Summary: Combined Commanders’ Conference Address by Prime Minister Narendra Modi

• Event Overview: Prime Minister Narendra Modi is set to address the Combined Commanders’ Conference from September 15 to 17, 2025, in Kolkata. This will be his first engagement with top military leadership following the success of Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.

• Focus Areas of the Conference:

  • Progress on higher defence reforms, particularly the establishment of three integrated theatre commands aimed at improving the operational efficiency and synergy among the Army, Navy, and Air Force in future conflicts.
  • Discussion on the lessons learnt from Operation Sindoor, which will influence the evolving military command structure being designed by the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS) under Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan.

• Theatre Commands:

  • The theatre commands, once implemented, will alter India’s warfighting architecture by integrating the armed forces under unified command structures tailored to specific geographical areas.
  • There had been discussions regarding the structure of these commands during the recent ‘Ran Samvaad’ at the Army War College in Mhow, highlighting differing opinions from the Air Chief and Navy Chief.

• Additional Key Themes:

  • The conference will also review the advancements towards self-reliance in defence, emphasizing the development of indigenous weapon systems.
  • Notably, the Prime Minister had announced ‘Mission Sudarshan Chakra’ on Independence Day, aiming to establish an indigenous air defense system by 2035.
  • On August 19, 2025, the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approved the procurement of 97 LCA Mark 1A fighter aircraft for the Indian Air Force, reflecting ongoing efforts in self-reliance and modernization of the armed forces.

• Official Participation: The Prime Minister will deliver his remarks on the second day, followed by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on the third day of the conference.

• Conference Frequency: The Combined Commanders’ Conference is held biannually; this year it was initially planned for April but was rescheduled due to Operation Sindoor. The previous conference took place in 2023 in Bhopal.

• Publication Date: The article containing this information was published on September 5, 2025.

This conference aims to solidify India’s defence reforms while adapting to lessons from recent military operations, furthering the nation’s goal of self-reliance in defence production.

Important Points:

• Prime Minister Modi to address military leadership at Combined Commanders’ Conference in Kolkata (Sept 15-17, 2025).
• First address post-success of Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.
• Focus on integrated theatre commands for enhanced operational efficiency.
• Lessons from Operation Sindoor will inform evolving military command structures.
• ‘Mission Sudarshan Chakra’ announced to develop indigenous air defense system by 2035.
• CCS approved procurement of 97 LCA Mark 1A fighter aircraft for IAF on August 19, 2025.
• Conference is biannual; this year's event was rescheduled from April 2025 due to military operations.

Summary of Allegations Regarding Forest Rights Act Violations in Great Nicobar Island Project

Background:

• Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, serving as the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, has raised concerns over possible violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) related to the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, estimated to cost ₹72,000 crore.
• In August 2022, the administration of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands allegedly certified that the due processes under the FRA had been fulfilled concerning forest land clearances for the project.

Key Allegations:

• The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar has stated in its communication to Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram that the necessary processes under the FRA have not been initiated on the islands, contrary to the representation made to the Centre.
• The Council members argue that a Gram Sabha meeting, where consent was allegedly given, did not include legitimate representatives of the Nicobarese and Shompen tribes. Instead, representation was claimed by a local social welfare organization under the control of the administration.
• Following the purported consent in August 2022, the Tribal Council officially withdrew their approval, citing a lack of proper engagement in dialogues by the government regarding the project's implications on tribal rights and environmental impact.

Infrastructure Development Proposed:

• The Great Nicobar Island project will comprise a transshipment port, airport, power plant, and township, having raised concerns from the local tribes regarding the diversion of approximately 13,075 hectares of forest land.

Political Response:

• In a letter to Minister Oram, dated September 3, 2025, Rahul Gandhi has expressed his deep concerns about the FRA violations, advocating for adherence to constitutional values of justice and human dignity in development efforts.
• He stressed the need for the government to ensure compliance with legal protocols as outlined under the FRA.

Official Stance:

• Minister Jual Oram confirmed that the Ministry would investigate the claims raised by the Tribal Council. Earlier statements indicated that government concerns regarding FRA adherence were still under evaluation.
• The Tribal Council reported being unaware of the August 2022 certification until recently, which conflicts with their existing claims that no FRA processes were initiated.

