CLAT PG Current Affairs — 28 September 2026

The Election Commission of India claimed the Supreme Court had upheld its new voter registration declaration appended to Form 6, which requires applicants to affirm they are not registered elsewhere. LiveLaw's analysis disputes this, arguing the Court merely declined to stay the form at an interim stage without examining its merits. Critics say the new declaration effectively shifts the burden of proof onto applicants and may disenfranchise genuine voters, raising questions about ECI's statutory power to add such conditions.

Form 6 is the application form for fresh voter registration under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The ECI introduced a new declaration requiring applicants to state they are not registered in any other constituency — a condition not explicitly mandated by the Representation of the People Act, 1950, or the Rules made thereunder.

The legal controversy has two layers. First, the procedural question: when the Supreme Court declines to stay a government measure at the interim stage, does that amount to judicial endorsement of its validity? Constitutional law is clear that an interim refusal to stay does not constitute an affirmation of merits — it merely means the court found no prima facie urgency to halt the measure pending hearing. ECI characterising a non-stay as an 'upholding' is therefore legally inaccurate.

Second, the substantive question: does ECI have the rule-making power to add declarations that effectively impose burdens beyond what Parliament prescribed? Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs registration of electors; the Rules specify what must accompany an application. If the declaration adds a new disqualification or burden not traceable to the parent statute, it may exceed delegated legislative authority — the ultra vires doctrine in administrative law.

For CLAT PG, this event sits at the intersection of electoral law, delegated legislation, and judicial review — all tested areas. The principle that an interim order declining stay does not constitute a merits ruling is especially important.

Following the Supreme Court's nine-judge bench ruling in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (MADA), which held that states can levy taxes on mineral rights beyond royalty, Parliament enacted a validation law under Section 9D of the Mines and Minerals Act to limit retrospective recovery. Several states have now challenged this validation legislation before the Supreme Court under Article 131, arguing it unconstitutionally overrides the MADA judgment and infringes state fiscal autonomy over mineral taxation.

The MADA case (2024) settled a long-running constitutional dispute: a nine-judge bench held that royalty paid on minerals is not a 'tax,' and states have legislative competence under Entry 50, List II to impose taxes on mineral rights. This overruled the 1989 India Cement ruling.

Post-MADA, Parliament swiftly amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act by inserting Section 9D, which effectively validates past royalty arrangements and bars states from recovering arrears retrospectively — neutralising the financial windfall the MADA ruling had created for mineral-rich states like Jharkhand, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh.

The constitutional challenge now has three distinct layers:

1. Validation doctrine: Parliament can retrospectively cure a legal defect — but a validation law cannot simply declare a court's judgment wrong. It must change the underlying legal basis. States argue Section 9D fails this test because it does not alter any legislative foundation; it merely negates the judgment's effect.

2. Article 131 jurisdiction: The suit between states and the Union before the Supreme Court is an original suit. The critical question is whether a dispute about the validity of a central law affecting state revenues qualifies as a 'legal right' dispute under Article 131, or whether it is really a constitutional interpretation question better suited to writ proceedings.

3. Federalism and fiscal autonomy: Since MADA recognised states' sovereign taxing power over minerals, a central validation law cutting off that revenue strikes at fiscal federalism — bringing Article 246, Entry 50 List II, and the doctrine of legislative competence into sharp focus.

The validation doctrine test, as settled in Shri Prithvi Cotton Mills v. Broach Municipality and later in Bakhtawar Trust, requires that the legislature must remove the substratum of the court's decision — not merely declare the outcome void.