The EduLaw Daily Legal Docket | Friday, May 9, 2026
EduLaw EditorialDaily Legal UpdatesEst. 2026 Constitutional Intelligence for the Legal Mind The EduLaw Daily Legal Docket "Where the Constitution meets the Courtroom — and the Examination Hall" Friday, May 9, 2026 ● Vol. I | Issue 009 ● New Delhi From 2.07 Crore Lok Adalat Settlements to the CJI's Exclusion from the Ballot's Guardians — Seven Constitutional Contests That Define This Week in Indian Democracy Judicial expansion, Sabarimala, NIA courts, transgender rights, and India's largest census — the Republic under judicial scrutiny. 01 Access to Justice · ADR · NALSA 2.07 Crore Cases Settled in a Single Day: The 2nd National Lok Adalat of 2026 Records ₹3,440 Crore in Amicable Settlements Across India Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 · Section 89 CPC · Article 39A TL;DR — The Essentials On May 9, 2026, the 2nd National Lok Adalat of 2026, held under the aegis of NALSA, facilitated settlement of 2,07,66,548 cases across 21 States and 6 Union Territories. Of these, 1,87,63,883 were pre-litigation matters and 20,02,665 were pending court cases. Total settlement amount recorded: ₹3,440.81 crores (tentative data as of 7:00 PM, May 9). Conducted under the patronage of CJI Surya Kant (Patron-in-Chief, NALSA) and Justice Vikram Nath (Executive Chairman, NALSA). Seven States and two Union Territories will hold the Lok Adalat on later dates due to summer vacations. Background & Context Lok Adalats, established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Sections 19–22), represent India's most significant institutionalised alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Their awards are final, binding, and deemed decrees of a civil court under Section 21 — crucially, they are non-appealable. National Lok Adalats, organised periodically by NALSA, coordinate simultaneous sittings across all courts, tribunals, consumer commissions, and Permanent Lok Adalats to maximise settlement volumes. Justice Vikram Nath, Executive Chairman of NALSA, observed that unresolved litigation has a "deleterious impact on livelihoods, destabilizes familial structure, and erodes public faith in the efficacy of the legal structure." Between 2023–2025, twelve National Lok Adalats disposed of 26 crore cases collectively. The May 9 exercise — settling over 2 crore cases in a single day — underscores the scale of India's pendency crisis and the continuing relevance of ADR as a structural response. 2.07 Cr Cases Settled In a single day across India ₹3,441 Cr Settlement Value Total monetary settlements recorded 20.02L Pending Cases Disposed Active court cases settled amicably 21+6 States & UTs Participated on May 9; 7 States + 2 UTs scheduled later Legal Architecture: How Lok Adalats Work NALSA coordinates with State Legal Services Authorities Cases identified via National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) — long-pending matters flagged Benches constituted at every court/tribunal tier — District, Taluk, HC, Consumer Forums Parties appear; settlement facilitated through conciliation (not adjudication) Award passed — final, binding, non-appealable (Section 21, LSA Act) Court fee refunded to parties — zero-cost justice Why It Matters For Citizens Lok Adalats offer the most tangible form of access to justice for ordinary litigants — no court fees, no appeals, and settlement in a single day. For millions trapped in pending litigation, this is the closest India comes to delivering on the constitutional promise of Article 39A (equal justice and free legal aid). For UPSC & Judiciary Aspirants Lok Adalats are a perennial topic in GS-II (Polity: Alternative Dispute Resolution) and Judiciary Mains (CPC Section 89, LSA Act). The distinction between Lok Adalats (under the Act) and Permanent Lok Adalats (for public utility services under Section 22B–22E) is a frequent trap. Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 80% UPSC Mains 85% Judiciary 92% CLAT PG 78% UGC NET Law 72% ⚠ Prelims Trap Card What aspirants usually get wrong: Many believe that awards of Lok Adalats can be appealed in a higher court. Correction: Under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, an award of a Lok Adalat is deemed a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on all parties — it is not appealable in any court. This non-appealability is what distinguishes Lok Adalat awards from ordinary court decrees. 