Legal Proceedings:

• The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes has shown concerns regarding the FRA violations regarding the project.
• Currently, the Calcutta High Court is hearing a petition disputing the clearances obtained for the infrastructure project.

Legislative Context:

• The Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act of 1956 allows local administrative authorities to de-reserve tribal forest lands. However, the FRA necessitates a consent mechanism for forest land diversion, highlighting a conflict between these two regulations.

Conclusion:

• The ongoing concerns regarding the FRA violations and tribal rights underline significant challenges in balancing development initiatives with the preservation of indigenous rights and environmental sustainability in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

Important Points:

• Rahul Gandhi raises concerns about FRA violations in Great Nicobar Island project.
• Tribal Council alleges false representation about FRA processes by local administration.
• The consent for forest clearance was allegedly obtained through a non-representative Gram Sabha meeting.
• The project will involve significant infrastructure, affecting over 13,075 hectares of forest land.
• Minister Jual Oram has pledged to review the allegations.
• The Calcutta High Court is currently considering a petition against project clearances.
• The Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act and FRA are in conflict regarding forest land management.

Summary of the Article on Human Dignity and the Constitution

On September 3, 2025, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai delivered a keynote address at the 11th Dr. L.M. Singhvi Memorial Lecture, emphasizing the concept of human dignity as the “soul of the Constitution.” His discourse underscored the critical role that human dignity plays in underpinning essential constitutional values such as personal liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Key Points:

• Human Dignity as Core Constitutional Value: Chief Justice Gavai described human dignity as essential not just as a legal concept, but as a binding value that connects various aspects of individual rights and social justice.

• Supreme Court's Role: He highlighted the Supreme Court's historical commitment to protecting human dignity through various judgments aimed at improving the living conditions of marginalized groups, including women, prisoners, workers, persons with disabilities, and minorities.

• Living Instrument of Constitution: The Chief Justice emphasized that the Supreme Court’s interpretations of dignity ensure that the Constitution adapts to changing societal dynamics while adhering to its original values.

• Judicial Interventions: The court has declared human dignity as an inviolable constitutional value, stating that it is essential even in circumstances of incarceration, thus advocating not only for basic human survival but also for broader socio-economic empowerment.

• Autonomy and Decision-Making: Human dignity is intrinsically linked to personal autonomy and self-determination, allowing individuals the freedom to make choices about their lives.

• Foundational Principle: Gavai stressed that respect for human dignity is foundational to social cohesion and a harmonious society. This respect fosters belonging and solidarity, which are vital for national unity.

• Constitutional Genesis: He reflected on the framers of the Constitution, notably Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, asserting that the notion of dignity was central to their vision for a just, egalitarian society.

• Expanding Definition of Dignity: Though not explicitly defined within the Fundamental Rights of the Constitution, the Chief Justice indicated that the Supreme Court has broadened the understanding of dignity to signify the respect owed to every individual simply by virtue of being human.

• Civic Implications: Chief Justice Gavai remarked that acknowledging and safeguarding the dignity of all citizens is crucial for maintaining a cohesive and integrated society.

Concluding Remarks:

The address not only reaffirmed the significance of human dignity in constitutional law but also illustrated the ongoing responsibility of the judiciary in maintaining its relevance in contemporary society. This perspective aligns with the principles of justice and equality deeply rooted in the Indian Constitution.

Audience and Context:

• The event included notable attendees such as Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla, MP Abhishek Singhvi, and O.P. Jindal University Vice-Chancellor C. Raj Kumar, along with former and current judges, senior advocates, and parliamentarians, highlighting the event's importance within India's legal and political discourse.

Overall, the address served as a timely reminder of the necessity of upholding human dignity as a cornerstone for justice and societal welfare in India.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of India has made significant announcements regarding the status of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees and undocumented migrants from certain minority communities. Below is a comprehensive summary of the key points and factual details from the recent developments:

Summary

1. Exemption for Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees:

   • The MHA has exempted Sri Lankan Tamil refugees who arrived in India before January 9, 2015, from penal consequences related to the possession of invalid passports, travel documents, or visas.
   • This exemption indicates that registered Sri Lankan Tamils will not be classified as illegal migrants as per the recent legal framework.

