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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: SC Judgements

SC Judgements are very important for Mains Paper

  • The constitutional limits on arrest, reaffirmed

    Why in the News

    An explainer revisits the constitutional limits on arrest after a 2025 Supreme Court ruling. It reaffirms that an arrested person must be meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.

    What does Article 22 guarantee on arrest?

    1. Grounds of arrest: Article 22(1) requires that grounds be communicated meaningfully, not as a formality.
    2. Legal counsel: The arrested person has the right to consult a lawyer of choice.
    3. Production before magistrate: Article 22(2) requires production within 24 hours of arrest.
    4. No prolonged custody: Continued detention beyond 24 hours requires Magistrate’s authorisation.
    5. Exception: These safeguards under Article 22(1) and 22(2) do not apply to enemy aliens and persons detained under preventive detention laws under Article 22(3).

    What did the recent ruling and precedents establish?

    1. Vihaan Kumar (2025): The Court held that failure to communicate grounds vitiates the arrest.
    2. Arnesh Kumar (2014): Arrest must be the exception for offences carrying up to seven years, not routine.
    3. D.K. Basu (1997): The Court prescribed safeguards including an arrest memo, informing relatives and medical examination to prevent custodial abuse.
    4. Arrest memo: Procedural safeguards require a documented arrest memo.

    What did the Supreme Court Rule in Vihaan Kumar Case?

    The judgment of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025) marked a crucial milestone in protecting the fundamental rights of arrested persons.

    1. Mandatory information about the reasons for arrest: The Supreme Court has made it clear that the person arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest immediately. This is
      a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
    2. Arrest is invalid: If the accused is not informed of the reasons for the arrest, the arrest becomes illegal and unconstitutional.
    3. Cancellation of further proceedings: If fundamental rights are violated during the arrest process itself, subsequent remand orders issued by the courts or charge sheets filed by the police cannot rectify that mistake (Vitiated).
    4. Language awareness: The reasons for the arrest should be communicated in a language that the accused understands, and should not be a mere formality.

    Human rights and dignity (Article 21)

    1. Ban on shackles in hospitals: The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the practice of shackles and chains on Vihan Kumar when he was admitted to the hospital due to medical reasons.
    2. Right to Life: The court held that the right to live with dignity is part of Article 21 , and chaining the accused to a hospital bed falls under the category of human rights violation.

    How is preventive detention different?

    1. Without trial: Preventive detention permits custody without a charge to prevent an anticipated act.
    2. Advisory Board: Detention beyond three months requires review by an Advisory Board.
    3. Narrow safeguards: Several ordinary arrest protections under Article 22 do not apply to preventive detention.
    4. Preventive: Unlike ordinary detention, it is not punitive. It is intended to prevent an anticipated act prejudicial to specified interests.
    5. No 24-hour Magistrate requirement under Article 22(3).
    6. Grounds of detention must generally be communicated, subject to non-disclosure in public interest.

    What is the “Golden Triangle”?

    1. Articles 14, 19, 21: Together they form the core of personal liberty jurisprudence.
    2. Maneka Gandhi (1978): Established that a law depriving personal liberty must prescribe a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable.
    3. Article 22: Provides specific procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, complementing the broader protection under Article 21.

    Conclusion

    The ruling restates settled safeguards and closes an enforcement gap on communicating arrest grounds. It sharpens the line between lawful arrest and arbitrary detention.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] “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.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines the expanding scope of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Arrest safeguards and preventive-detention limits show how judicial interpretation strengthens protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

  • Supreme Court clarifies scope of police custody under Section 187(2) BNSS

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court held in The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju that Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 enlarges the window during which police custody may be sought. The ruling has exposed the difference between the new code and the old regime, under which police custody was confined to the first 15 days of remand alone. Police custody is now available in parts, though in aggregate not exceeding 15 days, during the first 40 or 60 days of detention.

    What is Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

    1. Governing provision: Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the detention of an accused when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours.
    2. Enlarged window: Under Section 187(2), a magistrate may authorise detention not exceeding 15 days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days of a total detention period of 60 or 90 days.

