • Parent Ministry: Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
    • Established: 2020.
    • Key Components:
      • National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal (NCRP).
      • 1930 Financial Cyber Fraud Helpline.
    • Mandate: Coordinate law enforcement, banks, telecom operators, and other stakeholders to prevent and investigate cybercrime.

    “[2017] In India, it is legally mandatory for which of the following to report on cyber security incidents?
    1. Service providers
    2. Data Centres
    3. Body corporate
    (a) 1 only
    (b) 1 and 2 only
    (c) 3 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Supreme Court extends Section 498A cruelty protection to live in relationships

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court held that protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 extends to women in live-in relationships, provided the partners share a genuine intent to marry. The ruling is based on Article 14 (Right to Equality).

    What is Section 498A?

    • Penalized cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman.
    • Now corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
    • Traditionally applied only to legally valid marriages.

    Supreme Court Ruling

    • Adopted a purposive interpretation to address changing social realities.
    • Extended protection to women in live-in relationships where there is: A relationship in the nature of marriage, and A genuine intent to marry.
    • Held that denying such protection violates Article 14.

    Why is the Domestic Violence Act Not Enough?

    • The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005 covers women in relationships in the nature of marriage.
    • However, it provides civil remedies such as: Protection orders, Residence orders, and Maintenance
    • Section 85, BNS provides criminal punishment, offering stronger deterrence.

    Challenges

    • Difficulty in proving intent to marry.
    • Limited documentary evidence in live-in relationships.
    • Possibility of misuse.
    • Overlap between civil remedies under the PWDV Act and criminal proceedings.

    Important Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 14: Equality before law.
    • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty, including dignity and autonomy.

    Landmark Judgments

    • D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010): Defined “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
    • Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013): Laid down factors for determining live-in relationships under the PWDV Act.

    [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

  • Supreme Court extends mandatory third party motor insurance and floats a no-insurance, no fuel pilot

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court extended mandatory Third-Party Motor Insurance to 4 years for new cars and 6 years for new two-wheelers. It also proposed a “No Insurance, No Fuel” pilot to improve compliance.

    What is Third-Party Motor Insurance?

    • Mandatory under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
    • Covers compensation for injury, death, or property damage caused to a third party.
    • Does not cover damage to the insured vehicle or owner.

    Supreme Court Directions

    • Mandatory third-party cover:
      • 4 years for new cars.
      • 6 years for new two-wheelers.
    • Link Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras with:
      • Insurance Information Bureau of India (IIB)
      • VAHAN portal.
    • Enable police to verify insurance in real time through mobile applications.
    • Explore a “No Insurance, No Fuel” pilot.

    Why is Enforcement Needed?

    • Around 56% of vehicles reportedly operate without valid third-party insurance.
    • Victims face delays in compensation.
    • Insurance often lapses after the initial mandatory period.

    Challenges

    • Lack of integration among IIB, VAHAN, and police databases.
    • Low renewal rates, especially for two-wheelers.
    • Concerns over denying fuel as an essential service.
    • Weak penalties and limited rural enforcement.

    Comprehensive vs Third-Party Insurance

    • Third-Party Insurance: Mandatory; covers third-party losses only.
    • Comprehensive Insurance: Optional; covers both third-party liability and damage to the insured vehicle.

    Key Platforms

    • VAHAN: National vehicle registration database managed by Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH).
    • ANPR: Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology for vehicle identification.
    • IIB: Insurance Information Bureau of India, maintains insurance-related databases.

    Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI)

    • Established under: Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
    • Headquarters: Hyderabad.
    • Functions: Regulates insurance companies and intermediaries. Protects policyholders’ interests. Prescribes solvency, pricing, and disclosure norms.

  • FIR over remarks on PM, how law treats obscenity and profanity

    Why in the News

    The Noida Police registered a Zero FIR against a 25 year old protester over remarks about the Prime Minister during the July youth protests, invoking sections covering insult, public mischief and defamation rather than obscenity. The case surfaces a legal distinction courts have sharpened over six decades: crude or profane language is not automatically the same offence as obscenity, and each carries its own, narrower evidentiary bar.

    How has India’s legal test for obscenity evolved?

    1. Ranjit D. Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, 1965: The Supreme Court upheld a ban on D H Lawrence’s novel Lady Chatterley’s Lover and adopted the 1868 English Hicklin test, which asked whether isolated passages of a work could corrupt the most vulnerable reader.
    2. Doordarshan v Anand Patwardhan, 2006: The Supreme Court cleared the broadcast of a documentary that had been denied airtime over its adult certificate, holding that obscenity must be judged by viewing a work as a whole, not by isolating individual scenes.
    3. Aveek Sarkar v State of West Bengal, 2014: The Supreme Court discarded the Hicklin test in favour of a community standards test, holding that material is obscene only if it tends to arouse sexual feelings when judged by an average person applying contemporary standards.