2. Previous Regulations:

   • An executive order issued on December 16, 2015, had previously waived visa fees and penalties for Sri Lankan refugees who opted for voluntary repatriation to Sri Lanka, contingent on their arrival before the same date.

3. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025:

   • The Immigration and Foreigners Act, enacted in April 2025, imposes fines of up to ₹5 lakh or imprisonment for up to five years for foreigners without valid documentation.
   • However, the recent exemption allows registered Sri Lankan Tamils to remain unaffected by sections pertaining to valid passport/visa requirements for the purposes of exiting India.

4. Extended Protections for Undocumented Minorities:

   • The MHA also provided exemptions for undocumented individuals from six minority communities (Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, Christian) from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who entered India before December 31, 2024.
   • This is primarily aimed at individuals who fled to escape religious persecution.

5. Long-Term Visa (LTV) Clarification:

   • The exemptions facilitate access to Long-Term Visas (LTVs), which are crucial steps toward obtaining Indian citizenship.
   • It is essential to note that this exemption does not extend the cut-off date established by the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA), which solely recognizes individuals entering India by December 31, 2014.

6. Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA):

   • The CAA allows undocumented migrants from specific non-Muslim communities who arrived before December 31, 2014, to apply for Indian citizenship, reducing the residency requirement from 11 years to 5 years.
   • The exemption order helps prevent criminal action against undocumented migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who are currently in India, providing them a pathway to potential citizenship.

7. Clarification on Political Statements:

   • There have been discussions regarding extending the CAA's cut-off date, particularly from representatives of the Bharatiya Janata Party in West Bengal; however, the MHA's position remains that the eligibility for the citizenship scheme is not altered.

8. Legislative Framework:

   • The Citizenship Act of 1955 prescribes various methods of acquiring Indian citizenship, including naturalisation after an aggregate stay of 11 years, along with provisions for acquisition by birth and descent.

Key Points

• Exemption Dates: Refugees before January 9, 2015, and minorities before December 31, 2024 are exempt from criminal prosecution for overstaying.
• Long-Term Visas (LTVs): Facilitate potential paths to Indian citizenship for affected communities.
• Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019: The cut-off date for citizenship remains December 31, 2014.
• Legal Context: New regulations under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 alter previous immigration laws in favor of specific communities.
• Political Ramifications: Ongoing political debate regarding the implications of these exemptions and their effects on citizenship rights.

These recent developments from the MHA signify an important shift in the treatment of refugees and undocumented migrants in India, emphasizing humanitarian considerations and the government's stance on ensuring legal pathways for citizenship based on historical and contextual factors.

The article discusses the principles of accountability and transparency in the Indian judiciary, particularly the process by which judges are appointed through the Collegium system. It critiques the lack of transparency surrounding dissenting opinions within the Collegium, especially highlighting the case of Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent against the elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.

Summary

• Culture of Justification: The article references South African law professor Etienne Mureinik's concept of a "culture of justification," where public power must be explained and defended rather than ruled by fear. This principle is invoked by Indian judges to hold the state accountable but seems absent in the judicial appointment process.

• Collegium System: The Collegium, formulated through the "Second Judges Case" (1993) and the "Third Judges Case" (1998), allows the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court to appoint members of the higher judiciary. However, their deliberations are largely private, leading to an opaque process lacking public accountability.

• Justice Nagarathna's Dissent: Justice Nagarathna expressed grave reservations regarding Justice Pancholi's elevation, yet details of her dissent remain undisclosed. This dissent raises questions about the accountability of the Collegium as the public is left uninformed regarding reasons for appointments or objections.

• Transparency Concerns: Although the Collegium began publishing resolutions in 2017, these offerings have been minimal and lack in-depth explanations. The argument for confidentiality cited potential reputational harm to candidates and avoidance of political pressure is challenged in the article, suggesting these justifications do not hold under scrutiny.

• Comparative Context: The article contrasts India with other democracies such as the United Kingdom and South Africa, where judicial appointment processes are more transparent. In these countries, the criteria and reasoning for judicial selections are made public, enhancing legitimacy through openness.

