Fundamental Rights & Rights Issues

Waqf is not Essential Religious Practice: Centre 

Context: Defending the recently-passed legislation Waqf Amendment Act, 2025, the Central government told the Supreme Court that though Waqf is an Islamic concept, it is not an essential religious practice in Islam. 

The Centre asserted that it is the state's duty to ensure that public property is not diverted illegally, and nobody could claim right over public land by using waqf by user principle.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Essential Religious Practice; Right to freedom of religion. 

Waqf is not an Essential Religious Practice in Islam

The Central government told the Supreme Court that-

  • Waqf, by its very nature, is charity, and any Charity is a part of every religion, but not an essential religious practice of any religion.
  • A Muslim who does not create a waqf would not be less Muslim or cease to be a Muslim. Creating a waqf was not mandatory in Islam, neither is it a fundamental right in itself.

The law only focusses on the secular and administrative aspects of Waqf institutions without interfering with essential religious practices or beliefs of the Islamic faith.

What is an Essential Religious Practice? 

The essential religious practices (ERP) doctrine governs which religious practices are protected under Articles 25 & 26 of Indian Constitution. 

In the Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004): The SC held that- 

  • In order to determine whether or not a particular practice is an essential part of religion, the test must be whether the absence of the practice itself fundamentally alters the religion. 
  • If the taking away of that part or practice could result in a fundamental change in the character of that religion or in its belief, then such part could be treated as an essential or integral part.
  • There cannot be additions or subtractions to such a part because it is the very essence of that religion and alterations will change its fundamental character. It is such permanent essential parts which are protected by the Constitution. 

Some cases associated with Essential Religious Practice: 

  • Commissioner of Police v Acharya Jagadisharananda Avadhuta (2004): The SC held that the Tandava Dance was not an essential practice of the Ananda Marga faith. 
  • Shayara Bano v Union of India (2017): The SC held that the practice of Triple Talaq is not an essential practice under Islam and could not be offered constitutional protection under Article 25. 
  • Karnataka High Court (2022) upheld the ban on the wearing of hijab (head scarf) by students in schools and colleges in the State. It held that wearing the hijab is not an essential religious practice in Islam, and is not protected under the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 25.

Articles 25 & 26 of Indian Constitution

Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.

  • All persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.
  • It does not include the right to convert another person to one’s own religion. Forcible conversions impinge on the ‘freedom of conscience’ guaranteed to all the persons alike.
  • These rights are available to all persons- citizens as well as non-citizens. It covers not only religious beliefs (doctrines) but also religious practices (rituals). 
  • Reasonable restrictions: However, these rights are subject to public order, morality, health and other provisions relating to fundamental rights.
    • The state can regulate such practice on grounds of public order, morality and health.
    • The state can regulate or restrict any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice. 

Article 26: Freedom to manage religious affairs. 

  • Every religious denomination or any of its section shall have the following rights:
    • Right to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes
    • Right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion
    • Right to own and acquire movable and immovable property
    • Right to administer such property in accordance with law. 
  • Article 26 protects collective freedom of religion. Article 25 guarantees rights of individuals, while Article 26 guarantees rights of religious denominations or their sections. 
  • Reasonable restrictions: Rights under Article 26 are also subject to public order, morality and health but not subject to other provisions relating to the Fundamental Rights. 

Also Read: Waqf Amendment Act 2025 

Rohingyas need to be deported if held Foreigners: SC

Context: Recently, the Supreme Court observed that if the Rohingya refugees are found to be ‘foreigners’ under the Foreigners Act, the Central government can deport them in accordance with the procedure under the law. 

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Ethics and status of refugees in India, including citizenship issues. 

The Recent ruling of Supreme Court: 

  • Though the right to life and due process (Article 21) and the right to equality (Article 14) of the Constitution are available to all (citizens as well as non-citizens in India), the fundamental right to reside or settle in any part of India under Article 19(1)(e) is only available to Indian citizens. 
  • As the Rohingyas do not have a right to settle in India, they will be deported as per the procedure prescribed in law. 

India’s stand on Rohingya Refugees

Rohingyas faced genocide in the Myanmar’s Rakhine region, and now constitute the world’s largest stateless population in the world.

  • India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees (UNHCR). India is not a party to the key International instruments such as:
    • Conventions against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
    • International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance.
  • Therefore, India maintains no legal obligations to provide asylum and adhere to the Policy of Non-Refoulement. Policy of Non-refoulement prohibits returning individuals to places where they face persecution, torture, or serious harm, protecting refugee and human rights.
  • India categorises Rohingya refugees as Illegal Migrants. India continues to detain Rohingya refugees under the domestic acts like:
    • The Foreigners Act, 1946 regulates the entry, stay, and departure of foreigners in India, along with deportation of the illegal migrants in India.
    • The Passport Act, 1967 governs the issuance and regulation of passports in India. 
  • The government under the Foreigners Act has the absolute and unlimited powers to issue orders to “prohibit, regulate, restrict entry or departure of foreigners”, especially when national security concerns are at play. 

