This article explains the constitutional rights, legal protections, and landmark Supreme Court judgments shaping transgender persons rights in India, while examining persistent social discrimination, welfare measures, and ongoing challenges faced by the transgender community.
A viral video has raised concerns over the safety of Amul Masti Dahi, alleging pouch-packed curd failed quality tests. Amul has denied the claims, citing FSSAI compliance, while the controversy highlights consumer food safety rights in India.
In 2026, India’s Supreme Court faces landmark cases on voter rights, personal liberty, pollution, and online speech. Key decisions this year could reshape how millions of citizens vote, speak, breathe, and experience justice in daily life.
As India’s apex court enters a pivotal year, 2026 will see hearings in a series of high-impact cases involving constitutional rights, electoral processes, governance reforms and social regulation, decisions that could shape the country’s legal and political landscape.
Examining whether Section 498A IPC serves as protection or punishment, this report analyses Supreme Court judgments, judicial safeguards, and arrest guidelines addressing misuse while balancing women’s rights with safeguards against abuse of criminal law.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 landmark judgments exposed deep structural flaws in governance, from delays and institutional inertia to misuse of discretion. The Court flagged failures in federal relations, anti-defection rulings, electoral processes, tribunals, investigations, and legislative privileges.
India’s courts dominated national debate in 2025 as cash recovery controversies, rare impeachment moves and outspoken legal figures brought judicial accountability, independence and constitutional balance under intense public and political scrutiny.
In a year with fewer Constitution Bench rulings, the Supreme Court delivered landmark verdicts on Governors’ assent to Bills, judicial appointments, promotions, and the power of courts to modify arbitral awards, reshaping constitutional governance and arbitration law in India.
The Supreme Court Bar Association has strongly criticised Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for allegedly removing a Muslim woman doctor’s veil during a public event in Patna. Calling it unconstitutional and humiliating, the SCBA has demanded an unconditional apology for violating her dignity, autonomy and religious freedom.
The Supreme Court’s Madras Bar Association judgment marks a decisive moment in the judiciary–executive tussle over tribunals, reaffirming judicial primacy in appointments and tenure, and striking down legislative attempts to reassert executive control over adjudicatory bodies.
