POLITY & CONSTITUTION

Introduction:
The completion of the Udhampur–Srinagar–Baramulla Rail Link (USBRL), a 272-kilometre railway line traversing the Pir Panjal and Himalayan ranges, marks a historic turning point in India’s infrastructural and national integration journey. This project, nearly four decades in the making, is more than a feat of engineering; it is a tangible social contract reaffirming Kashmir’s place in India’s development narrative.

Body:

  1. Engineering and Strategic Significance:
  • The line traverses some of India’s most difficult terrain, including the Chenab Bridge, the world’s highest railway bridge.
  • Built under harsh weather and security conditions, it demonstrates the resilience of Indian engineering and institutions.
  • The line reduces dependence on the vulnerable Srinagar-Jammu highway, enhancing logistical and emergency response capacity in a sensitive border region.
  1. Socio-Economic Impact:
  • Connects key towns like Sopore, Anantnag, Banihal, and Baramulla to India’s rail grid, improving access to markets, education, and healthcare.
  • Reduces transport costs and opens the region to investment, paving the way for industrial hubs, agro-logistics parks, and skill development centres.
  • As per Ministry of Railways (2024) estimates, the project is expected to generate over 1 lakh direct and indirect jobs through logistics, services, and construction-related sectors.
  1. Symbol of Integration and Belonging:
  • The project reaffirms that Kashmir is not peripheral, but central to India’s developmental journey.
  • Trains facilitate cultural exchange and psychological integration, offering a shared national experience.
  • Reduces the emotional toll of separation, especially for students, migrant workers, and patients needing treatment in major Indian cities.
  1. Political and Security Implications:
  • Enhances state capacity in a previously disconnected region, strengthening governance and national presence.
  • Counters separatist narratives by offering infrastructural proof of inclusion and long-term commitment.
  • Offers a peaceful developmental model in a post-Article 370 era, focused on growth and opportunity rather than coercion.

Way Forward:

  • Last-mile connectivity to villages and economic clusters must be prioritised through feeder roads and rural transport schemes.
  • Station area development plans should incorporate local crafts markets, artisan hubs, and women-led SHGs, transforming stations into community centres.
  • Enhance frequency and affordability of trains, ensuring accessibility for all income groups.
  • Encourage public-private partnerships in logistics and tourism to create sustainable growth corridors.

Conclusion:

The Jammu–Baramulla railway line exemplifies inclusive and transformative development. Beyond steel and tunnels, it represents trust, patience, and perseverance. It sends a powerful message — that democracy delivers not just through policies, but through persistent public infrastructure that connects not only places, but people and aspirations. As India builds upon this backbone, Kashmir’s future must be anchored in mobility, opportunity, and shared destiny.

Link with UPSC Mains Syllabus:

  • GS Paper I: Indian Geography – Infrastructure: Railways
  • GS Paper II: Governance – Development processes and the role of infrastructure
  • GS Paper III: Internal Security – Role of infrastructure in securing border and conflict-prone areas

Relevant Previous Year Questions:

  • UPSC GS III 2020: How far is India’s infrastructural development lagging behind its economic needs?
  • UPSC GS II 2018: Border management is a complex task. Examine the challenges and suggest steps for effective border development.
  • UPSC GS I 2017: The spirit of federalism demands greater connectivity. Discuss with reference to the North-East and Jammu & Kashmir.

Sources:

  • Ministry of Railways – Project Completion Report (2024)
  • Press Information Bureau (PIB), July 2025
  • Economic Survey 2024–25 – Chapter on Infrastructure
  • Indian Railways Vision 2030 Document
  • Ministry of Home Affairs – Internal Security & Border Development Reports

Introduction
Free legal aid is a constitutional right under Article 39A, aimed at ensuring equal access to justice for the marginalized. Legal Services Authorities, established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, are mandated to provide free legal aid to nearly 80% of India’s population. Despite this sweeping mandate, the system remains fiscally weak, structurally under-staffed, and under-utilized.

Body

  1. Present Status of Legal Aid Delivery
  • As per India Justice Report 2025, only 15.5 lakh persons received legal aid services between April 2023–March 2024 — a 28% rise from the previous year, yet grossly inadequate for a country of 1.4 billion.
  • Legal aid clinics are severely under-distributed, with 1 clinic per 163 villages on average.
  • Budget allocation for legal aid remains less than 1% of the total justice system budget (police, prisons, judiciary, legal aid combined).
  1. Fiscal Constraints
  • From 2017–18 to 2022–23, total legal aid budgets grew from ₹601 crore to ₹1,086 crore — largely due to States increasing their allocations.
  • In contrast, NALSA funds declined from ₹207 crore to ₹169 crore in the same period, and fund utilization dropped from 75% to 59%.
  • Spending per capita remains abysmal — ₹6 average in 2022–23, with West Bengal at ₹2, and Uttar Pradesh and Bihar below ₹5.
  1. Human Resource Crisis
  • Para-legal volunteers (PLVs), essential frontline actors, fell by 38% between 2019 and 2024.
  • Only 14,000 PLVs were deployed in 2023–24 out of 53,000 trained.
  • Honorarium rates for PLVs remain below minimum wages in most states — only Kerala pays ₹750/day, while several states pay as little as ₹250/day.
  1. Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) Scheme
  • Rolled out in 610 districts since 2022 to provide quality legal defence for accused persons.
  • ₹200 crore allocated in 2023–24 (fully utilized); however, allocation fell to ₹147.9 crore in 2024–25.
  • The scheme shows promise but needs further evaluation and expansion.
  1. Structural Issues
  • Lack of monitoring mechanisms, low awareness, and inconsistent service quality affect effectiveness.
  • Restrictions on fund utilization imposed by NALSA’s 2023 Manual limit innovation and flexibility.

Way Forward

  • Increase Legal Aid Budget: Mandate States and Centre to allocate at least 2% of justice expenditure to legal aid services.
  • Revise Honorarium for PLVs: Ensure minimum wage-linked payments to retain and motivate ground staff.
  • Leverage Digital Platforms: Use e-Lok Adalat, video conferencing, and mobile legal aid vans to improve rural outreach.
  • Enhance Awareness: Strengthen legal literacy campaigns through school curricula, panchayats, and digital media.
  • Improve Monitoring: Establish performance-based audits, citizen feedback loops, and real-time MIS dashboards.

Conclusion

The constitutional promise of equal justice remains unfulfilled unless legal aid systems are capacitated with resources, trained personnel, and accountability frameworks. The India Justice Report 2025, coupled with declining PLV numbers and stagnant budgets, points to a crisis of neglect. To uphold Article 14 and Article 39A, India must invest in a robust legal aid ecosystem that truly empowers the poor and vulnerable.

Syllabus Link:

  • Governance: Government policies and interventions for development in various sectors and issues arising out of their design and implementation
  • Polity: Constitution—Significant provisions; Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; Mechanisms for delivery of services
  • Social Justice: Issues relating to poverty and hunger; Role of civil services in a democracy

PYQ Link:

  • GS Paper II, 2022: “The Rights of the weaker sections of society must be protected to ensure inclusive development. Discuss.”
  • GS Paper II, 2019: “Access to affordable, reliable and timely justice is key to a democratic society. Examine the functioning of Legal Services Authorities in this regard.”

Sources :

  • India Justice Report 2025, Tata Trusts
  • NALSA Annual Report 2023
  • Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India
  • Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
  • Press Information Bureau (PIB), March 2024

Introduction
The appointment of Directors-General of Police (DGPs) plays a pivotal role in ensuring the operational autonomy and institutional leadership of the police force in States. In a significant move, the Union Government notified a single-window system (April 2024) for facilitating the DGP appointment process through a standardized checklist and formats, addressing long-standing delays and procedural inconsistencies. This is a critical step in operationalising the Supreme Court’s directives in the Prakash Singh case (2006) aimed at depoliticizing police appointments and enhancing accountability.

Body

  1. Background: Prakash Singh Case Mandate
  • The Supreme Court’s 2006 judgment in Prakash Singh vs. Union of India laid down seven directives including:
  • DGPs must have minimum 2-year fixed tenure.
  • Selection to be made by UPSC from a panel of three eligible officers.
  • Officers must have minimum six months of residual service at the time of appointment.
  • Despite binding nature, many States circumvented or delayed compliance, often citing political or administrative reasons.
  1. Features of the New Single-Window System
  • Notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), effective April 22, 2024.
  • Mandates States to submit proposals at least 3 months before vacancy.
  • Officers must have minimum 6 months of residual service.
  • Responsibility fixed on a Secretary-rank officer to certify eligibility.
  • Proposals with discrepancies to be returned immediately.
  • UPSC to empanel officers in Level-16 pay matrix, forwarding top three names to States.
  1. Relevance and Significance
  • Streamlines process, avoids last-minute appointments and political manipulation.
  • Ensures transparency, standardized documentation, and seniority-based shortlisting.
  • Encourages States to follow constitutional conventions and judicial orders in spirit.
  1. Limitations and Challenges
  • Non-compliance persists: e.g., Tamil Nadu has yet to submit a proposal despite upcoming vacancy (August 30, 2025).
  • Lack of penalties for non-compliance reduces enforcement credibility.
  • Federal friction between Centre and States on appointments may undermine cooperative federalism.

Way Forward

  • Legal Backing: Amend the Police Act to incorporate Prakash Singh guidelines and appointment norms.
  • Monitoring Mechanism: Set up MHA-UPSC dashboard to track proposal submissions and delays.
  • Strengthen Police Boards in States to ensure non-political empanelment at all levels.
  • Accountability Measures: Introduce performance audits and legislative oversight in DGP appointments.
  • Civil Society Vigilance: Media and civil society must highlight instances of deviation and delay.

Conclusion

The Centre’s notification of a single-window system for DGP appointments is a long-awaited administrative reform that aligns with the judiciary’s vision of professionalizing the police force. However, the success of this system lies in robust enforcement, timely compliance by States, and strengthening institutional accountability. Unless States demonstrate the political will to uphold constitutional morality and rule of law, systemic police reforms will remain incomplete.

Syllabus Link:

  • Governance: Role of civil services in a democracy
  • Polity: Structure, organization, and functioning of the Executive and Judiciary
  • Security: Police reforms and issues relating to federal structure

PYQ Link:

  • GS Paper II, 2022: “Police reforms in India have been a case of too little, too late. Critically examine.”
  • GS Paper II, 2020: “Discuss the role of civil services in a democracy. How can institutional mechanisms ensure neutrality and efficiency?”
  • GS Paper II, 2018: “The role of the Governor in ensuring fair and impartial policing in the States has come under scrutiny. Discuss in the context of police reforms.”

Sources

  • Ministry of Home Affairs Notification, April 2024
  • Prakash Singh vs. Union of India, Supreme Court, 2006
  • Press Information Bureau (PIB), April–May 2024
  • Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Report on Public Order
  • The Hindu, May 2024: “Centre notifies single-window system for appointing State DGPs”

Introduction

Article 143 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court on questions of law or fact of public importance. Recently, a Presidential Reference questioned the authority of the Supreme Court to prescribe timelines for the President or Governors regarding assent to State legislation. Tamil Nadu and Kerala have opposed the maintainability of this reference, calling it an “appeal in disguise,” thus reopening a crucial constitutional debate.

Body

  1. The Core Constitutional Issue
  • The Supreme Court in 2023 had expressed concern over delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills passed by State Legislatures.
  • In response, the President of India, on advice of the Union Government, referred the matter to the Supreme Court under Article 143, questioning whether the Court can impose such timelines.
  1. States’ Objection
  • Kerala and Tamil Nadu argue that:
  • The reference is not genuine but a political appeal in disguise, attempting to overturn judicial precedent.
  • It seeks the Court’s opinion on an issue that is already decided or judicially settled.
  • It may violate the principle of federalism, by undermining State autonomy in legislative processes.
  1. Union Government’s Position
  • The Union contends that the reference is valid under Article 143, aiming to clarify the constitutional position and guide future conduct.
  • The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General support the need for judicial opinion to maintain institutional clarity.
  1. Constitutional and Judicial Dimensions
  • Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution provide Governors with discretion to assent, withhold, or reserve State Bills for Presidential consideration, but do not specify any time limit.
  • In recent judgments (e.g., 2023 Punjab Governor case), the Court emphasized accountability in timely assent.
  • The debate highlights the tension between constitutional silence and democratic accountability.

Way Forward

  • There is a pressing need for codified timelines for Governors to act on Bills to prevent democratic deadlock.
  • Parliament or an Inter-State Council could frame guidelines or a model code governing the use of discretionary powers under Articles 200 and 201.
  • Promote judicial restraint and executive accountability to maintain the federal balance.
  • The Supreme Court must ensure that Article 143 is not misused to indirectly appeal judicial decisions already delivered.

Conclusion

The ongoing debate over the Presidential Reference on State Bills underscores the delicate constitutional balance between the Union, States, and Judiciary. While the Centre seeks clarification, States fear an encroachment on their legislative autonomy. The Supreme Court’s interpretation will have far-reaching implications for federalism, separation of powers, and legislative efficiency in India.

UPSC Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper II:
  • Indian Constitution – historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure
  • Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States; issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
  • Separation of powers between various organs, dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions

Previous Year Questions Linkage

  • 2020: “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution.” Discuss with reference to recent judgments.
  • 2019: Do you agree with the view that the Governor’s discretionary powers to withhold assent to Bills are against the spirit of federalism? Critically examine.
  • 2017: “The Indian Constitution has provisions for holding joint sessions of the two Houses of Parliament.” Examine the circumstances under which such joint sessions are held and their effectiveness.

Sources:

  • The Hindu, July–August 2025
  • Constitution of India – Articles 143, 200, 201
  • Supreme Court Orders (Punjab Assembly Case, 2023)
  • Ministry of Law and Justice Reports

Introduction

Manipur, a border state in India’s northeast, has been in the throes of an ethnic conflict between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023. The prolonged violence has led to hundreds of deaths, displacement of thousands, and the virtual collapse of civilian governance. In August 2025, the Union Government extended President’s Rule for another six months, citing the need to ensure stability. While the use of Article 356 has historically been controversial, its restrained and constitutional application in Manipur reflects both the gravity of the situation and the constitutional obligation to uphold peace and order.

Body

Significance of President’s Rule in Manipur’s Context

  • Constitutional Grounds: Following the resignation of CM N. Biren Singh and breakdown of the state government, the imposition of Article 356 became necessary to address the constitutional vacuum and restore order.
  • Security Operations: Under central rule, there has been a crackdown on armed groups previously operating with impunity, and steps initiated toward de-weaponisation.
  • Return of Displaced Families: Preliminary signs of calm have allowed some displaced people to return, though buffer zones still divide communities rigidly.

Limitations of President’s Rule

  • Temporary Solution: President’s Rule, by design, is a stop-gap administrative measure, not a substitute for political reconciliation or grassroots governance.
  • Lack of Political Will: The absence of urgency from national leadership and over-reliance on bureaucracy has stymied meaningful resolution.
  • Suppression of Dissent: During prior governance, civil society voices and peace advocates were silenced, deepening mistrust among communities.

Key Political and Administrative Challenges

  • Ethnic Polarization: The demand for separate administration by Kuki-Zo groups versus the Meitei assertion of ethnic dominance has created a hardened communal divide.
  • Failure of Political Outreach: Despite winning support across hills and valleys in 2017, political parties have failed to act as bridges between communities.
  • Undermined Institutions: Governance institutions remain paralyzed in areas of conflict, and local civil society and traditional bodies have been fragmented.

Way Forward

  • Rebuild Trust via Political Dialogue: Initiate inclusive political negotiations, involving community leaders, tribal councils, and moderates from both sides.
  • Revive Civil Society Engagement: Protect and empower neutral civil society actors who can foster reconciliation and peace-building.
  • Constitutional and Legal Reforms: Explore models of decentralized governance or autonomous councils, within the constitutional framework, to address regional aspirations.
  • Truth and Reconciliation Process: Institutionalize platforms that acknowledge victims, address injustices, and promote healing.
  • Balanced Development Agenda: Ensure equitable development, job creation, and public service access across ethnic and regional lines to address structural inequalities.