Also Read: India’s obligations towards Rohingya Refugees 

Foreigners Tribunals: Detaining Non-Citizens and Rule of Law

Context: The Assam detention regime is in news because of concerns related to liberty and well-being of persons caught in it. 

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Key facts about Foreigners Tribunals in Assam.

Mains: Foreigners Tribunals: Challenges associated. 

Foreigners Tribunals in Assam: 

  • Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) are quasi-judicial bodies established in Assam to adjudicate cases concerning individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants. 
  • They were created under the Foreigners (Tribunals) Order, 1964, which derives its authority from the Foreigners Act of 1946. 
  • The tribunals primarily handle cases related to individuals left out of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), with a significant number of cases involving approximately 19.06 lakh people. 

Legal Background:

  • Rule of Law and Liberty: Indian Constitution upholds the principle that personal liberty can only be curtailed under clear legal and judicial frameworks (Article 21). 
  • Detention of Non-Citizens: Non-citizens in India can be detained under:
    • Foreigners Act, 1946 
    • National Security Act (NSA), 1980 
  • Preventive Detention: Though permissible under Article 22, it is subject to strict safeguards and judicial review. 

Assam Experience: Citizenship and Detention 

  • NRC and Citizenship Crisis: 19 lakh people excluded from the NRC in Assam (2019). Many declared themselves "foreigners" despite being long-term residents with no other nationality. 
  • Documentation Challenges: Proof required: Ancestors’ residence before March 24, 1971. 
  • Common Issues: 
    • Unavailable or destroyed documents (E.g., due to floods). 
    • Rejection due to minor discrepancies in names. 
  • Impacts: Individuals are stripped of citizenship and placed in detention centers without effective legal recourse. 

Issues and Concerns

1. Indefinite Detention: Threat to Liberty 

  • Violation of Legal Norms: Detentions occur without conviction, charge, or trial, it is not aligned with any recognised preventive or punitive purpose. 
  • As of December 31, 2023: Over 1.59 lakh people declared foreigners. Only 39 deported since 2017 (26 till 2023; 13 more recently). A vast majority cannot be deported — they are stateless in effect. 

2. Violation of Article 21 and Judicial Supremacy: 

  • Principles of Detention under Indian Law: It is ordinarily permitted on conviction by a court, pending trial (judicial custody) or under limited preventive detention, with safeguards (Article 22). 
  • Current Regime in Assam Violates These Norms: Detention is not based on court orders or judicial sentencing.  There is no legitimate aim such as deportation, trial, or punishment. 

3. Executive Overreach and Erosion of Rule of Law: 

  • Undermining Judicial Oversight: Courts have traditionally controlled the deprivation of liberty, executive-directed detentions without effective court supervision violate this balance. 
  • Lack of Due Process: Procedural fairness ignored in NRC-related adjudications. Individuals declared foreigners by Foreigners Tribunals — quasi-judicial bodies often lacking transparency. 

4. Fundamental Constitutional Questions: 

  • Nature of Citizenship and Statelessness: Many detainees are de facto stateless — no country accepts them. 
  • Judicial Role and Independence: If the power to detain shifts away from courts, the judiciary’s role is eroded. 
  • Threat to Constitutional Governance: Arbitrary detentions without judicial justification undermine Article 21 and the principle of limited government. 

Comparative Constitutional Jurisprudence in this context

  • India: Rajubala Das v. Union of India (2020):  Challenge to arbitrary and indefinite detention of declared foreigners. The Supreme Court has not yet decisively settled the constitutional limits on such detentions. 
  • Australia: In NZYQ v. Minister (2023), the High Court ruled: Indefinite detention without realistic prospect of deportation is unconstitutional. It also emphasised judicial oversight and legitimate purpose as essential for detention. 

Conclusion: Need for legal and institutional reform

  • Detention must serve a legitimate purpose and follow due process. The regime in Assam represents a constitutional aberration, it violates Articles 21 and 22 and disrupts the balance between liberty and state power. 
  • There is an urgent need for clear legal standards, stronger judicial oversight, and protection of the rights of individuals caught in the citizenship net.

Right to Digital Access part of Article 21: SC 

Context: In a recent judgement, the Supreme Court has held that inclusive and meaningful digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery systems is a part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Right to Digital Access.

Mains: Inclusive Development: Challenges and Government Initiatives. 

image

Background: A two-judge SC bench was hearing a petition on how people with disability find it nearly impossible to successfully complete the digital Know Your Customer (KYC) processes, which include visual tasks.

Right to Digital Access

The Supreme Court held that: 

  • Right to Digital Access emerges as an instinctive component of the Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • Invoking the ‘principle of substantive equality’, the SC held that digital transformation must be both inclusive and equitable. 
  • Since many welfare schemes and government services are provided through online platforms, bridging the digital divide has become a necessity to ensure a dignified life.
  • The state has an obligation to provide an inclusive digital ecosystem to the marginalised, underprivileged, vulnerable, disabled, and historically excluded sections of society. 

The SC issued directions to the government to improve the KYC processes, to make them more accessible. 

