What do the amended FCRA Rules say?

How does the Ministry of Home Affairs regulate foreign donations? What are the key changes in the FCRA Amendment Rules, 2026? How do the new Rules affect the purposes for which NGOs can receive foreign funds? What penalties apply for violations?

File photo of Opposition MPs demanding the withdrawal of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. ANI

Vijaita Singh

The story so far:

On June 22, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) notified the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Rules, 2026, to amend the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Rules, 2011.This is the tenth amendment to the Rules under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (FCRA).

How does the MHA regulate foreign donations?

The MHA regulates foreign donations in India through the FCRA to ensure that such funds do not adversely affect the country’s internal security. The legislation was first enacted in 1976. In 2010, it was repealed and replaced with a new legislation. The 2010 Act came into force on May 1, 2011 and has been amended in 2016, 2018, and 2020. The FCRA registration is valid for five years, after which the NGO has to apply for a renewal. Since 2015, the FCRA registrations of more than 18,000 NGOs have been cancelled. As on June 22, there are 14,456 FCRA-registered NGOs active in the country.

What are the broad amendments proposed to the FCRA Rules?

All NGOs and associations registered under the FCRA, 2010, are required to disclose their specific activities and the geographical scope of their programmes. The Rules no longer allow general permission under the FCRA and indicate tighter scrutiny on how NGOs utilise foreign funds.

Any new registration will have to follow the said norms. The Rules further broaden the definition of ‘key functionary’ of an NGO beyond office bearers and directors to include trustees, partners, the Karta of a Hindu undivided family, governing body members, or anyone controlling or managing the organisation.

They also require NGOs to mandatorily disclose social media accounts, websites, and declare whether the association or its key functionaries has brought out any publication during the year, which includes books, magazines or newspaper articles.

The Rules also impose a fee for registration for each specified purpose and for each State or Union Territory (U.T.) in which an NGO operates. So, NGOs operating across multiple sectors or regions now face higher registration costs.

What amendments apply to the programmes or purposes for which an NGO intends to receive foreign donations?

NGOs can receive foreign contributions for social, educational, religious, economic, and cultural programmes. The amended Rules state that the certificate of registration or the application form for new registrations shall specify the purpose or purposes for which registration is granted, chosen only from the list of purposes as specified in the Schedule appended to the rules; and the States or U.T.s in which the NGO proposes to undertake activities.

Those with existing FCRA registrations are expected to update the purpose and intimate the Central government within a year. Some categories specifically exclude political activities.

The educational purpose lists 22 activities, but adds the qualifier “strictly non-political in nature” to the category covering awareness programmes on constitutional rights, fundamental duties, and civic responsibilities.

Under cultural purpose, there are 18 categories, including “promotion of contemporary arts inspired by Indian traditions.” The Rules specify that these must exclude political or ideological content.

As many as 16 categories of religious activities have been permitted which includes “conduct of religious education, moral instruction, satsangs, discourses, and meditation retreats (excluding proselytisation)” and “burial/ cremation ground development and maintenance.”

There are 19 categories under the economic purpose and 30 items under the social category.

What are the penalties for violations?

The MHA has also notified an order specifying penalties for FCRA violations, including excess administrative spending, speculative investments, misuse of funds, unauthorised receipt or utilisation of foreign contributions, and the use of funds for unapproved purposes or in States/U.T.s not covered by an NGO’s registration or prior permission.

Any utilisation of funds for purposes other than those for which they were received can attract a penalty of up to 30% of the amount misused or ₹₹1 lakh, whichever is higher. Likewise, using foreign contributions for purposes or in areas not covered by an NGO’s registration or prior permission invites a penalty of 30% of the amount involved or ₹1 lakh, whichever is higher.

In addition, spending beyond the permitted administrative expense limit or engaging in speculative use of funds will be penalised with fines calculated as a percentage of the amount involved, subject to a minimum of ₹1 lakh.

What is the Opposition saying?

