Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) recently issued an order on September 17, 2026, splitting the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and assigning new names and distinct symbols to the factions led by Mamata Banerjee and Ritabrata Banerjee. This decision, aimed at managing the internal organizational crisis, has prompted a legal challenge from the faction under Mamata Banerjee. The Supreme Court, with the Chief Justice of India committing to review the listing of the plea, has become the central venue for determining the validity of the ECI's administrative intervention. This case underscores the recurring complexities in electoral management, the limits of the ECI's quasi-judicial authority, and the role of the judiciary in upholding political stability.
On September 27, 2026, the Supreme Court engaged in crucial hearings regarding legal challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. In a notable divergence of administrative stances, the Andhra Pradesh government submitted an affidavit stating it played no role in the enactment of the central legislation and maintained that it has not engaged in any discriminatory practices against transgender persons. Conversely, the Uttarakhand government defended the Act, asserting that the existing framework is beneficial for the community and sufficient to address their welfare needs. This judicial discourse highlights the complex interplay between central legislative mandates, state-level implementation, and the overarching constitutional protections for vulnerable groups.
In a significant legal intervention addressing the statutory protections of gender minorities, the Supreme Court asserted that subsequent amendments or alterations to transgender laws cannot strip away rights and identity recognitions already conferred upon individuals. Responding to petitions urging protection against the arbitrary cancellation of transgender identity cards, the apex court reinforced the doctrine of non-retrogression, emphasizing that state actions must uphold dignity, legal certainty, and fundamental constitutional guarantees established under landmark jurisprudence.