Introduction
Today's legal landscape is defined by a major legislative overhaul in the insurance sector, permitting 100% FDI, and significant Supreme Court interventions regarding electoral roll sanctity and the misuse of Public Interest Litigations (PILs). The analysis also covers a landmark tax ruling on GAAR and the constitutional debate surrounding FDI norms in the manufacturing sector.
1. Legislative Reform: Insurance Laws Amendment Bill, 2025
The Parliament has passed the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Bill, 2025, marking a historic shift in the statutory framework of India's insurance sector.
A. Statutory Amendments
Insurance Act, 1938 & IRDA Act, 1999: The Bill amends these core statutes.
100% FDI: A key legal shift is the removal of the 74% cap, now allowing 100% Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in insurance companies.
Unified License: It introduces a provision for a "composite license," allowing insurers to offer life, general, and health insurance under a single entity (previously prohibited under Section 32 of the Insurance Act).
Capital Requirements: The Bill creates a more flexible capital requirement regime, moving away from the rigid ₹100 crore paid-up equity capital rule to a risk-based capital framework determined by IRDAI.
2. Constitutional & Election Law: Electoral Roll Revision
The Supreme Court has intervened in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, addressing allegations of arbitrary deletions.
A. Judicial Directions
Transparency: The Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to display lists of voters with "discrepancies" at local block and ward offices.
Right to Object: Extending the statutory timeline for filing objections by 10 days, the Court emphasized the Right to Vote (a constitutional right under Article 326) cannot be disenfranchised through opaque administrative processes.
State Obligation: It mandated the State Government to provide adequate human resources to the ECI, reinforcing the Article 324(6) mandate (President/Governor to provide staff to EC).
3. Judicial Reform: "Publicity Interest Litigation"
The Supreme Court dismissed a PIL seeking a mandatory "one-year timeline" for deciding cases, terming it a "Publicity Interest Litigation."
A. The Legal Doctrine
Separation of Powers: The Court observed that while judicial delays are a concern, a blanket judicial order mandating a 1-year deadline for all courts violates the administrative autonomy of High Courts (under Article 227) and ignores practical constraints.
Abuse of Process: The dismissal reiterates the principle that Article 32 (Writ Jurisdiction) cannot be used for populism or unrealistic prayers that the judiciary cannot enforce.
4. Corporate & Tax Law: Tiger Global GAAR Ruling
In a decisive judgment involving Tiger Global, the Supreme Court has clarified the application of General Anti-Avoidance Rules (GAAR) over tax treaties.
A. Treaty Shopping & Substance
DTAA Benefits: The Court ruled that claiming benefits under the India-Mauritius DTAA requires more than just a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC).
Substance Over Form: Applying GAAR (Chapter X-A of Income Tax Act), the Court held that if an entity lacks "commercial substance" in the treaty country and exists primarily to avoid tax, treaty benefits can be denied. This sets a precedent for interpreting "Grandfathering clauses" for investments made before 2017.
5. Service Law: AICTE Regulations vs. State Rules
The Supreme Court settled a conflict regarding the recruitment of engineering professors.
A. The Ruling
State vs. Central Standards: The Court held that AICTE Regulations (framed by a central statutory body) do not automatically override State Public Service Commission (PSC) rules for direct recruitment unless the State rules are repugnant or lower the standards.
Federalism in Education: This affirms the power of States to frame specific recruitment rules for state-run technical institutions under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List, provided they maintain minimum standards.
Key Legal Takeaways
New Law: Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha Bill, 2025 (100% FDI in Insurance).
Tax Law: GAAR applies over TRC if commercial substance is missing (Tiger Global case).
Election Law: Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is subject to judicial review for transparency.
Judicial Concept: Publicity Interest Litigation (Misuse of PILs).
Service Law: State PSC Rules can operate alongside AICTE norms for recruitment.
Statute: Insurance Act, 1938 (Amended to allow composite licensing).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1: What is the major change in FDI policy under the new Insurance Amendment Bill, 2025?
Answer: It allows 100% Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in insurance companies, removing the previous statutory cap of 74%.
Q2: Can a single insurance company now sell both Life and Health insurance?
Answer: Yes. The 2025 Bill introduces a "Composite License," legally permitting a single entity to offer life, general, and health insurance products, which was previously restricted.
Q3: What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the Tiger Global tax case?
Answer: The Court ruled that tax treaty benefits (like the Mauritius route) can be denied under GAAR if the foreign entity lacks "commercial substance" and was created solely for tax avoidance, even if it holds a valid Tax Residency Certificate (TRC).
Q4: Under which Article did the Supreme Court direct the State to provide staff to the Election Commission?
Answer: The direction aligns with Article 324(6) of the Constitution, which mandates the President or Governor to make available such staff as may be necessary to the Election Commission for the discharge of its functions.
Q5: Are AICTE regulations mandatory for all state engineering appointments?
Answer: The Supreme Court clarified that for direct recruitment conducted by State Public Service Commissions, State rules hold weight and AICTE regulations do not automatically displace them, provided the State standards are not lower than the minimums set by AICTE.