Opposition members have said that the new Rules will adversely affect the functioning of civil society organisations. Congress General Secretary (Organisation) K.C. Venugopal said that forcing NGOs to choose from a “rigid, government-mandated list” of activities and restricting their operational geography would undermine their ability to respond to emergencies. John Brittas, Communist Party of India (Marxist) Rajya Sabha member, wrote to Home Minister Amit Shah raising constitutional concerns. “Collectively, these changes signify a decisive shift from regulating foreign contribution to regulating voluntary organisations themselves,” he wrote.

The Rules impose a fee for registration for each specified purpose and for each

State or U.T. in which an NGO

operates

Check this out: What do the amended FCRA Rules say?

https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_delhi/issues/191528/OPS/GUVG625VK.1+G0IG63VJH.1.html?rev=2026-06-28T00%3A41%3A05%2B05%3A30

UDF government’s stance on PM SHRI unconstitutionalRanjith Thampan

UDF government’s stance on PM SHRI unconstitutional

Ranjith Thampan

The stance of the United Democratic Front (UDF) government that it cannot withdraw from a memorandum of understanding (MoU) entered into between the Secretary, Education department, Kerala, and the Secretary, Education department, Government of India, on 16/10/2025 on the Prime Minister’s Schools for Rising India (PM SHRI) scheme is unsustainable.

Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan, who had an active practice in the Kerala High Court for more than a decade and a constitutional expert, is not expected to take such a stance, which is per se unconstitutional.

Article 299 of the Constitution stipulates the manner in which the Union of India and State governments enter into legally binding contracts. In accordance with the said Article, all binding contracts of the Union of India has to be expressed to be made by the President and all contracts regarding the State government by the Governor.

The said Article stipulates that its execution should be by the persons duly authorised. The Supreme Court has consistently held from 1961 onwards in the State of Bihar vs Karam Chand Thapar & Bros. Ltd. (AIR 1962 SC 110) that a contract entered into in violation of the procedure mentioned in Article 299 not in the name of the Governor of the State or the President is not a contract and is a nullity. The said declaration of law was followed by the Kerala High Court also (Trivandrum Golf Club vs State of Kerala [2008 (4) KHC 472].

Thus any agreement, which is not expressed in the name of the Governor of Kerala cannot constitute a legally enforceable contract regarding the State government.

The MoU was entered into by the Secretary, Education department, Government of Kerala, and the Additional Secretary, Department of Education, Government of India, and not in the name of the President and the Governor. Hence, the said MoU is a nullity.

Under Rule 10 of the Rules of Business in Government, it is clearly provided that all decisions having financial repercussions for the State shall have the consent of the Finance department. Any decision taken by a department without such consultation is legally unsustainable.

In the present case, for implementing the PM SHRI scheme, 40% of the expenditure will have to be borne by the State government. Hence, the scheme will have financial implications for the State and sanction from the Finance department is necessary. Many High Courts across the country, including in Bal Kalyani and others vs State of Maharashtra and others (1993 KHC 1414), have held that any decision by a department having financial implication without the consent of the Finance department is void abinitio.

Under Article 166 of the Constitution, Kerala has framed Rules of Business in Government relating to the administrative functions of the State government. As per the said Rules, important policy decisions are to be taken only by the Council of Ministers (Cabinet). Various High Courts have categorically stated that a decision on a policy matter taken unilaterally by an individual Minister, even Chief Minister, without the consent of the Council of Ministers is void abinitio.

Here, the implementation of the PM SHRI scheme is a policy matter for which a decision has to be taken by the Council of Ministers. The Cabinet of the previous LDF government had held discussions for taking a policy decision for implementing the scheme. However, no decision was taken and the issue was adjourned till the expiry of the government’s term in 2026.

In the meanwhile, the MoU was executed by the department secretaries of the Union and State governments. Since the aforesaid matter is a policy decision, any decision taken unilaterally by any individual Minister without any Cabinet decision is a nullity.

