Top 7 Legal Current Affairs: February 2026

In the past few weeks, several important legal developments have taken place across courts, legislatures and regulatory bodies. The Supreme Court has clarified rules on arrest, addressed concerns about judicial sensitivity, and begun hearing major constitutional challenges. At the same time, issues relating to legal education, data protection, state identity and land-use regulation have come into focus.

This blog brings together eight key updates that reflect how different areas of law - criminal procedure, constitutional law, professional regulation and public policy are evolving in 2026.

#1 SC Issues Contempt Notice to NCERT

The Supreme Court banned an NCERT Class 8 textbook over references to “corruption in judiciary” and initiated contempt proceedings against officials. The case raises serious questions about institutional dignity, free speech and limits of academic criticism.

Case Title: In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues, 2026

Relevant Laws & Legal Principles

Here are the key legal provisions and principles that the Supreme Court’s order touches on:

1. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (especially Section 2(c))

• Defines criminal contempt to include publication or words that scandalise or tend to lower the authority of the judiciary.

• The Court said on prima facie view, the textbook content might fall under criminal contempt if it was deliberate and aimed at scandalising the judiciary.

2. Supreme Court’s Inherent Powers & Suo Moto Jurisdiction

• The Constitution and judicial practice allow the Supreme Court to take up matters by its own motion (suo moto) where the institution’s dignity or public interest is at stake.

• Here the Court invoked its authority to protect the judiciary’s institutional integrity.

3. Seizure & Ban Orders

• The Court directed sweeping removal of all physical and digital copies, imposing a complete ban on publication, reprinting or electronic sharing nationwide.

• This draws from the Court’s supervisory powers to enforce compliance with its directions and preserve institutional faith among citizens.

Background: How It Started

In February 2026, NCERT released a revised Class 8 Social Science textbook (Part 2).

One of its sections - under a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” – included material on “corruption in the judiciary”, backlog of cases and institutional challenges.

The material reportedly mentioned numbers of complaints received, backlogs in courts and quotes attributed to senior jurists, without balanced context.

Once the book began circulation, reports and concerns emerged that the content might be seen as violating the dignity of the judiciary and not adequately contextualised.

What Happened in Court?

1. Supreme Court Takes Suo Moto Notice - The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant (along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi) took up the matter on its own motion, without a formal petition.

2. Court’s Strong Objections - The bench said:

• The chapter could scandalise the judiciary among students and the larger public.

• It might amount to a calculated attempt to demean and undermine the institution.

• Such material, if published unchecked, could erode respect for the judicial system.

The Court stressed that legitimate criticism of public institutions is protected, but publication that lowers judicial esteem without context might cross into contempt.

3. Banning the Textbook - The Supreme Court ordered a nationwide ban on:

• printing further copies,

• re-printing the current edition,

• and digital dissemination of the book.

It also required seizure and removal of all copies - physical and online from circulation.

4. Contempt Show-Cause Notices

The bench issued show-cause notices to:

• The Secretary of School Education, Ministry of Education;

• The Director of NCERT;

asking why action, including under the Contempt of Courts Act, should not be taken against them or others responsible.

5. Accountability & Investigation Orders - The Court also directed:

• NCERT to provide names, credentials and meeting minutes of those who prepared the chapter.

• Educational authorities across states to seize copies and report compliance within two weeks.

• No teachings based on this book pending further orders.

6. Next Hearing - The matter has been set for further hearing on March 11, 2026 to examine evidence, accountability and appropriate legal steps.

#2 SC Overturns ‘Pyjama String’ Rape Attempt Ruling

The Supreme Court set aside a controversial Allahabad High Court ruling that had held certain acts against a minor did not amount to attempt to rape. The Court restored the trial and called for greater judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases.

Case Title: In Re: Order dated 17.03.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No. 1449/2024

Relevant Legal Provisions

This case involved interpretation of the following laws:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)

• Section 375 – Definition of rape
• Section 376 – Punishment for rape
• Section 511 – Punishment for attempt to commit an offence

2. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act)

Applies when the victim is a minor (under 18 years).