• Implications for Democracy: The selection of judges directly impacts crucial constitutional matters, including civil liberties and the balance of powers, emphasizing the importance of an accountable and justified appointment process. The article argues that lack of transparency in such critical appointments diminishes institutional legitimacy.

• Judiciary's Role: The judiciary is portrayed as a crucial guardian of rights and freedoms, tasked with checks and balances against governmental powers. For it to retain credibility and authority, the appointment process must reflect accountability and justification, similar to the standards it demands from other state organs.

• Call for Reform: The article concludes by urging the Collegium to embrace reforms towards a more transparent appointment process that would maintain the trust of the public.

Important Points:

• The necessity of a "culture of justification" in sustaining democracy.
• Indications of opacity in the Collegium system regarding judicial appointments.
• Justice B.V. Nagarathna's dissent highlights the flaws in transparency and accountability.
• The argument for detailed reasoning in judicial appointments to bolster legitimacy.
• Comparative examination of judicial appointment processes in different democracies.
• The connection between judicial independence, public trust, and transparency.
• A call for the Collegium to reform for improved accountability in judicial selections.

The article discusses the disparity in the representation of women in the Supreme Court of India, highlighting a long-standing issue despite the constitutional mandate for equality.

Key Points:

• Current Composition: As of August 9, 2025, with the retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, the Supreme Court has two vacancies, and there remains only one woman judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna, out of 34 judges.

• Historical Context: There have been only 11 women appointed to the Supreme Court since 1950, constituting a mere 3.8% of the total 287 judges. The previous female judges include notable figures like Justice Fathima Beevi and Justice Indu Malhotra, with the last appointments being on August 31, 2021.

• Concerns Raised: Justice Nagarathna's dissent regarding the appointment of Justice Vipul Pancholi was overlooked, illuminating issues with the appointment processes and the lack of consideration given to gender representation.

• Diversity Gaps: There is also a significant lack of caste diversity among women judges, with Justice Fathima Beevi being the only woman from a minority faith. No woman has been directly elevated from the Bar since Justice Malhotra, despite women being present as Senior Advocates.

• Age Disparity: Women judges tend to be appointed later in life, significantly reducing their tenure and potential for senior positions within the judiciary. Most women judges in the Supreme Court have had shorter tenures compared to male counterparts.

• Collegium Process: The appointment of judges, as outlined by the Memorandum of Procedure, involves the Chief Justice of India consulting with a Collegium of the four senior-most judges. However, the criteria for appointments are not publicly transparent, raising concerns about the lack of institutionalized considerations for gender.

• Lack of Gender Consideration: The article argues that while caste and regional representation are considered during appointments, gender is not a mandated criterion, which is a significant issue given the constitutional provisions for equality.

• Call for Transparency: It is suggested that the Collegium process should be made more transparent, allowing public insight into the consideration of candidates and ensuring that the judiciary reflects the country’s diversity.

• Impact of Women Judges: The presence of women judges is deemed crucial, as they bring unique perspectives and experiences, potentially enhancing public trust in judicial outcomes and the representation of diverse sectors of society.

• Government Actions Necessary: The article advocates for institutional reforms calling for a mandate for gender representation similar to existing directives for Bar associations concerning female participation in leadership roles.

This summary reflects the article's emphasis on the pressing need for gender equality within India’s judiciary, particularly in the Supreme Court, highlighting systemic barriers that continue to hinder women's representation in the higher judiciary.

The recent verdict by the Delhi High Court has intensified the debate surrounding the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial within the Indian criminal justice system. On September 2, 2023, the High Court denied bail to Umar Khalid and other accused in connection with the Delhi riots, highlighting significant issues related to procedural justice.

Key Points:

• Presumption of Innocence: The principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty is foundational in criminal law. The recent ruling challenges this principle by allowing lengthy pre-trial detention.

• Delhi High Court Verdict: The court's 133-page judgment explicitly denied bail to those accused of roles in the Delhi riots, justifying that the right to protest is not absolute and must function within a reasonable framework.

• Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention: The court's decision is concerning as the accused have been incarcerated for nearly five years without a trial. The High Court remarked that a rushed trial could be detrimental, a stance criticized for permitting excessive and unjustifiable delays.

• Disparity in Judicial Processes: The contrast is drawn with other cases where convicted individuals, including those guilty of serious offenses, have been granted parole. The High Court's logic raises questions regarding the treatment of under-trials versus convicted criminals.

• Role of the Accused: Justice Shailender Kaur and Justice Navin Chawla detailed the alleged involvement of the accused in a conspiracy related to speeches calling for protests against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, which the prosecution claims incited violence.

• International Context: The High Court noted that Khalid's speeches were allegedly timed to coincide with the State visit of the President of the USA, suggesting an intention to attract international attention, thus aggravating the perceived severity of the accused's actions.

• Judicial Precedents on Bail: The Supreme Court has emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, establishing that in special statutes such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), bail should be granted as a rule, not an exception. Recent landmark cases (e.g., Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh) reinforce the necessity for timely trials, rejecting the grounds of the crime's seriousness as a reason to deny bail when trial delays exist.

• Delhi High Court's Divergence: The Delhi High Court's ruling is viewed as deviating from established principles concerning speedy trials and the harsh implications of prolonged pre-trial detention, which effectively amounts to punishment.

• Next Steps: The case is set to be appealed at the Supreme Court, which will be tasked with reaffirming judicial principles regarding the right to a speedy trial and addressing the current inconsistencies within the judicial system.

Conclusion:

The ongoing case signifies critical issues surrounding pre-trial incarceration, the presumption of innocence, and the implications of judicial delays. As the matter moves to the Supreme Court, it highlights the need for judicial scrutiny to uphold the essential tenets of justice as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

This situation underscores the necessity for urgent reforms to ensure justice within reasonable timeframes, reflecting the core values of liberty and due process inherent in the nation's legal structure.

In March 2024, the Indian government published revised guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, specifically addressing sickle cell disease (SCD) and related blood disorders. The guidelines were designed to assess disability levels in individuals with two copies of the sickle cell gene or those with sickle cell and beta thalassaemia simultaneously. SCD, a progressive and painful blood disorder, predominantly affects marginalised communities. The expectation was that this recognition would facilitate access to agricultural land, housing, poverty alleviation and developmental schemes, as well as education and healthcare for affected individuals.

Key points regarding the RPWD Act, 2016 include:

• The Act aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, promoting dignity, equality, and non-discrimination.
• It expanded the definition of disability and introduced rights-based protections for individuals with 'benchmark disabilities' as defined in Section 2(r), requiring a minimum impairment of 40% to qualify for various benefits.
• Individuals with benchmark disabilities are entitled to free education and specialized reservations in higher education and government employment under a 4% quota.

However, individuals with SCD and related disorders are excluded from this quota, prompting disappointment and criticism from advocates for disability rights. Key concerns raised include:

• The 40% disability threshold often disregards those whose impairments fall below this level, despite experiencing significant, life-altering challenges.
• The subjective nature of disability assessment leads to inconsistencies in percentages assigned by different medical boards, making the measurement of impairment unreliable.
• SCD is characterized by debilitating symptoms that may not be visible but can severely affect daily life, school attendance, employment, and overall life expectancy, especially within Adivasi and Dalit communities that already face additional stigmas and barriers.

The RPWD Act intended to transition from a medicalized view of disability focused on physical impairments to recognizing chronic and invisible conditions. Nevertheless, the ongoing emphasis on biomedical criteria for disability assessment dilutes the Act's intent, particularly concerning SCD. Existing schemes provide benefits, such as enhanced pensions in states like Odisha and Himachal Pradesh. The Income Tax Act, 1961, under Section 80U, allows persons with certified disabilities deductions from taxable income, which are increased for severe disabilities.

Barriers to certification remain significant:

• Disability evaluations must come from authorized medical personnel, and diagnostic reports must be from government or standard labs.
• The grading system often fails to measure the true impact of SCD due to its episodic nature, meaning individuals miss essential support without receiving appropriate recognition.
• For Adivasi and Dalit people, particularly in rural areas, accessing medical evaluations is extremely challenging.