    What is default bail?

    1. Definition: Where investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused becomes entitled to release, widely known as default bail.
    2. Time limits under Section 187(3): Judicial detention may extend up to 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more, and up to 60 days for any other offence.

    What is the current status of pre-trial custody rights in India?

    1. Twenty four hour rule: Section 58 of the BNSS provides that a person arrested without warrant cannot be detained beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authorisation under Section 187.
    2. Fifteen day cap on police custody: Police custody remains capped at 15 days in aggregate, but may now be spread across the early investigation period rather than the first 15 days alone.
    3. Right to counsel: Section 38 of the BNSS entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
    4. Recording safeguard: Audio visual recording of the actual interrogation and of any discovery or recovery satisfies the transparency requirement.

    Constitutional provisions related to arrest and detention:

    1. Article 22(1): Guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner of choice.
    2. Article 22(2): Requires production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
    3. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, permitting deprivation only by a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law.
    4. Article 20(3): Protects against self incrimination, relevant to the presence of counsel during interrogation.

    What did the Supreme Court hold?

    1. No absolute outer limit: A magistrate cannot place an absolute and non extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) of the BNSS.
    2. Purpose of the change: The enlarged window is intended to meet situations where fresh facts, discoveries or leads emerge during the course of investigation.
    3. Additional custody granted: The Court permitted 7 days of additional police custody so that the total police remand would not exceed 15 days.
    4. Facts of the case: In a custodial death case the victim’s body remained untraced, the original CCTV hard disks were yet to be discovered, and recoveries under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam were imminent.

    How does the new remand window differ from the old code?

    1. Old Section 167 CrPC: Detention in police custody could not be granted beyond the initial 15 days in the whole under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    2. Alteration within the window: Even under the old code, during the first 15 days a magistrate could alter custody from judicial to police and back.
    3. New flexibility: Under the BNSS police custody may be sought in parts across the first 40 or 60 days, keeping the aggregate at 15 days.

    What did the Court hold on the presence of an advocate?

    1. Not continuous: Section 38 does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session.
    2. Line of sight: The advocate may remain present within the site of interrogation from where he can see the accused, but not throughout the questioning.
    3. Recording over escort videography: Instead of uninterrupted videography of the accused in transit, audio visual recording of the interrogation and of any recovery meets the requirement.

    What are the major debates surrounding the enlarged custody window?

    1. Liberty versus investigation: Spreading police custody across 40 or 60 days risks repeated custodial spells, weighed against the need to pursue late emerging leads.
    2. Magistrate’s discretion: The ruling limits a magistrate’s power to foreclose future custody, raising the question of how liberty is protected during the extended window.
    3. Counsel access: The line of sight standard for the advocate leaves open how effectively the right against coercion is protected during interrogation.

    Way Forward:

    1. Reasoned remand orders: Require magistrates to record specific reasons linking each spell of police custody to investigative need.
    2. Guard against repeat custody: Frame guidelines to prevent the enlarged window becoming a route to successive custodial spells.
    3. Effective counsel access: Clarify practical standards for an advocate’s presence to protect against coercion.
    4. Mandatory recording compliance: Ensure audio visual recording of interrogation and recovery is uniformly implemented and preserved.
    5. Judicial training: Orient magistrates on the new remand architecture to balance liberty with investigation.

    Conclusion:

    The Court has clarified that police custody under the BNSS is capped at 15 days in aggregate but may be sought in parts through the first 40 or 60 days of investigation, not the first 15 days alone. The ruling reflects the legislative intent to accommodate fresh discoveries during a probe. The interpretation now governs how magistrates authorise and structure police remand under the new code.

    Back2Basics:

    BNSS, BNS and BSA

    1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the substantive criminal law.
    2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governing procedure, arrest, investigation and trial.
    3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governing admissibility of evidence.
    4. Effective date: The three codes came into force on 1 July 2024.
    5. Zero FIR and e-FIR: The BNSS recognises registration of a First Information Report irrespective of jurisdiction and enables electronic reporting.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2026] Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?