02 Judicial Architecture · Supreme Court Cabinet Clears Bill to Expand Supreme Court from 34 to 38 Judges: Can Numerical Strength Alone Resolve a 92,385-Case Backlog? Article 124(1) · SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 · 229th Law Commission Report TL;DR — The Essentials On May 5, 2026, the Union Cabinet approved the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 — raising sanctioned strength from 34 to 38 (including CJI). This ends a six-year hiatus since the last expansion in 2019 (31→33 excluding CJI). Current pendency: 92,385 cases, fuelled by post-pandemic e-filing surge. CJI Surya Kant welcomed the decision, calling it "essential" for the institution's functioning. Critics: 18th Law Commission's 229th Report (2009) recommended regional cassation benches, not just more judges. Bill requires only simple majority — it is not a constitutional amendment. Constitutional Framework Article 124(1) originally envisaged a Supreme Court of "a Chief Justice and not more than seven other judges," empowering Parliament to prescribe a larger number "by law." Unlike High Courts — where the President can increase strength under Article 216 by executive order — the Supreme Court's sanctioned strength can only be altered through a Parliamentary statute passed by simple majority. This is a critical distinction for examination purposes. The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 has been amended seven times. The evolutionary arc: 8 judges (1950) → 11 (1956) → 14 (1960) → 18 (1977) → 26 (1986) → 31 (2009) → 34 (2019) → 38 (proposed 2026). Two current vacancies exist following the retirements of Justice B.R. Gavai (November 2025) and Justice Rajesh Bindal (April 2026), with three more retirements scheduled by August 2026. SC Strength: Historical Bar Chart 1950 8 1956 11 1960 14 1977 18 1986 26 2009 31 2019 34 2026 (Bill) 38 Aspect SC Strength (Art. 124) HC Strength (Art. 216) Who decides Parliament by law President by order Majority required Simple majority Not applicable (executive order) Constitutional provision Article 124(1) Article 216 Current mechanism SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 Presidential notification Examination Relevance UPSC Mains GS-II "Critically examine whether increasing the numerical strength of the Supreme Court adequately addresses the pendency crisis. Discuss structural alternatives." (250 words) Judiciary Mains "Distinguish between the constitutional mechanism for increasing judges in the Supreme Court and High Courts. Refer to Articles 124(1) and 216." CLAT PG Expect questions on the 229th Law Commission Report — cassation bench proposal vs. numerical expansion approach. Essay "More judges or better courts? India's pendency crisis demands architectural imagination, not arithmetic solutions." Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 85% UPSC Mains 92% Judiciary 95% CLAT PG 78% UGC NET Law 72% ⚠ Prelims Trap Card What aspirants usually get wrong: Many assume increasing SC strength requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. Correction: Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to prescribe a larger number of judges "by law." This is an ordinary legislative exercise under the SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — requiring only a simple majority , not the special majority required under Article 368. How To Write This in UPSC/Judiciary Mains 1. Introduction: Open with the Cabinet's May 5, 2026 approval and the 92,385-case backlog. Frame the core tension: numerical expansion vs. structural reform. 2. Constitutional Framework: Cite Article 124(1), distinguish from Article 216. Explain simple majority requirement. Note the Collegium's role in post-expansion appointments. 3. Historical Context: Trace the seven amendments from 1956 to 2026 — pattern of incremental expansion without architectural rethinking. 4. Critical Analysis: Use the 229th Law Commission Report (2009) — recommendation for four regional cassation benches. Discuss SLP overload. Reference the pending 2016 writ petition for a National Court of Appeal. 5. Counterargument: More judges enable more Constitution Benches — a priority stated by CJI Surya Kant. More benches sitting simultaneously reduces listing delays. 6. Conclusion: Expansion is necessary but insufficient. Recommend combining with regional benches, technology-driven case management, and addressing systemic Collegium delays. 03 Electoral Democracy · Separation of Powers Can the Executive Choose Its Own Referee? SC Probes the Constitutionality of Excluding the CJI from the Election Commission Appointments Panel Article 324 · Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023) · CEC Appointments Act, 2023 TL;DR — The Essentials A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma is hearing petitions challenging the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment) Act, 2023. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister in the selection committee — giving the government a built-in 2:1 majority. Petitioners (ADR, Jaya Thakur, PUCL) argue this overrides the 2023 Constitution Bench judgment in Anoop Baranwal v. UoI that mandated CJI's inclusion. On May 6, the Court observed that the CJI's role was "only meant to last until Parliament came up with a law." On May 7, Justice Datta described Parliament's 70-year failure to legislate on EC appointments as potential "tyranny of the elected." Petitioners' senior advocates argued the Act creates a "Home Umpire" system violating Articles 14, 19, and 324. Background & Context For seven decades after independence, the CEC and ECs were appointed by the President on the sole advice of the Prime Minister — without any statutory foundation. In March 2023, a five-judge Constitution Bench in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India declared this constitutionally deficient and mandated an interim selection committee of the PM, the LoP in Lok Sabha, and the CJI. The Court explicitly stated this mechanism would operate "till the Parliament makes a law in consonance with Article 324(2)." In December 2023, Parliament passed the CEC and Other ECs Act, replacing the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister. The first appointment under the new regime — CEC Gyanesh Kumar — was made on March 14, 2024, allegedly at breakneck speed, one day before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear a stay application. "The idea is that it should not be the Prime Minister's man. Under the impugned Act, if the PM suggests X, there is no way out that anybody else can be appointed." — Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, for petitioners (as reported by LiveLaw and The Hindu) Aspect Anoop Baranwal Mechanism (2023) 2023 Parliamentary Act Selection Committee PM + LoP + CJI PM + LoP + Union Cabinet Minister Government majority 1 out of 3 2 out of 3 Judicial element CJI as neutral arbiter Removed entirely Independence safeguard Bipartisan consensus needed Executive can outvote LoP Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 90% UPSC Mains 96% Judiciary 90% CLAT PG 88% UGC NET Law 80% ⚠ Prelims Trap Card What aspirants usually get wrong: Many believe the Anoop Baranwal judgment permanently mandated the CJI's inclusion in the ECI appointment committee. Correction: The Constitution Bench explicitly stated its mechanism would operate "till the Parliament makes a law in consonance with Article 324(2)." The live question is whether the 2023 Act meets the "in consonance" standard — not whether Parliament lacked power to legislate. 04 Criminal Law · National Security One Court for Every 10 Pending Trials: Supreme Court Directs Establishment of Exclusive NIA Courts for Speedy UAPA Disposals NIA Act, Section 11 · UAPA · Article 21 · Speedy Trial TL;DR — The Essentials A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed exclusive NIA courts under Section 11 of the NIA Act for time-bound disposal of UAPA trials. Ratio: 1 exclusive court for up to 10 pending trials per HC jurisdiction; 2 courts for 15+; 3 courts for 25+. No other cases to be assigned to these courts — day-to-day trial mandatory. Target: at least 1 trial completed per month per court. Central government to fund court establishment in states; courts to be set up within 1 month. Suo motu case: IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026. Legal Architecture Section 11 of the NIA Act, 2008 empowers the Central Government, in consultation with the Chief Justice of a High Court, to designate special courts for NIA cases. Despite this provision, UAPA trials have been notoriously slow — accused persons routinely spend years in pre-trial detention, given the stringent bail provisions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA which require the court to deny bail if it finds "reasonable grounds for believing" the accusation is prima facie true. The Supreme Court's suo motu intervention reflects a growing judicial awareness that in cases involving grave charges with stringent bail provisions, the state bears a heightened constitutional obligation to ensure expeditious trial. The direction also covers State-prosecuted cases: once NIA-prosecuted trials are completed, the exclusive courts may take up State-prosecuted UAPA trials. NIA Court Setup: Directed Framework Pending Trials (per HC jurisdiction) Exclusive Courts Required Timeline Up to 10 1 exclusive NIA court Within 1 month 15 or more 2 exclusive NIA courts Within 1 month 25 or more 3 exclusive NIA courts Within 1 month Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 72% UPSC Mains 82% Judiciary 94% CLAT PG 70% UGC NET Law 66% 05 Criminal Justice · Fair Trial · Witness Protection "They Are Trying to Get the Accused Discharged": SC Records Disappointment Over Lakhimpur Kheri Trial Collapse Article 