Conclusion

President’s Rule in Manipur, though constitutionally valid, must not be mistaken as a durable peace-building tool. The future of a peaceful and unified Manipur lies in the hands of political actors and civil society, not just in the actions of security forces. Healing the fractured social fabric demands empathy, urgency, and inclusive dialogue. Durable peace can emerge only from a reimagined political vision that transcends ethnic divisions and restores faith in democratic governance.

Previous Year UPSC Mains Questions Linkage

  • GS II (2023): “President’s Rule in Indian states: Examine the constitutional provisions, past misuse, and evolving trends.”
  • GS II (2019): “Communalism arises either due to power struggle or relative deprivation.” Discuss in context of Northeast India.
  • GS II (2018): “The role of civil society and communities in managing internal security challenges.”
  • GS II (2017): “Peace and stability in Northeast India are essential for national development.” Analyze.

Sources

  • The Hindu Editorial: “Healing Manipur”, July 2025
  • Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India
  • National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) – Internal Security Data 2024
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, Supreme Court Judgment (1994)
  • Economic Survey 2024–25 – North East Region Development Focus

Introduction

The Vice-President of India, under Article 63 of the Constitution, holds the second-highest constitutional office and functions as the ex officio Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha. The recent resignation of Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar on July 22, 2025, under Article 67(a) citing medical advice, has triggered a debate on the institutional implications, especially given its abruptness, timing, and the pending constitutional matters before him.

Body

  1. Constitutional Provisions
  • Article 63 provides for a Vice-President.
  • Article 66 deals with election procedures.
  • Article 67(a) allows the Vice-President to resign by writing to the President.
  • The Vice-President presides over the Rajya Sabha under Article 64, ensuring smooth legislative functioning.
  1. Significance of the Event
  • Mr. Dhankhar resigned mid-way into his 5-year term (elected in August 2022) with two years remaining.
  • He stepped down on the first day of the Monsoon Session, surprising political circles.
  • Participated in morning proceedings, including discussions on impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma, and the Business Advisory Committee.
  1. Pending Constitutional Matters
  • Impeachment motion by 54 MPs against Justice Shekhar Yadav awaited his intervention.
  • His earlier impeachment dismissal in Dec 2024, as alleged by the Opposition, reflects tensions in the functioning of constitutional offices.
  1. Ethical and Institutional Concerns
  • Suddenness without prior indication to parliamentary colleagues questions transparency.
  • Raises issues of continuity, institutional accountability, and timely communication in high constitutional roles.
  • Some leaders have raised suspicions of political pressure or strategic exits, although these remain speculative.
  1. Role and Legacy
  • Known for vocal positions on judicial accountability and farmers’ rights.
  • As Governor of West Bengal and later Vice-President, Dhankhar maintained a proactive and assertive approach.

Way Forward

  • Codifying clearer procedures for resignation of high constitutional functionaries to ensure transparency.
  • Need for interim procedural mechanisms during such sudden vacancies, especially in Rajya Sabha Chairpersonship.
  • Encourage non-partisan conduct by constitutional office holders to preserve institutional integrity.
  • Create a parliamentary convention where sudden resignations, if due to health or other genuine issues, must be communicated to key stakeholders with clarity.

Conclusion

While Vice-President Dhankhar’s resignation on health grounds is constitutionally valid, its timing during key judicial deliberations raises concerns about procedural accountability and institutional robustness. The episode underscores the need to reinforce norms that ensure stability, transparency, and dignity in the highest constitutional offices of India.

UPSC Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II: Indian Constitution — Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Legislature.
  • GS Paper II: Functioning of Constitutional Bodies.

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • UPSC 2020 GS II: “Vice-President of India is the second highest constitutional office in the country. Explain the significance of the Vice-President’s role in the Rajya Sabha.”
  • UPSC 2018 GS II: “Discuss the role of presiding officers of state legislatures in maintaining impartiality.”

Sources:

  • The Hindu, July 22, 2025
  • Press Information Bureau (PIB), July 2025
  • Constitution of India – Articles 63, 64, 66, 67
  • Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs reports and guidelines

Introduction

The use of welfare schemes as electoral tools has become increasingly common in India, particularly during election cycles. Recently, the Bihar government announced a series of pre-election welfare measures, including free electricity, job reservations, solar installations, and cash incentives for youth. While such initiatives may provide short-term benefits, they raise concerns about fiscal sustainability, governance accountability, and electoral ethics.

Body

  1. Recent Examples: Bihar’s Pre-Election Welfare Announcements
  • Free electricity up to 125 units/month for 1.67 crore households starting August 2025.
  • Rooftop solar installations for 58 lakh BPL families under Kutir Jyoti Yojana.
  • 35% reservation for women in state jobs.
  • Increased social pension from ₹400 to ₹1,100.
  • Internship scheme offering ₹4,000–₹6,000 for youth (18–28 years); targets 1 lakh beneficiaries over five years.
  • ₹882 crore redevelopment of Punaura Dham for religious tourism.
  • Festival return support for migrant workers.
  1. Critical Issues Involved
  • Fiscal Burden: No clarity on funding. Bihar already has a revenue deficit of ₹25,885 crore (BE 2024–25) [Source: Bihar Budget 2024–25].
  • Populism over Planning: These schemes lack long-term vision, with many rolled out as reactionary promises to Opposition announcements.
  • Electoral Manipulation: Use of state resources to influence voter behavior, potentially violating level-playing field norms under the Model Code of Conduct (MCC), if in effect.
  • Replicating a National Trend: Similar patterns in Maharashtra (Mahayuti women’s cash scheme) and Punjab, Delhi, Telangana with free electricity schemes. However, post-election rollback (as in Maharashtra) reflects lack of due diligence.
  • Lack of Accountability: Absence of impact assessment, beneficiary audits, and sustainability reports.

Way Forward

  • Fiscal Responsibility Legislation Enforcement: States must align with FRBM Act guidelines and undergo independent fiscal audits of welfare proposals.
  • Welfare Impact Evaluations: Conduct ex-ante and ex-post impact assessments by third-party agencies or State Finance Commissions.
  • Model Code of Conduct Strengthening: Empower the Election Commission of India (ECI) to vet major welfare promises during elections and mandate source of funding disclosures.
  • Cooperative Federalism for Welfare Standards: Formulate inter-state guidelines on welfare provisioning based on objective socio-economic indicators, through NITI Aayog or Inter-State Council.
  • Focus on Outcome-Oriented Welfare:Shift from freebies to structural welfare reforms in health, education, and employment, with transparent DBT mechanisms.

Conclusion

While welfare schemes are essential instruments of social justice and inclusion, their timing, design, and sustainability must align with the constitutional principles of responsible governance. The Bihar case exemplifies how competitive populism may undermine fiscal prudence, reduce voter dignity, and distort development priorities. A balanced approach, rooted in transparency, accountability, and long-term public welfare, is the need of the hour.

UPSC Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States; issues arising out of their design and implementation.
  • GS Paper II: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act and role of Election Commission.
  • GS Paper III: Government Budgeting; Public Distribution System and social sector investments.

Previous Year UPSC Mains Linkage:

  • UPSC 2022 (GS II): Do you think populism leads to poor governance? Substantiate your view.
  • UPSC 2019 (GS II): “In the absence of well-planned social sector development, democracy is emptied of its content.” Examine.
  • UPSC 2020 (GS III): “Public expenditure management is a challenge to the Government of India in the context of budget making during the post-liberalization period.” Elucidate.

Sources:

  • Bihar Budget 2024–25, Government of Bihar
  • Press Information Bureau (PIB), July 2025
  • NITI Aayog Reports on State Finances
  • Ministry of Finance, India – FRBM Act Updates
  • Election Commission of India MCC Guidelines

Introduction

The removal of judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court in India is governed by Article 124(4) and Article 217(1)(b) of the Constitution. These provisions were enacted to ensure judicial accountability while preserving the independence of the judiciary, a basic structure of the Constitution.

The recent case of Justice Yashwant Varma of the Allahabad High Court, who is facing a motion for removal in Parliament following a report of unaccounted cash found at his residence, has reignited debate on judicial accountability mechanisms.

Body

  1. Constitutional and Legal Framework
  • Article 124(4): A judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed except by an order of the President, after an address by Parliament, supported by a special majority.
  • Article 217(1)(b): Applies to High Court judges.
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Outlines the procedure for investigation and presentation of charges.
  • Requires 50 Rajya Sabha MPs or 100 Lok Sabha MPs to initiate a motion.
  • In-house procedure, developed by the Supreme Court in 1999, is used for preliminary inquiry.
  1. The Case of Justice Yashwant Varma
  • A panel led by former CJI Sanjeev Khanna recommended his removal after probing allegations of unaccounted cash.
  • Justice Varma has challenged the report in the Supreme Court, questioning the fairness of the process.
  • Law Minister Arjun Meghwal clarified that the government is not involved, and that the matter lies with Parliament and MPs.
  • Congress and other parties have indicated support for the motion, with efforts led by Minister Kiren Rijiju for cross-party consensus.
  1. Key Issues and Concerns
  • Transparency vs. Judicial Independence: In-house mechanisms lack transparency as reports are not made public.
  • Judicial self-regulation vs. Parliamentary scrutiny: Current procedure heavily relies on internal mechanisms with little public oversight.
  • Low accountability track record: No judge has been impeached since Independence despite several serious allegations.
  • Possibility of politicisation: The removal process, being conducted in Parliament, can be influenced by political interests.

Way Forward

  • Codify the in-house procedure through legislation to enhance procedural transparency and fairness.
  • Establish an independent Judicial Complaints Commission, as recommended by the Law Commission of India (2006), to investigate misconduct allegations.
  • Ensure Parliamentary scrutiny is based on evidence, not political vendetta.
  • Public disclosure of inquiry reports (with necessary safeguards) to restore public confidence.
  • Institutionalise ethics committees and performance evaluation for judges by peer and public review.

Conclusion

While the Constitution provides a robust mechanism to uphold judicial accountability, the system requires greater transparency and reform to maintain the delicate balance between independence and oversight. The Justice Varma case must serve as an opportunity to revisit the need for institutional reforms, ensuring that the judiciary remains accountable without being compromised by political or procedural opacity.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary; Parliament and State Legislatures; transparency and accountability.

Previous Year Question Linkage:

  • GS II – UPSC Mains 2021: “The judicial system in India and other democratic countries is facing the challenges of delay in justice. Suggest measures for timely justice.”
  • GS II – UPSC Mains 2019: “Judicial accountability is essential to the functioning of a democracy. Discuss with reference to the recent controversies involving the higher judiciary in India.”
  • GS II – UPSC Mains 2017: “Discuss the role of the Parliament and State Legislatures in checking the arbitrary actions of the Executive.”

Sources:

  • Constitution of India – Articles 124 & 217
  • Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
  • Law Commission Report No. 195 (2006)
  • Press Information Bureau (2025)
  • The Hindu and PTI Reports (July 2025)

Introduction

The northeastern state of Mizoram is facing a mounting refugee crisis, hosting over 40,000 displaced persons from Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Manipur. Triggered by the 2021 military coup in Myanmar, ethnic persecution in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh, and ethnic clashes in Manipur, the influx has tested Mizoram’s humanitarian capacity and administrative resilience. India, not being a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, lacks a uniform national refugee policy, making management ad hoc and politically sensitive.

Body

  1. Nature and Sources of Influx
  • Myanmar’s Chin State: Over 4,000 refugees entered Champhai district in July 2025 due to clashes between Chin National Defence Force (CNDF) and Chinland Defence Force-Hualngoram (CDF-H).
  • Bangladesh’s Bawm community: Around 2,000 Bawms sought refuge in 2022 following violence in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
  • India’s Manipur State: Thousands of Kuki-Zo people, ethnically linked to Mizos, fled ethnic violence in 2023.
  1. Ethnic and Cultural Links
  • The Mizos, Chins, Bawms, and Kuki-Zos share common ancestry under the Zo ethnic umbrella.
  • This ethnic kinship has driven the State’s policy of accommodation, often diverging from the Centre’s directive to prevent refugee entry.
  1. Administrative and Civil Response
  • State Government under CM Lalduhoma cited ethnic ties and humanitarian grounds to justify non-deportation.
  • Civil Society & Churches: Groups like the Young Mizo Association (YMA) and local churches provide food, shelter, and basic aid.
  • The Centre allocated ₹8 crore for refugee welfare, though local resentment is rising due to strain on local resources.
  1. Challenges Emerging
  • Security concerns: Free Movement Regime (FMR) across the 510-km India-Myanmar border has reportedly aided smuggling and illegal trade.
  • Demographic strain: Villages like Farkawn and Melthum issued orders limiting refugee movement and economic activity.
  • Policy vacuum: India’s lack of a dedicated refugee law results in treatment under the Foreigners Act, 1946, which does not distinguish between refugees and illegal immigrants.

Way Forward

  • National Refugee Framework: India must draft a comprehensive refugee policy based on international best practices while safeguarding national interests.
  • Revise FMR Protocol: Align FMR with current geopolitical realities, ensuring security and humanitarian balance.
  • Community Integration: Develop structured community participation and aid-sharing mechanisms with civil society stakeholders.
  • Digital Identification: Implement the Mizoram (Maintenance of Household Registers) Bill to distinguish between citizens and foreigners transparently and lawfully.

Conclusion

Mizoram’s response to the refugee crisis reflects a humanitarian approach anchored in ethnic solidarity, but the rising burden and security challenges demand a coordinated national response. In the absence of a refugee law, India must balance its moral obligations with sovereign concerns, ensuring that compassion does not come at the cost of governance or national security.

Syllabus Mapping

  • GS Paper II – Governance and Polity: Issues relating to federalism, mechanisms for the protection of vulnerable sections, and international institutions dealing with refugees.
  • GS Paper III – Security: Border management and internal security challenges.

Relevant PYQs

  • UPSC Mains 2023 – GS II: Discuss the challenges posed by illegal immigration and how India should respond.
  • UPSC Mains 2017 – GS II: Examine the scope of refugee crisis in South Asia and the limitations of international frameworks in addressing them.
  • UPSC Mains 2020 – GS II: Discuss the role of civil society in dealing with displacement and migration-related challenges.

Sources

  • Ministry of Home Affairs (2024 & 2025 notifications on FMR and refugee policy)
  • Champhai District Administration, Mizoram
  • World Bank & UNHCR: Global Trends Report (2024)
  • The Hindu (July 2025 article by Rahul Karmakar)

Introduction

The right to vote is the cornerstone of India’s democratic polity. Under Article 326 of the Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the electoral roll revision process plays a crucial role in ensuring universal adult suffrage. The ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has come under judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court emphasizing the inclusion of Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards as valid identity proofs, thereby highlighting deeper questions about citizenship verification, bureaucratic overreach, and voter exclusion.

Body

Key Legal and Procedural Concerns

  • Exclusion Risk for Marginalized Citizens: As per the Bihar government survey (2024), 87% of residents possess Aadhaar, whereas only 14% have matriculation certificates and 2% hold passports. Restricting acceptable identity documents may disenfranchise large sections, particularly vulnerable communities.
  • Citizenship vs Identity Verification: The EC’s objection that Aadhaar is not proof of citizenship has raised concerns of overreach, since citizenship determination is the prerogative of the Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission (EC). As observed by the Supreme Court, voter verification should primarily ensure identity, not conduct citizenship screening.
  • Non-exhaustive Document List: The SC noted that the EC’s list of 11 documents is not exhaustive. Excluding documents like Aadhaar, despite its widespread use, questions the administrative rationality of the exercise.
  • Legal Ambiguity of SIR Classification: The SC remarked that the SIR in Bihar is neither clearly “summary” nor “special” as per Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, raising questions on procedural clarity and legislative backing.
  • Timing and Political Neutrality: The SIR’s sudden implementation ahead of the state election invites criticism regarding its timing, especially when the last intensive revision in Bihar was conducted in 2003.

