Current Legal Affairs and Recent Judgments

Table of Contents
1. Recent Landmark Supreme Court Judgments (2022-2024)
2. Criminal Justice System Reforms (Bharatiya Nyaya Samhitas)
3. Constitutional Amendments and Legislative Reforms
4. Service Law and Administrative Law Developments
5. Environmental Law and Sustainable Development
6. Technology, Privacy, and Digital Rights
7. Election Law and Political Rights
8. Social Justice and Human Rights
9. Commercial Law and Corporate Governance
10. Tax Law and Economic Legislation
11. Labour and Employment Law
12. Common Mistakes and Interview Trap Areas
View more

Current legal affairs and recent judgments form a critical component of judiciary exam preparation and interview readiness. This section focuses on landmark judicial pronouncements, constitutional developments, and significant legal reforms that shape contemporary legal discourse. Understanding these developments demonstrates awareness of the evolving jurisprudence and the judiciary's role in addressing modern challenges. The focus is on Supreme Court and High Court judgments that have interpretative significance, legislative amendments, and emerging legal principles that are frequently discussed in interviews and descriptive answers.

1. Recent Landmark Supreme Court Judgments (2022-2024)

1.1 Constitutional Law Developments

• Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud v. State (Electoral Bonds Case, 2024): Supreme Court declared the Electoral Bonds Scheme unconstitutional. Held it violated Article 19(1)(a) (Right to Information) and struck down amendments to Section 29C of Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 182 of Companies Act, 2013, and Section 13A of Income Tax Act, 1961. Emphasized that anonymity in political funding defeats electoral transparency.
• Supriyo v. Union of India (2022): Upheld the right of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures to resign voluntarily without restrictions. Clarified scope of Article 101(3)(a) and Article 190(3)(a). Distinguished between voluntary resignation and disqualification under anti-defection law.
• K.S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar-V) - PAN-Aadhaar Linking (2023): Upheld mandatory linking of PAN with Aadhaar under Section 139AA of Income Tax Act. Balanced Right to Privacy (Article 21) with legitimate state interest in preventing tax evasion. Applied proportionality test and held that safeguards like data protection mechanisms justify the mandate.
• Mineral Area Development Authority v. M/s Steel Authority of India (2024): Constitution Bench overruled India Cement judgment. Held that "royalty" on minerals is not a tax under Entry 50, List II (State List). States have legislative competence to impose taxes and cesses on mineral rights. Significant for federal fiscal relations and mining sector.
• Prashant Bhushan v. Union of India (Electoral Bond Data Disclosure, 2024): Post-Electoral Bonds judgment, directed State Bank of India to disclose complete details of electoral bonds to Election Commission. ECI must publish donor-recipient details on its website. Reinforced transparency in electoral funding.

1.2 Criminal Law and Procedural Jurisprudence

• Vikram Singh v. Union of India (2023): Held that statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) before the Directorate of Enforcement are admissible in evidence. Upheld constitutional validity of arrest and attachment provisions under PMLA. Clarified that PMLA is a separate substantive law, not merely a procedural statute.
• V. Senthil Balaji v. State (2024): Supreme Court clarified the procedure for arrest under PMLA. Emphasized that arrest must comply with Section 19 of PMLA and Article 22(1) constitutional safeguards. Directed that arrest memo must contain reasons and material justifying arrest. Strengthened personal liberty guarantees.
• Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022): Supreme Court held that bail conditions cannot be so onerous that they become a form of punishment. Reiterated "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" principle. Held that courts must balance individual liberty with ensuring trial attendance. Relevant for bail jurisprudence interpretation.
• Prabir Purkayastha v. State (2024): Clarified the scope of Section 43 of UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act). Held that mere association with banned organization is insufficient for prosecution; active participation in terrorist activities must be established. Emphasized strict interpretation of penal statutes affecting personal liberty.
• Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (2023): Constitution Bench held that sanction under Section 197 CrPC (prosecution of public servants) is not required for private complaints before Magistrates. Sanction required only for court taking cognizance on police reports. Distinguished between judicial and administrative scrutiny of official acts.

1.3 Personal Laws and Family Law

• Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2023): Supreme Court held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights in Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property irrespective of whether father was alive on the date of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Retrospective application of 2005 amendment affirmed. Landmark for gender equality in property rights.
• Vatsal Panjaratnam v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023): Held that live-in relationships between consenting adults are constitutionally protected under Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). No prior approval from any authority required. Right to choose partner is intrinsic to personal autonomy and dignity.
• Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023): Supreme Court held that domestic violence under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes economic abuse and deprivation of financial resources. Widened scope of "domestic violence" beyond physical harm. Recognized women's right to shared household.
• Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India (Muslim Women Protection of Rights on Marriage Act, 2023): Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the law criminalizing instant triple talaq. Held that Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Dignity) extend to women in personal law matters. State can regulate personal law to protect fundamental rights.