21 · Witness Protection · Right to Speedy Trial TL;DR — The Essentials On May 8, 2026, a bench headed by CJI Surya Kant expressed disappointment at the non-production of witnesses in the trial of Ashish Mishra in the 2021 Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. Of 131 identified witnesses: 44 examined, 15 discharged, 72 remain unproduced. Zero witnesses examined in 2–3 months. Sessions Judge handling the case has 789 pending trials — a burden the Court called "humanly impossible." Advocate Prashant Bhushan alleged police-accused collusion and witness intimidation; defence counsel objected. Court directed: lawful measures to secure witnesses, meticulous witness protection compliance, status report in 4 weeks. Background On October 3, 2021, an SUV allegedly part of Ashish Mishra's (son of former Union Minister Ajay Mishra) convoy mowed down protesting farmers in Lakhimpur Kheri, killing four, during protests against the now-repealed agriculture laws. The Supreme Court granted interim bail in January 2023, describing the crime as "ghastly and unfortunate," regularised bail in July 2024, and restricted Mishra's movement to Delhi or Lucknow. 72 Witnesses Unproduced Out of 131 identified prosecution witnesses 789 Pending Trials Before the same Sessions Judge — "humanly impossible" ~3 Months Zero Examination No witnesses examined in 2–3 months Examination Probability Meter UPSC Mains 70% Judiciary 88% CLAT PG 62% 06 Constitutional Law · Religious Freedom · Judicial Conduct Sabarimala Hearing: CJI-Led Nine-Judge Bench Signals "Case-by-Case" Approach, Declines Blanket Guidelines on Faith vs. Rights — Meanwhile, SC Takes Cognisance of AP HC Judge Sending Advocate to Custody Articles 25 & 26 · Essential Religious Practices Doctrine · SCBA Resolution TL;DR — The Essentials Sabarimala: The nine-judge bench headed by CJI Surya Kant indicated it may not lay down uniform prospective guidelines on judicial intervention in faith-rights disputes. "It will always depend on case to case," the bench observed. The bench is addressing seven foundational questions on Articles 25–26, essential religious practices doctrine, denominational autonomy, and the State's power of social reform under Article 25(2)(b). Justice Bagchi described Article 25(2)(b) as a "narrow window" for legislative intervention in religious affairs. AP HC Incident: On May 8, the SC took cognisance of the SCBA resolution condemning Justice T. Rajasekhar Rao of the AP High Court for sending a young advocate to 24-hour judicial custody for a procedural lapse. The matter is registered as a writ petition and tentatively listed for hearing on May 15. Sabarimala: The Constitutional Question The nine-judge bench — comprising CJI Surya Kant, Justices BV Nagarathna, MM Sundresh, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Aravind Kumar, Augustine George Masih, R Mahadevan, Prasanna B Varale, and Joymalya Bagchi — is hearing the reference arising from the 2019 Sabarimala review, which generated seven foundational questions on the scope of religious freedom, denominational autonomy, and the State's power to enact social reform touching religious practices. The hearing has become a crucible for India's most contested constitutional doctrine — the Essential Religious Practices (ERP) test. While Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium urged that the test should not be discarded, arguing it distinguishes genuine practices from those "merely cloaked as such," some judges expressed discomfort with courts acting as "theological arbiters." Justice Nagarathna suggested the doctrine should function as a "protective tool" rather than a restrictive threshold. AP HC Incident: Professional Dignity The Supreme Court Bar Association, in a resolution passed on May 6, urged CJI Surya Kant to look into a video showing Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao of the AP High Court directing a young advocate to 24-hour judicial custody during proceedings for a procedural lapse. The Bar Council of India also wrote to the CJI. On May 8, the Supreme Court registered the matter as a writ petition — a significant institutional response signalling that judicial temperament is treated as a constitutional value. Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 88% UPSC Mains 95% Judiciary 92% CLAT PG 86% UGC NET Law 78% ⚠ Prelims Trap Card What aspirants usually get wrong: Many believe the original Sabarimala entry case (2018) was decided by a nine-judge bench. Correction: The 2018 judgment allowing women of all ages into Sabarimala was a five-judge bench decision (4:1, with Justice Indu Malhotra dissenting). The nine-judge bench currently hearing the case is addressing the reference from a 2019 review — which reframed the dispute into seven broader constitutional questions about religious freedom, essential practices, and denominational rights. 