On 20 August, the Indian government tabled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, which would permit the removal from office of elected officials if they were detained for 30 consecutive days on charges that carry a minimum five-year sentence. The government maintains that the proposed law aims to reduce corruption and criminal public representatives, as well as enhance integrity in politics. However, opposition leaders and political observers argue that the law could be misused against critics and political rivals. Legal experts also warn that the bill contradicts the principle of the presumption of innocence, undermines due process and threatens representative democracy. The amendment has been sent to a joint parliamentary committee for further review, amid opposition protests.

Sources: Al Jazeera, Observer Research Foundation, The Wire, The Diplomat

In August, opposition leaders raised concerns about a voter verification initiative known as the Special Intensive Revision, launched by the Election Commission in the state of Bihar. The initiative was conducted ahead of Bihar’s key state elections scheduled later this year, with electoral roll revisions currently underway in other states as well. The drive, which aimed to update voter lists after more than 20 years, took place between June and July and required residents to provide extensive documentation as proof of citizenship. Critics have said that the onerous documentation and haste of the exercise risks disenfranchising millions of youths, migrants and marginalized groups. A draft of the updated SIR list was published on 1 August, upon which some analysts noted errors in counting and misassigned names, among other issues. The Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar stated that there has been no wrongdoing, adding that ‘when the voter list is intensively verified, such large differences in numbers are bound to occur.’ The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of the process, with a final verdict expected on 7 October that could impact voter registration practices nationwide. 

Sources: BBC News, The Times of India

Since May 2025, Indian authorities have forcibly expelled hundreds of ethnic Bengali Muslims to Bangladesh without due process, some of whom are Indian citizens according to Human Rights Watch and opposition leaders. At least 1,500 persons were expelled between 7 May and 15 June, per Bangladeshi authorities. Rights groups note that individuals were arbitrarily detained and physically abused as part of the process. In May, United Nations officials also raised concerns about Rohingya refugees being expelled and forced into the sea near Myanmar. The Indian government maintains that it is legally expelling undocumented migrants and non-Indian citizens. The expulsions follow a directive issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in May, setting a 30-day deadline for states to verify the credentials of undocumented immigrants. The deportations mark the latest escalation of Assam’s long-running ’expulsion politics,’ where Muslim minorities labelled as foreigners have been subject to removals and disenfranchisement.

Sources: Human Rights Watch, The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, The Hindu, Fortify Rights

India and Pakistan exchanged drone, artillery, and missile attacks in May in what were the deadliest hostilities between the two countries in decades. Dozens were reportedly killed on both sides in a conflict which began with a terror attack in India by (allegedly) Pakistani-backed militants on 22 April. India responded with strikes on 7 May on what it said was ‘terrorist infrastructure’ in Pakistan. Pakistan denied that it supported the militants and launched attacks of its own on Indian territory. Attacks by both countries continued until a ceasefire on 10 May, and no further violence has occurred (as of mid-June) since the two states agreed to withdraw troops and open lines of communication between military leaders on 12 May. The outbreak of violence was the deadliest fighting between the two countries since the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War and the first since both countries obtained nuclear weapons. 

Sources:  Foreign Affairs, CSIS, Al Jazeera

On 4 April, the Indian parliament passed the controversial Waqf (Amendment) Act, which increases government oversight over properties held by private Muslim trusts (waqfs). The amendments require Waqf boards to appoint non-Muslim members and shifts the power to adjudicate disputes from boards to civil servants. It removes a “Waqf by User” clause, which treated properties without proper documentation as waqf if they were long understood as such. The law does not affect Hindu or other religious endowments, which will not be subject to the same oversight. The government maintains that the bill is intended to improve the administration of Waqf properties. Minority groups and opposition leaders have condemned the bill as unconstitutional, arguing that it infringes on the rights of Muslims and expands government control over the privately-owned endowments. On 17 April, the Supreme Court put a hold on several of the law’s new provisions as they are being challenged at the Court.

On 4 April, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment declaring that state governors cannot indefinitely decline to sign or reject bills passed by state legislatures. The Court further clarified that even the President of India cannot “pocket-veto” a bill without time limits. The ruling arose from a prolonged dispute between the Tamil Nadu government and Governor RN Ravi, who withheld 10 bills, some pending for several years. The Court’s ruling now mandates a specific timeframe within which governors must respond to bills. Political analysts note that the verdict sets an important legal precedent across all Indian states, reinforcing constitutional principles, ensuring judicial oversight and enhancing accountability in legislative processes.

Sources: The New Indian Express, Times of India, The Week, Scroll