    What is Section 296 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

    1. Section 296, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): The successor to Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code, this is the default charge for loud, obscene public behaviour, punishing obscene acts or words uttered in or near a public place to the annoyance of others, with up to three months in jail.

    Why is profanity not the same as obscenity?

    1. College Romance ruling, 2024: The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against a web series over an expletive-heavy episode, holding that vulgarity and profanity are not, by themselves, the same as obscenity, since crude words in common usage reflect emotions such as anger or frustration rather than arousing sexual feelings.
    2. Sivakumar v State, April 2026: The Supreme Court acquitted a man under Section 294 for calling someone a slur during a heated argument, holding it did not meet the threshold for obscenity.
    3. Mani v State, July 2026: The Supreme Court held that swear words, profanities and vulgar expletives, however distasteful, cannot be equated with obscenity, since obscenity requires a showing that the utterance was lascivious.

    What does the Noida FIR actually need to prove?

    1. Section 352, insult: This requires proof that the accused intended, or knew it was likely, that the insult would provoke an actual breach of public peace, not merely that someone felt insulted.
    2. Section 353(1), public mischief: This section targets incitement, such as inciting mutiny, fear likely to push people toward offences against the state, or enmity between communities, a considerably higher bar than sharp criticism of a leader.
    3. Section 356(1), defamation: Defamation carries long standing exceptions for good faith comment on a public figure’s conduct in their public role.

    Conclusion

    Six decades of Supreme Court rulings have progressively narrowed what counts as obscenity while explicitly separating it from mere vulgarity or profanity. The Noida case will test whether remarks about the Prime Minister meet the considerably higher evidentiary bar the insult, public mischief and defamation provisions actually require.

    Back2Basics

    International Examples

    1. United States: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): Speech can be punished only if it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action, not merely because it is offensive.
    2. United Kingdom: Handyside v. UK (ECHR, 1976): Freedom of expression protects ideas that “offend, shock or disturb” the State or any section of society.
    3. United States: Cohen v. California (1971): The US Supreme Court held that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” protecting the use of profanity as free speech.
    4. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR): Political speech enjoys the highest level of protection, and public officials are expected to tolerate greater criticism than private individuals.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the balance between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). The article examines the legal limits of criminalising speech, highlighting judicial safeguards against misuse of obscenity and other speech-related offences.

  • SC upholds NCLAT order setting aside CCI’s ₹301.6-crore penalty on Grasim Industries

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court dismissed the Competition Commission of India’s appeal against an NCLAT order that set aside a Rs 301.6 crore penalty on Grasim Industries, holding that the regulator breached natural justice by not giving the company a hearing after departing from its own investigative findings. The ruling exposes the boundary between a regulator’s power to penalise dominant firms and the procedural fairness it owes them before doing so.

    What did the CCI originally rule and why was it set aside?

    1. Original penalty: The Competition Commission of India imposed the Rs 301.6 crore penalty on Grasim Industries in March 2020 for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the supply of viscose staple fibre to spinners.
    2. Departure from the Director General’s findings: The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal found that the CCI had departed from the findings of its own Director General, the regulator’s investigative arm, without giving Grasim a chance to respond to that departure.
    3. NCLAT’s order: The NCLAT set aside the CCI’s order and remanded the matter back to the Commission for a fresh hearing that accounts for this procedural gap.

    Why did the Supreme Court agree with the natural justice finding?

    1. Hearing before departure: A bench of the Supreme Court held that once the CCI decided to differ from the Director General’s conclusions, natural justice required that Grasim be given an opportunity to present its arguments against that specific departure.
    2. Procedural fairness as a substantive check: The ruling confirms that a regulator’s substantive finding of market dominance abuse can be undone purely on procedural grounds, regardless of the underlying merits of the dominance allegation.

    What are the challenges this ruling poses for competition regulation?

    1. Delay in enforcement: The case now returns to the CCI for a fresh hearing, meaning a matter that began with a 2020 penalty order will take years longer to resolve, weakening the deterrent effect of competition enforcement.
    2. Procedural burden on the regulator: The CCI will need to build an additional hearing step into its process whenever it departs from Director General findings, adding to its administrative workload in future dominance cases.
    3. Precedent for future appeals: Companies facing CCI penalties now have a clearer procedural ground to challenge orders that diverge from investigative findings without an intervening hearing.
    4. Market conduct still unresolved: Whether Grasim actually abused its dominant position in the viscose staple fibre market remains unresolved and will only be settled after the CCI re-examines the case.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s ruling turns on procedure, not on whether Grasim actually abused its market position. The Competition Commission of India must now rehear the case with Grasim given the opportunity it was earlier denied, leaving the substantive dominance question open until that fresh hearing concludes.

