CLAT PG Current Affairs — 9 June 2026

The first week of June 2026 witnessed pivotal legal developments across constitutional and environmental law. The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions to three states over illegal sand mining in the National Chambal Sanctuary, established a landmark Victim Protection Plan for human trafficking cases, and ruled on criminal antecedents in bail decisions. Delhi High Court recognized the right to be forgotten under Article 21. Key rulings covered welfare benefits, disability pension, and Lok Adalat jurisdiction limits in divorce cases.

This week's legal developments showcase the judiciary's expanding role in constitutional interpretation and environmental protection. The Supreme Court's Chambal Sanctuary ruling demonstrates Article 142's sweeping powers to enforce environmental obligations under Articles 21, 48-A, and 51-A(g), spanning three states. The Victim Protection Plan in trafficking cases reflects a victim-centric constitutional approach, treating rehabilitation as integral to Article 21's dignity guarantee. The right to be forgotten recognition by Delhi High Court establishes informational privacy as a constitutional facet, crucial for digital age jurisprudence. Criminal law witnessed refinement in bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that criminal antecedents directly impact bail conditions compliance likelihood. The welfare benefits ruling reinforced gender equality principles under Articles 14 and 15(1), rejecting marital status-based discrimination. These decisions collectively demonstrate constitutional courts' role in adapting fundamental rights to contemporary challenges while maintaining checks on executive action through environmental mandamus and victim-centric remedies.

On May 16, 2026, President promulgated Ordinance increasing Supreme Court strength from 34 to 38 judges. Five judges took oath - two filled existing vacancies, three occupy Ordinance-created posts. Supreme Court Collegium's acceptance raises judicial independence concerns as three judges' tenure depends on executive action. Ordinance ceases in six weeks unless Parliament passes replacement Act. Critics argue this compromises security of tenure and appearance of judicial detachment from executive, violating basic structure principles established in NJAC judgment (2015).

This Ordinance creates unprecedented constitutional tension between judicial independence and executive power. Under Article 123, President can issue ordinances when Parliament isn't in session, but using this for judicial appointments raises alarm. Three Supreme Court judges now hold positions that exist only through executive fiat - their tenure depends on government converting the Ordinance to statute within six weeks of Parliament reassembling. This violates core judicial independence principles. The Supreme Court itself ruled in NJAC case (2015) that judicial independence is basic structure, requiring appearance of detachment from executive. Here, judges whose seats depend on government's parliamentary majority may appear compromised when deciding cases involving Union government. The D.C. Wadhwa doctrine (1986) prohibits governance by repeated ordinances as 'fraud on Constitution.' If Parliament rejects the Bill, these judges' positions become untenable - they cannot be removed mid-term, creating legal chaos. The Collegium's acceptance appears calculated, betting on political process completing transition to proper legislation. However, this sets dangerous precedent for executive manipulation of court composition without parliamentary scrutiny, potentially undermining public confidence in judicial impartiality and constitutional governance principles.