India’s constitutional landscape is once again under the spotlight, as recent judicial pronouncements, academic initiatives, and evolving governance models converge to highlight the complex interplay between law, technology, and democratic ideals. From the Supreme Court’s focus on urban governance in Uttar Pradesh’s Noida to the Karnataka High Court’s ruling on digital regulation, and the University of Madras’s upcoming national seminar on constitutional challenges, the nation finds itself at a crossroads—where the meaning and mechanisms of constitutionalism are being debated and defined in real time.
On August 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India took a decisive step toward reforming urban governance in Noida, one of the country’s fastest-growing urban centers. According to The Wire, the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi directed the Uttar Pradesh government to consider converting Noida into a Municipal Corporation. The court’s rationale was straightforward: Noida, despite its population of over one million and its status as a major city, remains the only such urban center in India without an elected local government. The move was prompted during a hearing on a bail plea for two Noida Authority officials accused of authorizing excessive compensation payments—over Rs 12 crore in 2021—raising broader questions about accountability and governance.
The Supreme Court accepted the findings of a three-member committee led by then UP Additional Director General of Police S.B. Shirodkar, which was tasked with investigating similar cases and recommending reforms. This episode shines a light on the unique governance model that has shaped Noida’s development since its founding in 1976 under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act. Conceived during the Emergency era, reportedly at the behest of Sanjay Gandhi, Noida was intended as an industrial township to relocate polluting industries from Delhi’s core. Yet, as The Wire notes, only about 18.37% of Noida’s land is used for industrial activity, while over 37.45% serves residential purposes. The city now sprawls across 81 revenue villages and 20,136 hectares, but faces a severe shortage of affordable housing for workers and daily wage laborers—an irony for a place designed as an industrial hub.
What truly sets Noida apart is its governance structure. Unlike most urban areas governed by elected bodies under the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendment Acts, Noida is administered by a board dominated by bureaucrats. The Uttar Pradesh government, through legislative maneuvers such as State Act 4 of 2001 and State Act 10 of 2016, has inserted provisions (notably sections 12A and 12B in the 1976 Act) that dissolve existing local self-governments once an area is notified as an industrial township. This has effectively stymied the emergence of Gram Panchayats or Municipal Corporations in these new cities. The Supreme Court’s intervention now raises fundamental questions: Can citizens be denied their constitutional right to local self-government for decades? Does the bureaucratic model align with the democratic ideals enshrined in the Constitution?
As The Wire points out, the Supreme Court must grapple with the constitutional validity of these legislative provisions, the definition of ‘industrial township,’ and the broader principles of federalism and democracy—both considered part of the “basic structure” of India’s Constitution. Until these questions are resolved, calls for citizen-centric governance in Noida and similar townships are likely to go unheeded. The persistence of a powerful “builder-politician-bureaucrat” nexus, highlighted in judicial and audit reports, only underscores the urgency for reform.
While the courts wrestle with these foundational issues, academia is also stepping up to foster dialogue and critical examination. The University of Madras, as reported by DT Next, is organizing a national seminar through its Department of Legal Studies to address contemporary challenges and conflicts in constitutional interpretation, implementation, and amendment. The seminar aims to bring together judicial officers, policymakers, academicians, advocates, and students to discuss themes such as Centre-State relations, fundamental rights versus censorship, social justice, electoral processes, and constitutionalism in the age of technology and globalization.
“The objective of the conference is also to foster interdisciplinary dialogue among stakeholders to identify solutions for optimising constitutional governance and upholding constitutional values and also to promote comparative study of other federal constitutions to outline the future trajectory of India’s constitutional framework,” explained G Rajasekar, the seminar director. Sub-themes will include the tension between freedom of expression and censorship, the challenges of balancing hate speech, social media, and dissent, and the impact of technology on democratic processes.
These discussions are timely, given the Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling on the regulation of digital platforms. On October 3, 2025, as detailed by SCC Online, the court rejected a writ petition filed by X Corp. (formerly Twitter) challenging the constitutional validity of the Sahyog Portal and certain provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its associated rules. The petitioner had argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act did not permit information blocking orders, which could only be issued under Section 69A, and that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, was unconstitutional.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, however, found that “the Sahyog Portal is not an instrument of censorship but a mere facilitation mechanism,” intended to streamline communication between authorized agencies and intermediaries. The court emphasized that “free speech, as obtained under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be unbridled, uncanalized and a free fall, it is hedged, regulated, and restricted by reasonable restrictions as found in Article 19(2).” The ruling acknowledged the historical continuity of regulation in information and communication, noting that “no nation has left the flow of information wholly unregulated.”
Crucially, the court rejected X Corp.’s attempt to invoke American judicial doctrines, observing that “American doctrine cannot be imported under our Constitution, because the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) are not absolute rights.” The decision also clarified that rights under Article 19 are “citizen centric and not person centric,” meaning that foreign corporations like X Corp. cannot claim these protections. The court further noted that the rules in question were not vague or arbitrary, as they are anchored in existing laws and subject to judicial interpretation.
These parallel developments—in the courts, in academia, and in governance—underscore a nation engaged in a profound re-examination of its constitutional architecture. As India’s cities expand, its digital spaces proliferate, and its democratic aspirations evolve, the challenge remains: how to balance freedom and order, innovation and accountability, and the rights of citizens with the imperatives of governance. The answers, it seems, will emerge not from any single institution, but from the ongoing dialogue between the courts, the academy, and the people themselves.