07 Fundamental Rights · Gender · Digital Justice Self-Identification vs. Medical Gatekeeping: SC Issues Notice on Transgender Act Challenge — While Sikkim Becomes India's First Paperless Judiciary and Allahabad HC Limits Protection for Underage Live-In Couples Article 21 · NALSA v. UoI (2014) · e-Courts Project · Prohibition of Child Marriage Act TL;DR — The Essentials Transgender Act: SC bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notice on petitions challenging the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026, which replaces self-identification with mandatory medical board evaluation. Stay refused; notice returnable in 6 weeks. Sikkim Paperless Judiciary: On May 1, CJI declared Sikkim as India's first fully paperless state judiciary — end-to-end digital functioning including e-filing, digital case records, virtual hearings. Allahabad HC on Live-In Relationships: Justice Garima Prashad refused protection to an interfaith couple (woman 20, man 19) in a live-in relationship, holding courts cannot "indirectly legitimise" a marriage-like arrangement when the male has not attained 21 years. Transgender Act: The Constitutional Question The 2026 Amendment replaces the right to self-perceived gender identity — recognised by the Supreme Court in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) as a fundamental right under Article 21 — with mandatory evaluation by a medical board. Section 3 of the amended Act omits self-identification entirely. The Rajasthan High Court initially criticised the amendment in a March 30 order but later expunged those observations. The SC's query — whether self-identification could be "misused" — signals a pragmatic concern, but the fundamental constitutional question remains: can Parliament, through ordinary legislation, restrict a right judicially read into Article 21? Aspect NALSA v. UoI (2014) 2019 Act 2026 Amendment Identity Determination Self-perceived gender identity DM certificate process Mandatory medical board Legal Foundation Article 21 — bodily autonomy Statutory process Medical gatekeeping Self-Identification Fundamental right Partially preserved Omitted from Section 3 Allahabad HC: Live-In Relationships & Age of Consent Justice Garima Prashad articulated a significant principle: "What cannot be achieved either as a valid secular marriage or as a pleaded lawful marriage under the applicable personal-law framework cannot be judicially reconstituted as a sanctioned live-in arrangement." The court held that where the male partner is below 21 — treated as a child for marriage purposes under the statutory framework — consent cannot bypass the legal restriction. However, individuals remain entitled to protection against violence, illegal detention, and coercion. "If a court cannot permit the parties to marry because the law withholds that permission until the male completes twenty-one years, the court cannot achieve substantially the same result by treating the functional equivalent of that marriage as entitled to judicial support simply because it is described as a live-in relationship." — Justice Garima Prashad, Allahabad High Court, Order dated May 4, 2026 (as reported by Indian Express) Examination Probability Meter UPSC Prelims 78% UPSC Mains 86% Judiciary 90% CLAT PG 82% UGC NET Law 76% The architecture of constitutional governance — where legislation, judicial review, and institutional independence converge. Photo: Unsplash Daily Legal Maxim Issue 009 · Friday, May 9, 2026 Audi alteram partem "Hear the other side." One of the two pillars of natural justice (the other being nemo judex in causa sua ), this maxim requires that no person shall be condemned unheard. A decision-maker must afford every affected party a reasonable opportunity to present their case before any adverse order is passed. The principle extends beyond judicial proceedings to administrative, quasi-judicial, and even disciplinary matters. Modern Application: The AP High Court incident — where a young advocate was directed to 24-hour judicial custody during proceedings without adequate hearing — directly engages this maxim. The SCBA's resolution and the Supreme Court's cognisance underscore that audi alteram partem applies not just to litigants but to every person before a court, including advocates. Even the exercise of contempt jurisdiction demands procedural fairness. Daily Constitutional Article Article 324 — Superintendence, Direction and Control of Elections Article 324 of the Constitution of India 324(1): "The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State… shall be vested in a Commission." 