    Back2Basics:

    Competition Commission of India (CCI)

    1. The CCI is India’s cross-sectoral competition regulator, governed by the Competition Act, 2002, covering anti-competitive agreements, mergers and combinations, and abuse of dominance across all sectors.
    2. It is not a price control body; it intervenes only where conduct is anti-competitive, a distinction commonly tested since CCI does not regulate prices directly.
    3. The CCI acts as the first-instance adjudicator across all sectors, since there is no separate technical regulator performing a parallel function within its domain.
    4. Appeals against CCI orders lie with the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), as in the Grasim case, with further appeal lying with the Supreme Court.

    The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT):

    1. It serves as the direct appellate authority for orders, directions, and decisions passed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI). When the CCI rules on anti-competitive agreements, cartels, or abuse of dominant market positions, aggrieved parties challenge those decisions before the NCLAT

    Key Aspects of the Relationship

    1. Appellate Jurisdiction: Empowered under Section 410 of the Companies Act, 2013, NCLAT hears and disposes of all appeals arising from CCI rulings (replacing the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal or COMPAT).
    2. Judicial Review: NCLAT evaluates whether CCI orders follow principles of natural justice, properly weigh market evidence, or stay within regulatory jurisdiction

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Discuss the role of the Competition Commission of India in containing the abuse of dominant position by the Multi-National Corporations in India. Refer to the recent decisions.

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the role of the CCI in preventing abuse of dominant position and promoting fair competition. The article highlights the CCI’s enforcement powers and the need to uphold natural justice while regulating dominant firms.

  • SC sets ‘public interest’ test on retrospective green nod

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on 29 July, quashed the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that had allowed projects built without prior approval to seek regularisation. It also held that a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme may still be permitted through a statutory notification if justified by public interest. This reopens the question of whether this closes the door on regularising environmental violations or gives them a narrower but still real legal opening.

    What is a post facto environmental clearance?

    1. Definition: A post facto, or ex post facto, environmental clearance (EC) is an approval granted after a project has already commenced construction or operations, reversing the sequence the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime otherwise requires.
    2. Underlying principle: India’s EIA regime rests on the precautionary principle, which requires ecological appraisal before construction begins rather than after damage may already be irreversible.

    What is the difference between an Office Memorandum and a statutory notification?

    1. Office Memorandum: An OM is an administrative instruction issued by a ministry or department. It does not carry the force of law.
    2. Statutory notification: A notification is issued under authority granted by a statute, in this case the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and is published in the official Gazette, giving it legal force an OM lacks.

    How has the Supreme Court’s position on retrospective clearances evolved?

    1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): The Court held that mining projects requiring clearance could not commence before appraisal, calling retrospective clearances completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
    2. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): The Court reiterated that ex post facto clearance undermines the precautionary principle by letting proponents commence activity first and seek approval later, though it imposed penalties instead of ordering closure for long operating units.
    3. Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021): The Court held that ex post facto clearances could be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect livelihoods and the economy, opening space for the OM that followed the same year.
    4. Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak (2022): The Court took a more pragmatic approach, holding that closure is not always the right remedy where regulatory uncertainty existed and compliance remained achievable.
    5. Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025 and November 2025): A Bench struck down both the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, ruling ex post facto clearances impermissible in any form. Following review petitions by the Centre and industry bodies, a three judge Bench recalled this ruling by a two to one majority six months later, holding it needed fresh adjudication.
    6. 29 July 2026 ruling: A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India quashed the 2021 OM but upheld the 2017 notification, holding that any future post facto clearance can only be granted through a statutory notification, not an administrative order.

    What does the 29 July ruling establish?

    1. Quashed instrument: The Court set aside the 2021 OM that had created a standing procedure for regularising violation cases, calling it a continuing or perpetual regime rather than a one time exception.
    2. Retained instrument: The March 2017 notification, offering a one time six month disclosure window, was not invalidated.
    3. Legal basis required: Any future post facto clearance mechanism must be issued as a statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not as an OM.
    4. Public interest test: The government must show that the public interest served is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that environmental costs have been weighed against anticipated benefits, converting open ended discretion into a narrowly circumscribed exception.

    Does the ruling protect the precautionary principle or launder violations into a fee?

