Supreme Court's 2026 Docket: Landmark Cases on Religion, Citizenship, and Liberty

Answer: B

Statement 1 is correct: The CAA grants citizenship to specified minorities from the three countries who entered India by the cut-off date. Statement 2 is correct: It specifies the six religious communities. Statement 3 is incorrect: The CAA makes an exception for these specific illegal migrants, treating them not as illegal migrants for the purpose of citizenship, but it does not make *all* illegal migrants eligible for naturalization. It specifically fast-tracks naturalization for the mentioned groups. Statement 4 is correct: The Act explicitly excludes tribal areas under the Sixth Schedule and areas under the 'Inner Line Permit' system.

Answer: A

Statement 1 is correct: Article 370 was indeed a temporary provision. Statement 2 is correct: The Presidential Order of 2019, issued with the 'concurrence' of the state government (which was under President's Rule), made Article 370 inoperative. Statement 3 is correct: The J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019, bifurcated the state into two UTs. Statement 4 is incorrect: The Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was dissolved in 1956. The abrogation was done based on the recommendation of the J&K Legislative Assembly (which was then under President's Rule, meaning the Governor's recommendation was taken as the state government's 'concurrence'). The Supreme Court later upheld this process, stating that the President had the power to abrogate Article 370 without the recommendation of the J&K Constituent Assembly, especially after its dissolution.

Answer: D

Statement A, B, and C are correct. Article 44 is a DPSP, UCC aims for uniform personal laws, and the SC has indeed urged its implementation. Statement D is NOT correct. While concerns about infringement on Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) and Article 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) are often raised, the Supreme Court has generally held that a UCC, if framed reasonably and without infringing upon the 'essential practices' of a religion, would not necessarily infringe upon these fundamental rights. The debate is precisely about balancing these rights with the DPSP under Article 44, and a well-drafted UCC could potentially be upheld.

Answer: A

Both Assertion (A) and Reason (R) are true, and R is the correct explanation for A. The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgment, indeed struck down the Electoral Bond Scheme. The primary reason for this decision was that the anonymity provided by the scheme violated the fundamental right of voters to know about the sources of political funding, which is considered an essential facet of the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The Court emphasized that this right to information is crucial for ensuring free and fair elections and holding political parties accountable.

Answer: C

Statement 1 is correct: The Special Marriage Act, 1954, and other personal laws, traditionally define marriage in heterosexual terms, using gender-specific language like 'man' and 'woman'. Statement 2 is incorrect: While the Supreme Court did not *itself* legalise same-sex marriage, it did not entirely decline it. A majority of the bench agreed that the Parliament should consider enacting a law for same-sex unions, and some judges advocated for civil unions. The Court acknowledged the discrimination faced by same-sex couples but ultimately left the legislative aspect to Parliament. Statement 3 is correct: Petitioners indeed invoked Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), arguing that the right to marry or form a civil union is an integral part of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty.