Madras HC Allows 14-Year-Old Rape Survivor to Terminate 28-Week Pregnancy Citing Article 21

J&K HC Allows 11-Year-Old Sexual Assault Victim to Terminate Pregnancy Beyond 24-Week MTP Limit Under Article 226

The J&K High Court allowed an 11-year-old rape victim to terminate her pregnancy even after the statutory 24-week limit under the MTP Act, citing constitutional protection under Article 226 and the Supreme Court's recent ruling in S vs Union of India. This landmark judgment affirms that statutory timelines cannot override fundamental rights of minors and sexual assault survivors.

Madras HC Directs TN Chief Secretary to Form Panel on POCSO, Juvenile Justice Gaps

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to form a committee of Home, Health, and Law Secretaries to address systemic gaps in implementing the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts. The court made key suggestions including gender-neutral application of POCSO, avoiding criminalizing consensual adolescent relationships, and establishing protocols for medical termination of pregnancy and child witness deposition rooms. This is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it touches upon child rights, judicial activism, and state governance.

Madras HC Calls for Amendment to Section 15 Hindu Marriage Act: Right to Marry is Human Right

The Madras High Court has urged Parliament to amend Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, recommending that a spouse appealing a divorce decree must obtain an interim stay within two months, or the other spouse should be free to remarry. The Court held that the right to marry is a human right and prolonged appeals should not leave remarriage uncertain for years.

Madras HC Confers Legal Personhood on Tamirabharani River via Deity Status to Bypass SC Ruling

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled that the Tamirabharani river can be treated as a legal person by categorising it as a deity, effectively circumventing the Supreme Court's 2023 decision that non-human entities cannot be granted legal personhood. This allows the court to enforce pollution control measures against religious waste dumping, balancing Article 25 (religious freedom) and Article 21 (right to healthy environment).

Madras High Court: Physical Features Cannot Determine Scheduled Caste Status

The Madras High Court has ruled that physical appearance, skin colour, height, and language cannot be used to determine Scheduled Caste status, setting aside a denial based on such 'look tests'. This judgment reinforces the legal principle that caste status is determined by birth, conversion, and community acceptance, not by subjective physical characteristics. It is a significant affirmation of constitutional safeguards against discrimination.

Madras HC Rules Child Can Claim Reservation Through Mother, Rejects Patrilineal Caste Tracing

The Madras High Court has ruled that a child can claim Scheduled Caste (SC), Most Backward Class (MBC), or Other Backward Class (OBC) reservation benefits through their mother's nativity if the child is born and brought up in that community, rejecting the 'patriarchal society' argument. This landmark judgment links the core of reservation to social disadvantage, not lineage, and has direct implications for the interpretation of equality under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution.

Delhi HC Releases 2 Life Convicts Citing Chekhov; SRB Rejection 'Arbitrary' Under Article 21

The Delhi High Court ordered the release of two life-term convicts, holding that prolonged imprisonment 'kills slowly' and that Sentence Review Boards cannot reject early release pleas based on stereotyped reasoning. The judgment reinforces Article 21 rights and sets important guidelines for evaluating post-conviction conduct.

SC to Decide on Tamil Nadu’s Power to Grant Reservation to Muslim Converts from Backward Classes

The Supreme Court will soon pronounce judgment on whether Tamil Nadu can provide reservation benefits to individuals who convert to Islam from backward classes, most backward classes, denotified communities, and Scheduled Castes. This case challenges the constitutional validity of a 2024 Government Order that aims to preserve affirmative action despite religious conversion, and has implications for secularism and equality under Articles 15(4) and 16(4).