    1. Fig leaf reading: One reading holds that the distinction between an OM and a statutory notification is a procedural label rather than a substantive safeguard. This is because the government can still notify the same regularisation scheme through the correct instrument.
    2. Amnesty analogy rejected: The Court reasoned that governments may frame environmental amnesty schemes the way they frame tax or building default amnesties. This is a comparison critics say cannot be transposed onto projects that cut into forests and floodplains. This is because ecological damage propagates through interconnected plant, animal, human and microbial systems rather than resetting to zero on payment of a fee.
    3. Decriminalisation overlap: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, and its 2026 amendments removed imprisonment for environmental violations. This leaves only monetary penalties. So, now a regularised violation now costs a well capitalised developer a budgeted fine rather than a criminal risk.
    4. Counter view: The opposing reading holds that the ruling is consistent with two decades of jurisprudence reading a healthy environment into the right to life, and that the recognised flexibility could legitimately apply to national defence projects, healthcare facilities in underserved areas, or connectivity in remote regions.
    5. Scale of existing exceptions: More than 100 projects, including coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, distilleries, steel and cement plants, and hospitals, had already received ex post facto clearance under the 2017 to 2021 regime. This shows how large scale the exception has become in practice.

    What are the challenges to enforcing the public interest test for post facto clearance?

    1. Definition creep: Public interest is not statutorily defined for this purpose, leaving room for the term to be stretched to cover commercially driven projects as much as genuinely urgent public needs.
    2. Monitoring capacity: State environmental authorities, expert appraisal committees and pollution boards have historically detected violations only after construction is complete, showing weak upfront monitoring that a narrower legal test alone will not fix.
    3. Litigation burden: Every future statutory amnesty scheme will likely face fresh litigation testing whether it is genuinely narrowly tailored, adding years of uncertainty for project proponents and affected communities alike.
    4. Weakened deterrence: With imprisonment removed under the Jan Vishwas amendments, monetary penalties alone may not deter developers who can treat the fine as a routine cost of doing business.
    5. Climate exposure: Infrastructure regularised without adequate ecological assessment faces greater exposure to extreme weather events, as seen in monsoon damage to projects built without proper environmental safeguards.

    Conclusion

    The ruling ends open ended administrative regularisation under the 2021 OM, restoring the requirement that any future post facto clearance carry the force of a statutory notification tested against public interest, necessity and proportionality. It does not resolve whether that test can hold against a decriminalised penalty regime in which environmental violation carries only a monetary cost. The government’s next statutory amnesty scheme, if it frames one, will show whether this order narrows the exception in practice or simply relabels the same regularisation regime in more careful legal language.

    Back2Basics:

    EIA Notification, 2006

    1. Issuing authority: Notified in 2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Core requirement: Mandates prior environmental clearance before construction or expansion begins for listed categories of projects such as mining, thermal power and infrastructure.
    3. Categorisation: Projects fall into Category A, needing central level clearance, and Category B, needing state level clearance through State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
    4. Process stages: Screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal precede the grant of clearance.
    5. Subsequent dilution: A March 2017 notification and a July 2021 OM introduced routes for post facto clearance, which the Supreme Court has since narrowed.

    The precautionary principle:

    1. It is a core rule in environmental law requiring authorities to take preventive action against serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when there is no full scientific certainty.
    2. Key aspects include shifting the burden of proof to project developers, prioritizing safety over delay, and focusing on proactive governance.
    3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court formally integrated the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle into Indian jurisprudence.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework in India. The article examines EIA implementation in light of the precautionary principle established in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996).

  • Centre defends CEC panel without CJI

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.

    What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?

    The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
    • Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha

    What changed?

    • The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
    • This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.

    What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?

    • Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
    • Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
      • Prime Minister
      • Leader of the Opposition
      • Chief Justice of India
    • The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.

    Centre’s Arguments

    • Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
    • The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
    • Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
    • Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • The committee lacks a neutral member.
    • A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
    • Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.

    [2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
    1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners.
    2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections.
    3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 3 only

    [C] 2 and 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • SC restricts ‘retrospective’ green clearances

    Why in the News?

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

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

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

    What can the government still do to grant retrospective clearance?

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

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

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

    Back2Basics:

    Environment (Protection) Act, 1986

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

    PYQ Relevance

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

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

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

    Why in News

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

    What is the Merger Exception?

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

    About the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

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

    Constitutional Provisions

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

    Landmark Judgments

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

    Issues with the Current Law

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

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

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

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

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

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Insurers seek first third party premium hike in four years

    Why in News?

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

    Key Highlights

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

    Motor Third Party (TP) Insurance

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

    Value Addition

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

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

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


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

    [A] 2 only

    [B] 2 and 3

    [C] 1, 3 and 4

    [D] 2 and 4