Way Forward

  • Legislative Clarity: Amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1950 are needed to clearly distinguish roles in identity verification vs. citizenship determination, avoiding legal ambiguities.
  • Inclusive Documentation Norms: Accept Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards as valid identity proofs, as advised by the Supreme Court, ensuring no eligible citizen is excluded due to bureaucratic technicalities.
  • Independent Oversight: Establish a neutral technical panel under the Election Commission to oversee digital voter data collection through platforms like ECI Net, minimizing manipulation or errors.
  • Citizen-Centric Approach: Widen the awareness campaign, extend deadlines, and simplify the submission process for rural and marginalized populations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations underline the need to reconcile inclusivity with electoral integrity. While the Election Commission’s mandate to maintain clean electoral rolls is vital, it must not come at the cost of disenfranchising genuine citizens. A transparent, inclusive, and citizen-friendly voter verification process is imperative to preserve the sanctity of India’s electoral democracy.

Linked Syllabus:

  • GS Paper II: Governance – Electoral Reforms, Representation of People Act
  • GS Paper II: Indian Constitution – Rights Issues, Judiciary, Role of Constitutional Bodies

Previous Year UPSC Mains Questions:

  • GS II (2020): “Institutional accountability is a necessary condition for good governance. Discuss this in the context of the role of Election Commission of India.”
  • GS II (2017): “To enhance the quality of democracy in India, the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms. What suggestions have been made in this regard?”
  • GS II (2023): “The citizen’s right to vote must be protected with both technological innovation and constitutional safeguards.”

Sources:

  • Supreme Court Order (July 2025)
  • Representation of the People Act, 1950
  • Election Commission of India (ECI Net Platform Update, 2025)
  • Government of Bihar Survey Data (2024)
  • Aadhaar Act, 2016

Introduction

The right to vote is a constitutional guarantee under Article 326, anchored in the principle of universal adult suffrage. The Election Commission of India (ECI), empowered under Article 324, is mandated to ensure free and fair elections. However, the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar has attracted judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court questioning the restrictive list of documents used for voter identity verification, thus raising significant concerns regarding inclusion, citizenship verification, and electoral justice.

Body

Key Democratic and Legal Concerns

  • Restrictive Documentation and Voter Exclusion; The Court pointed out that none of the 11 documents listed by the ECI for SIR verification establishes citizenship conclusively, yet documents like Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration cards—widely accessible—were excluded. According to the Bihar Government Survey (2024), while 87% of the population holds Aadhaar, only 45–50% have matriculation certificates and just 2% have passports, making the current list exclusionary, especially for the marginalized and rural poor.
  • Misplaced Focus on Citizenship Screening: The Court reiterated its earlier rulings that the onus of proving citizenship cannot be shifted to existing voters unless clear legal grounds exist. The ECI’s interpretation of SIR as a quasi-citizenship screening mechanism violates this principle and risks mass disenfranchisement.
  • Institutional Ambiguity and Administrative Overreach: The SIR, as per the SC’s observation, is neither summary nor special as defined under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, leading to procedural ambiguity. Furthermore, the conflict between the Chief Electoral Officer’s liberal interpretation and the Chief Election Commissioner’s overruling reflects a lack of clarity within the ECI.
  • Violation of ECI’s Constitutional Mandate: The ECI, under Article 324, is tasked with facilitating democratic participation. By excluding widely held documents and introducing rigid timelines (30 days for enumeration and objections), the ECI risks undermining its own mandate and creating systemic obstacles to universal franchise.

Way Forward

  • Inclusive and Rational Documentation Policy: Include Aadhaar, EPIC, and ration card as valid documents for identity verification during voter registration. These are widely held and comply with the practical realities of identification in India.
  • Institutional Reforms in ECI Procedures: Issue a clear operational protocol under the Representation of the People Act to distinguish between identity verification and citizenship determination, the latter being the mandate of the Union Home Ministry.
  • Legal Safeguards for Voter Rights: Codify judicial precedents into electoral rules to prevent any interpretation that shifts the burden of proving citizenship onto voters, especially those already enrolled.
  • Public Awareness and Time Extension: Extend the deadline for the SIR process in Bihar and conduct awareness campaigns to inform citizens about documentation requirements.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirm that the right to vote is not a privilege but a foundational democratic right. The Election Commission must act in accordance with its constitutional role as a facilitator of democracy, not a gatekeeper. A more inclusive, transparent, and citizen-centric SIR process will not only strengthen electoral integrity but also deepen public trust in democratic institutions.

Linked Syllabus:

  • GS Paper II: Governance – Electoral Reforms, Role of Constitutional Bodies
  • GS Paper II: Indian Constitution – Rights Issues, Representation of the People Act, Judiciary

Previous Year UPSC Mains Questions:

  • GS II (2020): “Institutional accountability is a necessary condition for good governance. Discuss this in the context of the role of Election Commission of India.”
  • GS II (2017): “To enhance the quality of democracy in India, the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms. What suggestions have been made in this regard?”
  • GS II (2023): “The citizen’s right to vote must be protected with both technological innovation and constitutional safeguards.”

Sources:

  • Supreme Court Order, July 2025
  • Representation of the People Act, 1950
  • Aadhaar Act, 2016
  • Bihar Government Socio-Economic Survey (2024)
  • Election Commission of India (ECI) SIR Notification

 Introduction:

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutional body under Article 324, is entrusted with conducting free and fair elections in India. While the ECI is often described as a “reservoir of power,” the Supreme Court has categorically stated that these powers are not absolute, and must function within the boundaries of law, particularly the Representation of the People Acts (RPA), 1950 and 1951.

Body:

  1. Context: The Bihar Case and Special Intensive Revision (SIR):
  • In June 2025, ECI ordered a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections.
  • Opposition parties alleged that this revision could lead to mass disenfranchisement, particularly over citizenship concerns.
  1. Legal Basis of Electoral Revisions:
  • Article 326 guarantees universal adult suffrage subject to disqualification by law.
  • Section 21 of RPA 1950 allows:
    • (a) General revision before Lok Sabha/Assembly elections,
    • (b) Revision in any given year by ECI direction with qualifying date: 1st January,
    • (c) Special revision for a constituency or part thereof, with recorded reasons.
  • The ECI’s order dated 24 June 2025 refers to 01/07/2025 as the qualifying date, which does not have legal backing under Section 14 or Section 21.
  1. Supreme Court’s Position on ECI’s Powers:
  • In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978), SC held:

“Where the law exists, ECI must act in conformity with it. Only in vacuum of law, Article 324 acts as a reservoir of power.”

  • Thus, ECI cannot override existing statutes like the RPA while revising rolls.
  1. Concerns About Disenfranchisement:
  • Section 19 and 20 of RPA 1950 define conditions and meaning of “ordinarily resident”—simply owning property or being temporarily absent doesn’t disqualify a voter.
  • Rule 8 of Registration of Electors Rules: Citizens must furnish information “to the best of their ability”; rigid insistence on ‘foolproof’ documents to prove citizenship violates the principle of natural justice.

Way Forward:

  • Strict adherence to statutory provisions: ECI must revise electoral rolls only within the framework of Sections 14 and 21 of RPA.
  • Avoid arbitrary qualifying dates: All revisions must respect the legally sanctioned qualifying date of January 1 each year.
  • Transparent process and grievance redressal: Create independent revision review panels at the district level.
  • Training for electoral officers: Prevent illegal deletions and promote procedural fairness.

Conclusion:

The ECI is undoubtedly a pillar of India’s democratic structure. However, as PDT Achary, former Lok Sabha Secretary General, asserts, it is not above the Constitution or statutory limits. The Bihar SIR controversy underscores the need for the ECI to act within the ambit of law and constitutional morality, to preserve both the integrity of elections and the citizen’s right to vote.

Syllabus Linkage (GS Paper II – Polity & Governance):

  • Constitution: Salient Features, Role and powers of Election Commission.
  • Governance: Statutory and regulatory bodies.
  • Laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection of democracy and transparency.

Previous Year Questions (Related):

  • UPSC Mains 2020: “The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. Discuss.”
  • UPSC Mains 2017: “Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.”

Sources:

  • Representation of the People Act, 1950 & 1951
  • Article 324, 326 of the Indian Constitution
  • Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978)
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960
  • Press Information Bureau & ECI orders (June 2025)
  • PDT Achary’s commentary (The Hindu, July 2025)

Introduction:

Article 324 of the Indian Constitution vests the Election Commission of India (ECI) with powers of superintendence, direction, and control of elections to the Parliament, State Legislatures, and offices of the President and Vice-President. However, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark M.S. Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner case (1977), these powers are not absolute and must adhere to the principles of fairness, legality, and constitutional morality.

Body:

  1. Context: The Bihar SIR Controversy
  • The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, ordered just months before the Assembly elections, has drawn criticism for potentially disenfranchising marginalized groups.
  • The Supreme Court has referred to the 1977 M.S. Gill verdict, warning against turning the EC into a “law unto itself”.
  1. Scope of Article 324: Broad but Not Unchecked
  • Article 324(1) gives the ECI powers over the “conduct of elections”, but does not override other laws like the Representation of the People Acts (1950 & 1951).
  • The 1977 judgment by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer held that EC’s power is broad but must operate within the limits of the rule of law.
  1. Key Constitutional Principles from the M.S. Gill Verdict:
  • Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • EC must act in accordance with fairness and legality.
  • EC is not a constitutional despot; unchecked powers are alien to democratic governance.
  • The court may intervene if EC acts arbitrarily or unreasonably.
  1. Implications for Electoral Governance:
  • The ruling affirms judicial checks on the EC’s discretion.
  • EC must record reasons and ensure its actions do not unduly affect voter rights, particularly of marginalized sections.

Way Forward:

  • Legislative Clarity:Amend electoral laws to clearly define the scope of “special revisions” and avoid ad hoc decisions that affect electoral rolls close to elections.
  • Transparent Review Mechanism:Set up an independent review panel to assess EC decisions related to mass revisions or voter deletions.
  • Voter Inclusion Safeguards:Prioritize verification and notification mechanisms to ensure no eligible voter is excluded during revisions.
  • Strengthen EC Accountability: Parliamentary oversight and periodic audits of electoral roll processes can prevent misuse.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s invocation of the M.S. Gill precedent reminds us that while the Election Commission plays a pivotal role in safeguarding democracy, it must remain accountable, transparent, and fair in its exercise of constitutional authority. In balancing electoral integrity with individual rights, judicial scrutiny remains vital to uphold the democratic promise of universal adult franchise.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II:
    • Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.
    • Constitutional Bodies: Election Commission – powers and responsibilities.
    • Separation of powers between various organs; dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions.

Previous Year Questions (PYQs):

  • 2020 (GS II): “The role of Election Commission in ensuring free and fair elections in India.”
  • 2017 (GS II): “To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has to be strengthened.” Discuss.

Sources:

  • Constitution of India – Article 324
  • M.S. Gill vs Chief Election Commissioner (1977) – Supreme Court Judgment
  • Representation of the People Act, 1950 & 1951
  • Supreme Court Hearings on Bihar SIR (July 2025)
  • Election Commission of India – Manual on Electoral Rolls (2023)

Introduction:

The collegium system, evolved through judicial precedents (the Three Judges Cases), governs the appointment and transfer of judges to the higher judiciary in India. While it has upheld judicial independence, it has often drawn criticism for opacity, elitism, and lack of institutional accountability. Recently, Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai assured “complete transparency” in the functioning of the collegium, reaffirming its commitment to merit, inclusion, and impartiality.

Body:

  1. Strengths of the Collegium System:
  • Judicial independence protected: Keeps executive interference at bay.
  • Precedent-based authority: Rooted in constitutional interpretation (Article 124 and 217).
  • Peer review ensures merit: Senior judges assess competence beyond political considerations.
  1. Challenges and Criticisms:
  • Lack of transparency: No codified procedure for selection or rejection of candidates.
  • No institutional accountability: Decisions are made behind closed doors without recorded reasons.
  • Limited representation: Poor diversity in terms of caste, gender, and region.
  • Internal disagreement: As admitted by CJI Gavai, there are cases where collegium members differ or feel external pressures.
  • Public controversy: Judges like Justice Dipankar Datta have raised concerns over interference, denting the system’s credibility.
  1. Recent Efforts Toward Reform:
  • Publishing resolutions: Since 2017, the SC began uploading collegium resolutions with reasons.
  • Inclusion agenda: CJI Gavai emphasized inclusive representation across social sections.
  • Acknowledging dissent: The collegium is increasingly recognizing internal debates and external criticisms, as reflected in the present case.

Way Forward:

  • Codify collegium procedures: Bring clarity to the selection criteria and consultation mechanism.
  • Create a permanent secretariat: To maintain records, assist in verification, and ensure data-driven evaluation.
  • Public disclosure of rationale: Every recommendation must be accompanied by objective justifications.
  •  Strengthen diversity goals: Institutionalize a reservation-like system to promote representation from marginalized groups.
  • Consider NJAC with safeguards: A reimagined National Judicial Appointments Commission, balancing executive and judicial roles, with safeguards, can be explored.

Conclusion:

The collegium system has been central to safeguarding the judiciary’s autonomy. However, without transparency and structured accountability, it risks undermining public trust. CJI Gavai’s commitment to reform is a step in the right direction. Institutionalizing these reforms will make the judiciary more inclusive, credible, and responsive — fulfilling both constitutional ideals and democratic aspirations.

Syllabus Mapping:

  • GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Structure, organization and functioning of the judiciary
  • GS Paper II – Appointment to various constitutional posts
  • Relevant PYQs:
    • GS II (2021): “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution.” Comment.
    • GS II (2019): “Judicial activism has been a necessary tool to address the executive and legislative vacuum.” Do you agree? Justify.

Sources:

  • Supreme Court of India – Collegium Resolutions (2024–25)
  • Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, GoI
  • Law Commission of India – 230th Report (2015)
  • The Hindu (2025)

Introduction:

The Preamble to the Indian Constitution reflects the core values of the Indian polity. The words “secular” and “socialist” were inserted into the Preamble via the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, during the Emergency. Recently, influential voices, including RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale, have proposed the removal of these terms, reigniting a national debate over their necessity and relevance.

Body:

  1. Historical and Constitutional Significance:
  • Secularism in the Indian context is unique; it does not mean separation of religion and state (as in the West), but equal respect and non-discrimination toward all religions.
  • Socialism, as per Indian constitutional ethos, is democratic socialism—not anti-capitalist but promoting state responsibility in ensuring social justice, welfare, and poverty alleviation.
  • Even before 1976, the spirit of these values was implicit in the Constitution through Articles 14, 15, 17, 21, 25-30, and Directive Principles (Part IV).
  1. Political and Legal Position:
  • The Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati (1973) case held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and embodies its basic structure.
  • In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court reaffirmed the constitutional commitment to socialism and justice.
  • The Janata Government (1977–79), which succeeded Indira Gandhi, despite reversing many Emergency-era policies, retained the amended Preamble, acknowledging broad political consensus.
  1. Contemporary Context:
  • The debate on the removal of these words appears more ideological than substantive, lacking legal or governance merit.
  • India’s pressing issues today relate to inequality, discrimination, underdevelopment, and social exclusion, not semantic revisions.
  • Removing these words may undermine decades of social consensus and create polarization without offering any constructive alternative.

Way Forward:

  •  Preserve Constitutional Morality: Emphasize the spirit of justice, equality, and fraternity over symbolic amendments.
  • Civic Education: Promote awareness about Indian secularism and socialism as per the constitutional framework, not through imported definitions.
  • Judicial Review: Any proposed change to the Preamble must pass strict scrutiny under the basic structure doctrine.
  •  Focus on Real Challenges: Channel political energies towards poverty eradication, social harmony, and inclusive development.

Conclusion:

The inclusion of “secular” and “socialist” in the Preamble reflects India’s constitutional evolution and commitment to pluralism and social justice. Debates over their removal risk distracting from substantive governance issues and polarizing national discourse. India must uphold the foundational values of the Constitution, not dilute them for political expediency.

Syllabus Mapping:

  • GS Paper II: Indian Constitution – Historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, and significant provisions
  • GS Paper II: Comparison of Indian constitutional scheme with that of other countries
  • GS Paper II: Role of pressure groups and formal/informal associations in the polity

Relevant PYQs:

  • GS II (2015): Discuss each adjective attached to the word ‘Republic’ in the Preamble. Are they defendable in the present circumstances?
  • GS II (2019): The Preamble of the Indian Constitution is the key to the minds of the framers. Comment.

Sources:

  • Constitution of India, 42nd Amendment Act (1976)
  • Supreme Court Judgments: Kesavananda Bharati, Minerva Mills
  • IGNOU: Indian Constitution and Governance
  • Ministry of Law & Justice (GOI): Handbook on Constitutional Amendments

(GS Paper II – Governance: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act; Role of constitutional bodies; Electoral reforms)

Introduction

The voter list is the foundational document for a democracy. Recently, the 2024 Maharashtra Assembly elections witnessed an anomalous increase of over 40 lakh new voters within five months of the Lok Sabha elections, raising concerns about possible manipulation of electoral rolls. While the Election Commission of India (ECI) maintains that tampering is nearly impossible, opposition leaders and data experts have flagged inconsistencies, urging electoral reforms.

Body

  1. Nature of Allegations and Anomalies
  • Statistical spike: Maharashtra saw 40 lakh new voters added between April and November 2024 — higher than the 32 lakh added in the previous five years.
  • Contextual anomaly: Historical data (2004–2014) shows a balanced trend between annual and inter-election additions. The 2024 spike exceeds historical baselines, despite declining fertility rates and lower 18+ cohort growth.
  1. Arguments Supporting Electoral Roll Integrity
  • Quarterly cut-off system introduced post-2019 allows more frequent enrolments.
  • Aadhaar-linking has reduced duplication, though concerns over privacy and wrongful exclusions remain.
  • ECI has legal safeguards under the Representation of People Act, 1950, including verification and appeal mechanisms.

III. Challenges and Systemic Loopholes

  • Lack of transparency in last-mile implementation and verification.
  • Absence of machine-readable roll formats makes audit by political parties difficult.
  • Post-5 PM turnout surges lacking independent video validation raised suspicions.
  • Wrongful inclusions and exclusions, especially among migrant populations, minorities, and the poor, remain unaddressed.
  • Perceived lack of neutrality when the ECI avoids proactive disclosure and leaves issues to political parties.

Way Forward

  • Electoral Roll Audit Mechanism: Institutionalize third-party audit of electoral rolls by neutral agencies before every major election.
  • Machine-Readable Voter Data: Provide digital, searchable electoral rolls to recognised political parties for verification and appeals.
  • Mandatory CCTV Preservation: Video footage from polling stations after 5 PM should be recorded, preserved, and shared upon request.
  • Booth-Level Public Hearings: During the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), conduct publicised hearings to address wrongful entries and deletions.
  • Strengthen Voter Awareness: Promote enrolment transparency through MyVoter Portal, electoral literacy programs, and civil society engagement.
  • Balanced Aadhaar Integration: Continue Aadhaar seeding with safeguards against exclusion errors, especially among tribal and rural voters.

Conclusion

Free and fair elections are the bedrock of constitutional democracy, and voter registration must be beyond doubt or manipulation. The recent announcement of SIR in Bihar and elsewhere by the ECI is a welcome step, but its success depends on transparency, public participation, and accountability. Strengthening the electoral roll process will restore faith in democratic institutions and ensure universal adult suffrage is genuinely inclusive and verifiable.

Link with Previous Year UPSC Questions:

  • GS II, 2022: Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in ensuring free and fair elections.
  • GS II, 2021: Examine the significance of electoral reforms to enhance the credibility of elections in India.
  • GS II, 2019: The exercise of elections is a constitutional obligation but faces serious challenges. Discuss.

Sources:

  • The Hindu (Parley Interview, June 2024)
  • Election Commission of India (Press Notes, 2024)
  • Representation of the People Act, 1950 & 1951
  • Ministry of Law & Justice Reports on Electoral Reform (2023)

(GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Federal Structure, Election Commission, Separation of Powers, Salient Features of Democracy)

Introduction

The Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024, seeks to enable simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, aiming to reduce election expenditure, governance disruptions, and administrative fatigue. Former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud, in his submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee, argued that staggered elections are not an immutable feature of the Constitution and rejected the notion that simultaneous elections compromise electoral fairness or voter rationality.

Body

  1. Arguments in Favour of Simultaneous Elections
  • Administrative Efficiency: Reduces repeated deployment of election machinery and security forces across states throughout the year.
  • Reduced Expenditure: As per Law Commission estimates (2018), Rs. 10,000 crore is spent on each general election cycle.
  • Policy Continuity: Eliminates the Model Code of Conduct interruptions, allowing uninterrupted governance.
  • Unified Electoral Awareness: Promotes consolidated voter awareness and mobilisation efforts.
  1. Constitutional Arguments (Justice Chandrachud’s View)
  • No Constitutional Bar: The Constitution does not mandate staggered elections; hence simultaneous polls are not violative of basic structure.
  • Electoral Rationality: Rejects the idea that Indian voters are easily manipulated, affirming their capacity to differentiate between national and state issues.
  • Democratic Equality: Simultaneous elections do not inherently undermine voter rights under universal adult franchise, a core constitutional value.

III. Counterarguments and Concerns

  • Federal Autonomy: Early dissolution of state assemblies for synchronisation may dilute the autonomy of State Governments, violating quasi-federal principles (as held in SR Bommai v. Union of India).
  • Regional Voices: Could marginalise regional or smaller parties, especially when national narratives dominate during elections.
  • Logistical Complexity: Requires massive infrastructure overhaul, e.g., doubling of EVMs and VVPATs and workforce mobilisation.
  • Judicial Caution: Earlier CJIs like Justice Khehar and others have reportedly flagged constitutional infirmities in the Bill.

Way Forward

  • Consensus Building: Engage political parties, Election Commission, and states to evolve a consensus that respects both efficiency and federal integrity.
  • Pilot Model: Consider pilot synchronisation of select states with Lok Sabha to test feasibility.
  • Legal Safeguards: Include constitutional protections to prevent premature dissolution of State Assemblies without due cause.
  • Electoral Reforms First: Prioritise pending reforms (e.g., funding transparency, criminalisation of politics) before altering electoral timelines.

Conclusion

While simultaneous elections offer administrative and economic benefits, the challenge lies in balancing constitutional federalism with political pragmatism. The perspective of Justice Chandrachud affirms that constitutional flexibility allows for reform, but such reform must not come at the cost of democratic pluralism and state autonomy.

Link with Previous Year UPSC Questions:

  • GS II, 2022: “Discuss the role of presiding officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality.”
  • GS II, 2019: “‘Parliamentary democracy in India is seen as the most representative form of government.’ Evaluate this statement in the context of simultaneous elections.”
  • GS II, 2017: “Examine the scope of cooperative federalism in promoting national integration.”

Sources:

  • The Hindu (June 2025), Statement by Ex-CJI D.Y. Chandrachud
  • Constitution (129th Amendment) Bill, 2024
  • Law Commission Report on Simultaneous Elections (2018)
  • SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (ECI), a constitutional body under Article 324, is mandated to ensure free and fair elections. Amid growing concerns about electoral credibility, the ECI has taken proactive steps during the recent by-elections in five constituencies—Kadi (Gujarat), Visavadar (Gujarat), Nilambur (Kerala), Ludhiana West (Punjab), and Kaliganj (West Bengal)—to enhance transparency, accessibility, and voter trust.

Body

  1. Political Outcomes Reflect Local Dynamics
  • In Nilambur, Aryadan Shoukath of UDF won, marking a setback for the LDF.
  • Kaliganj witnessed TMC’s Alifa Ahmed winning by 50,000+ votes, though the day was marred by violence, including a crude bomb blast.
  • Visavadar and Ludhiana West wins were significant for AAP post its loss of power in Delhi.
  • BJP retained its stronghold in Kadi.

These results signify shifting political alignments but also highlight regional volatility, particularly in states like West Bengal.

  1. ECI’s Key Initiatives in the By-Polls
  • 100% Webcasting: Enabled surveillance of all booths, deterring malpractice and increasing transparency.
  • Mobile Deposit Facility: Ensured greater accessibility for voters, especially in remote areas.
  • Faster Voter Turnout Sharing: Strengthened public trust by providing real-time updates of polling data.

These reforms align with Election Commission’s 2023 Strategic Plan to ensure voter inclusivity, improve trust, and enhance transparency in the electoral process.

III. Challenges That Persist

  • Heavy polling patterns in final hours in certain sensitive booths raise questions about ballot manipulation.
  • Despite webcasting, video records are not made public, impacting the transparency promise.
  • Electoral violence—as seen in Kaliganj—continues to plague elections, especially in politically volatile regions like West Bengal.

Way Forward

  • Institutionalize third-party audits of polling booth video records.
  • Public release of polling data and video evidence for sensitive booths to enhance accountability.
  • Deploy special observers and paramilitary forces in high-risk areas.
  • Strengthen grievance redressal portals with real-time complaint tracking.

Conclusion

While the ECI’s recent technological and procedural reforms represent a step forward in democratizing the electoral process, the persistence of booth-level irregularities and violence shows the gap between policy and ground reality. To truly embody its constitutional vision, the ECI must not only be fair but also be seen to be fair, particularly as India approaches major elections in 2026–27.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II: Polity and Governance
    • Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act
    • Appointment to various Constitutional posts, powers, functions and responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies
    • Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • UPSC Mains 2022: “Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.”
  • UPSC Mains 2020: “Institutional quality is a crucial driver of economic performance. In this context suggest reforms in Civil Service for strengthening democracy in India.”

Introduction

Judicial accountability is an indispensable element of constitutional democracy, particularly when unelected judges of constitutional courts wield immense power. However, the “in-house procedure” adopted by the Supreme Court for handling allegations against High Court and Supreme Court judges remains opaque and unaccountable, raising serious concerns about due process, public trust, and institutional integrity.

The recent case involving Justice Yashwant Varma, where sacks of cash were found during a fire at his residence, highlights the inadequacies in internal judicial inquiries. While the case was met with rare public disclosures, critical documents such as police reports and the judicial inquiry committee’s findings remain unpublished, undermining transparency.

Body

  1. Issues with the Existing In-House Procedure
  • Lack of Transparency: Most proceedings remain confidential, with no public disclosure of complaints, inquiries, or findings—even in cases of serious misconduct.
  • No Legal Backing: The procedure is not codified under any statute or Constitution, relying entirely on internal norms devised by the judiciary itself.
  • Absence of Appeal Mechanisms: Findings are final and not appealable, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
  • Selective Accountability: High-profile cases—e.g., Justice Ranjan Gogoi’s sexual harassment case (2019)—saw procedural inconsistencies: denial of legal aid to the complainant, non-disclosure of inquiry reports, and contradictory post-retirement actions.
  • Potential Conflicts of Interest: Judges inquire into their peers, raising doubts over impartiality and enabling selective institutional shielding.
  1. Judicial Independence vs. Public Accountability
  • While judicial independence is essential to avoid political interference, shielding judges from scrutiny risks eroding citizens’ trust.
  • The RTI verdict (SC, 2019) affirmed that the Supreme Court is a public authority, and thus subject to reasonable transparency obligations.
  • Transparency fosters institutional legitimacy and is a constitutional mandate under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression, including the right to know).

Way Forward

  1. Statutory Reform:
    • Enact a Judicial Standards and Accountability Act to codify a transparent complaint redressal mechanism, with public reporting and defined timelines.
  2. Independent Oversight Body:
    • Constitute a National Judicial Oversight Commission, comprising retired judges, eminent jurists, and civil society members, for inquiries into misconduct allegations.
  3. Mandatory Public Disclosure:
    • All in-house inquiries should culminate in public reports, especially when findings lead to impeachment recommendations or disciplinary transfers.
  4. Safeguards for Complainants:
    • Ensure legal representation, whistleblower protection, and appeal rights for those bringing forward genuine complaints.
  5. Strengthen Internal Vigilance Mechanisms:
    • Set up an internal ethics committee within each High Court and the Supreme Court to monitor judicial conduct and proactively flag concerns.

Conclusion

Democracy cannot thrive on judicial exceptionalism. The judiciary must lead by example in upholding transparency, fairness, and public accountability. Reforming the in-house procedure is not about weakening judicial independence, but about ensuring its legitimacy through principled self-regulation. The judiciary must embrace structured transparency to preserve its stature as the last bastion of justice.

Relevant GS-II Syllabus Areas:

  • Structure, organization, and functioning of the Judiciary
  • Separation of powers between various organs
  • Transparency and accountability in governance

Role of civil services and institutions in upholding constitutional values

Relevant Previous Year Questions (PYQs):

  • GS-II, UPSC 2020: “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Constitution of India.” Discuss.
  • GS-II, UPSC 2019: “Judiciary must act as the guardian of the Constitution. In this context, discuss the need for judicial accountability.”
  • GS-II, UPSC 2018: “In the light of recent controversies, do you think that the judiciary in India is functioning in an accountable and transparent manner?”

 

Introduction

Though the term “judicial review” is absent in the Constitution of India, its essence permeates several provisions—most notably Article 13, which invalidates laws inconsistent with the Constitution. This power, inherently available to constitutional courts, reinforces the idea of constitutional supremacy over parliamentary sovereignty, unlike the British system. Over time, however, the expansion of judicial review into the domain of judicial activism—especially via Article 142—has stirred debates over judicial overreach and democratic legitimacy.

Body

  1. Constitutional Basis of Judicial Review in India
  • Article 13: Empowers courts to invalidate laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights.
  • Article 32 & 226: Provide remedies for rights violations, enabling judicial review of executive and legislative actions.
  • Basic Structure Doctrine (Kesavananda Bharati Case, 1973): Judicial review itself declared a part of the basic structure, beyond parliamentary amendment.
  1. Evolution from Judicial Review to Judicial Activism
  • In response to the loss of credibility post-Emergency, the Supreme Court liberalized locus standi and introduced Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
  • Over time, this morphed into judicial activism, where courts started issuing detailed guidelines in policy domains (e.g., mob lynching, environment), often blurring separation of powers.
  1. The Role of Article 142: The “Complete Justice” Debate
  • Used in landmark cases like Babri Masjid, divorce on irretrievable breakdown, mob lynching, etc.
  • Critics liken Article 142 to a “judicial nuclear missile”, raising alarms over unaccountable judicial power.
  • However, the Supreme Court Bar Association Case (1998) clarified that Article 142 cannot supplant existing laws or constitutional provisions.
  1. Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Overreach: Evaluating Recent Verdicts
  • While courts upheld major executive decisions (demonetisation, Rafale, NRC), they struck down NJAC, and electoral bonds, showing balanced judicial behavior.
  • In Tamil Nadu Governor’s case, timelines were imposed for Bill assent—highlighting judicial correction of executive inaction, not legislative encroachment.
  1. Democratic Concerns
  • Unelected judges reviewing laws passed by elected representatives raises concerns over democratic legitimacy.
  • Yet, in a constitutional democracy, courts must check majoritarian impulses that threaten fundamental rights and federalism.

Way Forward

  • Codification of judicial restraint principles: Like the ‘political question doctrine’ in the US, India could define limits of judicial intervention.
  • Strengthen institutional dialogue: Between judiciary and legislature to foster mutual respect and clarify jurisdictional boundaries.
  • Transparency in judicial reasoning: Clear articulation of when and why Article 142 is invoked can help build public trust.
  • Improving judicial capacity: Addressing the judge-to-population ratio and pendency to ensure quality deliberation and avoid judicial adventurism driven by activism.

Conclusion

Judicial review remains the constitutional bulwark against arbitrariness and is essential for preserving rights, federalism, and constitutional morality. While concerns of judicial overreach under Article 142 are valid, they must be weighed against its utility in delivering substantive justice in extraordinary situations. Rather than curtailing the judiciary, fostering institutional accountability and inter-organ harmony is the key to ensuring that complete justice does not come at the cost of democratic balance.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II: Indian Constitution – features, significant provisions, constitutional bodies
  • Separation of powers between various organs
  • Functioning of the judiciary, judicial review, and judicial activism

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • 2023: “Critically examine the procedure through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.” (Link: interpretation of constitutional provisions)
  • 2022: “Do you think that the Constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balances’? Explain.”
  • 2020: “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution.” Critically examine.