Comprehensive reforms are necessary to align the RPWD Act with its original goals:

• Extending job reservations to individuals with SCD and blood disorders would recognize their conditions as significant lifelong disabilities.
• Reforming the disability certification process to accommodate fluctuating and invisible impairments is crucial to reflect a more rights-based approach rather than one solely based on medical evaluation.

Disability is determined not only by physical health but also encompasses social exclusion and structural obstacles. Unless the recognition of SCD translates into genuine rights and protections, it risks becoming a form of false inclusion.

Important Sentences:

• In March 2024, the Indian government revised guidelines under the RPWD Act, 2016, focusing on sickle cell disease (SCD).
• SCD is a major concern, affecting marginalized communities disproportionately.
• The RPWD Act aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and expands the definition of benchmark disability.
• Individuals with SCD are excluded from the 4% reservation quota, leading to criticism and disappointment.
• The 40% impairment threshold in assessing disability can marginalize those with less than the specified impairment despite severe conditions.
• Many individuals face social stigma and barriers exacerbated by the episodic nature of SCD.
• The certification process for disability is complicated and difficult to access, particularly for marginalized populations.
• Reforms are urgently needed to ensure real rights and protections under the RPWD Act for individuals suffering from SCD.

On September 2, 2025, a Presidential Reference Bench of the Supreme Court of India commented on the role of Governors in relation to legislative bills, asserting that they cannot indefinitely delay their assent. This discussion involved the states of Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, which argued that the Governors should not act as impediments to the legislative process. The Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, along with Justices Vikram Nath and P.S. Narasimha, emphasized that the Constitution cannot be hindered by any organ of the state.

Key components of the ongoing case include:

• Presidential Reference: The Supreme Court is evaluating a Presidential Reference submitted in May 2025, which addresses whether there should be time limits for Governors and the President in handling state bills.
• Historical Context: This reference follows an April 8, 2025, judgment by a two-judge bench that criticized the Governor of Tamil Nadu for delaying assent to ten state bills since 2020, establishing a new precedent that required a decision on similar bills within three months, post which they would be considered deemed assented.
• Arguments Presented:
  • Tamil Nadu's advocates, A.M. Singhvi and P. Wilson, contended that the role of Governors should not equate to a "royalty in a Republic", implying their duties should align with democratic principles and cooperation.
  • West Bengal's counsel, Kapil Sibal, supported the assertion that legislative processes are sovereign and cannot be obstructed by the Governor’s inertia. He argued against granting absolute power to Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution (which gives Governors authority to assent to bills).

Supreme Court Observations:

• The court raised concerns about implementing a "general" time limit for Governors and questioned potential legal inconsistencies if the three-month deadline from the previous judgment was not adhered to.
• Justice Vikram Nath inquired about possible remedies if the consensual assumption of assent was not followed, indicating that simply deeming bills assented might not suffice without addressing the mechanism of refusal or further deliberation with the President.
• Justice Narasimha suggested that while general timelines might not apply, individual cases could potentially have specific time frames guided by the circumstances surrounding each bill.

Legal Perspectives:

• Advocates reaffirmed that legislative acts are fundamental and must not be hindered by gubernatorial inaction. Sibal emphasized that a collaborative relationship between the legislative and executive branches is critical for constitutional functioning.
• The Governors are seen as a conduit between the state's legislative actions and the execution of laws, necessitating their active engagement rather than passive oversight.

Conclusion: This case presents significant implications regarding the balance of power between state Governors and legislative assemblies, highlighting the necessity for timely action on democracy’s foundational processes. The outcome of this reference may redefine the limitations and expectations of Governor actions on relevant bills and affect the broader constitutional relationship between state heads and legislative bodies.

Important Points:

• The Supreme Court asserts that Governors cannot delay legislative bills indefinitely.
• A three-month deadline for assent to state bills was established in a previous judgment.
• The court is examining the appropriateness of setting a general timeline for Governor actions.
• Advocates emphasized legislation as a sovereign act, necessitating prompt governor assent.
• Tension exists between the role of the Governor in state legislation and the need for cooperative governance.