In view of the aforesaid legal situation, it is certain that the MoU is only a in principle decision of the department, which has no legal force. Hence, the stance of the UDF government that it cannot withdraw from the MoU is not sustainable. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Satheesan is unaware of the aforesaid legal position.

(The writer is a Senior Advocate at the High Court of Kerala)

വിദേശ ധനസഹായം കൈപ്പറ്റുന്നതിന് എൻജിഒകൾക്ക് (NGOs) പുതിയ കർശന നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ;

വിദേശ ധനസഹായം കൈപ്പറ്റുന്നതിന് എൻജിഒകൾക്ക് (NGOs) പുതിയ കർശന നിയന്ത്രണങ്ങൾ; സോഷ്യൽ മീഡിയ അക്കൗണ്ടുകളുടെ വിവരങ്ങൾ വെളിപ്പെടുത്തൽ നിർബന്ധമാക്കി

​വിജൈത സിംഗ്, ന്യൂഡൽഹി

​വിദേശ ഫണ്ടുകൾ കൈപ്പറ്റാൻ ആഗ്രഹിക്കുന്ന സന്നദ്ധ സംഘടനകൾ (NGOs) ഇനിമുതൽ കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാർ നിഷ്കർഷിച്ചിട്ടുള്ള നിർദ്ദിഷ്ട പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങളിൽ മാത്രം ഒതുങ്ങിനിൽക്കണമെന്ന് ഫോറിൻ കോൺട്രിബ്യൂഷൻ റഗുലേഷൻ ആക്ട് (FCRA), 2010-ലെ ഏറ്റവും പുതിയ ചട്ട ഭേദഗതി വ്യക്തമാക്കുന്നു. തിങ്കളാഴ്ചയാണ് ഇത് സംബന്ധിച്ച വിജ്ഞാപനം പുറത്തിറങ്ങിയത്.

​വിദേശ ഫണ്ട് തേടുന്ന എൻജിഒകൾ സാമൂഹികം, സാമ്പത്തികം, വിദ്യാഭ്യാസം, സാംസ്കാരികം, മതം എന്നിങ്ങനെ അനുവദനീയമായ അഞ്ച് വിഭാഗങ്ങളിൽ ഒന്നിൽ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്യേണ്ടതുണ്ട്. എന്നാൽ, ഓരോ വിഭാഗത്തിൽപ്പെട്ടവർക്കും പ്രത്യേക പ്രവർത്തന പട്ടിക തയ്യാറാക്കി നൽകുന്നത് ഇതാദ്യമായാണ്.

​എൻജിഒകൾ ഇനിമുതൽ തങ്ങളുടെ പ്രവർത്തനങ്ങൾ, പരിപാടികളുടെ ഭൂമിശാസ്ത്രപരമായ വ്യാപ്തി (ഏതൊക്കെ പ്രദേശങ്ങളിൽ പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്നു എന്നത്), വെബ്‌സൈറ്റുകൾ, സോഷ്യൽ മീഡിയ അക്കൗണ്ടുകൾ, പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങൾ എന്നിവയുടെ വിവരങ്ങൾ നിർബന്ധമായും വെളിപ്പെടുത്തണം. മുൻപ് FCRA രജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ ഉള്ളവർക്ക് ഒരൊറ്റ ഫീസ് മാത്രമായിരുന്നെങ്കിൽ, പുതിയ നിയമപ്രകാരം അവർ പ്രവർത്തിക്കുന്ന ഓരോ വിഭാഗത്തിനും ഓരോ സംസ്ഥാനത്തിനും അല്ലെങ്കിൽ കേന്ദ്രഭരണ പ്രദേശത്തിനും പ്രത്യേകമായി ഫീസ് അടയ്‌ക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.