Covers aggravated sexual assault and related offences.

3. Criminal Procedure Law

The trial had begun before a Special POCSO Court, which had summoned the accused for offences including attempt to rape.

Background: What Happened?

The case concerned an 11-year-old girl.

According to the prosecution:

• The accused allegedly grabbed her breasts.

• One accused broke the string of her pyjama.

• He attempted to pull down her lower garment.

• He tried to drag her under a culvert.

• Passersby intervened.

• The accused fled.

The Special Judge (POCSO), Kasganj, issued summons for offences including attempt to rape.

What the Allahabad High Court Held (March 17, 2025)

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court modified the summoning order.

The High Court observed:

• Breaking the string of the pyjama.

• Pulling the victim.

• Grabbing her breasts.

These acts, by themselves, were not sufficient to conclude that the accused had determined to commit rape.

The Court reasoned that:

• There was no evidence that the victim was made naked.

• No further overt act toward penetration was shown.

• Therefore, it could not infer an “attempt to rape.”

This judgment attracted strong criticism.

Supreme Court’s Intervention

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance (on its own). It:

• Stayed the High Court judgment.

• Issued notice to Union and Uttar Pradesh governments.Observed that such remarks may discourage victims from pursuing cases.

On 10 February 2026, the Supreme Court:

• Set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment.

• Restored the original summoning order of the Special POCSO Court.

• Directed that the trial proceed.

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

1. Prima Facie Assessment

The Court clarified: Its observations are only preliminary and should not be taken as deciding guilt.

The trial court will determine guilt based on evidence.

2. Attempt to Rape

The Supreme Court emphasized: Attempt does not require completion of the act.

To establish “attempt,” there must be:

• Intention to commit the offence.

• Some overt act towards its commission.

Breaking the string of the pyjama and attempting to pull down the garment of an 11-year-old child could not be dismissed lightly at the threshold stage.

The High Court had prematurely evaluated evidence at the summoning stage.

3. Insensitive Judicial Remarks

The Supreme Court expressed concern that: Insensitive or prejudicial observations in sexual offence cases can:

• Discourage victims.

• Create stigma.

• Pressure complainants to withdraw cases.

The Court said such comments have a chilling effect.

Directions Issued by Supreme Court

1. National Judicial Academy Committee

The Court requested the National Judicial Academy to:

• Form a Committee of Experts.

• Prepare Draft Guidelines.

• Develop standards for judicial sensitivity in sexual offence cases.

The Guidelines must:

• Be victim-centric.

• Be easily understandable.

• Focus on vulnerable victims (children, women, marginalized communities).

2. Review of Gender Handbook

The Court also suggested review of the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes (2023).

It observed that:

• The handbook was too technical.

• It should be more practical and accessible.

#3 SC Examines Constitutionality of DPDP Act

The Supreme Court is examining the validity of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, including its amendment to the RTI Act. The case tests the balance between privacy, transparency and freedom of expression.

Case Title: Venkatesh Nayak v Union of India, 2026

Relevant Constitutional Provisions & Laws

These are the main laws and constitutional rights involved:

1. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act)

India’s law regulating digital personal data processing, consent, rights, breaches and penalties.

2. Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)

Law that gives citizens a right to ask public authorities for information.

3. Amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act

Done through Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act. The amendment removes the old public interest test and creates a blanket ban on disclosure of any “personal information” under RTI.

4. Constitution of India

• Article 14: Right to equality before law.

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression, including the right to know.

• Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty (includes informational privacy).

5. Landmark precedent - Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)

Supreme Court ruled that right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21, and restrictions must pass a proportionality test.

Background: What Is the DPDP Act?

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (often called the DPDP Act) was passed by Parliament and got the President’s assent on 11 August 2023. It seeks to regulate how personal data is collected, used, stored and shared in India.

It also amended parts of the RTI Act, especially Section 8(1)(j), which deals with when information can be denied under RTI.

The DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified later to implement the Act.

Why the Supreme Court Case Was Filed?