Introduction:

The decision by the BJP-led government in Maharashtra to introduce Hindi as a third language from Class 1 in both English and Marathi medium schools has sparked significant political and social debates. This move, in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, aims to promote linguistic unity and bolster Hindi’s role as a pan-Indian language. However, it has faced strong opposition, particularly from regional political parties and a section of the population in Maharashtra, where Marathi pride and cultural assertion have historically been central to the state’s identity. This policy, while framed as part of the broader educational reforms, raises questions regarding linguistic diversity, regional autonomy, and the balancing act between national integration and regional pride.

Body:

  1. Political and Social Implications:

The introduction of Hindi as a compulsory third language in schools from Class 1 has evoked both support and resistance. Supporters argue that the policy aligns with the goals of NEP 2020 to foster multilingualism and national integration, especially given Hindi’s status as a widely spoken language in India. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis, in defense of the policy, has pointed out that Hindi serves as a unifying language of communication across the nation, reflecting the idea of ‘One Nation, One Language’ as a bridge between diverse linguistic communities.

However, critics view this move as an imposition of Hindi on a region that has a strong regional identity rooted in Marathi pride. The political discourse, especially led by regional parties like Shiv Sena, reflects a deep-seated fear that Hindi could undermine the prominence of Marathi in Maharashtra. This is especially significant given the state’s history of strong regional political movements emphasizing local employment, language, and culture. The introduction of Hindi from Class 1, after previously being introduced only in Class 6, is seen as a politically motivated effort to appease Hindi-speaking migrants in the state, furthering the BJP’s agenda of centralization.

  1. Regional Identity vs. National Integration:

The tension between regional identity and national integration is not new in India, and this issue finds historical precedence. The promotion of Hindi by the central government has often met with resistance in non-Hindi speaking states, with Tamil Nadu’s opposition during the 1960s being a classic example. Maharashtra, unlike Tamil Nadu, has not seen overt hostility towards Hindi, but the current situation signals the potential for a growing divide, driven by the BJP’s centralizing policies. The government’s push for uniformity risks sidelining regional linguistic and cultural identities, which are constitutionally protected.

While India’s Constitution is unitary in structure, it acknowledges and accommodates linguistic and cultural diversity through provisions for regional languages and the protection of state-specific identities. The ongoing discourse surrounding the Hindi language policy must take into account the diverse linguistic fabric of India, ensuring that it promotes unity without undermining regional autonomy.

  1. Challenges in Implementation:

The implementation of this policy presents several logistical challenges. The introduction of Hindi from Class 1 across all schools in the state requires a massive overhaul of the education system. Teacher recruitment and training, coupled with the cost of providing adequate resources, are significant concerns. Maharashtra’s school infrastructure, especially in rural areas, may struggle to support such a policy. Additionally, the potential resentment towards the imposition of Hindi could further exacerbate social divides within the state, particularly among students and teachers who may not be proficient in the language.

Moreover, the policy’s emphasis on Hindi may inadvertently marginalize other regional languages, undermining the multilingual ethos that the NEP 2020 aims to promote. In this context, there is a need for a more nuanced approach that respects both national integration and the preservation of regional linguistic diversity.

Way Forward:

The Fadnavis government, while pursuing national integration through the promotion of Hindi, must ensure that the implementation of this policy is done in a manner that fosters consensus rather than division. This requires addressing the concerns of regional identity by providing adequate support for Marathi and other regional languages. The government should prioritize building a more inclusive educational framework that not only promotes Hindi but also strengthens regional languages and cultural pride.

Further, there is a need for careful planning and resource allocation for teacher training and infrastructure to ensure the practical feasibility of such a policy. The government should engage in open dialogue with regional stakeholders to address concerns and modify the policy to reflect the aspirations of the people of Maharashtra. A collaborative approach that balances the goals of national integration and regional autonomy will go a long way in achieving the desired outcomes of the NEP 2020.

Conclusion:

The decision to introduce Hindi as a third language from Class 1 in Maharashtra reflects the central government’s vision of linguistic unity and national integration. However, the policy raises significant questions about regional identity, linguistic diversity, and the practical challenges of implementation. While it is essential to promote a common language for communication, the policy must be implemented in a way that respects regional pride and avoids creating further divisions. By fostering a collaborative dialogue and ensuring equitable support for regional languages, the government can navigate the challenges of this complex issue and work towards an inclusive and harmonious educational environment for all.

Linking to Syllabus:

This topic is relevant to the UPSC Mains syllabus under General Studies Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity, Social Justice and International relations) and General Studies Paper II (Governance, Polity, and International Relations), particularly in the context of federalism, national integration, and the role of language in the polity. The question also touches upon Social Justice and Inclusive Development, emphasizing the need for policies that balance national priorities with regional aspirations.

Previous Years Question Link:

  • GS Paper II, Mains 2023: “Critically examine the challenges of maintaining linguistic diversity in India while promoting national integration.”
  • GS Paper II, Mains 2020: “Discuss the role of language policies in promoting national integration and preserving regional identities.”

Introduction

The Indian Constitution establishes a delicate equilibrium among the three organs of the state — the executive, legislature, and judiciary — through the doctrine of separation of powers and a robust system of checks and balances. However, recent criticisms from political quarters, including remarks by the Vice-President and some members of the ruling party, have targeted the judiciary for allegedly encroaching upon legislative and executive domains. This invites a deeper examination of the judiciary’s constitutionally mandated role in preserving democratic balance.

Body

  1. Constitutional Role of the Judiciary in Maintaining Balance of Power
  • Judicial Review: Articles 13, 32, and 226 empower the Supreme Court and High Courts to strike down unconstitutional laws or executive actions, safeguarding the basic structure and fundamental rights.
  • Checks and Balances: The judiciary serves as a counter-majoritarian institution, ensuring that laws passed by legislative majorities do not violate constitutional principles.
  • Recent Interventions:
    • The SC’s directive on timely gubernatorial assent protected the legislature’s domain from arbitrary executive delay.
    • The Calcutta HC’s order for central force deployment illustrated judicial action in response to executive inertia during internal disturbances.
  1. Misconception of Legislative Supremacy and Its Dangers
  • The idea that the legislature, by virtue of majority, is supreme undermines constitutionalism.
  • The fusion of executive and legislature in India has already diluted accountability; further weakening the judiciary would damage institutional integrity.
  • Judicial independence, a basic feature, ensures that laws and policies remain within constitutional bounds, even when enacted by popular governments.
  1. Constructive Friction: A Constitutional Necessity
  • The judiciary does not function in isolation; its decisions interact with legislative intent and executive implementation.
  • This “constructive friction” fosters accountability and long-term democratic stability rather than being a hurdle to governance.
  1. Misplaced Criticism as a Threat to Democratic Institutions
  • Labelling legitimate judicial review as interference delegitimizes the judiciary’s constitutional role.
  • Such criticism, especially from high constitutional authorities, threatens the very architecture of checks and balances.

Way Forward

  • Respect Institutional Boundaries: All branches must act within their constitutional limits while respecting each other’s roles.
  • Promote Judicial Literacy Among Political Leadership: Understanding judicial roles will curb populist rhetoric and institutional friction.
  • Judicial Restraint and Accountability: While defending its independence, the judiciary must also ensure transparency and avoid judicial overreach.
  • Reinforce Constitutional Morality: Upholding the spirit of the Constitution over transient majoritarian impulses is crucial for democratic survival.

Conclusion

The judiciary’s role in India is not one of dominance but of constitutional guardianship. Far from being a threat, its interventions uphold the democratic spirit, particularly when other organs overstep or abdicate their responsibilities. Sustained democratic stability rests not on the supremacy of one branch, but on the harmonious tension among all three, guided by the Constitution.

Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper 2:
    • Separation of Powers between various organs
    • Functioning of the Judiciary
    • Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
    • Role of constitutional authorities

Previous Year Questions Linkage

  • 2020: “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution.” Discuss.
  • 2018: “Whether the Supreme Court judgment can settle the political tussle between the Lieutenant Governor and the elected government of Delhi? Examine.”
  • 2017: “The Indian Constitution has provisions for holding joint sessions of the two Houses of the Parliament. Enumerate the occasions when this would normally happen and critically examine the rationale behind them.”

Introduction

The Election Commission of India (ECI), established under Article 324 of the Constitution, is the custodian of free and fair elections. While India’s electoral system is globally lauded for its robustness, recent controversies during the 2024 Assembly elections in Maharashtra have triggered concerns over voter roll discrepancies, restricted access to CCTV footage, and the appointment process of Election Commissioners. These issues underscore the need for institutional reforms to enhance public confidence and electoral transparency.

Body

Key Concerns Raised:

  1. Voter Roll Surge:
    • According to The Hindu, over 39 lakh voters were added to Maharashtra’s electoral roll within six months post the 2024 Lok Sabha election.
    • While historical data (2014, 2019) reflect similar trends before state elections, the scale and opacity of this increase demand proactive clarification from the ECI.
  2. Turnout Post 5 PM:
    • Allegations of sudden voter surges post-5 p.m. are based on provisional figures from the ECI’s app.
    • However, final Form 17C data — the legally binding turnout count — shows no abnormality. Manual entry discrepancies in provisional data highlight the need for digital transparency.
  3. CCTV Footage Restriction:
    • Recent amendments to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 limit access to polling station CCTV footage, curtailing scrutiny.
    • Political parties have demanded full footage access, especially when malpractice is alleged.
  4. Appointment of Election Commissioners:
    • In Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court directed that the Chief Justice of India be part of the selection panel for Election Commissioners.
    • The government’s refusal to implement this dilutes institutional independence.

Way Forward

  1. Transparency in Voter Roll Management:
    • The ECI must provide machine-readable, verifiable voter rolls, updated with proper audit trails.
    • Political parties and civil society must be involved in verification at the booth level.
  2. Restoring Trust through CCTV Oversight:
    • CCTV footage should be retained for a legally mandated period and made available to candidates on request under a transparent framework.
  3. Reform Appointment Procedures:
    • The selection of Election Commissioners should follow SC recommendations, ensuring independence from the executive.
  4. Improved Provisional Data Mechanism:
    • The ECI should integrate real-time automated vote count systems to reduce manual errors in turnout reporting.
  5. Civil Society Participation:
    • Independent electoral observers, data journalists, and public watchdogs should be empowered to cross-verify claims and enhance electoral accountability.

Conclusion

While India’s electoral system remains largely credible, perceptions of bias or inefficiency can erode democratic legitimacy. It is crucial that the ECI reaffirms its autonomy through transparent processes, robust technological safeguards, and inclusive electoral oversight. Strengthening institutional trust is essential for sustaining the democratic ethos enshrined in the Constitution.

UPSC Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper II: Appointment to constitutional posts, statutory bodies; Representation of People’s Act; Transparency & Accountability; Election Commission of India

Relevant Previous Year Questions

  • GS II (2020): “Institutional quality is a crucial driver of economic performance.” In this context suggest reforms in Civil Service for strengthening democracy.
  • GS II (2019): “Do you think that the recent changes in the Election Laws are in the right direction for electoral reforms in India? Discuss.”

Introduction

Leadership plays a transformative role in redefining governance paradigms in any democracy. Since 2014, the Narendra Modi-led government has aimed to establish a culture of “performance-oriented governance” replacing what it called an era marked by policy paralysis, corruption, and trust deficit under the earlier regime. With major policy decisions and mass campaigns, the government has attempted to build a more participatory and accountable governance structure.

Body

  1. Changing Governance Culture Post-2014
  • Shift from Entitlement to Empowerment: Schemes like PM Ujjwala Yojana, Jan Dhan Yojana, and Ayushman Bharat focused on bottom-up development with direct benefit transfers, bypassing intermediaries.
  • Emphasis on Clean Administration: Initiatives such as demonetisation (2016), digitisation of governance, and Mission Karmayogi reflect a push for systemic reform and transparency.
  • Political Narrative of Performance: The government’s communication has consistently revolved around “Modi hai to mumkin hai”, projecting decisive leadership and solution-oriented politics.
  1. Major Legislative and Policy Reforms
  • Abrogation of Article 370 (2019): Revoked special status of Jammu & Kashmir — seen as a bold and controversial move aimed at integration and uniformity.
  • Triple Talaq Act (2019): Criminalised instant triple talaq, seen as a step towards gender justice.
  • Women’s Reservation Act (2023): Provided 33% reservation in Parliament and State legislatures for women.
  • NEP 2020 and National Health Policy 2017: Brought a structural overhaul in education and health sectors focusing on inclusivity, skill development, and preventive healthcare.

III. Mass Movements and Public Participation

  • Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (2014–19): According to Ministry of Jal Shakti, over 11 crore toilets were constructed, with open defecation reportedly eliminated in rural India by 2019.
  • Digital India Campaign: As per MeitY (2023), India witnessed over 14 billion UPI transactions monthly, showing deep digital penetration and financial inclusion.
  1. Criticism and Counterpoints
  • Demonetisation Debate: Critics argue it caused economic disruption and informal sector distress, though the government hailed it as an anti-black money move.
  • Federal Concerns: Centralisation of decision-making (e.g., GST implementation, appointments) has raised questions about cooperative federalism.
  • Civil Liberty Concerns: Actions against dissent, journalists, and NGOs (including FCRA amendments) have triggered concerns about shrinking democratic space.

Way Forward

  1. Strengthen Federal Mechanisms: Engage States in major decisions to uphold cooperative federalism.
  2. Institutional Integrity: Ensure transparency in key appointments (e.g., Election Commissioners) as per SC recommendations.
  3. Citizen-Centric Governance: Reinforce grievance redressal systems, participatory platforms, and transparency in welfare delivery.
  4. Evidence-Based Evaluation: Conduct third-party audits and publish periodic impact assessments of flagship schemes.

Conclusion

The post-2014 governance culture under Prime Minister Modi has seen a strong push for administrative efficiency, policy decisiveness, and large-scale citizen mobilisation. While achievements are notable in several sectors, ensuring robust institutional checks, regional inclusion, and democratic accountability will be key to sustaining this transformation in the coming decade.

Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper II:
    • Governance and Role of Civil Services
    • Government policies and interventions for development
    • Important aspects of accountability and transparency
    • Role of NGOs, SHGs, pressure groups, and civil society
    • Development processes and the role of the Executive

Previous Year Questions (PYQs) Linkage

  • GS II (2021): “Institutional quality is a crucial driver of economic performance.” In this context, suggest reforms in civil service for strengthening democracy.
  • GS II (2019): Do you think that constitutionally mandated bodies are adequately independent? Evaluate with examples.
  • GS II (2017): “Good governance” is key to a nation’s progress. Discuss the essential principles of good governance with examples.

 

Introduction

Delimitation in India has traditionally been based on population, as per constitutional mandates under Articles 81 and 82. However, with widening demographic disparities and uneven electoral value across States, a new argument has emerged — to delimit constituencies based on the number of electors rather than population — in order to uphold the principle of “one person, one vote, one value.”

Body

  1. Present Scenario and Concerns
  • Delimitation Freeze: The current number of Lok Sabha seats (543) was frozen in 1976 until the first Census after 2026 to encourage population control.
  • Southern States’ Concerns: States like Tamil Nadu and Kerala fear reduced representation despite success in family planning, compared to high-fertility northern States.
  • Unequal Representation: Disparity in population growth, migration, and age structures skews electoral value. For example, Idukki (Kerala) has far fewer electors than Malkajgiri (Telangana), making a vote in Idukki up to 4.5 times more influential.
  1. Why Electors as Basis is Fairer
  • Closer Alignment with Democratic Principle: Electors represent eligible voters. Delimitation based on electors ensures each vote carries equal weight — fulfilling “one person, one vote, one value.”
  • Avoids Penalising Population Control: States that promoted family planning should not be penalised with reduced representation.
  • Dynamic and Updated Data: Electoral rolls are updated regularly by the Election Commission of India (ECI), whereas Census data is decadal and currently outdated (last Census: 2011).
  • Addresses Migration Gaps: Census includes temporary migrants and children under 18, inflating population figures that don’t align with actual voters.

