The Indian Criminal justice system has traditionally been characterized by a strong adherence to procedural discipline. Appellate courts, within this framework, have historically functioned as bodies tasked with reviewing decisions based on specific grounds raised by the parties. However, recently, the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has begun to emphasize that appellate courts are not merely passive reviewers but active instruments of justice.

Obscenity law in India operates at a complex intersection of constitutional morality, freedom of expression, and evolving cultural standards. With the rapid expansion of digital media, including stand-up comedy, online music platforms, and OTT streaming services, the traditional understanding of obscenity has been significantly challenged. This paper critically examines the legal framework governing obscenity in India.

The Sabarimala Temple Entry Case has once again become a subject of national discussion, not because a new judgement has been delivered, but because the issues arising from it remain unresolved before a larger bench of the Supreme Court of India. The “reference” in the context is crucial – it signifies that the court itself is reconsidering broader constitutional questions linked to religious practices and gender equality.

Religion has always been one of the most powerful forces shaping human civilization. It provides identity, moral guidance, and a sense of belonging. However, history also shows that religion, when misused, can become a source of conflict, discrimination, and even violence. Religious Crimes refer to acts that either target religious beliefs, symbols, or communities, or misuse religion to justify unlawful behaviour.

Is it truly kind to keep someone alive? In certain scenarios, does this act lead to extended suffering—not just for the patient but also for their family and caretakers? In an era where technology can sustain bodily functions long after all hope has vanished, the pressing question shifts from whether we can save a life to whether we should prolong suffering.

Few questions press upon the conscience of law as insistently as euthanasia — the deliberate termination of a human life to relieve intractable suffering. As medicine grows ever more adept at prolonging biological existence beyond any prospect of meaningful recovery, the law confronts an acute paradox: whether the right to live must also encompass a right to die.

On March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India permitted the withdrawal of life-support from Harish Rana — a man who had remained in a persistent vegetative state for over a decade. The order is being widely described as the first judicially-authorised instance under the modern living-will / passive-euthanasia framework and has reignited national conversations on dignity, medical ethics, and law.

Refugees often face uncertain and unequal treatment in many countries, including India, because there is no clear legal framework defining their rights or status. Without proper laws, refugees are left vulnerable to arbitrary government actions and lack access to basic protections and justice.

India’s legal architecture is a sophisticated mosaic. While the nation operates under a robust codified system of statutes and judicial precedents, its foundation remains deeply rooted in customary law. These are the "unwritten" rules of conduct that emerged from centuries of social usage, predating colonial influence and legislative bodies.

An article on legal framework and policy gaps in addressing political, medical and engineering white collar offences in India.

Ask this of any bail system reform or judicial order in 2025: does it produce faster resolution without compromising fairness? If the answer is yes, it passes the Vidhigyata test.