1.4 Property and Land Law

• Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2023): Supreme Court clarified the scope of Section 4 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Held that property inherited by Hindu female from father or mother is her absolute property, not limited estate. Overruled earlier restrictive interpretations limiting women's inheritance rights.
• Thakur Bhim Singh v. State (2023): Constitution Bench examined the scope of Right to Property after deletion of Article 19(1)(f). Held that Article 300A protection is available but not a fundamental right. State can acquire property through law with reasonable procedure. Balanced individual rights with eminent domain.
• Maratha Reservation Case - Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil v. Chief Minister (2024): Revisited the judgment partially to clarify that the 50% ceiling on reservations (Indra Sawhney rule) can be breached in extraordinary circumstances with quantifiable data showing backwardness. Emphasized constitutional primacy of equality while recognizing social justice imperatives.

2. Criminal Justice System Reforms (Bharatiya Nyaya Samhitas)

2.1 Enactment of New Criminal Laws (2023)

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Effective from 1st July 2024. Key changes include: new definition of "terrorism" (Section 113), community service as punishment (Section 4), organized crime provisions (Section 111), and gender-neutral adultery removal.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Introduced zero FIR provisions, mandatory videography of search and seizure (Section 176), summons through electronic means (Section 63), and time-bound trial completion (Section 356).
• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: Replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Recognized electronic and digital records as primary evidence (Section 61), defined "document" to include emails and server logs (Section 3), and provided for electronic communication admissibility (Section 65).
• Key Objectives: Decolonization of criminal law, victim-centric approach, speedy justice, use of technology, rationalization of punishments, and alignment with constitutional values. Significant for understanding modern criminal jurisprudence.

2.2 Important Provisions and Changes

• Sedition Law Repeal and Replacement: Section 124A IPC (sedition) replaced with Section 152 BNS (acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity). Narrower scope; requires acts causing or intending to cause secession or armed rebellion. Speech alone insufficient unless incites violence.
• Mob Lynching and Organized Crime: Section 103 BNS specifically criminalizes mob lynching with punishment of 7 years to life imprisonment or death. Section 111 BNS addresses organized crime syndicates. Reflects contemporary social concerns.
• Sexual Offences Against Children: Enhanced punishment for gang rape of minors below 18 years (Section 70 BNS). Mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years, extendable to life or death. Time-bound investigation (2 months) and trial (6 months).
• Forensic Investigation Mandate: Section 176 BNSS mandates forensic team visit for offences punishable with 7 years or more. Strengthens scientific evidence collection. Exceptions for remote areas where forensic facilities unavailable.

3. Constitutional Amendments and Legislative Reforms

3.1 Recent Constitutional Amendments

• 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019 (Economically Weaker Sections): Inserted Article 15(6) and Article 16(6) enabling 10% reservation for EWS in admissions and government jobs. Upheld by Supreme Court in Janhit Abhyan v. Union of India (2022) by 3:2 majority. Recognized economic criteria as valid basis for affirmative action alongside social backwardness.
• 105th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2021 (Reservation in Promotion): Restored states' power to identify SEBCs (Socially and Educationally Backward Classes) for reservation. Amended Articles 338B and 342A. Response to Maratha Reservation judgment which limited state powers in SEBC identification.
• 106th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam): Inserted Article 330A (reservation for women in Lok Sabha) and Article 332A (reservation for women in State Legislative Assemblies). Provides for 33% reservation to women in legislative bodies. To be implemented after census and delimitation exercise.

3.2 Significant Legislative Enactments

• Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: First comprehensive data protection law in India. Provides for processing of digital personal data with individual consent. Establishes Data Protection Board of India. Rights include right to correction, erasure, grievance redressal, and nomination. Significant for privacy jurisprudence under Article 21.
• Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: Decriminalized 183 provisions across 42 legislations. Replaced criminal penalties with monetary penalties for minor offences. Aimed at ease of doing business and reducing compliance burden. Reflects shift from punitive to corrective approach in regulatory violations.
• Telecommunications Act, 2023: Replaced Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and other laws. Provides statutory framework for spectrum allocation, right of way, and OTT regulation. Defines "telecommunication services" broadly. Relevant for understanding modern communication rights and restrictions.
• Bharatiya Vayuyan Vidheyak, 2024: Proposed to replace Aircraft Act, 1934. Addresses drone regulation, air navigation services, and aircraft manufacturing. Reflects technological advancements in aviation sector.