Bridging the Digital Divide

The Supreme Court held that: 

  • Digital divide, characterised by unequal access to digital infrastructure, skills and content, continues to perpetuate systematic exclusion not only of persons with disabilities but also of large sections of rural populations, senior citizens, economically weaker communities and linguistic minorities.  
  • Hence, the state should proactively design and implement inclusive digital ecosystems to serve not only the privileged, but also the marginalised. 

The ruling emphasises the need for alternative identification methods in KYC processes for persons with disabilities. It highlights systemic exclusion faced by marginalised groups due to the digital divide. Hence, the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution must be re-interpreted in light of changing technological realities. 

Govt plans new Aadhaar law to align with DPDP Act

Context: The government is considering amendments to the Aadhaar Act to align it with the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023.

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023. 

Why is a new law Needed?

  • Original Aadhaar Act (2016): It was enacted in a pre-horizontal-privacy regime, so it focused on identity authentication and welfare delivery and lacked a comprehensive data protection framework.
  • Horizontal Privacy Law: The DPDP Act, 2023 introduces uniform privacy standards across all sectors, public & private. It provides penalties for data breaches, consent-based data processing, and data fiduciary responsibilities.

Implications of revised Aadhaar Law

  • Alignment with DPDP Principles:
    • It will ensure consent-based usage of Aadhaar data by incorporating data minimisation, purpose limitation, and storage limitation norms. E.g., As per the Aadhaar Act consent is required for enrollment and authentication. But in practice, Aadhaar is often mandatorily demanded for services like bank accounts, school admissions or SIM cards, even when it is supposed to be optional. 
    • Under the DPDP Act, consent must be free, specific, informed and unambiguous. So, if agencies force people to use Aadhaar for identification, it can be violative of the DPDP Act’s consent framework, thus increasing individual control over data.
  • Enhance User Rights: Right to access, correct, and erase Aadhaar-related data and Grievance Redressal Mechanisms shall be further aligned with the DPDP Act.
  • Enhance User-Centricity: The revised law will make life easier for citizens by focusing on reducing repeated consent/authentication hassles and prioritising user convenience and control.
  • Security & Accountability: It has clear provisions for data fiduciaries, especially in the Aadhaar ecosystem (e.g., banks, telecom, welfare agencies) and stronger mechanisms to prevent data leaks or misuse.
  • Data Minimisation: DPDP Act emphasises collecting only necessary data. However, Aadhaar collects sensitive biometric data by default, which might not always be necessary for the service being provided.
  • Resolve conflict between Aadhar Act and DPDP Act: Under the Aadhaar Act, data collected can only be used for authentication and for purposes notified by the government. However, under the DPDP Act, personal data should only be used for the specific purpose for which consent was given. Thus, a conflict arises with the DPDP Act, if Aadhaar data is reused for other purposes like profiling or surveillance without fresh consent.
  • Right to Erasure: Conflict between the two also arises with regard to the right to erasure and correction. The DPDP Act gives people the right to correct or erase their data. The Aadhaar Act, on the other hand, allows for limited correction, like updating address or phone number, but not deletion of core biometric data. So, Aadhaar does not support full data erasure, which clashes with DPDP rights. 

Thus, the proposed revision will remove the conflicts between the two laws and further harmonise them.

X Corp challenges Content Blocking Order by Government

Context: X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc.) has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Indian government’s content takedown process under the IT Act 2000. 

The company has argued that the government is unlawfully using Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000  along with the Sahyog Portal to create a censorship mechanism that bypasses legal safeguards.

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act; Sahyog Portal. 

image 91

Grounds of Dispute:

(i)  Misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act

  • X Corp contends that the government is misinterpreting Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders that do not follow the required legal procedures.
  • As per the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) ruling by the Supreme Court, Section 69A is the only valid legal mechanism for content blocking. Section 69A includes safeguards, such as:
    • Requirement to record reasons in writing.
    • A pre-decisional hearing to allow affected parties to present their case.
    • Judicial review to challenge blocking orders.
  • Section 79(3)(b), however, lacks these procedural safeguards, making its use for blocking unlawful.
  • The petition states that: “In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A as an information blocking power only because it is ‘a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards’... These safeguards and requirements do not exist in Section 79(3)(b), unlike Section 69A.”

Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act:  

  • Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 provides a "safe harbor" provision for intermediaries like social media platforms, search engines, and internet service providers. This means that these intermediaries cannot be held legally liable for third-party content posted on their platforms, provided they comply with certain conditions. 
  • However, in practice, Section 79(3)(b) erects a blocking process separate from Section 69A with a much lower threshold for issuing takedown notices, and grants power to a much larger swathe of ministries, departments, and law enforcement agencies.

Clause 3(b) of Section 79:

  • Clause 3(b) of Section 79 states that intermediaries lose their immunity from liability, if they fail to remove or disable access to content that has been flagged as illegal or unlawful, after receiving actual knowledge from the government or a court order.
  • The key phrase here is "expeditiously remove or disable access to material used to commit an unlawful act, upon receiving actual knowledge from the government or a court order."
  • The government is interpreting this clause as giving it the authority to issue content takedown orders, even though the IT Act has a separate provision (Section 69A) specifically meant for blocking online content.
  • However, X Corp argues that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant direct censorship powers to the government, unlike Section 69A, which has specific legal safeguards.

