Supreme Court Strikes Down Electoral Bonds Scheme
- Why in News: The Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional, striking down amendments that allowed anonymous political donations. The ruling has significant implications for electoral transparency and political funding.
- Background: The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced in 2018, was designed to enable political parties to receive donations from individuals and entities anonymously. However, critics argued that it facilitated unaccountable corporate and foreign influence in Indian politics, leading to a lack of transparency in funding.
- Observations: The Supreme Court found the scheme violated Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Information), as it undermined transparency by allowing undisclosed funding from corporations and foreign entities. The Court directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to disclose all details of bonds sold and encashed since 2019 and ordered the Election Commission to make these records public.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The ruling nullified amendments to laws like the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Companies Act, 2013, and Income Tax Act, 1961, restoring previous disclosure norms, which required political parties to declare donations exceeding ₹20,000.
Supreme Court Reviews Sedition Law
- Why in News: The Supreme Court has commenced hearings on the validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes sedition, amid increasing concerns over its misuse.
- Background: Section 124A has been criticized for being overly broad and vague, often used to stifle dissent and suppress free speech. It was introduced during British rule in 1870 and has since been applied to suppress political opposition, target journalists, and prosecute activists. Despite a 1962 Supreme Court judgment in the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar case, limiting its application, critics argue that it remains misused.
- Observations: The challenge argues that sedition law infringes on Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression). The Union Government defends the law, stating its necessity for national security.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The court will review the Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) ruling, which upheld sedition law but imposed limits on its application, as well as the potential implications for free speech protections.
Delhi High Court Declares Internet Shutdowns Unconstitutional
- Why in News: The Delhi High Court declared that recent internet shutdowns imposed in parts of the National Capital Region (NCR) violated citizens’ fundamental rights.
- Background: The government had imposed internet shutdowns without clear public justification, primarily in response to protests and unrest. The Delhi High Court ruled these shutdowns unconstitutional, reinforcing that internet access is a fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
- Observations: The Court emphasized that government-imposed restrictions must pass the tests of necessity and proportionality, as outlined in the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) Supreme Court judgment. It stated that arbitrary digital blackouts violate citizens’ rights to access information, education, and economic opportunities.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The case references the Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) Supreme Court ruling, which established the right to internet access as a fundamental right.
Data Protection Board Issues First Order Under DPDP Act, 2023
- Why in News: The Data Protection Board of India issued its first ruling under the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, imposing a penalty on a tech company for processing personal data without user consent.
- Background: The DPDP Act, 2023, mandates that companies must obtain explicit consent from users before collecting or processing personal data. This is part of India’s effort to strengthen data protection laws, ensuring greater privacy for citizens.
- Observations: The ruling sets a precedent for digital privacy enforcement in India, as it enforces stricter data protection regulations on companies operating in India. The company in question was penalized for violating the provisions of the DPDP Act and ordered to implement corrective measures.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The ruling marks the first major action under the DPDP Act, 2023, signaling a significant shift toward consumer data protection. Penalties under the act can reach up to ₹250 crore per violation.
Bombay High Court Bans Coal-Fired Tandoors in Mumbai
- Why in News: The Bombay High Court has mandated a ban on coal-fired tandoors in Mumbai due to their contribution to air pollution.
- Background: Coal-fired tandoors are widely used in eateries across Mumbai, contributing to significant air pollution. The court’s ruling aligns with India’s broader environmental goals, including reducing carbon emissions and adhering to the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.
- Observations: The court ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to enforce the ban and ensure that businesses switch to cleaner energy alternatives. It emphasized that such cooking methods are harmful to both public health and the environment.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: This decision aligns with India’s environmental regulations and sustainable development goals, as well as India’s commitment to reducing emissions and enforcing pollution control measures.
Supreme Court Considers Implementation of Uniform Civil Code (UCC)
- Why in News: The Supreme Court is considering responses from the central and state governments regarding the feasibility of implementing a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) across India.
- Background: The UCC seeks to unify personal laws governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption across all religions in India. While Article 44 of the Constitution directs the state to strive towards a UCC, it remains a highly controversial topic, with concerns about violations of religious freedoms.
- Observations: Supporters of the UCC argue it would promote gender equality and eliminate discriminatory practices. Critics, particularly from religious communities, argue that it could infringe on religious freedoms. States like Uttarakhand are already introducing state-level UCCs.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The case is based on Article 44 of the Indian Constitution, which directs the state to work towards implementing a UCC, though there is ongoing debate regarding its impact on personal and religious freedoms.
Arbitration Law Strengthened: Supreme Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention
- Why in News: The Supreme Court of India has reinforced the doctrine of minimal judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings, crucial for enhancing India’s arbitration framework.
- Background: The Court’s ruling strengthens the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ensuring that courts should only intervene in arbitration awards when there is a clear violation of fundamental legal principles, such as fraud, bias, or procedural lapses.
- Observations: This ruling is expected to improve India’s position as a pro-arbitration jurisdiction, attracting more international commercial disputes and improving investor confidence in India’s legal framework.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The ruling builds on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and reinforces India’s commitment to an arbitration-friendly legal environment, limiting judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings.
US Supreme Court Strikes Down Social Media Regulation Laws
- Why in News: The US Supreme Court struck down social media regulation laws in Texas and Florida, which aimed to limit content moderation by platforms.
- Background: The laws were introduced to prevent social media companies from removing political content. However, they were challenged as unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment right to free speech. The Court ruled that forcing platforms to host all political speech interferes with private speech rights.
- Observations: The ruling emphasizes that social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have the right to moderate content and prevents governments from compelling platforms to publish specific viewpoints.
- Landmark Judgements/Legislation: The ruling is a significant interpretation of the First Amendment and has implications for global debates on digital rights and content moderation, especially in countries like India and the EU.
