Evolving Indian Judiciary: Eligibility, Transparency, and Tax Rulings - 2026-01-16

Evolving Indian Judiciary: Eligibility, Transparency, and Tax Rulings

In a series of significant developments underscoring the dynamic evolution of India's legal landscape, the Supreme Court has initiated a broad consultation process on relaxing eligibility criteria for judicial services, particularly for candidates with disabilities, while other high courts and authorities address operational efficiencies, transparency limits, pharmaceutical accountability, international tax disputes, and constitutional mechanisms for legislative scrutiny. These updates, emerging from recent rulings and administrative decisions, highlight ongoing efforts to balance equity, efficiency, and integrity within the judiciary and beyond. For legal professionals navigating these changes, the implications extend from recruitment pipelines to courtroom practices and corporate compliance strategies, potentially reshaping access to justice and regulatory enforcement in profound ways.

Supreme Court Seeks Input on Judicial Eligibility for PwD Candidates

At the forefront of these developments is the Supreme Court's proactive stance on refining entry-level judicial services examinations. On a recent hearing, a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, alongside Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vijay Bishnoi, addressed a plea by Bhumika Trust seeking exemptions from the mandatory three-year legal practice requirement for law graduates with disabilities (PwDs). This requirement stems from a landmark May 20, 2023, ruling by a bench headed by former Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, which barred fresh law graduates from appearing in such exams to ensure candidates possess practical experience before donning the judicial robe.

The 2023 decision was rooted in affidavits from high courts revealing that appointing inexperienced graduates had led to "behavioral and temperamental problems," with the court opining that such novices were ill-equipped for the "onerous duties" of judicial officers. The bench emphasized that exposure to courtrooms, litigants, and legal briefs fosters "sensitivity to human problems" and clarity in decision-making. Notably, the ruling clarified that the three-year practice period counts from provisional enrollment as an advocate, not from clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE). It also innovatively held that experience as a law clerk to a judge qualifies as legal practice, recognizing the invaluable insights gained in judicial chambers.

The current plea argues that PwD graduates face barriers in securing apprenticeships with senior advocates, drawing parallels to exemptions granted in Madhya Pradesh. However, the bench cautioned against category-specific relaxations, warning that they could foster feelings of inferiority among exempted judges once in service. Instead, it advocated for uniform standards applicable to all. "We find that young students are disappointed and demoralised as well with this decision. We are planning to get feedback from the students in the National Law Universities (NLUs) and all high courts," the court remarked, directing all high courts to circulate the order to their chief justices and inviting suggestions from HCs, NLUs, and law schools within four weeks.

Certification of practice remains a critical aspect: For district-level practice, it must come from the principal judicial officer or a ten-year standing advocate endorsed by such an officer. For higher courts, endorsement by a designated HC or SC officer is required. This framework aims to standardize verification while accommodating diverse practice experiences.

Legally, this consultation could herald a holistic review of recruitment norms under Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs lower judiciary appointments. For the legal community, it raises questions about inclusivity versus competence: While PwD exemptions promote diversity under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, diluting the practice bar might undermine the very rationale of the 2023 ruling—curbing inexperience-related issues. Law schools and bar associations will likely weigh in on balancing these tensions, potentially influencing state judicial service rules nationwide.

Delhi High Court Expands Working Days

Complementing efforts to bolster judicial capacity, the Delhi High Court (DHC) has decided to convene on the first and third Saturdays of each month. This administrative shift, approved by the Full Court on December 22, 2025, and notified recently, responds to mounting case backlogs in one of India's busiest high courts. With over 70,000 pending matters as of late 2025, the move aims to accelerate disposals without encroaching on traditional holidays.

Historically, Indian courts have experimented with extended hours to tackle pendency— the National Judicial Data Grid reports over 50 million cases nationwide. The DHC's decision aligns with similar initiatives in other HCs, like the Madras High Court’s half-day Saturdays. For practitioners, this means recalibrating schedules: Urgent matters could see faster hearings, but it may strain resources for advocates juggling multiple forums. Ethically, it underscores the judiciary's commitment to Article 21's right to speedy justice, though burnout risks for judicial staff warrant monitoring.

Limits on RTI Disclosure for Judicial Complaints

In a ruling reinforcing privacy in judicial service matters, the Chhattisgarh High Court has held that information on complaints against judicial officers cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput set aside directives from the State Information Commission (SIC) mandating disclosure of details pertaining to three officers, in response to a private individual's query.

The court classified such records as "personal information" under Section 8(1)(j), exempting them absent a larger public interest. "The information sought for is maintained by the petitioners being employer of the judicial officers can be treated as records pertaining to personal information of those judicial officers and publication of the same is prohibited under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, as this is the matter between the employer and the employee and are governed by the Service Rules, therefore, falls under the expression 'personal information' and disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or public interest," Justice Rajput observed.