• ​പുതിയ രജിസ്ട്രേഷനുകൾ: പുതിയ മാനദണ്ഡങ്ങൾ പാലിച്ചുമാത്രമേ ഇനി രജിസ്ട്രേഷൻ അനുവദിക്കൂ.
• ​നിലവിലുള്ള രജിസ്ട്രേഷനുകൾ: നിലവിൽ രജിസ്റ്റർ ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ള സംഘടനകൾ അടുത്ത ഒരു വർഷത്തിനുള്ളിൽ ഈ മാറ്റങ്ങൾ നടപ്പിലാക്കണം.
• ​ലംഘനങ്ങൾക്കുള്ള പിഴ: നിയമങ്ങൾ ലംഘിക്കുന്ന പക്ഷം കുറഞ്ഞത് 1 ലക്ഷം രൂപ പിഴ ഈടാക്കുമെന്ന് കേന്ദ്ര ആഭ്യന്തര മന്ത്രാലയത്തിന്റെ മറ്റൊരു ഉത്തരവിൽ പറയുന്നു.

​മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹികളുടെ നിർവചനത്തിൽ മാറ്റം

​വിദേശത്തുനിന്നുള്ള എല്ലാ സംഭാവനകളും ആഭ്യന്തര മന്ത്രാലയമാണ് FCRA വഴി നിയന്ത്രിക്കുന്നത്. വിദേശ ഫണ്ടുകൾ സ്വീകരിക്കുന്നത് ഇന്ത്യയുടെ പരമാധികാരത്തെയും അഖണ്ഡതയെയും ബാധിക്കില്ലെന്നും, വിദേശ രാജ്യങ്ങളുമായുള്ള സൗഹൃദ ബന്ധത്തെയോ സാമുദായിക സൗഹാർദ്ദത്തെയോ തകർക്കില്ലെന്നുമുള്ള ഒരു ഉറപ്പുപത്രം (undertaking) നൽകുക മാത്രമായിരുന്നു മുൻപത്തെ നിയമഭേദഗതികളിൽ എൻജിഒകൾ ചെയ്യേണ്ടിയിരുന്നത്.

​എന്നാൽ, പുതിയ ഭേദഗതികൾ പ്രകാരം ഒരു എൻജിഒയുടെ 'മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹി' (key functionary) എന്നതിന്റെ നിർവചനം ഓഫീസ് ഭാരവാഹികൾക്കും ഡയറക്ടർമാർക്കും അപ്പുറത്തേക്ക് വ്യാപിപ്പിച്ചു. ഇനിമുതൽ ട്രസ്റ്റിമാർ, പാർട്ണർമാർ, ഹിന്ദു അവിഭക്ത കുടുംബത്തിന്റെ (HUF) തലവനായ 'കർത്താ', ഗവേണിംഗ് ബോഡി അംഗങ്ങൾ, സംഘടനയെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കുകയോ നിയന്ത്രിക്കാൻ സഹായിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്ന മറ്റാരും ഈ പരിധിയിൽ വരും.

​പ്രത്യേക ശ്രദ്ധയ്ക്ക്: ഇന്ത്യൻ വംശജരല്ലാത്ത വിദേശ പൗരന്മാർ മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹികളായിട്ടുള്ള സംഘടനകൾക്ക്, കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാരിന്റെ പ്രത്യേക അനുമതിയില്ലാത്തപക്ഷം, രജിസ്ട്രേഷനോ മുൻകൂർ അനുമതിയോ സാധാരണയായി നൽകുന്നതല്ല.

​കൂടാതെ, സംഘടനയോ അതിന്റെ ഏതെങ്കിലും മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹികളോ വർഷത്തിൽ പുസ്തകങ്ങൾ, മാസികകൾ, പത്രലേഖനങ്ങൾ ഉൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള എന്തെങ്കിലും പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങൾ പുറത്തിറക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്നും എൻജിഒകൾ വ്യക്തമാക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.