    1. A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry. 3. Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.

    (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) 1 only

    Answer: D

  • Inquiry committee finds charges proved against Justice Yashwant Varma; removal under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

    Why in the News?

    A three member inquiry committee found all three charges proved against former judge Justice Yashwant Varma over unexplained burnt currency found at his official residence. The key issue is whether Parliament can continue the removal process after his resignation.

    Judicial Removal Process

    Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:

    1. Motion: Signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
    2. Admission: Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject it.
    3. Inquiry Committee: Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and Distinguished jurist
    4. Parliamentary approval: Motion must pass in both Houses by:
      • Majority of total membership, and
      • 2/3 of members present and voting
    5. Final removal: President issues the removal order.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 124(4): Removal of Supreme Court judges for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Article 124(5): Parliament can regulate the inquiry procedure.
    • Articles 217 & 218: Apply the removal framework to High Court judges.
    • Article 121: Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct except during a removal motion.

    Varma Inquiry: Three Charges

    1. Unexplained cash: Burnt currency found at his official residence.
    2. Evidence preservation: Failure to preserve the material evidence.
    3. Evasive explanations: Committee found his explanations misleading and unsupported.

    Key Constitutional Issue

    • Removal motion was admitted before his resignation.
    • The law does not expressly clarify whether proceedings can continue after resignation.
    • The issue therefore exposes a legal gap concerning post resignation proceedings and consequences for pension and other benefits.

    “[2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes “incapacity and proved misbehaviour” of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

    3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 (b) 3 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4

  • Supreme Court to examine whether DPDP Act is crippling RTI

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is being used to defeat the Right to Information Act, 2005. The conflict is between the right to informational privacy and the right of citizens to access public information.

    What is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023?

    1. Amending provision: Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which governs exemption of personal information.
    2. Effect: It removed the earlier public interest override, allowing any personal information to be withheld.

    Why does this threaten the Right to Information?

    1. Blanket exemption: Officials can now deny information by labelling it ‘personal data’ without a public interest test.
    2. Journalism risk: Investigative reporting that relies on named records could be gagged.
    3. Accountability loss: Asset disclosures and beneficiary lists that expose wrongdoing may fall outside access.

    What is the case for the privacy safeguard?

    1. Fundamental right: Privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment.
    2. Data misuse: Uncontrolled disclosure of personal data can enable profiling and harm.

    What must be resolved for the two laws to coexist?

    1. Public interest test: A restored balancing standard is the missing precondition for reconciling access and privacy.

    Conclusion

    The central question is whether privacy protection can be read so widely that it nullifies transparency. The next milestone is the Court’s substantive hearing on the challenge to Section 44(3).

    Back2Basics: Right to Information Act, 2005

    1. Objective: Empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability.
    2. Key body: Central and State Information Commissions adjudicate appeals and complaints.
    3. Section 8: Lists exemptions from disclosure, including the personal information clause now amended.

    “[2020, GS2, 10 marks] ‘Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission’. Discuss.”

  • SC order on mining around Ramsar wetland sites

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has clarified that its earlier direction restricting mining within a 10 km radius of the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve now applies to all Wetland Conservation Reserves across India. Mining in such areas will require prior approval from the competent authority.

    What did the Supreme Court clarify?

    • Nationwide Application: The 10 km mining safeguard around the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve will now apply to all Wetland Conservation Reserves.
    • Uniform Principle: The Court held that the protection should apply uniformly across the country.
    • Case Background: The clarification came while hearing an application filed by the Himachal Pradesh Government.
    • State’s Argument: Himachal Pradesh contended that Wetland Conservation Reserves do not have a statutory buffer zone unlike national parks.
    • Further Direction: The Court asked the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) or the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to examine whether the Asan Wetland extends into Himachal Pradesh.

    What is the Asan Wetland Conservation Reserve?

