Supreme Court's 2018 Tehseen Poonawalla Judgment Directions Deemed 'Unmanageable', CJI Advocates Individual Case Approach

Supreme Court Directs States to Revisit Raising Judicial Officers' Retirement Age to 61 in 2 Weeks

The Supreme Court has held that States cannot use financial burden as a valid ground to oppose enhancing the retirement age of judicial officers. It has directed all States/UTs to decide within two weeks, in consultation with High Courts, on allowing district judges to serve up to 61 years while a petition for uniform 62 years remains pending.

Supreme Court Clarifies July 31 Order: Media Can Report Proceedings But Cannot Use Audio-Video Clips

The Supreme Court clarified that news outlets can report court proceedings but cannot use audio or video clips in their reports. This balances open justice with preventing misuse of selective clips. Key for understanding judicial transparency and media regulation.

Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to Quash CJP Protest FIRs; 2,873 Individuals Excluded

The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to quash thousands of FIRs filed during CJP protests, except for 2,873 individuals with serious criminal antecedents. This controversial use of 'complete justice' powers bypasses the statutory quashing procedure under BNSS, reigniting debate on judicial overreach. For aspirants, this is a critical case study on Article 142's scope and limitations.

Supreme Court Expands to 38 Judges: Diversity Deficit Exposed as Women Only 4.15%

Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, adding 4 judges to the apex court (strength now 38). However, the article underscores a glaring lack of diversity: women constitute only 4.15% of all SC judges ever appointed, and caste representation in High Courts remains abysmally low. For exam aspirants, this links directly to the collegium system, judicial appointments, social justice, and pendency crisis.

Supreme Court Rules 1978 'Industry' Definition Not Binding on Industrial Relations Code, 2020

The Supreme Court's nine-judge Constitution Bench ruled that the 1978 landmark precedent defining 'industry' will not automatically apply to the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020. This severs the worker-friendly expansive interpretation, creating a clean slate for future labour disputes under the new code.

BCI Chairman Bars NALSAR 2026 Batch Enrolment, Later Modified Under Advocates Act

The BCI Chairman's blanket order to freeze enrolment of all NALSAR 2026 graduates for a protest against CJI was later modified. This news highlights the statutory limits of BCI's power over enrolment, which rests with State Bar Councils under the Advocates Act, 1961. A landmark SC judgment (1995) restricts BCI from adding disqualifications beyond the Act.

BCI Cannot Stop Law Graduate Enrolment: Advocates Act 1961 Sections 6, 7, 26 Explained

The Bar Council of India on August 13, 2026 directed State Bar Councils not to enrol NALSAR University of Law's 2026 batch over a student protest, and withdrew the order within hours. The episode exposes the statutory limits of BCI: it supervises and recognises law degrees, but only State Bar Councils can admit advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961. For exam aspirants, this is a high-yield case study on statutory bodies, delegated powers, and procedural review under Sections 26 and 48AA.

Advocates Act 1961 and Bar Council of India: Statutory Powers, Enrolment Process and Legal Education Standards

The BCI came under scrutiny after it briefly directed state bar councils to stop enrolling NALSAR University's 2026 batch, then withdrew the order. Since UPSC has asked about BCI before, aspirants must know its statutory origin under the Advocates Act 1961, its functions, and why enrolment is actually done by State Bar Councils.