On 2 February 2026, transparency activist Venkatesh Nayak filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. His petition, along with related petitions by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information and The Reporters’ Collective, challenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the DPDP Act and Rules.

They argue that some key sections of the DPDP Act and Rules violate fundamental rights and weaken transparency, including:

Main Issues Raised by Petitioners

1. Amendment to RTI (Section 8(1)(j))

• The old RTI provision allowed disclosure of personal information in the public interest.

• The DPDP Act removes this “public interest override,” creating a blanket ban on disclosure simply because information is “personal”.

• Petitioners say this undermines right to know and weakens public scrutiny of government actions.

2. Sections 17(1)(c) and 17(2)

• Allow data processing for crime prevention, law enforcement, national security, etc.

• Petitioners worry this could create a broad surveillance regime without safeguards.

3. Section 36 & Rule 23(2)

• The government can demand data from companies without clear limits, and companies may be barred from telling individuals that their data was handed over.

• Petitioners call this arbitrary and against fundamental rights.

4. Rules on the Data Protection Board (Section 18, Rules 17)

• The committee selecting members of the Data Protection Board is seen as dominated by the executive branch, compromising independence.

• This is argued to violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

5. Section 33(1) - “Significant” Data Breaches

Definition of what counts as a “significant breach” is vague, giving undefined power to penalise data fiduciaries.

What the Supreme Court Has Done So Far

This case is ongoing. The Court has taken a few key steps:

1. Notice Issued - On 16 February 2026, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Union Government on the petitions challenging the DPDP Act, RTI amendment and Rules.

2. Interim Stay Declined - The Court refused to grant an interim stay on the DPDP Act or its provisions while the constitutional challenge is pending. It took the view that it would not halt a parliamentary statute before full hearing.

3. Referred to Larger Bench - Because this challenge raises fundamental questions about the balance between privacy, transparency and free speech, the Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench (a larger bench of judges).

The next hearing is scheduled for 23 March 2026.

Key Legal Questions Before the Court

When the Supreme Court hears the case fully, it will have to answer:

1. Does the DPDP Act’s amendment to RTI remove a fundamental mechanism of transparency? Was the public interest override important, and does its removal violate citizens’ rights?

2. Does the DPDP Act violate freedom of speech and expression by restricting access to information? Is the “right to know” part of freedom of speech?

3. Do Sections allowing broad data processing enable a surveillance state without adequate checks? Are there necessary safeguards?

4. Are these provisions arbitrary or unreasonable under Article 14 (Equality)? Does the government have clear, rational reasons for these changes?

5. Are procedural fairness and separation of powers upheld in creating the Data Protection Board and its functioning? Are appointments independent?

In simple terms, people filed a constitutional challenge because they believe that the new data law and rules make it harder for citizens to get government information. This could limit transparency, accountability, and journalism. The law may give the government broad powers without enough safeguards.

#4 SC Allows Open Hearing on 3-Year Rule Review

In a rare move, the Supreme Court allowed open court hearing of review petitions challenging its mandate requiring three years’ practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial service. The outcome could reshape eligibility for judicial aspirants.

Case Title: Chandrasen Yadav v. Union of India, 2025

Relevant Constitutional & Legal Provisions

1. Article 137 - Review Power

The Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgments.

Normally, review petitions are decided in chambers (closed room), without oral arguments.

Open court hearing in review is rare and allowed only in exceptional cases.

2. Article 141 - Law Declared by Supreme Court

The law laid down by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts in India.

The petitioner argues that by imposing the 3-year practice rule, the Court effectively created policy, which may go beyond Article 141.

3. Article 19(1)(g) - Right to Practice Any Profession

Every citizen has the right to choose and practice any profession.

The petitioner claims that making 3 years’ practice mandatory restricts fresh graduates from entering judicial service.

4. Judicial Service Eligibility Rule (3-Year Practice Requirement)

In May 2025, the Supreme Court restored the rule requiring minimum 3 years of practice as an advocate to be eligible for entry-level judicial service (Civil Judge Junior Division).

This requirement had been relaxed in 2002.