324(2): "The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment… shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament , be made by the President." Key Point: The phrase "subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament" is the constitutional hook on which the entire ECI appointments debate turns. Both Anoop Baranwal (2023) and the subsequent Act derive authority from this clause. 324(5): CEC can only be removed through an impeachment-like procedure (same manner as a SC judge). Other ECs can only be removed on the CEC's recommendation. This asymmetry is a frequent examination point. Daily Landmark Case Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) — 5-Judge Constitution Bench Facts: PIL filed in 2015 challenging the absence of any law governing CEC/EC appointments, leaving the process entirely to executive discretion under Article 324(2). Issue: Whether exclusive executive appointments to the Election Commission violate the constitutional scheme requiring an independent ECI. Ruling: Unanimous — the seven-decade practice lacked constitutional sanctity. Directed that, until Parliament legislated, appointments would be recommended by a committee of the PM, LoP (Lok Sabha), and CJI. Ratio: Independence of the Election Commission is a constitutional imperative implicit in Article 324. A diverse selection committee prevents the "monopoly of the executive" over the democratic referee. Significance: Triggered the CEC and Other ECs (Appointment) Act, 2023 — which replaced CJI with a Cabinet Minister and is now itself under constitutional challenge before the SC. Daily Legal Vocabulary 5 Terms Every Aspirant Must Know Cassation Bench A court that reviews lower court decisions primarily on questions of law, not fact. The 229th Law Commission recommended regional cassation benches for the SC. Suo Motu "Of its own motion" — a court's power to take cognisance without a formal petition. Used by the SC in the NIA exclusive courts case. Safe Harbour Legal immunity for intermediaries (Section 79, IT Act) from liability for third-party content, conditional on prescribed due diligence. Denominational Autonomy Under Article 26, every religious denomination has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion — central to the Sabarimala reference. Pre-Litigation Settlement Resolution of a dispute before it enters formal litigation. Lok Adalats handle pre-litigation matters; 1.87 crore such matters were settled on May 9. Daily MCQ Challenge 5 Questions · Medium to Hard · Prelims-Grade Question 1 The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to raise SC strength from 34 to 38. What legislative requirement applies? (a) Constitutional amendment under Article 368 (b) Constitutional amendment + ratification by half the states (c) Simple majority in both Houses of Parliament (d) Presidential Order under Article 124(1) Show Answer Answer: (c) — Article 124(1) empowers Parliament to prescribe a larger number "by law." This is an ordinary legislative exercise under the SC (Number of Judges) Act, 1956 — requiring only simple majority. No constitutional amendment needed. Question 2 In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the SC directed CEC/EC appointments be recommended by a committee of: (a) President, PM, and CJI (b) PM, Leader of Opposition (Lok Sabha), and CJI (c) President, PM, and Leader of Opposition (d) CJI, Law Minister, and LoP (Rajya Sabha) Show Answer Answer: (b) — PM, LoP of the Lok Sabha (or leader of the largest opposition party), and the CJI. The 2023 Act replaced the CJI with a Union Cabinet Minister. Question 3 Consider the following about Lok Adalat awards under the LSA Act, 1987: 1. They are deemed decrees of a civil court. 2. They are appealable before the High Court. Which is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Show Answer Answer: (a) — Under Section 21, LSA Act, Lok Adalat awards are deemed decrees of a civil court and are final and binding — they are not appealable in any court. This is a high-frequency trap. Question 4 Which state was declared India's first fully paperless state judiciary in May 2026? (a) Goa (b) Meghalaya (c) Sikkim (d) Mizoram Show Answer Answer: (c) — CJI Surya Kant declared Sikkim as India's first fully paperless state judiciary on May 1, 2026, during the National Conclave on Technology and Judicial Education in Gangtok. Question 5 The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026: 1. Replaces self-identification with mandatory medical board evaluation. 