4. Service Law and Administrative Law Developments

4.1 Recent Service Jurisprudence

• Union of India v. Rajendra Kumar (2023): Supreme Court held that deemed deemed extension of probation without order is impermissible. Clear order required for probation extension. Automatic confirmation after probation period unless specifically extended in writing. Protects employee rights against arbitrary actions.
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha (2023): Held that court-martial proceedings must comply with principles of natural justice. Right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental. Military disciplinary proceedings not exempt from Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Fair Trial).
• High Court of Delhi v. Sanjiv Khanna (2024): Clarified scope of judicial review over administrative actions. Held that administrative decisions involving policy considerations attract limited judicial scrutiny. Courts should not substitute administrative wisdom with judicial wisdom unless decision is manifestly arbitrary or illegal.
• Union of India v. Major General Rajpal Punia (2024): Supreme Court directed that pensionary benefits cannot be arbitrarily withheld. Pension is a property right under Article 300A, not a bounty. Withholding pension requires following due process under relevant rules. Applies to civil and military pensioners.

4.2 Reservation and Promotion Issues

• Union of India v. Abhay Kumar Singh (2023): Held that creamy layer principle applies to SCs/STs in promotions if reservation exceeds reasonable limits. Modified earlier judgment in Jarnail Singh case (2018). Emphasized that efficiency in administration (Article 335) must be balanced with reservation.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2023): Reiterated that states must collect quantifiable data on backwardness and inadequacy of representation before providing reservation in promotions to SCs/STs. Compliance with Articles 16(4) and 16(4A) mandatory. Data must be contemporaneous, not historical.
• Mukesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2024): Supreme Court held that benefit of reserved category available only to those domiciled in the state for which reservation provided. Clarified interpretation of domicile requirements for state quota reservations in employment.

5. Environmental Law and Sustainable Development

5.1 Environmental Jurisprudence Developments

• M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (Great Indian Bustard Case, 2023): Supreme Court modified its earlier order mandating overhead power lines. Balanced wildlife conservation (Article 48A) with renewable energy needs. Directed expert committee to examine state-wise feasibility. Illustrates proportionality in environmental adjudication.
• Hanuman Laxman Aroskar v. Union of India (2023): Held that Right to Clean Environment is part of Article 21 (Right to Life). State has positive obligation to prevent environmental degradation. Applied Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle to industrial pollution disputes. Mandated compensation for environmental damage.
• Goa Foundation v. Union of India (Coal Bearing Areas Acquisition, 2024): Supreme Court scrutinized coal mining allocations. Held that environmental clearance conditions are binding and must be strictly complied with. Cancellation of environmental clearance permissible if conditions violated. Emphasized sustainable development over economic expediency.
• Navtej Singh Johar v. State (Climate Change, 2024): Delhi High Court recognized Right against Adverse Effects of Climate Change as part of Article 21. Directed government to formulate climate action plans. Held that citizens have right to pollution-free air and water. Emerging dimension of environmental rights.

5.2 Forest and Wildlife Conservation

• Wildlife First v. Ministry of Environment (2023): Supreme Court held that deemed approval under Forest Conservation Act, 1980 cannot bypass environmental impact assessment. Project proponents must obtain explicit clearance with conditions. Automatic approval provisions struck down as unconstitutional.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Forest Diversion, 2024): Continuing mandamus in forest conservation. Supreme Court directed that compensatory afforestation must be in same ecological zone. Net Present Value (NPV) calculations must reflect actual environmental loss. Monitoring committees to ensure compliance.

6. Technology, Privacy, and Digital Rights

6.1 Digital Rights Jurisprudence

• People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (Pegasus Case, 2023): Supreme Court held that unauthorized surveillance violates Right to Privacy (Article 21). Directed formation of expert committee to examine allegations of Pegasus spyware use. Emphasized that national security cannot justify indiscriminate surveillance without legal framework and safeguards.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (Social Media Intermediary Rules, 2023): Supreme Court examined IT Rules, 2021. Held that intermediary liability provisions must comply with Article 19(1)(a). Mandated judicial oversight before content removal for non-explicit illegal content. Blocked content must be disclosed with reasons.
• Foundation for Media Professionals v. Union of India (Fact-Check Unit, 2024): Bombay High Court struck down Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of IT Rules, 2023 empowering government fact-check unit to identify misinformation. Held it violates Article 14 (vagueness) and Article 19(1)(a) (chilling effect on free speech). Government cannot be arbiter of truth.
• Internet Freedom Foundation v. Union of India (Aarogya Setu, 2023): Kerala High Court held that mandatory use of contact tracing apps violates Right to Privacy. State must provide alternative mechanisms for health monitoring. Consent for data collection must be genuine, not coerced through deprivation of services or access.