(ii) Problems with Sahyog Portal:

  • The Sahyog Portal, managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), allows state police and government departments to directly issue takedown requests.
  • However, X Corp argues that:
    • The portal creates a parallel censorship system that circumvents Section 69A’s safeguards.
    • Thousands of government officials can issue takedown requests without transparency or oversight. This violates due process and enables arbitrary censorship.
  • The government has been pressuring social media platforms to integrate with Sahyog, particularly for reporting Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM) to local authorities.
  • X Corp has challenged the government’s demand to appoint a Nodal Officer for Sahyog compliance, arguing that the mandate lacks legal validity.

About ‘Sahyog’ Portal: 

  • It is an online portal developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the Appropriate Government or its agency under IT Act, 2000, to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act. 
  • It will bring together all Authorised Agencies of the country and all the intermediaries on one platform for ensuring immediate action against the unlawful online information. This portal will help achieve a clean cyber space for the Citizens of India.

What is X Corp Seeking?

X Corp’s petition seeks judicial intervention to-

  • Declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not authorise content blocking: The section is intended as a liability exemption for intermediaries, not a tool for government censorship.
  • Invalidate all takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b): These orders lack the procedural safeguards mandated by Section 69A and the Shreya Singhal ruling.
  • Restrict enforcement of Sahyog Portal orders: Until the court reaches a final decision, orders issued through Sahyog should not be enforced.
  • Reaffirm Section 69A as the sole legal framework for content blocking: Ensuring that government actions comply with established judicial precedents.

Implications of misuse of Section 79(3)(b)

  • Violation of Fundamental Rights: The government’s actions infringe on Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech & Expression).
  • Expansion of executive power: The use of Sahyog Portal and Section 79(3)(b) suggests an attempt to expand government control over digital platforms.
  • Global implications: This case sets a precedent for international social media platforms operating in India. It shall raise questions about legal consistency, platform liability, and free speech protections in the digital era.

This case will have major implications for digital governance, intermediary liability, and free speech in India. If X Corp wins, it could limit the government’s ability to bypass Section 69A safeguards, and if the government prevails, it might strengthen regulatory oversight over social media leading to greater censorship concerns.

India ranks 24th in Free Speech Survey

Context: A new global survey by the Future of Free Speech, an independent U.S.-based think tank, has ranked India 24th out of the 33 countries surveyed on the question of support for free speech.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: India’s ranking in global surveys.

Mains: Free Speech in India

image 76

Key Findings of the Report

1. Global Rankings:

  • Top Performers: Scandinavian nations led the rankings with Norway (87.9) and Denmark (87.0) securing the highest scores.
  • Biggest Improvements: Indonesia (56.8), Malaysia (55.4), and Pakistan (57.0) showed the most improvement but still ranked lower.
  • Democratic nations like the United States, Israel, and Japan experienced some of the biggest drops. Since 2021, more countries have witnessed a decline rather than an improvement in free speech support.

2. India’s Position in the Survey: 

  • India ranked 24th with a score of 62.6, positioned between South Africa (66.9) and Lebanon (61.8).
  • Public perception: While most Indians value free speech without government censorship, support for criticising government policies is below the global average.
image 77

Challenges to Free Speech in India: 

  • Legal and political restrictions:
    • India’s sedition law (Section 124A of the IPC) has been used to suppress political dissent.
    • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) has been criticised for targeting journalists, activists, and opposition voices.
    • IT Rules 2021 give the government broad powers to regulate social media and digital content, leading to censorship concerns.
  • Rise in self-censorship: Fear of legal repercussions and online harassment discourages open expression. Media houses and journalists often face political and economic pressures, leading to biased reporting or avoidance of critical issues.
  • Selective tolerance for free speech: While free speech is widely supported in principle, it is often opposed when it contradicts political beliefs or religious sentiments. E.g., Arrests of activists, journalists, stand-up comedians highlight inconsistent application of free speech rights.

Way Forward

  • Amending outdated laws like sedition laws and UAPA provisions that suppress dissent.
  • Strengthening judicial oversight to prevent misuse of laws against activists and journalists.
  • Educational institutions and media should encourage free discussion on diverse perspectives.
  • Political parties should commit to respecting free speech rights across ideological lines.
  • Strengthening laws that protect journalists from government pressure and corporate influence. Ensuring that social media regulations do not lead to arbitrary censorship.
  • Encouraging fact-based discussions on government policies and political discourse.

IT Bill proposes Government Override of Online Access Codes

Context: The proposed Income Tax Bill, 2025 has raised privacy concerns among digital rights activists and many tax consultancy firms — since the bill allows the government to break open, or override access controls, such as passwords, set up by users for their digital communication on social media platforms, email services, and possibly even communication on encrypted platforms such as WhatsApp. 

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Government Override Powers in the Proposed IT Bill; Virtual Digital Space.

Mains: GS II : Privacy vs. state surveillance; role of judiciary in safeguarding rights.

GS III : Cybersecurity challenges, ethical governance in tech policies.