Summary:

The article discusses the significant gender imbalance in the Supreme Court of India, particularly highlighted by the retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on August 9, 2025, which left two vacancies that were not filled by female appointees. Justice B.V. Nagarathna stands as the only woman among the 34 judges of the Supreme Court, raising concerns over the lack of women judges and the procedures governing judicial appointments in India.

• Current Appointment Scenario:

  • Only 11 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court since its inception in 1950, representing a mere 3.8% of the total 287 judges.
  • The latest appointments were on August 29, 2025, when Justices Vipul Pancholi and Alok Aradhe were sworn in, disregarding dissent from Justice Nagarathna who sought seniority and regional representation to be considered.

• Historical Context:

  • Justice Fathima Beevi was the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court on October 6, 1989, followed by several other women until the last batch in 2021.
  • The representation of women has seen peaks, but often falls short of reflecting a balanced judiciary, especially in terms of caste diversity, as no woman from Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes has been appointed.

• Appointment Process:

  • The current procedure involves the Chief Justice of India (CJI) consulting with a Collegium of the four seniormost judges, with final recommendations reaching the President of India through the Law Minister.
  • There is a noted lack of transparency and clarity in the criteria for appointments, which have historically included caste, religion, and regional representation, but not gender.

• Bar Representation:

  • There is a stark disparity with only one woman (Justice Indu Malhotra) directly appointed from the Bar, while nine male judges have received such elevation. The pathways into the judiciary for women lawyers seem to be obstructed.

• Impact of Gender Disparity:

  • Women judges often have shorter tenures, limiting their rise within the ranks, and thus impacting their inclusion in the Collegium and potential appointment as CJI.
  • Justice Nagarathna will serve as the first woman CJI for only 36 days (September 24 to October 29, 2027).

• Calls for Institutional Reforms:

  • The article advocates for institutionalized criteria that ensure gender representation in judicial appointments.
  • The Supreme Court has called for increased participation of women in legal roles, reflected in mandates for women's representation in Bar associations but lacks a similar enforceable framework for the judiciary itself.

• Need for Diversity:

  • Women judges contribute unique insights drawn from personal and professional experiences, enriching the decision-making processes in the Court.
  • A diverse judiciary enhances public trust and ensures the legal system serves all sections of society.

In conclusion, the article emphasizes that the Supreme Court's commitment to gender equality will only be realized through substantial representation of women on the Bench. The current judiciary's lack of gender diversity poses a challenge to its constitutional mandate and credibility.

• Key Points:
  • The Supreme Court currently has only one female judge, Justice B.V. Nagarathna.
  • A total of 11 women have served in the Court since its establishment in 1950.
  • The appointment process lacks transparency and does not prioritize gender representation.
  • Institutional reforms are recommended to ensure that gender diversity is as crucial as other forms of representation in judicial appointments.

Summary:

The article reflects on the legacy of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C.N. Annadurai, particularly highlighting his adeptness with the English language and his significant contributions during a pivotal visit to Yale University as a Chubb Fellow in 1968. The upcoming address by current Chief Minister M.K. Stalin at the University of Oxford on September 4, 2025, commemorating the centenary of the Self-Respect Movement, draws parallels with Annadurai's scholarly journey.

Key points covered in the article include:

• C.N. Annadurai’s Yale Visit (1968):

  • Awarded the Chubb Fellowship, a prestigious honor established in 1949 aimed at public service leaders.
  • Notable for his eloquent English; during the fellowship, he showcased his speaking prowess, exemplified by a clever retort involving the conjunction "because."
  • Left for Yale on April 15, 1968, having been invited by the American Ambassador to India, Chester Bowles.

• Reputation and Impact:

  • Described in Yale's press release as a charismatic leader in post-Nehruvian India, noted for garnering public support.
  • Engaged in profound discussions, including one where he articulated the need for Indian unity and addressed the language controversy in India.

• Contributions During Fellowships:

  • Conducted informal teachings on the Tirukkural, furthering cultural exchange by gifting English translations to American institutions.
  • Engaged with students in collaborative activities, indicating his approachable nature.