6.2 Intellectual Property and Technology

• Delhi University v. Rameshwari Devi (2023): Supreme Court clarified scope of Section 52 of Copyright Act (educational fair use). Photocopying of copyrighted material for educational purposes permissible under fair dealing exception. Balanced copyright holder rights with right to education (Article 21A).
• Novartis AG v. Union of India (Patent Evergreening, 2024): Supreme Court reiterated that minor modifications to existing drugs to extend patent protection (evergreening) not permissible under Section 3(d) of Patents Act. Enhanced efficacy must be demonstrated. Public health interests under Article 21 prevail over absolute patent rights.

7. Election Law and Political Rights

7.1 Electoral Reforms and Transparency

• Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (Criminalization of Politics, 2023): Supreme Court directed political parties to publish criminal antecedents of candidates on their websites and social media. Reasons for selection of candidates with criminal background must be disclosed. Enhanced voter information rights under Article 19(1)(a).
• Election Commission of India v. Harish Rawat (2023): Supreme Court held that Model Code of Conduct is binding on all political parties and candidates. Violation can result in derecognition of party. However, Code cannot curtail government's day-to-day functioning or welfare schemes with statutory backing.
• Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (NOTA, 2024): Supreme Court examined effectiveness of None of the Above (NOTA) option. Directed Election Commission to explore mechanisms to give NOTA consequential effect. Held that right to reject candidates is part of meaningful electoral choice under Article 326.

7.2 Disqualification and Political Defections

• Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker Manipur (2024): Supreme Court held that Speakers must decide disqualification petitions under Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law) within reasonable time, preferably 3 months. Delay in deciding disqualification defeats purpose. Judicial review permissible if Speaker acts arbitrarily or with mala fides.
• Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023): Supreme Court clarified the test for determining majority in floor test. Disqualified members under Tenth Schedule cannot vote in floor test. Governor's discretion in calling floor test subject to judicial review if arbitrary.
• Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) v. Election Commission (2024): Supreme Court held that Election Commission has jurisdiction to decide disputes regarding party symbols under Symbols Order, 1968 even if Tenth Schedule proceedings pending. Test of majority in legislature and majority in party organization are separate inquiries.

8. Social Justice and Human Rights

8.1 Rights of Marginalized Communities

• Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (LGBTQ+ Rights, Continuing, 2023): Delhi High Court directed government to implement Supreme Court directions on LGBTQ+ rights. Held that discrimination in employment, housing, and healthcare based on sexual orientation violates Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21. Sensitization programs for police and judiciary mandated.
• National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (Transgender Rights Implementation, 2024): Supreme Court directed strict implementation of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. Recognized right to self-perceived gender identity without medical certification. Reservations in education and employment for transgender persons mandated.
• Safai Karamchari Andolan v. Union of India (Manual Scavenging, 2023): Supreme Court held that rehabilitation of manual scavengers is constitutional obligation under Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability) and Article 21. Directed states to provide alternative livelihood, compensation, and training. Surveying and identification of manual scavengers mandatory.
• Shakti Vahini v. Union of India (Honor Killings, 2024): Supreme Court reiterated that honor killings violate Article 21. Directed formation of special cells in police stations to prevent such crimes. Right to choose life partner is fundamental right. Interference by families or caste panchayats punishable.

8.2 Prison Reforms and Undertrial Rights

• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2024): Supreme Court emphasized that personal liberty is paramount. Held that High Courts must exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC liberally to protect liberty. Settled law that bail cannot be refused merely because allegations are serious.
• In Re: Contagion of COVID-19 Virus in Prisons (2023): Supreme Court directed states to decongest prisons by releasing undertrials and convicts on parole. Emphasized that Right to Health is part of Article 21. Directed compliance with Model Prison Manual, 2016 for improving prison conditions.
• Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan (2024): Supreme Court held that prolonged incarceration as undertrial violates Article 21. Directed that undertrials who have completed half of maximum sentence must be released on personal bond. Applies even to heinous offences with exceptions for national security cases.