Essay/Ethics : Balancing security and liberty; ethics of mass data collection.

Government Override Powers in the Proposed IT Bill

  • Empowers authorities to access virtual digital environments during search and seizure operations.
  • Allows government agencies to bypass encryption/access codes of computer systems, or virtual digital spaces. 
  • Mandates tech companies to provide decrypted data or backdoor access upon request. E.g., WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption for national security, law enforcement, or public order.
  • Scope: Applies to social media platforms, messaging apps, and internet service providers.
  • Legal Framework: Proposed as an amendment to the IT Act, 2000, replacing older provisions on data interception.  

Key Changes in Search and Seizure Provisions: 

ProvisionsExisting Income Tax ActProposed Income Tax Bill 2025
Power to enter premises & searchPresentRetained 
Forcibly opening physical locksPresent Retained
Overriding digital access codes (passwords, encryption)Not present New addition 
Access to virtual digital spaces Limited Expanded definition included

Definition of "Virtual Digital Space" in the Bill

The proposed bill defines Virtual Digital Space as a digital environment created and experienced using computer technology. It includes:

  • Email servers
  • Social media accounts (Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
  • Online investment/trading/banking accounts
  • Websites storing asset ownership details
  • Remote/cloud servers
  • Digital application platforms

Arguments in Favour of the Amendment: 

  • Helps curb tax evasion by accessing hidden financial records. 
  • Digital transactions are increasing; thus, tax authorities require updated investigative tools. 
  • Aligns with global best practices in tax enforcement.

Privacy Concerns Highlighted: 

  • Mass Surveillance Risks: Potential misuse for unauthorised surveillance, undermining citizens’ Right to Privacy (Article 21, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India  judgment, 2017).  
  • Encryption Weakness: Backdoors could expose systems to hackers and foreign adversaries.  
  • Chilling Effect: Fear of surveillance may deter free speech and dissent.  
  • Global Precedents: Critics cite concerns similar to the 2016 Apple-FBI dispute in the U.S. and the EU’s strict GDPR norms.  

Way Forward Suggestions:

  • Judicial Oversight: Require court-approved warrants for decryption requests
  • Transparency:  Publish annual reports on interception requests
  • Multi-stakeholder Dialogue: Involve tech experts, civil society, and lawmakers to refine the bill
  • Balanced Approach: Align with international best practices (E.g., UK’s Investigatory Powers Act with oversight bodies)

While the Income Tax Bill, 2025, aims to modernise tax enforcement, the inclusion of overriding access codes to digital spaces has sparked concerns over privacy and digital rights. Balancing tax compliance and privacy rights will be crucial in the legislative process. 

What has SC previously ruled on Gag Orders?

Context: The Supreme Court has recently granted protection from arrest to Youtuber Ranveer Allahabadia with certain stringent conditions. In this context, let us understand the legal precedents and their implications on freedom of Speech and expression in India.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Right to Free Speech (Article 19) Concerns and the Current Gag Order. 

About the Supreme Court’s Interim Protection Order

  • The Supreme Court has granted interim protection from arrest to Ranveer Allahbadia, in relation to multiple FIRs filed against him regarding remarks made on his YouTube show, “India Got Latent.”
  • However, it imposed severe restrictions on Allahbadia and his associates, which included:
    • A complete ban on posting any content on social media until further notice.
    • A directive to surrender his passport to the police, restricting his travel.
  • This decision appears to contradict previous Supreme Court rulings that have consistently held that while granting interim relief, courts should not impose unduly harsh restrictions that curtail fundamental rights, particularly relating to personal liberty.
  • The restrictions i.e., ban on social media activity, has raised concerns regarding freedom of expression and prior restraint.

Legal Precedents on Multiple FIRs

  • Parteek Bansal vs. State of Rajasthan (2022): The Supreme Court held that filing multiple FIRs for the same offence constitutes misuse of state machinery and can lead to undue harassment of the accused.
  • In the same year, a bench led by Justice L. Nageswara Rao suggested the creation of a centralised judicial body, similar to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, to handle such cases more efficiently.
  • These rulings indicate that repeated FIRs on the same issue should be avoided to prevent legal harassment.

Legal Principles governing Interim Relief in Criminal Cases

  • There is no specific statutory provision that governs the conditions imposed while granting interim relief (such as bail or protection from arrest). Instead, it is based on judicial discretion.
  • Courts generally evaluate three key factors before granting interim relief:
    • Flight risk: Whether the accused is likely to abscond and evade the legal process. If there is a high risk, stricter conditions (like passport surrender) may be imposed.
    • Threat to witnesses: If the court believes that the accused may intimidate witnesses or influence testimonies, it may deny bail or impose conditions preventing contact with witnesses.
    • Tampering with evidence: If there is a possibility that the accused might destroy or manipulate evidence, courts may impose restrictions such as prohibiting communication with certain individuals.

Common Bail Conditions imposed by Courts

  • Surrender of passport to prevent the accused from leaving the country.
  • Setting a high bail bond amount to ensure compliance with court proceedings.
  • Regular appearances before the investigating officer to show cooperation with the investigation.

