Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar's recent comments describing Article 142 of the Constitution as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces” have drawn strong criticism from Opposition leaders. They accused the Rajya Sabha Chairman of violating constitutional neutrality and undermining the judiciary’s role. Highlighting past judicial reliance on Article 142 — including in the Ram Janmabhoomi case — leaders such as Kapil Sibal, P. Wilson, and Randeep Surjewala called Dhankhar’s remarks politically motivated and selectively critical of the Supreme Court. The episode adds fuel to the ongoing executive-judiciary tension, as Opposition parties reaffirm the primacy of the Constitution over all institutions.

In a landmark ruling in The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr., the Supreme Court has decisively redefined the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion, reaffirming the supremacy of representative democracy over unelected constitutional heads. By deeming ten long-pending Bills as having received assent and establishing a timeframe for assent decisions, the judgment restores balance and sanity to India’s federal constitutional framework. While debates continue over the judicial power to fix such timelines, the verdict underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting constitutional principles from being undermined by executive inaction.

India’s vision of becoming a Viksit Bharat by 2047 hinges on an efficient, inclusive, and sustainable logistics network. As the logistics sector contributes significantly to India’s greenhouse gas emissions — particularly through road transport and warehousing — a green transformation is crucial. This article explores strategies for decarbonising the sector through enhanced rail freight, electrified road transport, clean maritime shipping, and renewable-powered warehouses. With the right blend of policy, infrastructure, and innovation, India can build a climate-resilient logistics system aligned with its net-zero goals.

The UK Supreme Court’s recent ruling in For Women Scotland Ltd. vs The Scottish Ministers redefined the legal term "woman" under the Equality Act, 2010, to mean only biological women, excluding transwomen even with gender recognition certificates. While the Court clarified that transgender individuals remain protected under gender reassignment provisions, the decision sparked widespread debate and concern among trans rights advocates who fear increased exclusion from women-only spaces and services. This landmark interpretation could influence similar legal discourses globally. In India, while the Constitution does not define "woman," progressive Supreme Court judgments like NALSA v. Union of India (2014) have recognized the rights of transgender persons to self-identify. However, implementation challenges persist under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. As gender identity rights face setbacks in several democracies, India stands at a crucial juncture where it must reconcile constitutional values of dignity and equality with evolving debates around sex and gender.