Indian Courts Grapple with Presidential Powers, Live-In Relationships, and Digital Arrests in a Landmark Month of Rulings

New Delhi – In a period of significant judicial activity, Indian courts have delivered a series of critical judgments touching upon the core tenets of constitutional law, civil rights, and the evolving challenges of the digital age. From the Supreme Court's hearing on a contentious Presidential Reference concerning gubernatorial powers to the Rajasthan High Court's proactive directives on registering live-in relationships and combating "digital arrest" scams, the judiciary is actively shaping the nation's legal landscape.

Supreme Court Confronts "Appeal in Disguise" on Governor's Powers

The constitutional relationship between the executive and the judiciary came under intense scrutiny as the Supreme Court heard arguments on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on setting timelines for Governors to assent to State Bills. On July 28, 2025, the States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala vehemently opposed the Reference, arguing it is a thinly veiled attempt to overturn the Court's authoritative April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case .

Representing Tamil Nadu, senior advocate P. Wilson labeled the Reference an "appeal in disguise" that should be "returned as unanswered in whole." The core of the states' argument is that the President, through a Reference under the advisory jurisdiction of Article 143, cannot ask the Supreme Court to effectively sit in appeal of its own binding judgment delivered under its adjudicatory jurisdiction.

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Kerala, submitted that the advisory route is only available for questions of law not yet settled by the Court. He argued that the powers of Governors under Article 200 of the Constitution have been conclusively decided in recent cases involving Telangana, Punjab, and Tamil Nadu. "When the Supreme Court in its adjudicatory jurisdiction pronounces its authoritative opinion on a question of law, it cannot be said that there is any doubt about the question of law," Kerala's submission stated.

The states contended that if the Union government disagreed with the April 8 ruling, the appropriate legal remedies were a review or curative petition, not a collateral challenge via a Presidential Reference. Their failure to file such petitions, they argued, implies acceptance of the judgment, cementing it as the settled law of the land under Article 141. The outcome of this hearing will have profound implications for the principles of judicial finality and the separation of powers.

Rajasthan High Court's Sweeping Pronouncements on Social and Digital Issues

The Rajasthan High Court has been a hotbed of jurisprudential development, issuing a series of directives that address pressing societal concerns and gaps in existing law.

Regulating Live-In Relationships and Protecting Children

In a potentially transformative move, the Jaipur bench of the High Court, under Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, has called for a legislative framework to govern live-in relationships. Acknowledging the societal reality of such partnerships and the legal vacuum surrounding them, the court directed that until a law is enacted, a government authority must be established in each district to register these relationships.

"The live-in-relationship agreement is liable to be registered by the Competent authority/ Tribunal, which is required to be established by the Government," Justice Dhand ordered. The court emphasized the need to address and redress the grievances of partners and, crucially, protect the rights of children born from such relationships. The directive also called for the creation of a dedicated web portal for this purpose.

The court further referred a critical question to a larger bench: "Whether a married person living with an unmarried person, without dissolution of his/her marriage or/and whether two married persons with two different marriages living in live-in-relationship, without dissolution of their marriages, are entitled to get protection order from the Court?" This reflects the judiciary's attempt to reconcile traditional legal frameworks with evolving social norms.

Taking Suo Motu Cognizance of 'Digital Arrest' Scams

Responding to a rising tide of cybercrime, the High Court took suo motu cognizance of the "insidious" trend of "digital arrest scams," where fraudsters impersonate law enforcement to extort money from citizens. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted the absence of any legal sanction for arrests conducted via video calls, terming the practice a grave threat.

"No Provision For Law Enforcement To Conduct Arrests Via Video Calls," the court noted, directing the State and Central Governments to report on the steps being taken to curb this menace. The court stressed the urgent need for public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the lawful arrest process under the CrPC and to develop mechanisms with the RBI to block fraudulent financial transactions associated with these scams.

Landmark Rulings on Service Law, Recruitment, and Civil Rights

The Rajasthan High Court also delivered numerous impactful judgments in the realms of service and administrative law, reinforcing principles of fairness, non-arbitrariness, and natural justice.

• Recruitment Transparency: In Narpat Surela v. the State of Rajasthan , the court held that failing to issue a model answer key, invite objections, and constitute an expert committee during a recruitment process renders it non-transparent and violates the fundamental rights of aspirants under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
• Juvenile Justice and Right to be Forgotten: In Suresh Kumar v. Union of India , the court championed the "right to be forgotten" for juvenile delinquents. It reinstated a constable whose services were terminated for not disclosing a conviction as a juvenile, ruling that this right is absolute. The court held that the state is lawfully restrained from seeking information about juvenile delinquency where the benefit of the Juvenile Justice Act has been granted, as doing so defeats the rehabilitative purpose of the statute.
• Transfer Policy and Employee Welfare: In several cases, the court intervened to quash arbitrary transfer orders. It stayed the transfer of an 8-month pregnant nursing officer posted 320 km away from her home ( Sulochana v. State of Rajasthan ) and set aside the transfer of another nurse who was the sole caregiver for her mother with Alzheimer's ( Manju Sharma v. State of Rajasthan ), underscoring that the State must act as a model employer and consider "exceptional personal hardships."
• Benefit of Doubt Acquittal: The court clarified in Nathu Lal v. State of Rajasthan that a "benefit of doubt" acquittal cannot be used as a "ruse to deprive an employee of legitimate financial entitlements." It ordered the payment of arrears to a Junior Engineer who had been denied them after being acquitted in a criminal case that led to his suspension, stating the denial was "unfair, unjust and arbitrary."

Citizenship and Electoral Rolls

Away from the courtroom, the legal debate over citizenship and electoral rights was reignited by the Election Commission of India's (ECI) revision of electoral rolls in Bihar. Defending the ECI's verification of citizenship, senior advocate G. Rajagopalan articulated the clear constitutional and statutory position. He cited Article 326 of the Constitution and Section 16 of the Representation of The People Act, 1950, which unequivocally state that only a citizen of India can be an elector.

"It is fundamental that unless a person is a citizen of India he cannot be an elector. Consequently, he cannot become a legislator also," he wrote. The analysis serves as a crucial reminder that citizenship is the bedrock of electoral participation and that documents like the Aadhaar card do not confer or prove citizenship, a point explicitly mentioned in Section 9 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016.

These developments, spanning the highest court to regional benches and public discourse, illustrate a dynamic and responsive judiciary. The legal community will be watching closely as these issues continue to evolve, setting precedents that will influence constitutional interpretation, administrative action, and the protection of civil rights for years to come.