9. Commercial Law and Corporate Governance

9.1 Insolvency and Bankruptcy

• Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2023): Supreme Court clarified distribution of proceeds under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Held that operational creditors cannot claim equal treatment with financial creditors in distribution. Commercial wisdom of Committee of Creditors (CoC) not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary or illegal.
• Phoenix ARC v. Vishwa Bharati (2024): Supreme Court held that once corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) initiated, all pending legal proceedings against corporate debtor automatically stayed under Section 14 of IBC. Includes arbitration proceedings. Moratorium protects company from enforcement actions during resolution process.
• Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank (2024): Supreme Court held that related party transactions preferring promoters over creditors can be set aside as fraudulent or preferential under Sections 43 and 66 of IBC. Resolution professionals have power to examine such transactions retrospectively.

9.2 Arbitration and Contract Law

• NHAI v. M. Hakeem (2023): Supreme Court held that arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction to grant interest on awarded amount. Section 31(7) of Arbitration Act, 1996 does not limit tribunal's power. Reasonable rate of interest can be awarded from date of default till payment.
• Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (Arbitrability, 2024): Supreme Court clarified the "arbitrability" test. Disputes involving rights in rem (property, insolvency, criminal offences, family law) are non-arbitrable. Disputes involving rights in personam (contractual obligations) are arbitrable. Courts have limited role in examining arbitrability at referral stage.
• Ssangyong Engineering v. NHAI (Public Policy Review, 2023): Supreme Court narrowed grounds for setting aside arbitral awards under Section 34 of Arbitration Act. "Public policy" does not include review of merits. Interference permissible only if award is patently illegal, perverse, or violates fundamental policy of Indian law.

10. Tax Law and Economic Legislation

10.1 Goods and Services Tax (GST) Jurisprudence

• Mohit Minerals v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court upheld constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) of CGST Act prescribing time limit for availing input tax credit (ITC). Held that reasonable restrictions on claiming ITC do not violate Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14. Compliance with tax procedures is reasonable classification.
• Union of India v. Bharti Airtel (2024): Supreme Court examined levy of GST on telecom spectrum usage charges. Held that spectrum usage charges paid to government constitute "supply" under Section 7 of CGST Act. GST leviable on transaction value including such charges.
• Safari Retreats v. Commissioner of CGST (2023): Supreme Court held that construction services for personal use by individual not covered under GST. Section 7 of CGST Act requires "supply in the course or furtherance of business." Personal construction activities fall outside GST net.

10.2 Direct Taxation

• Engineering Analysis Centre v. CIT (2024): Supreme Court held that Explanation 2A to Section 9(1)(i) of Income Tax Act has retrospective effect. Royalty for use of software constitutes income deemed to accrue in India. However, taxation must consider India-specific DTAA (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) provisions.
• Hindustan Unilever v. State of Maharashtra (2023): Supreme Court examined validity of retrospective tax amendments. Held that retrospective amendments must pass test of Article 14 (non-arbitrariness) and Article 19(1)(g) (reasonableness). Retrospective taxation permissible to clarify legislative intent, not to overcome judicial decisions or create new liabilities.

11. Labour and Employment Law

11.1 Industrial Relations and Labour Rights

• Amazon India v. Union of India (Gig Workers' Rights, 2024): Supreme Court held that gig workers and platform workers are entitled to social security benefits. Directed government to frame regulations under Code on Social Security, 2020. Right to livelihood (Article 21) includes fair wages and working conditions for all categories of workers.
• Gammon India v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court clarified scope of "retrenchment" under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Held that closure of establishment due to business losses constitutes retrenchment. Compensation under Section 25F mandatory even in closure cases unless exception applies.
• State Bank of India v. Workmen (2024): Supreme Court held that "workman" definition under Industrial Disputes Act excludes managerial and supervisory employees. Functional test applies: nature of work determines status, not designation. Employees exercising independent judgment and discretion are excluded from "workman" category.

11.2 Sexual Harassment and Workplace Safety

• Jyoti v. Union of India (2023): Supreme Court directed all establishments to constitute Internal Complaints Committees under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Non-compliance attracts penalties. Mandatory training programs for employees on workplace gender sensitivity ordered.
• ABC v. State of Maharashtra (2024): Bombay High Court held that confidentiality of complainant's identity in sexual harassment cases must be maintained throughout proceedings. Disclosure of identity amounts to contempt of court and violates victim's dignity under Article 21.