​വിദേശ സംഭാവന ഫോമുകളിൽ (F-C) ഏകീകരണം കൊണ്ടുവരുന്നതിനും ആവർത്തനങ്ങൾ ഒഴിവാക്കുന്നതിനുമാണ് ഈ ഭേദഗതികൾ വരുത്തിയതെന്ന് ഒരു മുതിർന്ന സർക്കാർ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥൻ വ്യക്തമാക്കി.

Amended FCRA Rules stipulate that NGOs must stick to specified activities in their category and geographical areas; disclosure of social media accounts and other publications made mandatory

Vijaita Singh NEW DELHI

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) wanting to access foreign funds must now stick to a list of activities specified by the Centre, according to the latest amendment to the Rules of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA), 2010, notified on Monday.

While NGOs seeking foreign funds are required to register under one of the five permitted categories, namely social, economic, educational, cultural, and religious, this is the first time separate activity lists have been laid out for those in each category.

NGOs must now disclose their activities, the geographical scope of their programmes, their websites, social media accounts, and publications. They must pay separate fees for each category and State or Union Territory they operate in, as opposed to the previous single fee for FCRA registrants.

Any new registration must follow the new norms and existing registrations must comply with the changes within the next year. Any violations will be penalised with a minimum fine of ₹1 lakh, according to another order from the Union Home Ministry.

The Ministry regulates all foreign donations through the FCRA. Earlier amendments of the Rules only required NGOs to give an undertaking that their acceptance of foreign funds is not likely to affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or impact friendly relations with foreign states or disrupt communal harmony.

ഡയറക്ടർമാർക്കും അപ്പുറത്തേക്ക് വ്യാപിപ്പിച്ചു. ഇനിമുതൽ ട്രസ്റ്റിമാർ, പാർട്ണർമാർ, ഹിന്ദു അവിഭക്ത കുടുംബത്തിന്റെ (HUF) തലവനായ 'കർത്താ', ഗവേണിംഗ് ബോഡി അംഗങ്ങൾ, സംഘടനയെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കുകയോ നിയന്ത്രിക്കാൻ സഹായിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്യുന്ന മറ്റാരും ഈ പരിധിയിൽ വരും.

​പ്രത്യേക ശ്രദ്ധയ്ക്ക്: ഇന്ത്യൻ വംശജരല്ലാത്ത വിദേശ പൗരന്മാർ മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹികളായിട്ടുള്ള സംഘടനകൾക്ക്, കേന്ദ്ര സർക്കാരിന്റെ പ്രത്യേക അനുമതിയില്ലാത്തപക്ഷം, രജിസ്ട്രേഷനോ മുൻകൂർ അനുമതിയോ സാധാരണയായി നൽകുന്നതല്ല.

​കൂടാതെ, സംഘടനയോ അതിന്റെ ഏതെങ്കിലും മുഖ്യ ഭാരവാഹികളോ വർഷത്തിൽ പുസ്തകങ്ങൾ, മാസികകൾ, പത്രലേഖനങ്ങൾ ഉൾപ്പെടെയുള്ള എന്തെങ്കിലും പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണങ്ങൾ പുറത്തിറക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ടോ എന്നും എൻജിഒകൾ വ്യക്തമാക്കേണ്ടതുണ്ട്.

​വിദേശ സംഭാവന ഫോമുകളിൽ (F-C) ഏകീകരണം കൊണ്ടുവരുന്നതിനും ആവർത്തനങ്ങൾ ഒഴിവാക്കുന്നതിനുമാണ് ഈ ഭേദഗതികൾ വരുത്തിയതെന്ന് ഒരു മുതിർന്ന സർക്കാർ ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥൻ വ്യക്തമാക്കി.

not be considered eligible for registration or prior permission, unless specifically permitted by the Centre, according to the new Rules. NGOs must also declare whether their association or any of their key functionaries brought out any publication during the year, including books, magazines, and newspaper articles.

A senior government official said that the amendments were effected to bring uniformity in Foreign Contribution forms (F-C) and to avoid duplication.

