Friday, August 7

Know The Law

India’s Constitution implies separation of powers and Article 50 urges separating the judiciary from the executive. The system uses judicial review, writs, Article 142, impeachment and appointments to maintain checks and balances. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025), the Supreme Court set timelines for governors, rejected “pocket vetoes,” and used Article 142 to deem pending bills assented. The Advocates (Amendment) Bill 2025 was withdrawn after protests over Bar Council autonomy. An ICJ report flagged appointment and transparency issues. Calls continue for clearer rules and reforms to balance judicial independence and accountability

Read More

India’s debate on a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) centres on balancing religious freedom with legal equality. Articles 25–26 protect religious practices, while Article 44 encourages uniform civil laws. Personal laws govern marriage, inheritance, and more, but can conflict with equality under Article 14, especially regarding gender rights. Supporters say a UCC promotes gender justice, legal uniformity, and secularism. Opponents fear erosion of religious autonomy and cultural diversity. Courts back reform but urge sensitivity and gradual change. Scholars recommend an inclusive, phased approach that respects pluralism while advancing equality, reflecting India’s unique constitutional and social fabric.

Waqf assets are inalienable Islamic endowments used for religious and social services; India has over 870,000 registered waqf properties. The 2025 Waqf (Amendment) Act is challenged in a consolidated Supreme Court petition (W.P.(C) No.269/2025) led by Asaduddin Owaisi. Petitioners seek a stay on denotifying waqf-by-user lands, non-Muslim board appointments, and collectors’ powers. The Court proposed interim measures to protect existing waqfs, allow investigations without changing status, and permit limited non-Muslim membership. The dispute raises constitutional issues on religious autonomy, equality, federalism and minority rights, with calls for safeguards and transparency.

In Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that when a High Court refuses to quash an FIR, it cannot indirectly protect the accused from arrest by directing the police to follow procedures like notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (earlier Section 41A CrPC) without proper reasons. The Court said such relief can be granted only after considering the merits and hearing the complainant. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it set aside the High Court’s order and sent the case back for fresh consideration.