12. Common Mistakes and Interview Trap Areas

12.1 Trap Alerts

• Electoral Bonds Judgment - Common Error: Students often confuse the striking down of Electoral Bonds Scheme with general political funding. The judgment specifically struck down amendments to Section 29C of RP Act, Section 182 of Companies Act, and Section 13A of IT Act, not all political donations. Anonymous funding was the core issue.
• Royalty vs. Tax Distinction: After the Mineral Area Development Authority judgment (2024), many candidates incorrectly state that royalty is a tax. The Supreme Court clarified that royalty is a contractual consideration for mineral extraction, not a tax under Entry 50, List II. States can impose separate taxes on minerals.
• PMLA Arrest Provisions: Confusion persists about arrest powers under PMLA. Section 19 of PMLA mandates that arrest memo must contain reasons and material justifying arrest (Senthil Balaji judgment). Mere suspicion insufficient; "reason to believe" standard applies based on material evidence.
• Bail vs. Anticipatory Bail: Candidates often wrongly apply "bail is the rule" principle to anticipatory bail. The principle applies to regular bail under Section 437/439 CrPC. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC has different considerations including nature of accusation and severity of punishment.
• Retrospective vs. Prospective Application: In Deepika Singh case (2023) on daughters' coparcenary rights, the retrospective application of 2005 amendment is often misunderstood. Rights accrue from 2005 irrespective of father's living status, but partition before 2005 is protected. Vested rights prior to amendment are not disturbed.
• Live-in Relationships: The Vatsal Panjaratnam judgment (2023) protects right to live together, not conferring marital status. Live-in partners do not automatically get spousal rights under succession or maintenance laws. Protection is only against state interference in personal autonomy.
• Creamy Layer in SC/ST Promotions: After Abhay Kumar Singh (2023), students incorrectly state that creamy layer applies to all SC/ST reservations. The judgment applies only when reservation in promotions exceeds reasonable limits affecting efficiency (Article 335). Creamy layer in SC/ST is still evolving jurisprudence, not settled across all contexts.
• Article 300A Protection: Many candidates treat Right to Property under Article 300A as equivalent to fundamental rights. Post Thakur Bhim Singh (2023), it's clear that Article 300A provides protection but does not enjoy the same constitutional status as Articles 12-35. Acquisition permissible through law with reasonable procedure, not necessarily with compensation at market value.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Commencement: Common error is stating BNS, 2023 is effective from date of enactment. All three criminal laws (BNS, BNSS, BSA) came into force on 1st July 2024, not 2023. Transition provisions apply for pending cases under old laws.
• Model Code of Conduct Enforceability: MCC is not statutory; it's a set of guidelines. However, post ECI v. Harish Rawat (2023), violation can result in party derecognition. MCC does not freeze government functioning or statutory welfare schemes-only discretionary announcements designed to influence voters.
• NOTA Consequential Effect: Despite Anoop Baranwal (2024), NOTA still does not result in re-election or candidate disqualification. NOTA votes counted separately but candidate with highest votes wins even if NOTA gets majority. The judgment only directed ECI to explore consequential mechanisms.
• IBC Moratorium Scope: Section 14 of IBC imposes automatic moratorium on initiation of CIRP, but existing decrees can be enforced post-approval of resolution plan. The moratorium protects the corporate debtor during resolution, not indefinitely. Post-resolution, all claims extinguish except as per approved plan.
• Arbitrability Test: Disputes involving public policy, fraud, or criminal elements are non-arbitrable. However, Vidya Drolia (2024) clarified that fraud allegations do not automatically make dispute non-arbitrable. If fraud is not disputed or requires elaborate evidence, matter can still be arbitrated.
• GST on Services to Self: Students wrongly assume all activities attract GST. Section 7 of CGST Act requires supply in "course or furtherance of business." Personal use, individual construction, or non-business activities fall outside GST (Safari Retreats judgment).

Recent judgments and legal developments form the backbone of contemporary judicial discourse and demonstrate the evolving interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions. Aspirants must stay updated with Supreme Court and High Court pronouncements, particularly those interpreting fundamental rights, legislative amendments, and emerging areas like digital rights and environmental justice. Understanding the ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) of judgments is more critical than rote memorization of case names. In interviews, examiners test not only knowledge of judgments but also the ability to apply principles to hypothetical situations, critique judicial reasoning, and relate judgments to broader constitutional philosophy. Regular reading of Supreme Court weekly digests, reputed law journals, and legal news portals is essential for maintaining currency in this dynamic domain.