III. Statistical Insights (2024 Elector Data)

  • Southern States account for 22.45% of electors, but 23.8% of Lok Sabha seats and 24.4% of Rajya Sabha seats, showing higher proportional representation.
  • Proposed scenario (based on electors with total seats raised to 800):
    • Karnataka (+60.7%) and Telangana (+58.8%) would gain most.
    • Preserving smaller States’ seat counts ensures fairness without penalising geographical constraints.
  1. Challenges in Shifting to Elector-Based Delimitation
  • Constitutional Amendments Needed: Articles 81 and 82 define representation in terms of population.
  • Exclusion of Under-18s: Representation of future voters (children) would be compromised.
  • Risk of Political Resistance: High-population States may oppose such changes, citing dilution of their democratic voice.

Way Forward

  1. Constitutional Review: Set up a commission to review Articles 81–82 and suggest elector-inclusive models.
  2. Hybrid Formula: Combine population and elector data to ensure balance between long-term planning and immediate electoral fairness.
  3. Regular Updating of Electoral Rolls: Ensure ECI rolls reflect reality, minimizing ghost or duplicate entries.
  4. Equity in Representation: Protect interests of smaller States and marginalized regions via minimum thresholds or weighted representation.

Conclusion

While population-based delimitation aligns with long-term demographic representation, elector-based delimitation offers a more immediate and democratic solution for ensuring vote equality. As India moves closer to 2026, a balanced, consultative, and constitutionally robust mechanism is required to reform the delimitation process without undermining cooperative federalism or voter equity.

Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper II – Indian Polity: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Legislature; Representation of People’s Act; Issues relating to federalism; Electoral reforms.

Relevant PYQs

  • GS II (2022): “To what extent in your opinion has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots?”
  • GS II (2020): “The role of individual states in a federal polity has seen a transformation in recent decades. Discuss with examples.”

 

Introduction:

The Government of India has announced that the next decadal Census—after a delay of 16 years—will conclude by March 2027. For the first time in Independent India, the Census will be both digital and include caste enumeration. This landmark exercise, governed under the Census Act, 1948, will significantly influence future governance structures, electoral boundaries, and welfare policies.

Body:

  1. Features of the 2027 Census:
  • Digital Census: For the first time, data will be collected using a mobile application, enabling faster processing and potential self-enumeration.
  • Caste Enumeration: Besides SC/ST, all caste groups will now be recorded, a major shift since post-1947 censuses did not include detailed caste data.
  • Phased Process:
    • House Listing & Housing Schedule
    • Population Enumeration, with March 1, 2027 as the reference date.
  • Coverage of Remote Areas: Special enumeration dates for snow-bound regions like Ladakh, J&K, Himachal Pradesh (reference: October 1, 2026).
  1. Significance and Implications:
  2. Governance and Policy Making:
  • Caste-disaggregated data will aid in targeted policymaking for backward classes, fulfilling a long-standing demand from state governments and civil society.
  • Will guide resource allocation, particularly in education, healthcare, and employment schemes.
  1. Electoral Reforms:
  • Article 82 and Article 170 of the Constitution provide for delimitation based on Census data. The 2027 Census will form the basis for redrawing Lok Sabha and Assembly constituencies, currently frozen based on the 1971 Census.
  • The Women’s Reservation Bill (2023) mandates that the 33% reservation in legislatures will be implemented after the next delimitation.
  1. Technological Modernization:
  • The shift to digital enumeration enhances data accuracy and real-time monitoring. Over 30 lakh enumerators will be trained afresh.
  1. National Security and Identity:
  • Although not announced, NPR (National Population Register) may be updated alongside. This step is key to future NRC (National Register of Citizens) efforts under the Citizenship Rules, 2003.

III. Challenges:

  • Privacy concerns regarding caste and digital data.
  • Possible social tension due to caste-based identity politics.
  • Digital divide may affect rural enumeration and exclude vulnerable sections.
  • Delayed execution may compress timelines for delimitation before 2029 general elections.

Way Forward:

  • Ensure data confidentiality and transparency in caste enumeration.
  • Extensive public awareness campaigns and technical training for enumerators.
  • A parliamentary oversight mechanism should monitor census execution.
  • Encourage independent audits and civil society participation in data validation.

Conclusion:

The 2027 Census is more than a demographic exercise; it is an instrument of democratic restructuring and inclusive governance. With caste data, digital tools, and electoral implications, this Census can pave the way for social justice and effective public policy—if executed with foresight, integrity, and inclusion.

Link with UPSC Syllabus:

  • GS Paper I: Indian Society – Population and associated issues, Poverty and developmental issues, Caste system
  • GS Paper II: Governance – Government policies and interventions for development, Role of civil services in a democracy
  • GS Paper II: Polity – Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act, Election-related reforms

Link with Previous Years’ UPSC Mains Questions:

  • GS II (2023): Discuss the role of data in governance and how digital tools can transform policy implementation.
  • GS I (2020): How far caste census is justified in modern Indian society?
  • GS II (2019): What are the challenges of demographic transition in India?

Introduction

India’s federal structure, while unitary in spirit, is premised on the constitutional idea of cooperative federalism, where the Union and States work in partnership. However, recent developments—particularly Kerala’s grievances regarding borrowing limits, fiscal allocations, and denial of foreign aid—reflect a growing trust deficit in Centre-State financial relations. These episodes reignite the debate over the autonomy of States in fiscal matters.

Body

  1. Kerala’s Key Grievances:
  1. Foreign Aid Restrictions:
    • In 2018, the Centre declined Kerala’s request to accept foreign aid (e.g., ₹700 crore offered by UAE) post-floods, citing national policy.
    • Yet, Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Relief Fund was recently granted FCRA clearance, which Kerala views as discriminatory.
  2. Curtailment of Borrowing Rights:
    • Kerala claims the Centre cut ₹3,300 crore from its borrowing ceiling under the pretext of the Guarantee Redemption Fund.
    • These limitations have compelled Kerala to approach the Supreme Court, questioning the Centre’s fiscal control.
  3. Reduced Fiscal Share:
    • Kerala’s share in the divisible pool fell from 3.88% (10th Finance Commission) to 1.92% (15th Finance Commission).
    • This has strained its ability to meet development and welfare expenditure, especially in disaster-affected districts like Wayanad.
  1. Implications on Cooperative Federalism:
  1. Erosion of Trust:
    • Political bias in fiscal decisions can erode the federal spirit, as seen in Kerala’s allegation of being “financially choked”.
  2. Lack of Transparency:
    • States often complain about non-transparent decision-making in imposing borrowing caps and resource allocation.
  3. Disregard for Local Needs:
    • Ignoring State-specific demands—like Kerala’s ₹24,000 crore economic package—highlights centralised planning over decentralised needs.
  4. Politicisation of Fiscal Tools:
    • Fiscal instruments risk becoming tools of political leverage rather than mechanisms of equitable development.

III. Measures to Strengthen Fiscal Federalism:

  1. Institutionalising Intergovernmental Forums:
    • Strengthen bodies like Inter-State Council and GST Council for continuous dialogue on fiscal matters.
  2. Reform Finance Commission Criteria:
    • Ensure weightage to vulnerability (disaster-prone States) and performance indicators, not just population or tax effort.
  3. Transparent Borrowing Norms:
    • Define and publish objective criteria for State borrowings to avoid perceived arbitrariness.
  4. Revise National Policy on Foreign Aid:
    • In exceptional disasters, provide case-based approval to States to receive aid, with Union oversight.
  5. Strengthen Cooperative Federal Mechanisms:
    • Encourage consultative policy formulation between Centre and States on budgetary matters.

Conclusion

Kerala’s case is not just about regional politics but a reflection of the broader challenge of balancing Union authority with State autonomy in a federal democracy. As India approaches its next Finance Commission cycle and multiple elections, it must recommit to the ideals of true fiscal federalism and cooperative governance, where the Centre supports rather than stifles State aspirations.

Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper II: Cooperative Federalism, Centre-State Relations, Role of Finance Commission
  • GS Paper III: Budgeting, Financial Administration

Relevant Previous Year Questions

  • GS II (2021): “To what extent, in your view, the tolerance for dissent is necessary for the maintenance of democratic traditions in India?”
  • GS II (2016): “Restructuring of Indian Planning System would bring about greater coherence and efficiency in development.” Discuss.

Introduction:
The Union Territory of Ladakh, carved out from Jammu and Kashmir post Article 370 abrogation in August 2019, has witnessed persistent civil society demands for constitutional safeguards over land, jobs, and identity. In response, the Union Government notified key regulations in 2025, reshaping Ladakh’s domicile norms, reservation framework, language status, and hill council composition.

Body:

  1. Key Provisions of the New Policy Framework:
  • Reservation Reforms:
    • Union Territory of Ladakh Reservation (Amendment) Regulation, 2025 enables up to 95% reservation in government jobs (80% for STs, 10% EWS, 4% for border residents, 1% SCs).
    • Ladakh now has one of the highest public job reservation ceilings in India.
  • Domicile Norms:
    • Non-Ladakhis, including children of Central officials, must show 15 years of continuous residence (from Oct 31, 2019) to qualify for domicile status.
  • Language Recognition:
    • The Ladakh Official Languages Regulation, 2025 recognizes English, Hindi, Urdu, Bhoti, and Purgi as official languages, with institutional support for native languages.
  • Gender Representation:
    • One-third of seats in the Autonomous Hill Councils reserved for women, ensuring inclusive governance.
  • Recruitment and Decentralization:
    • New norms govern Gazetted and non-Gazetted posts under a decentralized recruitment policy for Ladakh.
  1. Significance and Justifications:
  • Protects Ladakh’s tribal-majority demography (80% ST as per Census 2011) from demographic dilution and economic marginalization.
  • Addresses job insecurity fears after J&K’s reorganization by ringfencing local employment.
  • Recognition of Bhoti and Purgi promotes cultural identity and linguistic inclusivity, fulfilling aspirations of ethnic minorities.
  • Ensures women’s political participation via reserved seats in local governance.
  1. Challenges and Criticism:
  • The demand for Sixth Schedule inclusion (tribal autonomy) and Statehood remains unfulfilled, raising questions of constitutional and political parity.
  • The 85% reservation cap (excluding EWS) may face legal scrutiny under Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
  • Implementation bottlenecks likely in domicile verification and reservation enforcement.
  • Civil society groups fear tokenism without real legislative devolution of power.

Way Forward:

  • Establish a consultative mechanism with local stakeholders for Sixth Schedule integration.
  • Ensure transparent recruitment systems and grievance redressal for domicile/reservation disputes.
  • Promote multi-lingual education and governance using local languages to deepen inclusivity.
  • Consider phased introduction of legislative representation and eventual Statehood roadmap.

Conclusion:

The 2025 policy package for Ladakh marks a significant institutional response to the region’s longstanding demands for identity, autonomy, and development. However, without a constitutional framework like the Sixth Schedule or Statehood, these policies risk remaining administrative fixes rather than transformative safeguards. Sustainable peace and progress in Ladakh require deeper political engagement and participatory governance.

UPSC Syllabus Mapping:

  • GS Paper II: Government policies and interventions for development, Issues relating to federalism and governance, Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections, Role of civil society.

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • UPSC GS II Mains 2022: “Discuss the essential conditions for the exercise of legislative powers by the Governor under Article 200.”
  • UPSC GS II Mains 2021: “Do you think that the constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balances’?”

UPSC GS II Mains 2020: “Critically examine the role of the Governor in the context of recent controversies related to constitutional ethics.”

 

Introduction:

Judicial independence is the cornerstone of a constitutional democracy. However, recent remarks by the Vice-President questioning the judiciary’s accountability, powers under Articles 142 and 145(3), and transparency in internal inquiries have sparked a renewed debate over the limits and responsibilities of judicial authority in India.

Body:

Concerns Raised by the Vice-President:

  1. Lack of transparency in internal judicial inquiries (e.g., case involving cash recovery at a judge’s residence).
  2. Judicial overreach: Supreme Court’s prescribing of timelines to the President and Governors.
  3. Use of Article 142: Seen as diluting representative democracy.
  4. Review of Article 145(3): Suggestion to increase the minimum judges in Constitution Bench matters.

Arguments Supporting the Concerns:

  • Opacity in appointments and internal discipline erodes public trust.
  • The Collegium system, lacking statutory backing, is often criticized for being non-transparent.
  • Judicial decisions sometimes encroach on executive functions, affecting democratic accountability.

Counterarguments:

  • Judicial review is part of the basic structure doctrine and acts as a bulwark against legislative and executive excesses.
  • Use of Article 142 has enabled landmark justice delivery in cases like Bhopal Gas Tragedy, sexual harassment guidelines, and permanent commission for women in armed forces.
  • The prescription of timelines by the Court is rooted in constitutional jurisprudence and is aligned with existing executive memoranda.

Way Forward:

  • Reform collegium process with a transparent, broad-based National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) ensuring both independence and accountability.
  • Codify procedures for judicial discipline to inspire public confidence without undermining judicial autonomy.
  • Establish a Judicial Performance Commission for internal evaluation.
  • Encourage inter-institutional dialogue to strengthen cooperative federalism and avoid confrontations between organs.

Conclusion:

India’s constitutional vision is a blend of Parliamentary sovereignty and judicial supremacy, with judicial review serving as a guardian of the Constitution. While independence of the judiciary is non-negotiable, greater transparency and accountability can only enhance its credibility and democratic legitimacy. Rather than a confrontational approach, institutional reform and mutual respect among organs will uphold the true spirit of the Constitution.

Link to UPSC Mains GS Paper II Syllabus:

  • Separation of powers between various organs
  • Functioning of the judiciary
  • Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary
  • Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure

Relevant Previous Year Questions:

  • “Judicial legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution.” Discuss (2021).
  • “Judicial review and parliamentary sovereignty are essential features of the Indian constitutional system.” Comment (2018).
  • “Do you think that the constitution of India does not accept the principle of strict separation of powers but the principle of ‘checks and balances’?” (2019).

Introduction

Federalism in India, designed as a quasi-federal structure, is witnessing evolving dynamics in the 21st century, especially in the domain of inter-State relations. Recent developments, such as Telangana’s energy agreements with both BJP-ruled Rajasthan and Congress-ruled Himachal Pradesh, signal a significant step towards horizontal cooperative federalism, where States collaborate across political and geographical boundaries for mutual benefit.

Body

  1. Inter-State Cooperation as a Marker of Maturing Federalism
  • Telangana’s agreements with Rajasthan (solar energy) and Himachal Pradesh (hydro power) signify pragmatic collaboration, ignoring political divides for economic and ecological sustainability.
  • The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between SCCL (Telangana) and RVUNL (Rajasthan) facilitates a 1,600 MW thermal plant in Telangana and a 1,500 MW solar park in Rajasthan with joint equity — a model of resource-sharing and risk-sharing.
  • With Himachal Pradesh, Telangana is investing in the Seli and Meyar hydro projects with a long-term asset transfer agreement, ensuring both clean energy access and financial viability.
  1. Role of National Policy and Institutional Frameworks
  • The ease of inter-State transmission via the national grid, enabled by earlier reforms (e.g., those initiated under Dr. Manmohan Singh’s tenure), reflects the importance of policy continuity in federal relations.
  • Central institutions such as the Central Electricity Authority and the Ministry of Power facilitate these cross-border energy arrangements, reinforcing cooperative mechanisms between Centre and States.
  1. Drivers Behind These Agreements
  • Economic rationale: Telangana’s high land prices and lack of hydro potential make external collaborations necessary.
  • Demand-supply pressures: Telangana’s electricity demand has surpassed earlier projections, increasing nearly 10% in a year.
  • Renewable push: Rajasthan’s solar abundance and Himachal’s hydro potential match Telangana’s sustainability goals.
  1. Challenges and Concerns
  • Long-term financial and legal risks in shared ventures (e.g., asset transfer after 40 years).
  • Possible regulatory fragmentation in absence of a uniform inter-State energy policy.
  • Potential over-reliance on other States for core infrastructure, affecting self-sufficiency.

