A growing number of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India are holding the government accountable for its climate inaction. Citizens and activists are using the courts to demand stronger environmental policies and enforcement of existing laws.

The 'One Nation, One Election' proposal raises a significant constitutional debate concerning its impact on the nation's federal structure and the basic features of parliamentary democracy. Critics argue it undermines regional issues and state autonomy, while proponents cite governance efficiency and policy continuity as key justifications.

Recent amendments creating tribunals raise constitutional issues concerning the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. The central debate is whether excessive tribunalisation infringes upon the core judicial powers of constitutional courts, potentially diluting fundamental rights enforcement.

The Supreme Court's interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) in social media regulation balances the fundamental right to freedom of speech with the need for reasonable restrictions in the digital age. The Court has emphasized that any regulatory framework must be narrowly tailored to avoid unconstitutional chilling effects on online expression.

The Supreme Court's expanding interpretation of Article 14 has transformed it from a guarantee against arbitrary action into a dynamic tool for enforcing substantive equality and non-discrimination. This evolving jurisprudence increasingly applies the doctrine of arbitrariness to test state action and embraces the role of the state as a facilitator of social and economic justice.

Potential reforms to the Anti-Defection Law in 2024-25 aim to address its misuse while triggering constitutional litigation over the balance between legislative party discipline and representative democracy. Any amendment will face judicial scrutiny concerning its impact on the basic structure of the Constitution, particularly parliamentary democracy and the freedom of elected members.

The right to privacy, established as a fundamental right, faces significant challenges from expanding digital surveillance programs which often lack robust oversight. Constitutional concerns center on ensuring such state measures are proportionate, have a legal basis, and do not become tools for indiscriminate mass surveillance.

Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been instrumental in the judicial expansion of fundamental rights by allowing the judiciary to address systemic injustices affecting marginalized groups. Through PILs, courts have creatively interpreted Article 21 to include a wide array of unenumerated rights, thereby transforming the constitutional landscape for citizen welfare.

The constitutionality of internet shutdown orders post-2024 elections is scrutinized against the tests of proportionality and necessity under Article 19. Courts examine if such state-imposed blackouts are a legitimate restriction on free speech or an arbitrary exercise of power violating fundamental rights.

The constitutional validity of retrospective environmental clearances is highly contentious as it potentially violates the principle of sustainable development and the right to a healthy environment. Such ex-post-facto approvals undermine the precautionary principle and are often challenged for being arbitrary and against public trust doctrine.

Federalism challenges in Centre-State environmental conflicts arise from the overlapping legislative powers and the need for a unified national policy. These disputes often test the constitutional scheme of distribution of powers, balancing local environmental concerns with national interests.

The evolving doctrine of separation of powers in India (2024-2025) reflects a dynamic judicial recalibration between the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Recent jurisprudence emphasizes checks and balances while cautiously addressing the legitimacy of judicial review in the face of parliamentary sovereignty.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a clean and healthy environment as an integral part of the right to life. This judicial expansion mandates the State to protect and improve the environment for the well-being of its citizens.

The Supreme Court has increasingly used constitutional morality as a guiding principle to ensure laws and state actions align with the foundational values of the Constitution. This approach has been pivotal in delivering transformative judgments that advance justice, liberty, and equality beyond mere textual interpretation.

A judicial review of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2024-25 would examine its constitutional validity, ensuring it does not violate fundamental rights or exceed legislative competence. The core challenge would likely center on the balance between religious autonomy and state regulation of Waqf properties.

Partners must act in the utmost good faith for the mutual benefit of all, as the partnership relationship is inherently fiduciary. The law requires partners to not make any secret profit or gain an undue advantage from the partnership business.

The Governor's power to withhold assent to a bill is not absolute but is bound by the Constitution. The Governor must ultimately act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, making the decision a constitutional formality rather than a personal discretion.

The non-performance of a partner's duties can lead to liability for resulting losses and may constitute grounds for expulsion from the firm. It also breaches the mutual trust and fiduciary relationship essential to the partnership.

Upon retirement, a partner is entitled to receive their settled dues but remains liable for any existing firm debts incurred before their retirement.

An unregistered partnership firm cannot file a lawsuit to enforce any right arising from a contract against any third party. However, such a firm can still be sued by a third party and may also initiate suits for certain remedies not based on a contract, like a dissolution.