Background: What Happened?

In May 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that:

• A candidate must have at least 3 years of practice at the Bar before applying for judicial service.

• Courtroom experience ensures maturity, competence, and better judicial decision-making.

• Practical exposure is necessary before becoming a trial judge.

This effectively revived the pre-2002 rule.

Why Was the Rule Reintroduced?

The Court relied mainly on:

• Affidavits from several High Courts and State Governments.

• Concerns that fresh graduates lack practical exposure.

• The belief that courtroom experience improves judicial quality.

• The Court felt that trial judges need real courtroom understanding before presiding over cases.

Why Was The Review Petition Filed?

Advocate Chandrasen Yadav filed a review petition challenging the May 2025 judgment.

He raised several important objections:

1. Shetty Commission Recommendations Ignored

The petitioner argued that the Shetty Commission had recommended removal of the practice requirement.

According to the Commission:

• Law degrees now include internships and court visits.

• Judicial training academies provide structured training.

• Therefore, mandatory practice may not be necessary.

The petitioner says the Court did not fully consider these aspects.

2. No Data to Support the Rule

The petitioner claims:

• No statistical evidence was cited to show fresh graduates perform poorly as judges.

• No data was provided to show that judges with 3-year practice perform better.

• The judgment was based on perception, not empirical evidence.

3. Economic & Social Impact

It was argued that the rule:

• Harms candidates from economically weaker sections.

• Affects SC/ST/OBC aspirants disproportionately.

• Creates financial barriers since many graduates cannot afford 3 years of low-paying litigation practice.

4. Exclusion of Other Legal Professionals

The rule excludes:

• Law firm associates

• PSU legal officers

• Corporate lawyers

Even though they may have strong legal knowledge and drafting experience.

5. Judicial Overreach Argument

The petitioner contends:

• Eligibility rules should be decided by legislature or rule-making authorities.

• By imposing a uniform rule across all States, the Supreme Court acted like a policy-maker.

• This may exceed its role under Article 141.

On 10 February 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the review petitions to be heard in open court, issued notice to States and High Courts and listed the matter for detailed hearing on 26 February 2026.

In simple words, earlier, the Supreme Court said - You must practice law for 3 years before becoming a judge. Now, some advocates are saying:

• This rule is unfair.

• It has no solid data backing it.

• It hurts poor and marginalised students.

• It excludes corporate and non-litigation lawyers.

• The Court may have gone beyond its powers.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear these objections in open court - which is unusual and important.

The final decision will determine who can become a judge at the entry level in India.

#5 BCI Withdraws New Law College Moratorium

The Bar Council of India informed the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the three-year moratorium on opening new law colleges. The development impacts legal education policy and regulatory powers under the Advocates Act.

Case Title: Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors., 2026

Relevant Laws and Rules

1. Advocates Act, 1961

This is the main law under which the Bar Council of India (BCI) regulates legal education and the legal profession in India. The BCI’s powers over law colleges come from the standards and rules framed under this Act.

2. Rules of Legal Education - Moratorium (Three-Year Moratorium), 2025

In August 2025, the BCI issued these Rules, which imposed a three-year ban on starting new law colleges across India.

Background: Why the Moratorium Was Imposed

In August 2025, the Bar Council of India issued a notification placing a three-year moratorium on the establishment of new law colleges. It aimed to:

• Stop the rapid growth of new law colleges that lacked proper infrastructure, faculty, or academic quality.

• Allow regulators to focus on improving standards of existing law institutions.

• Prevent expansion that could dilute the quality of legal education nationwide.

This decision instantly affected many educational trusts and groups that were planning to open or get approval for new law colleges.

After the moratorium was imposed:

• A writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court by Vocational Education Foundation Society.

• Another petition was also pending Jatin Sharma v. Bar Council of India & Ors., 2025, challenging the same three-year ban.

The petitioners argued that:

1. The blanket moratorium was arbitrary and unreasonable - A complete ban on all new law colleges regardless of their quality or preparedness was not justified.

