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

SC's 76-Year Journey: Reforms at Magistracy Level Needed for Judicial Overhaul

A former Delhi High Court judge critiques the Indian judiciary's performance over 76 years, highlighting issues like eviction of poor without rehabilitation, failure to curb extra-legal punishments, and delay in upholding progressive judgments. The article argues that meaningful judicial reform must begin at the magisterial level, focusing on mentoring, mental health support, and performance evaluation reforms.

Seven Years After Article 370 Abrogation: J&K Statehood Delay Undermines Integration Gains

Seven years after the abrogation of Article 370, Jammu and Kashmir remains a Union Territory. While security gains and reduced separatism are notable, the delay in restoring statehood threatens to undermine the integration achievements. The article argues that withholding statehood now demoralises the electorate and breaches the Supreme Court's assurance of temporary UT status.

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.

SC Directs Uniform Policy for Demolition & Rehabilitation of Unauthorised Homes Under Article 21

The Supreme Court has ruled that the state's power to demolish unauthorised constructions must be balanced with the duty to rehabilitate affected families, invoking Article 21 (right to dignity, shelter, livelihood). The court directed the Union and State governments to consider formulating a uniform demolition and rehabilitation policy.

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.

SC Reduces Mandatory Legal Practice to 1 Year for Entry-Level Judicial Exams (May 2025–Mar 2027)

The Supreme Court has relaxed its earlier May 2025 verdict that mandated three years of legal practice for law graduates to appear in entry-level judicial service exams. Now, only one year of practice is required for exams notified between May 25, 2025 and March 31, 2027, but selected candidates must undergo a one-year traineeship and a one-year structured clerkship. This is a significant policy shift affecting thousands of young lawyers and law graduates preparing for the judiciary.

SC Revises 2025 Judicial Service Rule: 3-Year Exposure Now Accepts Training & Clerkship in Lieu of Bar Practice

The Supreme Court, by a 2:1 majority, modified its 2025 ruling on judicial service entry. While retaining the mandatory 3-year pre-entry exposure, it now allows this to be fulfilled through 1 year of actual practice, 1 year of judicial academy training, and 1 year of supervised clerkship. A transition period from May 20, 2025 to March 31, 2027 provides deemed completion of one year practice. This decision balances practical exposure with flexibility for candidates, particularly women and persons with disabilities.

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.