OSLO, Oct 9,2026: South African judge Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, 85, won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday “for her efforts to promote peace and international law”, the Norwegian Nobel Committee said.
Pillay held states and national leaders accountable and brought hope to victims of violence and conflict, and demonstrated a firm moral compass in her long career, the committee said.
“A common thread runs from her early work defending Nelson Mandela and others who stood up against apartheid to her service as a judge in some of the key international court cases of our time,” the committee said.
Navi Pillay was chair of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory that concluded last year that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. Israel dismissed the report as “scandalous”.
The peace prize is the fifth Nobel awarded this week, after literature, chemistry, physics and medicine. Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado won in 2025.
The Nobel Peace Prize, worth 12 million Swedish crowns, or about $1.2 million, is due to be presented in Oslo on December 10, the anniversary of the death of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who founded the awards in his 1895 will.
October 03, 2026: President Droupadi Murmu has given her assent to the Gujarat Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, 2026, completing a key constitutional step towards its implementation. Gujarat has become the second state after Uttarakhand to secure approval for a Uniform Civil Code, which seeks to establish a common legal framework for personal matters across religious communities.
The legislation will come into force after the Gujarat government notifies the rules. Members of Scheduled Tribes (STs) are excluded from its provisions.
The Gujarat Assembly passed the Bill in March following a seven-and-a-half-hour discussion. Before the legislation was passed by voice vote, Congress legislators staged a walkout and demanded that the Speaker refer it to a Select Committee.
Chief Minister Bhupendra Patel said the legislation would promote equality and national integration. “The key aim of introducing the bill is to ensure social harmony and national unity. The Supreme Court has also suggested that UCC will ensure women’s rights are secured,” he said while introducing the Bill.
What does the Gujarat UCC provide?
The legislation establishes a common framework covering marriage, divorce, succession and inheritance, and live-in relationships, irrespective of religion.
It prescribes a minimum marriage age of 21 years for men and 18 years for women. Couples can solemnise marriages through religious ceremonies or under the Special Marriage Act, but registration is compulsory.
The Code prohibits a second marriage while an existing marriage remains valid, thereby disallowing polygamy. It also invalidates marriages between persons within prohibited degrees of relationship, unless an established custom or usage permits the union and is not contrary to public policy or morality.
The legislation further prohibits nikah halala, a practice requiring a divorced woman to marry another man and obtain a divorce before remarrying her former husband. It provides that divorced spouses can remarry without such a condition. Forcing or abetting the practice attracts legal consequences.
What are the rules for divorce and inheritance?
The Code establishes a common judicial procedure for divorce, replacing religion-specific methods of dissolving marriages, including customary out-of-court procedures and iddat-related processes.
Either spouse may seek divorce on grounds including adultery, cruelty, desertion for two continuous years, religious conversion and incurable unsoundness of mind. Wives have additional grounds where the husband is guilty of rape or an unnatural sexual offence, or has multiple wives from marriages contracted before the Code came into force.
Divorce by mutual consent is permitted if the couple has lived separately for at least one year.
For inheritance, the legislation introduces a common framework for intestate succession, applicable when a person dies without a will. The surviving spouse or spouses, surviving children, branches of predeceased children and surviving parents receive equal shares under the prescribed order of succession. Sons and daughters inherit equally, regardless of religion.
The Code does not alter testamentary succession, meaning property can still be distributed according to a valid will. If no eligible heirs survive, the estate passes to the government through Escheat.
How does the Code regulate live-in relationships?
Registration of live-in relationships is mandatory. Partners must submit a statement to the designated registrar, and couples must notify the authorities when their relationship ends.
A relationship cannot be registered if either partner is a minor, is already married, is in another live-in relationship or falls within a prohibited degree of relationship.
Failure to register a relationship after cohabiting for more than one month can attract imprisonment of up to three months, a fine of up to Rs 10,000, or both. The Bill also provides for a fine of up to Rs 10,000 for non-registration of marriages and divorces.
Children born from live-in relationships are recognised as legitimate children of the couple. Women deserted by their live-in partners can approach a competent court to seek maintenance.
What are the objections and constitutional concerns?
The Opposition criticised the legislation during its passage. Congress MLA Imran Khedawala described it as “against our society” and questioned its benefits, while alleging that the government should focus on other issues concerning Muslim women. AAP MLA Chatar Vasavane alleged that the Bill served electoral interests and raised concerns about its implications for tribal women marrying outside their communities.
Legal concerns also arise from compulsory registration and penalties for live-in relationships. A June 2026 analysis published by The Hindu noted that such provisions raise questions about individual autonomy and the State’s regulation of consensual adult relationships.
In S Khushboo v Kanniammal (2010), the Supreme Court held that morality and criminality are not synonymous and that live-in relationships and premarital sex should not be associated with criminality.