2. It violated constitutional rights:

• Article 14 (Right to equality) — treating all institutions the same despite differences.

• Article 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice any profession/occupation).

• Article 21 (Right to livelihood).

3. The BCI lacked statutory authority under the Advocates Act to impose such a freeze.

4. Some petitioners were prevented from applying for approval because the BCI never opened the online portal before imposing the ban - meaning they missed the exemption meant for pending applications.

The Supreme Court was hearing these petitions when the moratorium issue came up again in early February 2026.

What Happened in the Supreme Court

On 23 February 2026, during the hearing of these challenges:

• The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Supreme Court that it has withdrawn the three-year moratorium on starting new law colleges.

• This was announced by BCI’s counsel, Advocate Radhika Gautam, before a Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.

Court’s Response

After the BCI said the moratorium has been withdrawn:

• The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition, since the main issue (the moratorium) no longer existed.

• The Court also allowed the petitioner society to apply for approval to start law courses for the 2025-26 academic session just like before.

This means the petitioner can now proceed normally to seek recognition or approval for BA-LLB or LLB programmes, based on the existing rules under the Advocates Act and the Council’s legal education regulations, without worrying about the moratorium.

#6 Cabinet Clears Kerala Name Change to “Keralam”

The Union Cabinet approved a proposal to rename the State of “Kerala” as “Keralam,” initiating the constitutional process under Article 3. The change reflects linguistic identity and federal procedure for altering State names.

Key Authorities Involved

• Union Cabinet

• Narendra Modi

• Ministry of Home Affairs

• Legislative Assembly of Kerala

• Amit Shah

Relevant Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 3 of the Constitution of India

This Article gives Parliament the power to:

• Form new States

• Alter boundaries

• Change the area of States

• Alter the name of any State

But there is a procedure:

1. A Bill to change a State’s name can be introduced in Parliament only on the recommendation of the President.

2. Before introduction, the President must refer the Bill to the concerned State Legislature to seek its views.

3. The State Legislature expresses its opinion.

4. Parliament is not bound by that opinion, but it must be obtained.

5. The change will also require amendment of the First Schedule of the Constitution, where the names of all States are listed.

Background: How This Began

Kerala Assembly Resolution (June 24, 2024)

The Legislative Assembly of Kerala passed a unanimous resolution requesting the Union Government to change the State’s name from “Kerala” to “Keralam”.

The reasoning was simple:

• In Malayalam, the State is called “Keralam.”

• The State was formed on 1 November 1956, on linguistic basis.

• “Kerala” is the anglicised version used in the Constitution.

• Historically and culturally, “Keralam” reflects the linguistic identity better.

So the Assembly appealed to the Central Government to take steps under Article 3 to modify the First Schedule.

What the Union Cabinet Has Now Done (24 February 2026)

The Union Cabinet, chaired by Narendra Modi, approved the proposal to alter the name of the State from “Kerala” to “Keralam.”

This is not the final change yet. It is an important procedural step.

What Happens Next? (Step-by-Step Process)

Here is the constitutional sequence:

1. President Refers the Bill

After Cabinet approval, the President of India will refer a proposed Bill titled:

“Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026”

to the Kerala Legislative Assembly.

2. State Legislature Gives Its Views

The Assembly will express its views within the time specified.

Important point: The State’s opinion is required, but Parliament is not legally bound to follow it.

3. Bill Introduced in Parliament

After receiving the State’s views:

• The President will recommend introduction of the Bill.

• The Bill will be introduced in Parliament.

• If passed by both Houses, the First Schedule will be amended.

4. Final Change

After Parliamentary approval and Presidential assent, the official constitutional name will change to “Keralam.”

#7 Goa Protests Against Section 39A Zoning Law

Protests erupted in Goa demanding repeal of Section 39A of the Town and Country Planning Act, which allows land-use reclassification. The controversy centres on spot-zoning powers, environmental concerns and statutory planning safeguards.

Relevant Law & Provisions

Town and Country Planning (TCP) Act - Goa

This is a state law that regulates land use, zoning and development across Goa. Section 39A was added to this Act through an amendment in 2024.