This decision builds on Supreme Court precedents like Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner (2013), prioritizing service confidentiality. Implications for legal professionals include tighter boundaries on RTI fishing expeditions into judicial conduct, protecting officers from unwarranted scrutiny while potentially hindering public oversight of accountability mechanisms under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It may prompt appeals to the SC, testing the public interest override in sensitive domains.

Upholding Prosecution in Pharma Safety Case

Turning to regulatory enforcement, the Allahabad High Court refused to quash proceedings against a pharmaceutical company implicated in cough syrup deaths in Uzbekistan. Justice Harvir Singh upheld the Drug Inspector's actions under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, emphasizing that mere possession of a manufacturing license does not absolve violations of its conditions.

Samples collected revealed non-compliance, with lab reports providing prima facie evidence. "The complaint lays out the basis for prosecution, and the analytical report constitutes adequate prima facie evidence for the case to proceed in accordance with law. It is further noted that, having a license to manufacture the certain drugs is not sufficient and absolute. However, the company has to comply with the conditions of license, is equally important and, if there is any violation in respect of the conditions, given in the license itself, an appropriate case can be made out against the revisionists, as such the revisionists have violated the conditions of license, as enumerated in Section 78 of the Act," the court stated.

This ruling, amid global scrutiny of Indian pharma exports (e.g., WHO alerts on contaminated syrups), reinforces Section 78's stringent standards. For the legal fraternity, it signals robust defenses needed in compliance audits, potentially increasing litigation in the sector valued at $50 billion. It also highlights cross-border accountability, aligning with international treaties on drug safety.

Supreme Court Denies Tax Exemption in Flipkart Deal

In the realm of international taxation, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals by Tiger Global entities, denying capital gains tax exemptions on their sale of Flipkart shares to Walmart in 2018. The dispute involved Mauritius-based holdings (Tiger Global International II, III, IV) that acquired stakes in Flipkart Singapore pre-2017, claiming "grandfathering" under the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).

However, the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in 2020 branded them "conduit companies" and "puppets" controlled by U.S.-based Tiger Global Management (TGM) LLC, invoking the treaty's anti-abuse provisions post-BEPS (Base Erosion and Profit Shifting) amendments. "The AAR labeled the Mauritius firms 'conduit companies' and 'puppets,' asserting that the real control lay with Tiger Global Management (TGM) LLC in the United States," records note, concluding the structure facilitated tax avoidance.

The SC's affirmation strengthens India's GAAR (General Anti-Avoidance Rule) under the Income Tax Act, 1961, curbing treaty shopping. For corporate lawyers, this mandates substance-over-form analysis in cross-border M&A, especially in tech (the $16 billion deal reshaped e-commerce). It may deter similar offshore vehicles, impacting FDI flows while bolstering revenue collection estimated at billions.

Enhancing Legislative Scrutiny via Article 88

Amid concerns over superficial parliamentary debates, a commentary advocates invoking Article 88 of the Constitution, allowing the Attorney General (AG) to participate in House proceedings for legal insights. With disruptions and partisanship obscuring bills' constitutional viability, this "under-utilised mechanism" could demystify drafting and impacts.

As noted, "even when bills are taken up for discussion, the opportunity for rigorous examination—of drafting choices, constitutional compatibility and downstream consequences—remains limited." AG interventions, as in past GST deliberations, could foster informed discourse, reducing post-enactment challenges under Article 13 (void laws). For constitutional lawyers, it promotes collaborative governance, potentially elevating legislative quality in a polarized era.

Broader Implications for the Indian Legal System

These developments weave a tapestry of reform: The SC's eligibility review promotes reflective policy-making, echoing State of Haryana v. Inder Prakash Anand on judicial standards. DHC's Saturdays and RTI limits optimize operations while safeguarding privacy, per R.K. Jain v. Union of India . Pharma and tax rulings exemplify zero-tolerance for lapses, aligning with Vishaka principles of accountability. Collectively, they address pendency (4.4 crore cases), diversity gaps (only 38% women judges), and economic integrity, urging legal practitioners to adapt strategies amid uniformity pushes.

Impacts ripple widely: Fresh graduates may pivot to clerkships; advocates face extended availability; firms enhance due diligence. Yet challenges persist—PwD inclusion risks dilution if feedback favors status quo, and AG's role hinges on non-partisan invocation. Ultimately, these steps fortify a resilient justice system.

Conclusion

From judicial gates to global trades, India's legal updates signal a judiciary intent on evolution. As consultations unfold and rulings settle, legal professionals must stay vigilant, leveraging these for equitable, efficient practice. The coming months promise further clarity, shaping the bar and bench for generations.