Check this out: Centre tightens norms for foreign contributions

https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_delhi/issues/190907/OPS/GU1G5GBFL.1+G1OG5GU7B.1.html?rev=2026-06-24T00%3A48%3A27%2B05%3A30

The apex court rings its own chain

The Supreme Court’s reliance on suo motu cognisance has turned a once ‘rare but highly visible’ jurisdiction into a recurring instrument shaped by primetime attention and media reports; while it keeps ‘ringing’ its own chain through televised listings and supervision, the trial courts below it continue doing the work

Getty Images

V. Venkatesan

In 1605, on his accession, the Mughal Emperor Jahangir fastened a chain outside his palace. Any subject denied justice by his administration could pull the chain and reach the emperor directly. The chain was, in conception, a remedy against the bureaucracy. The Indian Supreme Court is now, in its suo motu cognisance of individual criminal cases, the bureaucracy itself, ringing its own version of the chain. Each televised listing is the sound of the apex court calling attention to itself.

Media and motive

The latest instance is the court’s suo motu cognisance of Twisha Sharma’s death, registered under the title ‘In Re Alleged Institutional Bias and Procedural Discrepancies in the Unnatural Death of a Young Girl at Her Matrimonial Home’. The title prejudges its own inquiry. Institutional bias has not been judicially established at any level. The apex court’s own office report, signed by the Assistant Registrar on May 23, records the basis of registration. The case was registered, the document says, ‘based on media reports and other attending circumstances’. Two days later, the same bench appealed to the media to refrain from recording statements of witnesses. A court that acts on press reports while admonishing the journalists who filed them is, at the same moment, both consumer and critic of the same source.

The ground on which the apex court arrived was not vacant. A magistrate in Bhopal had remanded the husband, a practising advocate, to seven days of police custody. The Madhya Pradesh High Court had directed a second autopsy by an AIIMS Delhi team. The Bar Council of India had suspended the husband’s licence. The State government had proposed transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) before the apex listing. The institutions whose bias the apex title alleges had been moving against the accused for nearly a fortnight.

Marc Galanter and Vasujith Ram put the central question to this reflex with care. Their study appears in A Qualified Hope (Cambridge University Press, 2019). Why does the response of the higher judiciary to executive or police failure take ‘the form of these singular heroic interventions rather than promoting some institutional shake-up, some initiative to empower and equip courts lower in the judicial hierarchy’? Their diagnosis was unsparing. The reflex carries, they wrote, ‘an echo of the disdain with which higher courts in India frequently treat the efforts of the lower judiciary’.

Easier path

Suo motu cognisance, in matters of this kind, is the easier of the two paths open to the apex court. The harder path is the slow, unspectacular work of reforming the judiciary it heads. The first requires only the bench’s decision to list the matter. The second requires sustained cooperation: with the High Courts on case management and supervision under Article 235 (control over subordinate courts), with State governments on funding trial-court infrastructure, with the executive on judicial appointments, and with the National Judicial Academy on training. The asymmetry between the energies devoted to the two paths is what produces the diagnosis Galanter and Ram named.

Where the easier path is taken, the court chooses persuasion over compulsion. The apex bench has, in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation v. SEBI (2012), a five-judge Constitution Bench authority on media trial. Sahara permits a court to issue a postponement order against media publication. The test is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the administration of justice. The order is available only where no less restrictive means will work. The doctrine is settled. In the Twisha matter, the bench had every occasion to invoke it. It chose instead to request the media not to record statements of potential witnesses. A request from the apex court carries moral weight. But it is not the legal instrument it has at hand for this very problem.

The post-2019 record is unkind to the pro-suo-motu case. In the R.G. Kar matter, the Supreme Court registered cognisance on August 18, 2024. Sanjay Roy had been arrested by the Kolkata Police eight days earlier. The Calcutta High Court had handed the probe to the CBI on August 13, 2024. The Sealdah trial court convicted Roy in January 2025 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The trial judge did the work. Apex monitoring of CBI status reports did not.