Section 39A (Goa TCP Act)

This provision gives the Chief Town Planner the authority to modify land-use zonings in Regional Plans and Outline Development Plans at a more granular level - essentially enabling changes for specific individual land parcels (sometimes called “spot zoning”). When an application is submitted, a 30-day public notice is published inviting objections, and then the zoning change can be approved.

In simpler terms, Section 39A allows land that was previously designated as agricultural, orchard, hill slope, no-development or green zone to be reclassified as a settlement zone where construction is permitted.

Background: What Led to the Protests

For decades, land use in Goa has been governed by development plans and zoning laws designed to balance growth with ecological protection, community rights and sustainable planning. These plans historically required broader revisions if zoning categories were to change.

In 2024, Section 39A was introduced by amending the TCP Act. Supporters of the change said it offered flexibility to update plans and respond to evolving development needs with a streamlined process. Critics said the new provision essentially allows patch-by-patch changes (“spot zoning”) at the behest of individual applicants or developers, weakening systematic planning and environmental safeguards.

Over time, residents noticed the law being used to reclassify ecologically sensitive, no-development or traditional community land into settlement zones. Many felt they were not meaningfully informed or consulted before such decisions were made.

What Happened: Protests in 2026

In late February 2026, protests erupted across Goa, especially in places like Panaji, Calangute, Palem-Siridao and Dona Paula.

Residents, environmental activists, civil society groups and opposition political leaders gathered to demand that Section 39A be repealed. Their core concerns included:

1. Ecological harm - They feared hills, orchards, forests and no-development land would be converted to construction zones, threatening biodiversity, natural water systems, soil stability and Goa’s fragile environment.

2. Weak community role - Even though there’s a 30-day notice period in the Gazette, villagers said they often became aware too late to meaningfully object. Local gram sabhas and village bodies felt sidelined in decisions that reshape their lands.

3. Spot zoning concerns - People argued that plot-by-plot changes under Section 39A bypass broader participatory planning processes and undermine structured development plans.

How the Protests Unfolded

• Sit-ins and rallies took place at Azad Maidan in Panaji and at the office of the TCP Department.

• Demonstrations marched to the house of Vishwajit Rane, the Goa Town and Country Planning Minister, with crowds chanting “No more 39A”.

• Local leaders like MLA Viresh Borkar of the Revolutionary Goans Party led the protests and went on indefinite hunger strike to press for repeal.

• Opposition leaders from other parties joined and supported the mobilisation.

There were reports of police attempts to evict protestors and at least one protestor being taken away by police.

Why the Protesters Oppose Section 39A

Here’s what residents and activists are emphasizing:

1. Environmental Protection

Goa’s landscape - hills, forests, orchards and water catchments — is fragile. Rapid rezoning can:

• Increase construction in sensitive areas.

• Lead to deforestation, flooding and loss of biodiversity.

• Overstrain water resources and infrastructure.

2. Community Rights and Transparency

Protesters say:

• The 30-day notice period isn’t effectively communicated at the village level.

• Many residents only learn of changes after the administrative process has progressed.

• Local communities and gram sabhas should have a stronger say.

3. Planning Principles and Rule of Law

Critics argue:

• Spot zoning undermines comprehensive urban and rural planning.

• Decisions shouldn’t be made on a piecemeal basis without wide public consultation.

• The process may enable discretionary decision-making with limited checks and balances.

Also Read: Top 11 Legal Current Affairs: January 2026

Conclusion

These developments show how the legal system functions at multiple levels. Courts interpret and correct the law, governments exercise constitutional powers, regulatory bodies frame policies, and citizens question decisions that affect them. Some matters involve individual rights, others concern institutional structure or administrative power.

Together, they offer a clear picture of how law continues to adapt to new challenges while balancing rights, accountability and governance.

If you found this roundup useful, follow the blog for regular, clear updates on important legal developments. Share it with fellow aspirants or colleagues who want structured and exam-relevant coverage of current legal issues.

Let me know in the comments which topic you would like a deeper breakdown on next.