Punjab & Haryana High Court Issues Contempt Notices to DGPs & Chief Secretaries for Non-Compliance of SC's Arnesh Kumar (2014) Arrest Safeguards

SC Strengthens Article 22 Safeguards: Violation Invalidates Arrest, Re-Arrest Requires Judicial Approval

The Supreme Court has declared any violation of Article 22(1) or 22(2) as rendering an arrest unconstitutional. This landmark ruling mandates that re-arrest of such an accused requires prior judicial approval, reinforcing fundamental rights against arbitrary detention. For UPSC aspirants, this is a critical update on constitutional safeguards and judicial interpretation of Article 22.

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.

SC in Vihaan Kumar Reinforces Arrest Safeguards: Informing Grounds Mandatory Under Article 22(1), BNSS 2023

SC in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025) held that every arrested person must be directly and meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest, and failure violates Article 22(1) and Section 50 CrPC (Section 47 BNSS). The verdict also links an unconstitutional arrest to illegal subsequent remand and reiterates Article 21 dignity. For exams, remember the case, the CrPC-to-BNSS section mapping, and the Arnesh Kumar arrest guidelines.

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.

Justice Liberhan Commission: Babri Masjid Demolition Was a Well-Planned Civil Conspiracy

Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, head of the one-man Commission of Inquiry into the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, passed away. His 2009 report concluded the demolition was a meticulously planned civil conspiracy involving RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, BJP, and Shiv Sena — a finding he never retracted despite the 2020 CBI court acquittals.