Insights
The rapid expansion of digital communication platforms has transformed the way information is shared, consumed, and disseminated. However, the misuse of these platforms for unlawful activities has posed significant challenges for regulators worldwide. The latest flashpoint in India’s ongoing debate over digital governance concerns the temporary restriction imposed on Telegram ahead of the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) 2026 re-examination.
Introduction In a significant development with far-reaching implications for governance, electoral integrity and identity verification mechanisms in India, the Supreme Court has issued notices to the Central Government, State Governments and the Election Commission of India on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the use of Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, domicile, address and date of birth.
SUPREME COURT EXAMINES ALLEGED NON-IMPLEMENTATION OF RTE ACT IN PUNJAB: A CRITICAL TEST FOR EWS ADMISSIONS Introduction In a significant development concerning the enforcement of children's right to education, the Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging that the State of Punjab has failed to implement key provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The petition, titled K.S. Raju Legal Trust v. Union of India, raises serious concerns regarding the implementation of Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which mandates that private unaided non-minority schools reserve at least 25% of entry-level seats for children belonging to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and disadvantaged groups.
In a landmark decision reinforcing India's evolving animal welfare jurisprudence, the Supreme Court, in Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty & Ors., directed the Government of Kerala to take temporary custody of a captive elephant named Raman and place him in an appropriate rescue or rehabilitation facility. The Court's observation that it "cannot be a mute spectator in matters pertaining to voiceless animals" has emerged as one of the most significant judicial pronouncements on captive animal welfare in recent years.
In a significant judgment that clarifies the limits of compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Supreme Court of India in The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike v. K.K. Umesh Kumar & Ors. held that injuries caused by the fall of a tree branch on a stationary autorickshaw do not amount to a motor accident arising out of the “use of a motor vehicle” under Sections 165 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The ruling addresses an important legal question concerning the extent to which a motor vehicle must be connected to an accident before a claim can be entertained by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT). While deciding the legal issue against the claimant, the Supreme Court nevertheless invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to enhance the compensation awarded to the severely injured victim.
In a significant judgment that settles an important question relating to probate proceedings, the Supreme Court of India has held that an application seeking revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Consequently, such an application must ordinarily be filed within three years from the date when the right to apply accrues.
IS A THIRD JUDGE IN A CRIMINAL APPEAL BOUND BY THE FINDINGS OF THE ORIGINAL BENCH? SUPREME COURT REFERS CRUCIAL QUESTION TO LARGER BENCH
In a significant ruling that reinforces the evidentiary value of scientific techniques in civil disputes, the Supreme Court of India has held that the acquittal of a person in a criminal rape case does not prevent courts from directing a DNA test to determine paternity in subsequent civil proceedings. The judgment highlights the distinction between criminal liability and biological parentage, while balancing competing rights of privacy, identity, inheritance, and access to justice. The decision was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, which upheld the orders of the Trial Court and the Chhattisgarh High Court directing DNA profiling of an individual whose paternity was disputed by a 27-year-old claimant seeking recognition as his biological son and asserting inheritance rights.