The analysis also cited Deepika Singh v Central Administrative Tribunal (2022), in which the Supreme Court recognised that non-traditional family structures deserve legal protection and social welfare benefits. Critics have been reported to argue that the UCCs do not adequately accommodate such family arrangements, including queer relationships.
Article 44 of the Constitution directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens. Uttarakhand implemented its UCC in February 2024, while Gujarat’s law awaits notification of its implementation rules.
Gujarat is the second state after Uttarakhand became first in independent India to implement a Uniform Civil Code on January 27, 2025, introducing a common legal framework governing marriage, divorce, inheritance and live-in relationships, with an exemption for Scheduled Tribes.
Patna, Sep 29,2026: The Patna High Court has held that pension benefits of a retired government employee cannot be withheld indefinitely through prolonged departmental proceedings and observed that pension constitutes a right to property protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The ruling came in the case of retired Assistant Engineer Mahendra Ram of the Bihar Water Resources Department, whose retirement benefits remained partly withheld for years following disciplinary proceedings relating to an alleged illegal withdrawal of Rs 48,000. Justice Purnendu Singh, while hearing the matter, took serious note of the prolonged delay in concluding the departmental proceedings and observed that an unexplained and continuing delay in determining the retiral dues of a government employee can cause serious mental agony as well as financial hardship.
The court directed the State authorities to conclude the pending proceedings within six weeks. It further ordered that if the State failed to complete the proceedings within the stipulated period, the disciplinary proceedings would stand terminated, according to the order.
In such an eventuality, the authorities have been directed to release Ram’s pending retirement benefits, including his full pension, gratuity, and leave encashment, within a further period of two weeks. Ram had retired from government service in April 2020. Proceedings had been initiated against him in connection with the alleged withdrawal of Rs 48,000 from government funds.
According to the case put forward before the court, subsequent departmental inquiry did not establish that Ram had committed the alleged financial irregularity. The responsibility for the withdrawal was attributed to an Account Clerk, against whom disciplinary action was subsequently taken.
Despite the proceedings, Ram was granted only 90 per cent of a provisional pension, while the final determination of his retirement benefits remained pending. The court emphasised that a pension is not a bounty or a discretionary payment dependent solely on the will of the government, but a legally protected entitlement of a retired public servant.
The ruling also underscores the requirement for the State authorities to act within a reasonable and legally permissible period while dealing with disciplinary proceedings having a direct bearing on an employee’s retirement benefits.
Sept 25,2026: Tata Sons has rejected Tata Trusts chairman Noel Tata’s objections to N Chandrasekaran’s reappointment as chairman, citing legal opinions from three senior lawyers to support the validity of the September 17 board resolution and the use of the chairman’s casting vote.
In a September 24 letter to Noel Tata, the holding company cited opinions from former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit, former Supreme Court judge B N Srikrishna and senior advocate Sudipto Sarkar. Tata Sons said the three opinions supported its interpretation of the company’s Articles of Association (AoA).
The dispute centres on the voting process for Chandrasekaran’s third five-year term. Chandrasekaran recused himself from the vote. Four of the five directors who voted backed his reappointment, including Tata Trusts nominee Venu Srinivasan, while Noel Tata voted against it. Harish Manwani, who presided over the meeting, subsequently exercised the casting vote.
Tata Trusts has challenged the validity of the resolution, arguing that the two Trust-nominated directors must provide the required affirmative majority and that a casting vote cannot be used when there was no equality of votes at the overall board level.
Lalit backed Tata Sons’ interpretation of the casting-vote provision. He said the split between the directors appointed under Article 104B created an occasion for the presiding chairman to exercise the casting vote under Article 121, and concluded that the September 17 resolution “was validly passed”.
Srikrishna also supported the procedure adopted by the board, saying it was “perfectly consonant with the letter and spirit of Article 121”. He said the provision should be read in a manner that allows board proceedings and the company’s business to move forward rather than remain deadlocked.
On Srinivasan’s vote in favour of Chandrasekaran, Srikrishna said the Trust nominee had “rightly acted pursuant to the statutory fiduciary duty” owed to the company.
Sarkar’s earlier opinion, obtained before the board meeting, also supported Tata Sons’ position on the casting vote. He additionally held that Article 118, which lays down a special process for selecting a new chairman, does not apply to the reappointment of an incumbent chairman.
Tata Trusts maintains its objection
Tata Trusts has maintained that the September 17 resolution was a “legal nullity”, arguing that the chairman’s appointment or reappointment requires the support of a majority of the Trust nominees. It has also cited an opinion from former CJI D. Y. Chandrachud backing its position.
The disagreement therefore hinges on competing interpretations of Articles 118 and 121 of Tata Sons’ AoA—specifically, whether the selection process applies to an incumbent seeking another term and whether a casting vote can resolve a split between the Trust nominees.
Tata Sons has now formally stood by Chandrasekaran’s reappointment, setting the stage for the next move by Tata Trusts in the dispute.