Way Forward

  • Institutionalise inter-State energy councils under the Inter-State Council Secretariat to manage and mediate joint projects, akin to river water tribunals.
  • Encourage multi-State Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) with clear dispute resolution mechanisms, financial transparency, and operational autonomy.
  • Strengthen the role of NITI Aayog in facilitating horizontal collaboration on energy, climate, and infrastructure.
  • Promote renewable energy clusters that span multiple States, especially in the solar-rich and hydro-rich belts.

Conclusion

The Telangana-Rajasthan-Himachal collaborations mark a new era of cooperative federalism, where economic logic and environmental consciousness drive inter-State partnerships, not partisan politics. Such initiatives must now be supported with institutional robustness, legal clarity, and policy integration to ensure that India’s federal structure matures into a collaborative and competitive federation, capable of meeting the aspirations of a growing, energy-hungry economy.

 

Linking with UPSC Syllabus:

  • GS Paper II:
    • Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States
    • Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure
    • Devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein
    • Cooperative federalism: horizontal and vertical dimensions

Linking with Previous Year UPSC Questions:

  • UPSC Mains 2020 (GS II): “To what extent is cooperative federalism practised in India?”
  • UPSC Mains 2016 (GS II): “Restructuring of Indian federalism with emphasis on fiscal federalism will strengthen the national unity. Discuss.”

Introduction

The Constitution of India envisages a parliamentary system of government at both the Union and State levels, where the real executive power rests with the Council of Ministers, and the President and Governors act as nominal heads. The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) reaffirmed this framework by emphasizing that Governors must act on the aid and advice of the elected State governments, barring rare exceptions.

Body

  1. Parliamentary System and Constitutional Scheme
  • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly, clarified that the President and the Governor are symbolic heads akin to the British monarch, with no independent executive powers.
  • Articles 74 and 163 mandate that the President and the Governor act on the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers.
  • The 1974 landmark judgment in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab upheld that these offices are not centres of parallel executive authority but must function within the limits of the Constitution.
  1. Supreme Court’s 2025 Judgment: Constitutional Clarity
  • The 2025 ruling in State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu reaffirmed that Governors cannot withhold assent to bills indefinitely or act arbitrarily.
  • It held that delays or refusal to act upon cabinet decisions amount to subversion of constitutional responsibility and attract judicial review.
  • This judgment serves as a timely reminder that constitutional functionaries are not above the Constitution, and their oath under Articles 60 and 159 binds them to uphold democratic principles.
  1. Conventions, Instruments of Instruction, and Drafting Debates
  • The Constituent Assembly deliberately deleted Schedule IV (Instruments of Instruction), choosing instead to rely on constitutional conventions—a hallmark of mature parliamentary democracies.
  • T.T. Krishnamachari and Ambedkar favored this approach, trusting that constitutional morality would guide dignitaries to act responsibly.
  1. Abuse of Office: The Governor’s Controversial Conduct
  • Recent incidents of Governors delaying or stalling bills, particularly in opposition-ruled states, highlight growing tensions in Centre-State relations.
  • These actions go against the spirit of cooperative federalism and popular sovereignty, and blur the lines between constitutional duty and political partisanship.

Way Forward

  1. Codifying Timelines: Parliament may consider enacting a law or an amendment to specify timelines within which Governors must act on bills or cabinet decisions.
  2. Reinforcing Constitutional Morality: Training and orientation of Governors on constitutional ethics and democratic norms can prevent misuse of discretionary powers.
  3. Judicial Oversight: Courts should continue to proactively examine misuse of gubernatorial power, as done in Nabam Rebia and the 2025 judgment.
  4. Public Accountability: Civil society and academia must build pressure for constitutional compliance and transparency in gubernatorial conduct.

Conclusion

India’s parliamentary democracy thrives on the responsible conduct of its constitutional functionaries. The Governor, as a nominal head, must act in harmony with the elected government to preserve the spirit of the Constitution. The State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor of Tamil Nadu judgment of 2025 is a milestone in reinforcing constitutional boundaries, ensuring that democracy is not sabotaged by delay or discretion. The need of the hour is to uphold constitutional morality, maintain federal balance, and reaffirm people’s sovereignty.

Syllabus Linkage

  • GS Paper 2:
    • Indian Constitution—structure, functioning, powers and responsibilities of various constitutional bodies.
    • Parliament and State Legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges.
    • Issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure.

Previous Year Questions (PYQs) Linkage

  • 2022: “Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the controversy in the enactment of laws in recent times.”
  • 2021: “‘Institutional quality is a crucial driver of economic performance.’ In this context, suggest reforms in civil service for strengthening democracy.”
  • 2019: “Do you think the Governor’s post needs to be abolished?”
  • 2016: “Resorting to ordinances has always raised concern on the violation of the spirit of separation of powers. Discuss.”

Introduction

The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) upheld the constitutional validity of sub-classification within SCs/STs, allowing States to create internal reservations to ensure equitable distribution of benefits among the most disadvantaged sub-castes. In a landmark implementation of this ruling, Telangana has become the first Indian State to officially notify intra-group categorisation of SCs, aiming to rectify historical inequalities in access to reservation benefits.

Body

  1. Constitutional and Judicial Context
  • Article 16(4): Allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward class.
  • Davinder Singh Case (2020): Reversed a 2005 judgment and clarified that the President’s list under Article 341 does not preclude intra-group classification by the State for equitable benefit distribution.
  • Empirical Basis Mandated: The Court required data-driven categorisation based on historical and systemic deprivation.
  1. Telangana’s Categorisation Model
  • A Cabinet sub-committee and a judicial commission headed by Justice Shameem Akhtar were formed.
  • Classification into 3 Groups:
    • Group I (1%): Most backward (15 castes)
    • Group II (9%): Marginally benefited (18 castes)
    • Group III (5%): Relatively advanced (26 castes)
  • Excluded:
    • Central government jobs and institutions
    • Already-notified vacancies
  1. Rationale Behind the Move
  • Earlier commissions (Ramachandra Raju 1997, Usha Mehra 2007) found benefit concentration among Malas and Adi-Andhras.
  • The Madiga community’s long-standing demand for equitable representation was a major driver.
  • A caste survey with socio-economic data was used to justify the move.
  1. Criticisms and Challenges
  • Creamy Layer Debate: Though recommended by the Akhtar Commission, the government rejected applying creamy layer within SCs citing potential legal complications.
  • Political Motive Allegations: Critics argue the move could serve electoral interests under the guise of social justice.
  • Legal Risk: Could face constitutional scrutiny similar to the 50% cap case (Indra Sawhney) and pending approval for raising BC reservation to 42%.

Way Forward

  1. National-Level Guidelines: The Union government could frame clear criteria for sub-categorisation to avoid state-wise inconsistencies.
  2. Periodic Review Mechanism: Like OBC reservation lists, review intra-SC classifications every decade based on developmental data.
  3. Transparent Data Collection: Nationwide caste-based socio-economic surveys can aid rational policy design.
  4. Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court must clarify boundaries between sub-classification and political expediency.
  5. Awareness and Dialogue: Encourage public consultation to prevent social friction within SC groups.

Conclusion

Telangana’s bold move reflects a maturing understanding of intersectional disadvantage within the Scheduled Castes. It brings into focus the need to go beyond symbolic representation to targeted equity. If implemented judiciously, and with empirical integrity, intra-group reservation may help realise the constitutional vision of substantive equality. However, it must tread cautiously to avoid judicial setbacks, political misuse, or intra-community discord.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II:
    • Indian Constitution — significant provisions and basic structure
    • Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population
    • Issues relating to development and management of social sector/services relating to education and human resources

Previous Year Questions Linked:

  • UPSC Mains 2021 (GS II): “To what extent, in your view, the reservation policy has addressed the problems of socially and economically disadvantaged sections?”
  • UPSC Mains 2018 (GS II): “Whether the Supreme Court Judgment (2018) can settle the controversial issue of sub-categorisation of Scheduled Castes for reservations?”
  • UPSC Mains 2016 (GS II): “Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on the right to privacy.”

Introduction

India’s Constitution envisions a unique form of federalism with a unitary bias, where the Union and States are constitutionally mandated to function in harmony. However, in recent years, growing centralisation of powers has sparked intense debate over the erosion of cooperative federalism. Tamil Nadu’s announcement of a high-level committee to review Centre-State relations marks a significant intervention in this ongoing constitutional discourse.

Body

  1. Constitutional Federalism and Dravidian Assertion
  • The Preamble of the Constitution defines India as a “Union of States”, underlining both the unity and federal nature of governance.
  • The Dravidian movement, particularly the DMK, has historically advocated for “self-rule in States and collective rule at the Union” — a principle that underscores decentralized development.
  • This federalist vision is embedded in earlier efforts like the Rajamannar Committee (1969), which proposed constitutional amendments to enhance State autonomy.
  1. Growing Centralisation: Key Concerns Raised by Tamil Nadu
  • Encroachment on State Powers: Increasing legislative and executive control by the Union over subjects in the State List and Concurrent List, especially post-2014, has created imbalance.
  • Misuse of Constitutional Offices: Governors and the President’s office are allegedly being used to delay or deny assent to State legislations (e.g., Tamil Nadu’s NEET exemption bill).
  • Resource Withholding: Funds, such as the ₹2,500 crore education share, are withheld to pressurize compliance with Union policies like the National Education Policy (NEP).
  • Linguistic & Cultural Imposition: The three-language formula indirectly promotes Hindi imposition, eroding linguistic diversity and federal equality.
  1. Systemic Implications of Centralising Trends
  • Violates the principle of subsidiarity – where decisions should be made at the lowest competent level.
  • Weakens the spirit of cooperative federalism, replacing it with competitive or coercive federalism.
  • Endangers State-led innovation, particularly in social justice, education, and welfare governance models.
  1. Tamil Nadu’s Proactive Federalism
  • Formation of a three-member constitutional review committee is a bold institutional step to assert federal rights within constitutional boundaries.
  • Efforts to build a coalition of like-minded States reflect a new model of horizontal federalism aimed at balancing Union dominance.

Way Forward

  • Revisit Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations to strengthen inter-governmental mechanisms.
  • Establish a permanent Inter-State Council with constitutional status and decision-enforcing powers.
  • Reform the role and discretion of Governors to prevent politicisation.
  • Empower Finance and Planning Commissions to consider performance, population control, and equity in fund allocations.
  • Institutionalise State-specific education, health, and development policies with central support but local flexibility.

Conclusion

The call by Tamil Nadu is not a cry for confrontation, but a constitutional demand for balance. As India’s democracy matures, the need to recalibrate Centre-State relations becomes critical to uphold pluralism, diversity, and inclusive governance. Strong States are not adversaries of a strong Union—they are its pillars. The future of Indian federalism lies not in central command but in mutual respect and shared responsibility.

Syllabus Linkage:

  • GS Paper II – Indian Constitution – federal structure; devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein; issues and challenges pertaining to federal structure, Centre-State relations.

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • 2020: “Cooperative federalism is not an end but a means to good governance.” Discuss.
  • 2018: Whether the Supreme Court Judgment (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.

2014: Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and it has been repeatedly reiterated by the Supreme Court, the Union Government has been accused of destroying the federal character. Examine

Introduction:

The Supreme Court’s recent intervention in the case involving Wikimedia and the Asian News International (ANI) has sparked significant debates about the responsibilities of intermediaries like Wikipedia and the judicial role in safeguarding free expression. The Delhi High Court had earlier directed Wikimedia to remove a Wikipedia page following a defamation complaint by ANI. However, the Supreme Court quashed this order, highlighting the problematic nature of the High Court’s reasoning. This case raises important questions about the boundaries of judicial action in matters of free speech, particularly in the digital age, where platforms like Wikipedia facilitate global knowledge sharing.

Body:

The Delhi High Court had ruled in favor of ANI, arguing that the Wikipedia page in question was defamatory because it relied on editorial or opinion-based articles, and thus did not meet the standard of factual reporting. The Court emphasized that as an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia bore a “higher responsibility” to ensure accuracy. However, the Supreme Court found the High Court’s reasoning problematic. The judgment failed to recognize that the sources cited in the Wikipedia article were long-form investigative reports and not merely opinionated pieces. Moreover, the takedown order was overly broad, asking for the removal of “false, misleading, and defamatory content” without specifying which parts of the page were problematic.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, emphasized the need for more specific identification of defamatory content rather than issuing a blanket order. By doing so, the Court acknowledged the inherent risk of overreach, where wide-ranging orders could undermine the very model that Wikipedia operates on. Wikipedia functions as an intermediary, where content is largely user-generated, and it enjoys safe harbour provisions, meaning it is not directly responsible for the content posted by its users. This distinction is crucial in understanding why such takedown orders must be carefully tailored to prevent the stifling of free speech.

Furthermore, the Court’s decision is significant in terms of its implications for the broader role of platforms like Wikipedia in fostering open discourse. Wikipedia is a community-driven platform, relying on volunteers to edit and curate content. Although not all articles may be perfectly accurate, the platform has mechanisms in place, such as “editing wars” and community-based dispute resolution, which ensure that content is scrutinized and revised by informed contributors. A robust legal framework must, therefore, balance the rights of individuals to protect their reputations with the public interest in promoting a free exchange of ideas and information.

Way Forward:

To ensure that the judicial system does not inadvertently stifle free expression, courts must adopt a nuanced approach when dealing with digital platforms. Rather than broad and vague takedown orders, courts should encourage specific identification of defamatory content and consider the intermediary protections provided by the law. Additionally, legislative reforms may be necessary to clarify the responsibilities of platforms like Wikipedia in moderating content, especially in defamation cases. An appropriate regulatory framework can facilitate the protection of both individual rights and the broader public interest in free and open knowledge.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Wikimedia case is a crucial step in ensuring that digital platforms like Wikipedia can continue to serve as a space for free and open discourse. The case serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that the judiciary must maintain in protecting individual reputations while also safeguarding the public’s right to access information. As the digital landscape evolves, it is imperative that the judicial system adapts to the unique challenges posed by online platforms to prevent undue restrictions on freedom of expression.

Link to Previous Year’s Questions:

  1. 2019 GS Mains Paper II: “Critically examine the challenges posed by the growth of social media platforms in terms of freedom of expression and regulation. How can regulatory frameworks strike a balance between ensuring accountability and protecting free speech?”
  2. 2020 GS Mains Paper II: “Discuss the implications of judicial interventions in regulating content on digital platforms like social media and Wikipedia. What are the challenges faced in maintaining a balance between free speech and defamation?”
  3. 2021 GS Mains Paper II: “How do courts strike a balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring freedom of expression in the age of the internet? Critically analyse with examples.”

Introduction:

The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 8, 2025, in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Anr. stands as a landmark in clarifying the constitutional provisions related to the assent of Bills by a Governor. The case primarily dealt with the action of Tamil Nadu’s Governor, R.N. Ravi, who had withheld assent to several Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly for an extended period. The issue escalated when the Governor sent the Bills to the President of India for consideration, a move that was challenged by the State Government. The Supreme Court’s ruling struck down the Governor’s actions and provided clarity on the constitutional procedures outlined in Articles 200 and 201 of the Indian Constitution.

Body:

  1. Governor’s Role in Assenting to Bills:
    Article 200 of the Indian Constitution mandates the Governor to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President. However, the Court highlighted the improper use of the Governor’s discretion in withholding assent for prolonged periods, without following the mandatory procedures. The Court emphasized that the Governor must send a Bill back to the legislature for reconsideration if assent is withheld, as opposed to indefinitely delaying action, which undermines the functioning of the state legislature.
  2. Time Limit for Assent:
    A significant aspect of the judgment was the imposition of a time frame for both the Governor and the President to decide on the assent to Bills. The Court ruled that the Governor and the President must act within a period of one to three months. If they fail to act within this time frame, the aggrieved State can approach the constitutional court for redress. This ruling aims to prevent unwarranted delays, reinforcing the idea that constitutional powers should be exercised within a reasonable period to ensure the smooth functioning of the democratic process.
  3. Discretion of the Governor and Judicial Review:
    The Court reaffirmed the principle of judicial review, stating that no exercise of constitutional powers is beyond judicial scrutiny. The Governor’s discretion to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President is not absolute and is subject to judicial oversight. This ensures that the power vested in the Governor is not misused, particularly in cases where deliberate inaction or arbitrariness may affect the constitutional balance between the legislature and the executive.
  4. The Role of the Council of Ministers:
    The Court clarified that the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding to withhold assent or reserve a Bill for the President. This reinforces the principle of collective responsibility in the functioning of the government, ensuring that the Governor’s actions align with the elected government’s policies and intentions.
  5. Implications for Indian Federalism:
    The judgment has far-reaching implications for the functioning of federalism in India. By curbing the discretionary powers of the Governor, the Court has reinforced the autonomy of the state legislatures. It also addresses the growing concerns of Governors acting as obstacles to the legislative process, particularly when they are aligned with the opposition party. The judgment promotes a clearer separation of powers and ensures that the Governor’s role does not undermine the decisions of the elected government.