Supreme Court’s stance on Stringent Bail Conditions in the Past: 

  • Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2022): Supreme Court ruled that bail conditions should not be unreasonable or impossible to comply with, as they would defeat the very purpose of granting bail.
  • Frank Vitus vs. NCB (2024):  Supreme Court struck down a condition requiring the accused to share their Google Maps location PIN with authorities, holding that it violated the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.
  • The ruling made it clear that law enforcement cannot impose arbitrary conditions that amount to constant surveillance.

Free Speech Concerns and the Current Gag Order

  • One of the most controversial conditions imposed on Allahbadia is the prohibition on airing any content on YouTube or other online platforms until further orders.
  • This restriction amounts to a "gag order," which falls under the legal principle of "prior restraint"—where the state prevents speech before it occurs.
  • Indian courts have consistently ruled against prior restraint unless under exceptional circumstances.

Supreme Court precedents on Gag Orders and Free Speech

  • Rehana Fathima case (2021): The Supreme Court overturned a Kerala High Court order that prohibited activist Rehana Fathima from posting her views on social media, citing free speech concerns.
  • Mohammed Zubair’s bail case (2021): The Uttar Pradesh government sought to ban Alt News co-founder Mohammed Zubair from tweeting while he was out on bail.
    • A Supreme Court bench led by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud rejected the request, holding that such restrictions would create a "chilling effect" on free speech.
    • The court also ruled that since Zubair’s profession required him to engage on social media, the restriction was an unjustified violation of his right to practice his profession.

In the current case, the condition placed on Allahbadia raises similar concerns, as it severely restricts his professional activities and sets a troubling precedent for the right to free speech in India.

Key Takeaways and Implications of the Case

  • The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim relief was accompanied by restrictive conditions, which has raised concerns about personal liberty and freedom of expression.
  • The gag order on Allahbadia appears to contradict established legal precedents that have upheld the right to free speech (Article 19) and the dangers of prior restraint.
  • The issue of multiple FIRs being filed in different states highlights the need for judicial reform (creation of a body similar to the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation) to prevent misuse of legal provisions for harassment.
  • Bail conditions must be proportionate and reasonable, as imposing excessively strict restrictions can violate fundamental rights.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for future cases involving online speech and judicial discretion in granting bail and interim relief. 

RTI is now the ‘Right to Deny Information’

Context: The Right to Information Act was introduced as a bulwark against corruption and non-transparent functioning of government and its agencies. However, over the period, the Act has been weakened by the government and judicial interpretations. 

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Right to Information Act, 2005: Significance and Challenges.  

RTI as a Tool for Empowerment

  • The Right to Information Act, 2005, was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in governance.
  • It recognises that citizens are the true rulers in a democracy and gives them the power to seek information from government institutions. The RTI Act is considered one of the most progressive transparency laws in the world.
  • The Act was legislated with the intention to curb corruption, reduce bureaucratic discretion, and ensure participatory governance.
    • For example: The RTI Act helped expose corruption in the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal block allocations (2010-12), leading to many prosecutions and policy reforms.

Challenges facing the RTI Act

Despite initial success, the RTI Act has faced multiple issues—administrative, judicial, and legislative, which has led to its dilution.

1. Government and Administrative Challenges:

  • Within a year of its enactment, the government attempted to amend the RTI Act to restrict access to certain categories of information. Widespread public protests forced the government to withdraw the amendments. 
  • However, successive governments have continued efforts to weaken the law through administrative means. E.g., In 2019, the RTI (Amendment) Act was passed, which: 
    • Weakened the independence of Information Commissioners (ICs) by allowing the government to determine their tenure and salaries.
    • Increased bureaucratic control over the appointment process.

2. Delays in Appointing Information Commissioners: 

  • The State and Central Information Commissions (ICs) are the final appellate bodies under the RTI Act.
  • Many ICs function with fewer members than sanctioned, causing severe case backlogs.
    • Example: In 2023, the Central Information Commission (CIC) had over 30,000 pending cases due to delays in appointments.
    • State ICs like Maharashtra and Karnataka had similar backlogs due to vacant posts.

3. Post-Retirement Benefits:

  • Many RTI commissioners are retired bureaucrats who see their roles as post-retirement sinecures.
  • Unlike High Court judges, who dispose of over 2,500 cases a year, RTI commissioners handle far fewer cases.
  • Some commissioners work only a few hours a day, delaying information access.

4. Judicial Setbacks to the Act: Shift from Transparency to Secrecy: 

  • Supreme Court’s shift in stance: Courts have upheld RTI as a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a).
  • However, in CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay (2011), the Supreme Court stated that:
    • RTI should not be used indiscriminately as it could burden the administration.
    • Excessive RTI requests could hamper efficiency and national development.
    • RTI should not become a tool of oppression or intimidation against honest officials.
  • This led to concerns like:
    • The judgment framed RTI users as troublemakers, creating a negative perception of transparency activists.
    • Government officials began using this judgment to deny information, citing "burden on administration." Example: Initially, several RTI requests regarding electoral bonds and the PM-CARES Fund were denied using this justification.

