Latest: Bench leaves Punjab surcharge and cess challenges to a regular bench while reaffirming Kodar ruling
A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant held that a reference pending for nearly 27 years had become academic after GST, and said the 1974 S Kodar vs State of Kerala ruling continues to hold the field. Reports say the bench left the validity of the Punjab surcharge and the Punjab Social Security Act cess open, sending them to a regular bench, while Justice K.V.
Viswanathan wrote a separate opinion. Summary updated 4 Nov, 18:44 IST
Why it matters: It settles the legal position on how far states can levy surcharges on sales tax, and a tax expert quoted by one outlet says it could guide levies on petrol, diesel and alcohol outside GST.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: SC calls old state sales tax reference academic, keeps Kodar ruling
Summary before this update: A seven-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI Surya Kant held that a reference pending for nearly 27 years had become academic after GST. It said the 1974 S Kodar vs State of Kerala ruling continues to hold the field on additional sales tax or surcharge.
Note before this update: All three outlets report the ruling in much the same neutral terms, differing mainly in how much legal detail they include.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 6 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 1 of 15 (Hindustan Times). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
All six outlets report the ruling in neutral terms. Some headlines say the court upheld states' power, while others stress that the reference was held academic.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court ruling on state sales tax powers and a legal reference now academic after GST. No religion, social justice or statism angle, and no framing of the government.
Why: Technical report of a constitutional court ruling on state tax powers. It has no clear religion, social justice or statist framing, and no loaded wording or partisan sourcing.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court ruling on state tax powers and legislative competence; no religion, social justice or welfare-versus-market framing, and no loaded wording or partisan sourcing.
Why: Technical report of a court ruling on state tax legislative competence, now moot after GST. No religion, social justice or welfare-versus-market framing; neutral wording and no government criticism or praise.
Why: Neutral legal report on a Supreme Court ruling about state tax powers before GST. It has no clear religion, social justice or statism angle, and it takes no side on the government.
Why: Plain report of a Supreme Court ruling on state sales tax powers; no religion, social justice or welfare framing, and no loaded wording or partisan sourcing.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Sport results skip winding down and are archived after about 2 days, unless police or a court are involved. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.