2. Was struck down by the Rajasthan High Court. Which is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Show Answer Answer: (a) — Statement 1 is correct. Statement 2 is incorrect — the Rajasthan HC initially made critical observations but later expunged them. The Act has not been struck down; the constitutional challenge is pending before the SC. Daily Drafting Snippet Model Bail Application — UAPA Matter Before NIA Special Court Bail Application Under Section 43D(5), UAPA IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE (NIA) [City], [State] S.C. No. _______ / 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: State (through NIA) ... PROSECUTION Versus [Name of Accused] ... ACCUSED/APPLICANT APPLICATION FOR BAIL Under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1. That the Applicant has been in custody since [date], i.e., for a period exceeding ___ months, without the commencement of trial. 2. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to note the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IN RE: CREATION OF SPECIAL EXCLUSIVE COURTS, SMW(Crl) No. 1/2026 , which mandate time-bound disposal of NIA trials and completion of at least 1 trial per month. 3. That the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, as expounded in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary (1979) , mandates that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of fundamental rights. PRAYER : It is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to enlarge the Applicant on bail on such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit and proper. FILED BY: [Advocate Name] [Enrolment No.] [Date] The instruments of democratic governance — where institutional design determines the quality of justice and representation. Photo: Unsplash Data Dashboard Supreme Court Pendency Snapshot — May 2026 92.4K Pending Cases Civil Appeals — ~62% Criminal Appeals — ~16% SLPs — ~13% Writs & Others — ~9% Source: PIB release, May 5, 2026; The Hindu; SC (Number of Judges) Act amendments. National Lok Adalat Performance: 2023–2026 26 Cr Cases (2023–25) 12 National Lok Adalats over 3 years 2.07 Cr May 9, 2026 Single-day settlement in 2nd NLA 2026 ₹3,441 Cr Settlement Value Monetary settlements on May 9, 2026 Roots & Routes Timeline: The Evolution of Election Commission Appointments 1950 — Original Practice CEC appointed by President on PM's sole advice. No statutory framework. Article 324(2) left to Parliament to fill the gap. 1989 — Multi-Member EC Two additional ECs appointed for the first time. Later revoked. Re-established permanently in 1993. 2015 — PIL Filed Anoop Baranwal files writ petition challenging unilateral executive appointments to ECI. March 2023 — Constitution Bench Judgment 5-judge bench in Anoop Baranwal v. UoI mandates interim committee: PM + LoP + CJI. December 2023 — Parliamentary Response CEC and Other ECs (Appointment) Act passed. CJI replaced with Union Cabinet Minister. March 2024 — First Appointment Under New Law Gyanesh Kumar appointed as CEC — one day before SC hearing on stay application. May 6–7, 2026 — SC Hearing Justices Datta and Sharma hear challenge. Court observes CJI role was "meant to last until Parliament legislated." Petitioners argue Act creates "Home Umpire" system. Sources & References LiveLaw — 2.07 Crore Cases Settled in 2nd National Lok Adalat 2026 (May 9, 2026) The Hindu — Cabinet Approves SC Judges from 34 to 38 (May 5, 2026) Drishti IAS — Cabinet Clears Bill to Expand SC Strength to 38 PIB — Cabinet Approval for SC Judges Expansion (May 5, 2026) The Hindu — SC Refuses to Adjourn Hearing on ECI Law (May 6, 2026) Sabrang India — SC Hearing on ECI Appointments Act (May 7, 2026) LiveLaw — SC Directs Exclusive NIA Courts for UAPA Trials (May 9, 2026) The Hindu — SC Expresses Disappointment in Lakhimpur Kheri Trial (May 8, 2026) Hindustan Times — 'Case by Case': SC on Resolving Faith and Rights Disputes Bar & Bench — Sabarimala Reference Live Updates, SC 9-Judge Bench LiveLaw — SC Takes Cognisance of SCBA Resolution on AP HC Judge (May 8, 2026) LiveLaw — SC Seeks Response on Transgender Act Challenge The Hindu — SC Flags 'Risk' of Misuse in Transgender Self-Identification Debate PRS India — Transgender Persons Amendment Bill, 2026 Indian Express — CJI Declares Sikkim First Paperless State Judiciary (May 2, 2026) Indian Express — Allahabad HC on Live-In Relationships (May 9, 2026) Drishti IAS — Defeat of the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2026 Supreme Court of India — Latest Orders The EduLaw Store Premium legal intelligence for serious aspirants. Judiciary notes, UPSC law optional, CLAT PG preparation, and constitutional analysis — curated for those who refuse to settle for mediocrity. Visit The Store Judiciary Prep UPSC Law Optional CLAT PG Notes Legal Updates Newsletter Archive © 2026 The EduLaw Daily Legal Docket · All Rights Reserved · Published from New Delhi Vol. I, Issue 009 · Friday, May 9, 2026 · www.store.theedulaw.in