5. Expansion of ‘Personal Information’ Exemption:

(Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs CIC, 2012)

  • In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that:
    • Information related to public servants' assets, memos, and disciplinary actions could be exempted as personal information.
    • The test of public interest was ignored, even though the RTI Act allows disclosure if public interest justifies it.
    • This created a precedent for denying crucial information under Section 8(1)(j) (privacy exemption). Example:
      • RTI requests for civil servants' property declarations, corruption complaints, and tax returns of public officials were denied using this judgment.
      • Even cases of proven corruption in public service were shielded from scrutiny.

6. Weakening of RTI Through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA), 2023: 

  • The DPDPA, 2023, amended the RTI Act by removing the public interest clause from Section 8(1)(j).
  • This means any information classified as ‘personal data’ can now be denied outright. This goes against the original intent of the RTI Act, which balanced privacy with transparency.

The impact of the above issues is that the citizens seeking information face delays of over a year, making RTI ineffective for timely decision-making.

Implications of dilution of RTI Act

  • Decline in Whistleblower Protection
    • Over 100 RTI activists have been attacked or killed for exposing corruption.
    • Weakening RTI endangers activists by reducing public accountability.
      • Example: RTI activists like Satish Shetty (Maharashtra), Amit Jethwa (Gujarat), and Lalit Mehta (Jharkhand) were killed for exposing corruption in land and mining projects.
  • RTI is Being Converted into "Right to Deny Information (RDI)"
    • The cumulative effect of government inaction, judicial decisions, and legislative amendments has led to a decline in RTI’s effectiveness.

Way Forward to Strengthen RTI Act

Institutional Reforms:

  • Mandatory timelines for case disposal: Like courts, RTI commissions should have fixed deadlines for hearing appeals.
  • Transparent and merit-based selection: Information Commissioners should include civil society members, transparency activists, and legal experts.

Judicial review and reforms:

  • Review of adverse court rulings: Parliament must amend the RTI Act to restore the public interest clause in privacy exemptions.
  • Protection for whistleblowers: The Whistleblower Protection Act (2014) must be fully implemented.

Citizen and media mobilisation:

  • Civil society and the media must actively defend the RTI Act from further dilution.
  • Public awareness campaigns to help citizens understand their rights under RTI.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court in multiple judgments (Raj Narain Case, 1975) has upheld the Right to Information as a part of freedom of speech and expression. Democracy thrives on informed citizens and restricting RTI weakens public participation. 

SC: Failure to inform grounds of Arrest will make it illegal

Context: The Supreme Court has recently (Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana) said that if the grounds of arrest are not informed as soon as may be after the arrest, it would amount to a violation of the fundamental right of the arrestee guaranteed under Article 22(1). It will also amount to depriving the arrestee of his liberty.

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Article 22. 

image 58

Article 22 of Indian Constitution

  • It provides protection against arrest and detention in certain cases.
  • Article 22(1) states that:  No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

Key points from the Judgement

The Supreme Court has ruled that failure to inform an arrested person of the grounds of arrest violates Article 22(1) of the Constitution, and will render the arrest illegal. 

The safeguard provided under Article 22(1) ensures the right to liberty under Article 21 as no person can be deprived of liberty except through due process, which involves:

  • Mandatory communication of grounds of arrest:
    • Grounds of arrest must be clearly communicated in a language the accused understands.
    • A written communication is recommended (as per the Pankaj Bansal case) to avoid legal disputes.
    • Informing only in the remand report does not satisfy constitutional requirements.
  • Informing relatives/nominated persons:
    • As per Section 50A of CrPC, the accused’s relatives or nominated persons must also be informed promptly.
    • This ensures timely legal assistance to secure bail or legal representation.
  • Judicial scrutiny of arrests:
    • When presented before a Judicial Magistrate for remand, the magistrate must ensure compliance with Article 22(1).
    • Failure to do so invalidates the remand and continued custody of the accused.
  • Burden of proof on Police:
    • If non-compliance is alleged, the Investigating Officer/Agency must prove adherence to Article 22(1).
    • Filing a charge sheet or order of cognizance cannot validate an unconstitutional arrest.
  • Bail and immediate release:
    • Courts must order the release of an accused if a violation of Article 22(1) is established.
    • Even if statutory restrictions on bail exist, Article 21 takes precedence in such cases.

The above ruling reinforces that Article 22(1) is a fundamental right, not a mere procedural requirement. The judgment upholds the right to liberty and dignity, emphasising the constitutional obligation of law enforcement and the judiciary to protect individual freedoms.

Salient Features of Uniform Civil Code Introduced in Uttarakhand

Context: On 27th of January 2025, Uttarakhand has officially rolled out the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) for all residents of the State, except the Scheduled Tribes and natives who have migrated out of the State. With this, Uttarakhand has become the first Indian State to implement the UCC post-Independence.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about Uniform Civil Code (UCC).