    • Location: Situated at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers in Uttarakhand.
    • Ramsar Status: Declared a Ramsar Site in 2020.
    • Ecological Importance: Supports migratory waterbirds and rich aquatic biodiversity.
    • Judicial Protection: Mining within a 10 km radius requires prior clearance from the NBWL or MoEFCC.

    What are Ramsar Sites?

    • Definition: Wetlands designated under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (1971) for their international ecological importance.
    • India’s Membership: India became a party to the Convention in 1982.
    • Current Status: India has 101 Ramsar Sites, the highest in Asia.
    • Significance: Ramsar designation commits countries to maintain the ecological character of wetlands but does not itself create a separate statutory protection regime.

    What is the legal position on mining near wetlands?

    • No Statutory Buffer: The Ramsar Convention and the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 do not prescribe a fixed buffer zone around wetlands.
    • 2010 Rules: Earlier rules listed prohibited activities and required prior approval for activities within the wetland’s zone of influence.
    • 2017 Rules: Replaced the earlier framework with a decentralised system led by State Wetland Authorities.
    • Judicial Safeguard: The Supreme Court’s ruling fills this regulatory gap by requiring prior clearance for mining near Wetland Conservation Reserves.

    [2022] Consider the following pairs: Wetland/Lake — Location
    1. Hokera Wetland — Punjab
    2. Renuka Wetland — Himachal Pradesh
    3. Rudrasagar Lake — Tripura
    4. Sasthamkotta Lake — Tamil Nadu
    How many pairs given above are correctly matched?
    (a) Only one pair

    (b) Only two pairs

    (c) Only three pairs

    (d) All four pairs

  • Supreme Court extends the 10 km mining buffer to all wetland conservation reserves

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court clarified that its ban on mining within a 10 km radius of the Asan Conservation Reserve (a Ramsar Site) applies to all Wetland Conservation Reserves across India unless approved by the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL) and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

    What is a Conservation Reserve?

    • A protected area category created under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (through the 2002 Amendment).
    • Covers government-owned land adjacent to National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    • Protects habitats and wildlife corridors with community participation.

    What is an Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ)?

    • A buffer area notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 around National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.
    • Restricts activities such as mining, industries, and large-scale construction to reduce ecological impacts.

    Supreme Court Ruling

    • Extended the 10 km mining restriction to all Wetland Conservation Reserves.
    • Recognized wetlands as a distinct ecologically sensitive category.
    • Mining within the buffer requires approval from the NBWL Standing Committee and MoEFCC.

    Why is the Ruling Significant?

    • Protects wetlands from mining and habitat degradation.
    • Recognizes the importance of catchment areas for wetland health.
    • Ensures uniform protection for wetland conservation reserves across India.

    Challenges

    • Incomplete mapping and notification of wetlands.
    • Encroachment and land-use change.
    • Pollution and eutrophication.
    • Weak enforcement by State Wetland Authorities.
    • Development pressures from mining and infrastructure projects.

    Value Addition

    Ramsar Convention

    • International treaty for the conservation and wise use of wetlands.
    • Adopted in 1971 at Ramsar, Iran.
    • India became a Contracting Party in 1982.

    Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017

    • Regulate conservation and management of notified wetlands.
    • Implemented through State Wetland Authorities.

    Back2Basics

    National Board for Wildlife (NBWL)

    • Statutory body under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
    • Chairperson: Prime Minister.
    • Standing Committee examines projects affecting protected areas.

    Asan Conservation Reserve

    • Location: Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
    • Ramsar Site: Since 2020 (Uttarakhand’s first Ramsar Site).
    • Formed by the Asan Barrage at the confluence of the Asan and Yamuna rivers.
    • Important wintering habitat for migratory birds.

    “[2019] Consider the following statements:
    1. Under Ramsar Convention, it is mandatory on the part of the Government of India to protect and conserve all the wetlands in the territory of India.
    2. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 were framed by the Government of India based on the recommendations of Ramsar Convention.
    3. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 also encompass the drainage area or catchment regions of the wetlands as determined by the authority.
    (a) 1 and 2 only
    (b) 2 and 3 only
    (c) 3 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • 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.