• Political Views:

  • Annadurai's political stance evolved post the 1962 Sino-Indian War, recognizing Indira Gandhi's governance but critiquing language decisions taken hastily by her administration.
  • Advocated for the continued use of English as a bridge for non-Hindi speaking communities.

• Cultural and Academic Significance:

  • His experience and speeches greatly influenced student perception at Yale, evidenced by students expressing the high regard for his discussions.
  • His vision and leadership continue to resonate in contemporary politics, as observed in the current stance of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) party.

• Modern Commemorations:

  • CM M.K. Stalin's scheduled address in 2025 further reinforces Annadurai’s impactful legacy within socio-political frameworks, highlighting the historical significance of the Self-Respect Movement.

Important Bullet Points:

• C.N. Annadurai was a notable Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, recognized for his fluency in English.
• Annadurai was a Chubb Fellow at Yale University in 1968, illustrating the intersection of academia and political leadership.
• The Chubb Fellowship honors distinguished individuals for public service contributions.
• During his Yale visit, Annadurai emphasized the importance of maintaining unity in India amid language controversies.
• He conducted informal classes on the Tirukkural, promoting Indian literature internationally.
• Annadurai’s political views evolved in response to national issues, particularly after the 1962 Indo-China war.
• His legacy remains influential, as seen in current political alignment and discussions regarding language and governance in India.
• M.K. Stalin’s upcoming address in 2025 signifies a continuation of Annadurai’s vision and the relevance of the Self-Respect Movement in present-day discourse.

In a significant legal development, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Dipankar Datta, has revisited the 2014 ruling in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India case, which exempted minority educational institutions from adhering to the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The bench expressed concerns that the previous judgment undermined the objective of universal education. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.

Key Highlights:

• Supreme Court's Previous Ruling (2014): The earlier five-judge bench concluded that the RTE Act could not impose the 25% quota for disadvantaged students on minority schools, citing Article 30(1) of the Constitution that provides rights to minority institutions. This judgment was controversial, allowing many private schools to claim minority status and evade the RTE provisions.

• Current Proceedings: The latest hearing questioned the justification for exempting minority schools from the RTE, suggesting that it has created a regulatory loophole that erodes inclusivity and the balance between institutional autonomy and public interest.

• Constitutional Framework:

  • The RTE Act operationalises Article 21A of the Constitution, which guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6-14.
  • The Act mandates that:
    • Government schools offer free education to all.
    • Aided schools provide free seats relative to their aid.
    • Private unaided schools reserve 25% of seats for disadvantaged children, compensated by the state as per Section 12(1)(c).

• Educational Philosophy: The RTE Act was designed to promote inclusive elementary education, rooted in principles of equality and social justice. Its foundation emphasizes the child’s fundamental rights over institutional autonomy.

• Court's Reflections: In the latest hearing, the bench remarked that the exemption for minority institutions may have unintentionally deprived many children of their rights to education. Justice Datta posited that while minority rights under Article 30(1) must be protected, they should not negate the universal education drive embodied in Article 21A.

• Implications of the Pramati Judgement: The previous decision led to a significant number of schools claiming minority status to avoid complying with RTE norms, which counteracted the aims of educational equity. Critics argue that this led to elite private institutions lacking diversity and failing to admit disadvantaged children.

• Possible Outcomes: The referral to a larger bench could result in a reevaluation of the blanket exemption for minority schools. If overturned, minority schools may again be required to align with the RTE provisions.

• Statements by Educationists: Education specialists, including R. Govinda and Anita Rampal, have advocated for the necessity of including diverse socio-economic backgrounds in classrooms to promote equity and democracy in education.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s latest action indicates a potential shift towards greater inclusivity in the education sector, reinforcing a legal framework where the rights of the child take precedence while still respecting the rights of minority institutions. The case will be revisited by a larger bench, and its outcome could have far-reaching implications for the RTE Act's application to minority educational institutions.

Important Points:

• The Supreme Court's ongoing hearings emphasize the balance between minority rights and children's educational rights.
• The RTE Act mandates equity in education, yet exemptions have led to regulatory loopholes.
• The potential reversal of the Pramati judgment could redefine compliance requirements for minority schools.
• Educational equity is crucial for fostering diversity and addressing socio-economic disparities in the school system.