About Uniform Civil Code: 

  • A Uniform Civil Code refers to a common civil code or common system of personal laws applicable to all irrespective of religion. 
  • Matters under personal laws include marriage, divorce, maintenance, inheritance, adoption, and succession of the property.
image 149

Constitutional provision for Uniform Civil Code

  • Article 44 of the Indian constitution embodies the Indian State to provide for a uniform civil code for its citizens.
  • Also, the state of Uttarakhand has enacted the UCC under the legislative powers of concurrent list having subjects of marriage, adoption and succession.

Salient features of UCC of Uttarakhand:

  • Encompasses common provisions for marriage, divorce, inheritance, live-in-relationship, etc. for citizens of all communities. 
  • NOTE: Schedule tribes have been excluded from the provisions applicability.
  • Marriage and Divorce
  • Ceremonies of Marriage: Marriage can be done by any religious or other ceremonies under Special Marriage Act.
    • Compulsory Registration of Marriage: All marriages need to be registered within 60 days of ceremony failing which there is a monetary fine of Rs 20,000. However, the marriage will not be annulled for failing to register the marriage.
    • Common age of marriage for all communities (18 for women and 21 for men).
    • Bigamy and polygamy have been banned. 
    • Right to remarry following a divorce. So, it indirectly bans certain marriage practices like Iddat and Nikah Halala. Forceful adherence to these activities has been criminalized.
    • Provides for gender equality in matters of divorce.
    • Custody of a child up to 5 years of age will remain with the mother following a divorce.
  • Inheritance and Succession
    • Influenced by Indian Succession Act, 1925
    • Allows Muslim communities to transfer any amount of property according to their will and not just one-third as currently followed under their religious texts.
    • No difference between ancestral property and self-acquired property for intestate succession for Hindus. Note:   
    • No difference between ancestral property and self-acquired property for intestate succession for Hindus.
Succession
Inte-state succession: Succession through a willTestamentary Succession: Succession in the absence of a will
  • Defines a list of class of heirs to the property and its inheritance.
Class-1 heirsClass-2 heirsOthers
Children, widow, parents, etc.Siblings, nieces, nephews, grandparents, etc.Anyone most closely related to the deceased person
  • Elevates both mother and father as class-1 heir in case of intestate succession, which till now included only the mother.
  • Equal property rights for sons and daughters across all classes.
  • Contains provision for disqualification from inheritance in cases of murder or remarriage before the death of the person.
  • Note: Disease or deformity of heir is not a ground for disqualification.
  • Note: Adopted children, illegitimate children, children born through surrogacy and children born through assisted reproductive technology are all considered to be biological children.
  • Live-in relationship
    • Defines the live-in relationship explicitly ‘as a relationship between a man and a woman (partners), who cohabit in a shared relationship in the mature of marriage.
    • Makes registration of live-in relationship mandatory, failing which can lead to a jail term of up to three months.
    • Termination of relationship also requires the couple to notify to the authority, failure of which can be penalized.
    • Provides woman with right to claim maintenance when deserted by their live-in partner.
    • This provision is applicable to all those living in Uttarakhand as well as residents of Uttarakhand living elsewhere in India.

Issues/Concerns/Criticisms of Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code:

  • Not comprehensive: The UCC code excludes the tribals from its ambit of application. Thus, a wide population will be free to follow its own customs for marriage, succession and inheritance.
  • Invalidates homosexual live-in relations: Live-in relationship provision recognizes only the heterosexual relationship, thus violating the judicial order in Navtej Singh Johar case.
  • Lack of synergy: The UCC keeps minimum age of marriage for women at 18 years only. But, Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021 at Union level seeks to raise the age of marriage for women to 21. Thus, highlighting a conflict between the two.
  • Violates fundamental rights: Some critics see it as impinging upon the right to freedom of religion of Muslim communities.
  • Invasion of individual autonomy and privacy: Mandatory registration of live-in relationship and provision for informing the parents in case either partner is less than 21 years of age seem to be violating Supreme Court’s judgement on freedom to choose life partner (Joseph Shine Case).
  • Removal of distinction between separate and coparcenary joint family property: It may so happen that now the entire property gets willed away to sons excluding females from the guarantee of inheriting property. Thus, reinforcing patriarchy.
  • Class 1 heir now includes intestate’s father: Now, the mother would get half of what she would have got under Hindu Succession Amendment Act,2005. Thus, reducing mother’s share.
  • Inappropriate criteria of disqualification: A widow or widower of any predeceased relative of an intestate loses the right to inherit it s/he remarries.
  • For a Christian Women, who would have received half the intestate’s property will get less under the UCC since, the property will be shared equally with children.
  • Lack of ‘uniformity’: If every state were to enact their separate UCCs then there will 28 different UCCs which contradicts the claim of uniformity.

Conclusion:

In this regard, it will be important to see the wider implications of this new UCC. Going forward, this code can serve as a learning benchmark for future laws in this aspect, most importantly being the national level UCC which has been seen imminent by Supreme Court in Shah Bano case.

Trending now

State of India’s Environment 2026: Rising Climate Risks and the Need for Resilience
Karnataka Announces Ban on Social Media for Children Under-16
India–France “Special Global Strategic Partnership”: A New Indo-Pacific Anchor
Front-of-Package Labelling: A Preventive Strategy to Address India’s Rising Lifestyle Diseases