The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and LIC on a plea for disability sensitive insurance guidelines. The petition invokes Articles 14 and 21, urging policy oversight to ensure welfare schemes for persons with disabilities are fair and accessible.
The Supreme Court held that granting pensioners lower Dearness Relief than employees’ Dearness Allowance violates Article 14. It ruled inflation impacts both equally, making differential increases arbitrary and lacking rational nexus to the objective of mitigating rising living costs.
SG Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that India respects women and rejected the idea of patriarchy in the Sabarimala case. The Centre argued temple entry rules are based on religious faith, not gender discrimination, as the court continues hearing the matter.
Akhil Bharatiya Sant Samiti has moved the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in the Sabarimala review case, arguing that courts should not decide essential religious practices. The nine-judge bench will hear the matter on April 7, focusing on the balance between religious freedom and equality.
The Supreme Court urged the Centre to introduce a law granting paternity leave as a social security benefit. The Court stressed equal parenting roles while expanding maternity rights for adoptive mothers.
The Supreme Court ruled that denying maternity leave to adoptive mothers based on a child being over 3 months old is unconstitutional. The judgment strengthens equality, recognizing adoption as equal to biological motherhood and protecting women’s reproductive autonomy.
The Allahabad High Court ruled that UP’s anti-conversion law does not prohibit interfaith marriages or live-in relationships between consenting adults. The Court said the right to live with a person of one’s choice, regardless of religion, is protected under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution.
CJI B R Gavai said he faced criticism from his own community for his ruling allowing sub-classification of Scheduled Castes, but stressed he writes judgments by law and conscience. He also defended excluding the creamy layer and spoke on due process in demolition cases.
Advocate Mathews J. Nedumpara petitioned the Supreme Court to reform the current collegium system and senior advocate designations, alleging favoritism and elitism. Despite being cautioned by the Chief Justice, he argued that the system unfairly benefits a small elite, violating constitutional rights. The petitioners demand an overhaul for enhanced judicial fairness and equality.
