Keeping Pace with Legal Change
In revising IPC’s mandatory death penalty under Section 303, Section 104 of the BNS restores judicial discretion between death and life imprisonment for murder by life-convicts. This alignment with “rarest of rare,” plus reasoned judgments, and likely ensures constitutional validity.
The Supreme Court, led by Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, upheld Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing its role in protecting women from domestic cruelty. The court dismissed claims of unconstitutionality, advocating case-by-case scrutiny of misuse allegations, reinforcing gender-specific safeguards under Article 15.
In a pivotal ruling, the Supreme Court ordered postponement of NEET-PG 2025, rejecting the two-shift format due to fairness concerns. Emphasizing Article 14 equality and the risk of paper leaks, the Court mandated a single-shift exam to ensure uniform opportunity for all.
As a result of a decision made by the Supreme Court, retirement age extension benefits for disabled government employees cannot be restricted to only one form of disability. Until the policy was withdrawn, it allowed for a portion of the benefits to be provided to an employee who had a locomotor handicap.
As a result of rampant fraud, the Supreme Court of West Bengal decided to cancel the entire school recruiting process for the year 2016. Additionally, the ruling places an emphasis on maintaining the integrity of public employment, as well as fairness and accountability. It establishes explicit guidelines for the manner in which whole recruitments must be canceled.
The Supreme Court mandated a single-shift NEET-PG 2025 exam, addressing fairness concerns over the two-shift format. The decision ensures equitable competition, upholding Article 14’s right to equality, as varying question paper difficulties and normalization issues risked arbitrariness, impacting candidates’ rankings and rights.
The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling on May 19, 2025, mandated equal pensions for all retired High Court judges under the ‘One Rank One Pension’ principle, regardless of their entry route or tenure. The decision eliminates disparities between permanent and additional judges, ensuring a uniform pension of ₹15 lakh annually for Chief Justices and ₹13.5 lakh for other judges. It upholds Article 14’s equality clause, reinforcing judicial independence by standardizing post-retirement benefits. The ruling also extends family pension rights, addressing long-standing inequities.
Bulldozer justice has caught on in India because of its instant effect and powerful political statement. Its deployment, however, is problematic with serious legal and ethical implications in terms of due process and constitutional rights. Again and again, the Supreme Court has held that demolitions must not be applied as a mode of punishment and must adhere to proper legal formalities. While the call for rapid action against criminals is understandable, it should not be at the expense of core legal principles. Guaranteeing fair trials, bolstering the judiciary, and upholding the rule of law are important to avoid the abuse of power and ensure justice for all citizens.