Hathras is closer to the Bhopal facts and more instructive. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court registered the case suo motu in October 2020. The Supreme Court, after entertaining transfer petitions, handed monitoring back to the High Court within weeks. That earlier bench saw the architectural point: the High Court was already in motion, and the apex role was supervisory. In July 2024, following the Hathras Satsang stampede that claimed 121 lives, the court declined a PIL. The bench said that the High Court was equipped to deal with the case. The same principle applies in Bhopal too.

Scarce attention

Lakhimpur Kheri sharpens the matter. The apex court took cognisance in October 2021 and, in April 2022, set aside the High Court’s bail order for the main accused, Ashish Mishra. It then eased him back into liberty. Interim bail came in 2023. Regular bail followed in 2024. As of early 2026, the trial court had examined only 44 of 131 witnesses. In Manipur, the suo motu case over the viral video from July 2023 has yet to produce a conviction. Apex supervision has not been the route to faster justice.

A second observation runs alongside. In 2019, Galanter and Ram called suo motu ‘rare but highly visible’. The first half of that description has lapsed. What was once a residual jurisdiction is now a recurring instrument. A trigger sequence has begun to repeat. Sustained primetime attention is followed by cognisance. The Solicitor General has now confirmed the sequence in open court. Appearing for the Union in the Twisha matter, he told the bench that ‘it is also because of this media intervention that a lot of progress has happened’.

The numbers since the chapter, authored by Galanter and Ram, went to press confirm the rule. The Supreme Court Observer, working from the apex court’s own Case Status records, counts 35 suo motu matters in the five years from 2020 to 2024.

The preceding fifteen years had seen only 31 in total. The annual figures, excluding contempt, were 10 in 2020, eight in 2021, one in 2022, four in 2023, and 12 in 2024. The trend continues. In 2025, the court’s numbering reached 10 civil suo motu writs and three criminal matters. Nine of the 10 civil matters are publicly listed. By May 25 this year, the count already stood at four civil and four criminal matters. Both totals exclude suo motu transfer and contempt, which exercise distinct constitutional powers. The criminal count, in particular, has risen sharply. Four months and three weeks have already exceeded the criminal count for all of 2025.

Judicial attention is a scarce resource. The National Crime Records Bureau recorded 6,450 dowry deaths in 2022, with convictions in only 11 to 17 per cent of cases. The court has the capacity to list one. The criterion of selection is, on the present record, temporal rather than legal. Galanter and Ram closed their chapter with a question. They asked whether suo motu was ‘an instance of effective use of the scarce resource of judicial attention’. The seven years since they wrote have not produced an easier answer.

None of this is to deny the seriousness of the Twisha Sharma matter. The accused’s mother is a retired judge. The husband is a lawyer. The family of the deceased has reason to fear local proximity. The constitutional response to that fear is independent investigation under judicial supervision, conducted promptly. The court, however, disposed of the matter on the first day after taking note of the “narrative” in the media that a fair investigation was being denied on account of the involvement of the judiciary.

The chain Jahangir hung was a remedy against an unaccountable bureaucracy. The apex court is now that bureaucracy. Each televised listing is the sound it makes to draw attention to a failure it has the power, and the constitutional duty, to repair. Until the harder of its two paths is walked with the energy now devoted to the easier one, the chain will keep ringing. The trial courts below it will keep doing the work.

(V. Venkatesan is a journalist and legal researcher.)

LETTER & SPIRIT

THE GIST

The ground on which the apex court arrived was not vacant, with the magistrate, the High Court, the Bar Council of India and the State government already acting in the Twisha Sharma case.

The harder path before the apex court is the slow, unspectacular work of reforming the judiciary through better case management, trial-court infrastructure, appointments and training.

Judicial attention is a scarce resource, but sustained primetime attention is increasingly followed by cognisance, raising questions about the use of that attention.

https://epaper.thehindu.com/ccidist-ws/th/th_international/issues/187176/OPS/GB3G27MN9.1.png?cropFromPage=true