Author: Venkatesh Murti

India’s elderly population has crossed 15 crore, but legal protections remain weak in practice. The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 promises support, yet poor awareness, vague provisions, and weak enforcement leave many without justice. Courts have pushed for faster case disposal and upheld elders’ rights under Article 21, but state action lags. Elder abuse remains widespread and often unreported, while digital legal systems exclude most seniors. Real reform requires stronger laws, accessible tribunals, better outreach, and adequate funding. Protecting elders is a constitutional duty, not charity.

The Supreme Court of India is hearing Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India, a key case on alleged government surveillance using Pegasus spyware. Pegasus can secretly access smartphones and was reportedly used to target journalists, politicians, and activists. Petitioners argue this violates privacy and free speech rights. The government denied wrongdoing, citing national security and existing surveillance laws. Finding its response inadequate, the Court set up an independent Technical Committee to investigate. The case raises questions on privacy, legality, and oversight, and its outcome will shape India’s digital rights and surveillance framework.

The Supreme Court of India has granted high courts a final eight-week extension to file compliance reports on providing adequate toilet facilities in courts and tribunals, reinforcing sanitation as part of the right to life under Article 21. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan warned that failure to comply will result in Registrar Generals being summoned personally.

This directive follows the Court’s January verdict highlighting critical gaps in judicial infrastructure. So far, only five high courts—Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Calcutta, Delhi, and Patna—have filed reports outlining audits and upgrades. The Court’s firm stance signals possible contempt proceedings for non-compliance, emphasizing accountability and the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring dignity and accessibility in court premises.

The Supreme Court has issued notice on Tamil Nadu’s plea challenging the Madras High Court’s interim stay on amendments that shifted the power to appoint Vice Chancellors from the Governor to the State Government. A bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan tagged the case with similar pending matters and allowed the State to seek early hearing. The amendments were challenged for allegedly conflicting with UGC Regulations, which vest appointment powers in the Chancellor. The case raises key questions on federal powers and university governance.

A Symbiosis law student from Kolkata was arrested in Gurgaon after posting a video on Instagram alleged to contain derogatory remarks against a religion. Though she deleted the video and issued an apology, she faces charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for promoting enmity and provoking breach of peace. The case raises key questions on the scope of free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and its limits under Article 19(2). Courts must now decide whether her statement amounts to hate speech or falls within protected expression, a ruling that could influence future free speech jurisprudence.

On May 28, 2025, a Special MP/MLA Court in Mumbai rejected a plea seeking cancellation of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s bail in a defamation case over his remarks on freedom fighter V.D. Savarkar. The plea, filed by Savarkar’s grandnephew, alleged Gandhi was delaying the trial. Judge Amol Shinde found no evidence of intentional delay and said strict action was not justified. The case, based on Gandhi’s 2023 speech in the UK, continues under Section 500 IPC for defamation, with proceedings to follow the summons format allowing wider evidence. The trial will continue as scheduled.