Way Forward:

The ruling sets a precedent for addressing similar issues in other states, where Governors have withheld assent to Bills for extended periods. States like Kerala, Telangana, and Punjab have faced similar challenges, and the Tamil Nadu case provides a clear framework for resolving such disputes. Going forward, the government may consider constitutional reforms to further define the Governor’s role, ensuring better alignment with the principles of federalism and the democratic process. Additionally, there may be a need for legislative changes to specify time limits for Governors’ actions more explicitly, thus preventing further delays in the assent process.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu case is a significant step in safeguarding the democratic and federal structures of India. By clarifying the Governor’s role, imposing time limits for assent, and affirming judicial review, the Court has taken a crucial step towards strengthening the legislative process and reducing the scope for arbitrary actions by constitutional heads. While the judgment has been hailed as a victory for federalism, its long-term implications will depend on how state governments and constitutional authorities adapt to the new legal framework. In the broader context, this judgment may pave the way for further judicial scrutiny of constitutional provisions to ensure that democratic principles are upheld.

Link to Previous Years’ Questions:

This case relates to the broader theme of the distribution of powers between the Union and the States, as well as the role of the President and Governors in the Indian federal structure. Similar themes have been addressed in previous years’ UPSC Mains questions, such as:

  • Discuss the role of the Governor in the Indian federal structure. How has judicial interpretation shaped the powers and limitations of the Governor?
  • Examine the concept of judicial review in the context of the Indian Constitution. How does it apply to the functioning of constitutional authorities like the President and Governor?
  • Critically assess the relationship between the executive and the legislature in the context of the powers of the Governor under Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution.

By analyzing these questions in conjunction with the recent judgment, candidates can gain a deeper understanding of the constitutional dynamics in India.

Introduction

Delimitation is the process of redrawing the boundaries of electoral constituencies based on the latest census to ensure equal representation. The next delimitation exercise, expected post-2026, has reignited debates, particularly in southern states, which fear a dilution of their parliamentary influence due to their successful implementation of population control measures. These concerns reflect deeper issues of fairness, federalism, and the evolving nature of Indian democracy.

Body

Constitutional and Legal Framework

  • Article 81(2)(a) of the Constitution mandates that the allocation of Lok Sabha seats be proportional to each State’s population.
  • 42nd Amendment (1976) and 84th Amendment (2001) froze the number of Lok Sabha seats until the first census after 2026 to encourage population stabilization efforts.

Apprehensions of Southern States

  1. Punished for Progress: States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka that successfully curbed population growth now face reduced parliamentary influence compared to populous northern states.
  2. Democratic Imbalance: A sole reliance on current population numbers could drastically increase seats for States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar while keeping southern representation almost stagnant.
  3. Threat to Cooperative Federalism: A perceived northern bias could alienate regions and deepen regional fault lines, weakening national integration.
  4. Quality vs Quantity: Southern states argue for rewarding governance outcomes like health, education, and family planning rather than just numbers.

Limitations of State-wise Population Growth Model

  • Over-representation of high-growth States.
  • Disincentivizes population control efforts.
  • May increase political and regional polarization.

Decadal Growth Average (DGA) Formula as an Alternative

Proposal: Use the average national population growth (20.91%) between 1971 and 2021 to proportionally increase Lok Sabha seats for all States, rather than basing it solely on State-specific growth rates.

Advantages:

  • Fair Representation: No State feels punished for its developmental success.
  • Political Neutrality: Avoids the need to assign weightages for variables like literacy or income that could spark disputes.
  • Balanced Expansion: Leads to a manageable increase in seats (~656), unlike exponential growth (up to 1,374 seats) under other models.
  • Practical Governance: Accounts for geographical challenges, not just population numbers (e.g., Lakshadweep vs Malkajgiri).

Requirement:

  • Constitutional amendment to Article 81(2)(a) to allow decoupling seat allocation from strict proportionality to population.

Way Forward

  • Constitutional Reform: A well-debated amendment to Article 81 to facilitate balanced representation without undermining population control incentives.
  • National Consultation: Engage all States and stakeholders through the Inter-State Council or a special parliamentary committee to build consensus.
  • Institutional Innovation: Consider establishing a Federal Representation Commission to periodically recommend objective criteria for representation.
  • Awareness Campaigns: Educate citizens on the need for equitable representation that balances population with governance efficiency.

Conclusion

Delimitation is not just a numerical exercise but a test of India’s commitment to cooperative federalism, democratic fairness, and unity in diversity. Adopting a model like the Decadal Growth Average could harmonize regional interests, uphold the spirit of the Constitution, and prepare the nation for a more inclusive and sustainable democratic future.

Link to Previous Year UPSC Questions:

  • UPSC GS Paper II (2019): Do you think that Constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers but provides for a system of checks and balances? Elaborate.
  • UPSC GS Paper II (2018): Whether the increasing influence of regional parties in the national politics is good for Indian democracy?
  • UPSC GS Paper II (2016): To what extent is Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, bearing marginal notes “Temporary provision with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”, temporary? Discuss the future prospects of this Article in the context of Indian polity.

These questions show UPSC’s interest in issues related to federalism, regional balance, and constitutional reforms, making the delimitation issue highly relevant.

Introduction

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), especially tribals displaced due to internal conflicts such as Maoist insurgency, represent one of the most under-addressed humanitarian issues in India. The displacement of around 50,000 Gond tribals during the ‘Strategic Hamlet’ counter-Maoist programme in 2005 from Chhattisgarh to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana underscores a recurring pattern of state apathy, legal ambiguity, and social alienation. These Gutti Koya tribals remain in limbo—neither rehabilitated nor integrated—despite contributing significantly to state counterinsurgency efforts.

Body

  1. Historical Background and State Strategy
  • The use of Strategic Hamlet programs to combat communist insurgencies dates back to post-independence India and mirrors Cold War counter-insurgency tactics (e.g., South Vietnam).
  • The 2005 relocation of tribals from Bastar to roadside camps in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana aimed to isolate Maoists but failed in ensuring long-term tribal welfare or security.
  • Tribal recruits later played a key role in state-led military successes against Maoists, indicating both their strategic value and deep-rooted connection to the land.
  1. Socio-Legal and Administrative Challenges
  1. Lack of Legal Framework for IDPs in India:
    • India lacks a comprehensive national policy or adherence to international conventions (like the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement) for IDPs.
    • IDPs like the Gutti Koyas face denial of tribal status in host states (Telangana, Andhra Pradesh), thus losing access to constitutionally guaranteed affirmative action and welfare benefits.
  2. Violations and Denial of Forest Rights:
    • Clause 3.1(m) of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 mandates allocation of alternative forest land to tribals evicted before December 13, 2005.
    • The Chhattisgarh government has delayed action on applications for over five years and failed to coordinate with Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, despite repeated requests.
  3. Hostile State and Social Attitudes:
    • Both state authorities and local populations view these displaced tribals as encroachers.
    • Government actions, such as the destruction of tribal homes and reforestation drives on their farmland, show active displacement pressure rather than rehabilitation efforts.
  4. Intergenerational Impact and Aspirations:
    • The new generation of displaced tribals seeks economic integration in their host states but continues to face identity denial and lack of educational, health, and livelihood opportunities.
    • Their ineligibility for Scheduled Tribe status in host states violates the principle of substantive equality.

Way Forward

  1. National Policy for IDPs:
    • Draft and implement a comprehensive national policy recognizing IDPs, based on international human rights frameworks and tailored to India’s federal structure.
  2. Inter-State Coordination Mechanism:
    • Institutionalize a tripartite coordination mechanism involving Chhattisgarh, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs.
  3. Legal Recognition of Tribal Status:
    • The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs should clarify and amend provisions to ensure displaced tribals retain their ST status regardless of the state they migrate to.
  4. Implement FRA Provisions:
    • Expedite land allotment under FRA Clause 3.1(m) with Central oversight and judicial monitoring to prevent further rights denial.
  5. Rehabilitation with Dignity:
    • Model the rehabilitation on the Bru Resettlement Plan of 2019, offering displaced families the option to stay with full tribal rights or return voluntarily with support.
  6. Community Empowerment:
    • Promote education, healthcare, and economic inclusion of the displaced communities through targeted development schemes and inclusion in local governance.

Conclusion

The case of the displaced Gutti Koya tribals is emblematic of the Indian state’s selective approach to internal displacement—strategically useful in conflict, forgotten in peace. A just and rights-based approach to tribal rehabilitation is essential not only for social justice but also for sustainable peace in conflict-affected regions. It is time the state recognizes the displaced not as migrants but as full citizens deserving dignity, identity, and support.

Link to Previous UPSC Questions:

  • GS II, 2022: “Critically examine the role of ‘ethics’ in public administration in the contemporary context.” (related in terms of ethical governance and tribal welfare)
  • GS II, 2021: “Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States and the performance of these schemes.”
  • GS II, 2018: “Functioning of the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.”
  • GS I, 2013: “What are the consequences of illegal mining on tribals and forest dwellers?” (related to displacement and land rights)
  • GS II, 2015: “Examine the provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and its impact on tribal rights.”

Introduction:

Achieving a net-zero economy requires a comprehensive transition to low-carbon energy sources, and electrification of end uses plays a key role in this transformation. In this context, nuclear power, alongside renewable sources like solar and wind, is expected to be a significant contributor to India’s energy mix. As India sets ambitious targets for net-zero emissions, integrating nuclear power effectively with renewable energy systems is essential for meeting rising electricity demand.

Body:

  1. Role of Nuclear Power:
    Nuclear power is poised to be a cornerstone of India’s energy transition. While solar and wind energy are intermittent, nuclear power can provide stable, base-load electricity. The Indian government’s target of 100 GW of nuclear power by 2047, alongside the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited’s (NPCIL) plans for a fleet of new reactors, reflects the importance of nuclear energy in achieving net-zero emissions. Nuclear plants have a lower variable cost compared to coal, though their high capital cost remains a challenge.
  2. Challenges in Integration:
    One key challenge is the inability to flex nuclear power plants, which makes balancing supply and demand during fluctuations in renewable generation difficult. Flexing nuclear power plants is technically challenging and economically unfeasible in the short term. However, innovative solutions like using surplus electricity to produce hydrogen through electrolysis can address this issue. This technology allows for the conversion of excess renewable energy into hydrogen, which can be used in various industrial processes.
  3. Synergy between Hydrogen Production and Electricity Storage:
    To optimize the use of renewable energy, hydrogen production should be integrated with electricity storage solutions. Electrolysers, when paired with storage devices, can reduce the need for expensive electricity storage while providing a solution to the intermittency of renewables. This synergy improves the overall economics of integrating large-scale renewable energy into the grid. Moreover, redefining “green hydrogen” to “low-carbon hydrogen” would allow nuclear power to contribute to hydrogen production, thus creating a more inclusive and effective energy strategy.

Way Forward:

To achieve a sustainable energy future, it is essential for India to explore and implement synergistic approaches. Two key policy recommendations are:

  1. Redefining “green hydrogen” to “low-carbon hydrogen” to include hydrogen produced from nuclear power.
  2. Fostering greater synergy between electricity storage and hydrogen production to improve the economic viability of large-scale renewable energy integration.

These measures will help in addressing the challenges of balancing energy supply and demand while reducing carbon emissions.

Conclusion:

Nuclear power has an essential role in India’s energy transition to a net-zero economy, providing stable and low-carbon electricity. By addressing the technical challenges and integrating hydrogen production with electricity storage, India can optimize the use of renewable energy and achieve its climate goals. A policy shift towards low-carbon hydrogen and improved synergy between storage and hydrogen generation will pave the way for a more resilient and sustainable energy system.

Link to Previous Years’ Questions:

  • GS Paper 3 (Energy): “What are the challenges and opportunities in the integration of renewable energy sources into the national grid? Discuss the potential role of nuclear energy in this process.”
  • GS Paper 3 (Environment and Ecology): “Examine the feasibility and challenges of a low-carbon economy in India. How can technology and policy reforms contribute to achieving this goal?”

Introduction:

The recent judgment by the Supreme Court in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a significant moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. The Court invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice, creating a landmark decision that established clear time limits for the Governor and the President in giving assent to Bills passed by the State legislature. This judgment, which fundamentally altered the functioning of the gubernatorial and presidential offices, reflects the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation in India. While it has received criticism, particularly from political quarters, it also underscores the growing assertiveness of the judiciary in defending the democratic process.

Body:

  1. Analysis of the Judgment:

The judgment in question dealt with the powers and functions of the Governor, particularly focusing on Articles 200 and 201 of the Constitution. Traditionally, the Governor had significant discretion in assenting to or withholding assent to Bills, and there were no explicit time limits set for such decisions. The Court noted that this lack of clarity had been exploited, leading to delays and obstructions in the legislative process. By setting time limits for gubernatorial and presidential assent, the Court emphasized that the Governor should not thwart the legislative will of the people.

The Court also emphasized the importance of a reasoned order in withholding assent to Bills, rejecting the notion of simply withholding assent without justification. This judgment effectively curtails the perceived immunity of the Governor and the President from judicial scrutiny, ensuring that their actions are subject to constitutional oversight.

  1. Constitutional Interpretation and Federalism:

The judgment demonstrates a progressive approach to constitutional interpretation. The Court’s decision is rooted in the understanding that the Constitution is a living document, adaptable to the changing needs of society. The Court rejected a plain mechanical reading of the text and opted for a more organic interpretation that balanced the interests of both the States and the Union.

Federalism, which is a cornerstone of India’s Constitution, calls for an equilibrium between central and state powers. In this case, the Court’s interpretation emphasized that the Governor’s role should not undermine the democratic aspirations of the people as represented by the State legislature. This decision reasserts the role of State legislatures in the federal framework, preventing any undue central interference in state matters.

  1. Criticism and Judicial Overreach:

While the judgment has been hailed for its progressive stance, it has also drawn criticism, especially from the Centre. Some argue that the Court has overstepped its constitutional bounds by questioning the actions of the President and the Governor, thereby engaging in judicial overreach. However, this view fails to recognize the Court’s role as a protector of the Constitution and its duty to ensure that constitutional provisions are implemented effectively and without delay.

The judgment does not constitute a rewriting of the Constitution but rather supplements the existing provisions to address gaps and inefficiencies. It is an assertion of the judiciary’s duty to uphold the constitutional principles of democracy and federalism.

Way Forward:

  1. Judicial Efficiency:

One of the key issues highlighted by this judgment is the delay in the judicial process. The Court delivered a 414-page judgment, which, while thorough, was time-consuming. In crucial constitutional matters, the Court could adopt a more efficient approach by delivering shorter, more concise judgments within a reasonable timeframe. The example of the U.K. Supreme Court in the Brexit case, where the judgment was delivered in 24 pages, serves as a model for brevity and speed.

  1. Procedural Reforms:

The Court should also consider procedural reforms to ensure that similar cases are adjudicated together by the same Bench. This would reduce confusion, ensure consistency in decisions, and improve the overall efficiency of the judicial process. The request made by Kerala to have its petition heard by the same Bench as Tamil Nadu’s case exemplifies the need for better internal coordination within the judiciary.

  1. Strengthening Federalism:

The judgment also offers an opportunity to further strengthen the federal structure of the country. By asserting the rights of State legislatures, the Court has reaffirmed the federal balance in India. Moving forward, it is crucial for both the executive and judiciary to respect the principles of federalism and ensure that states are not unduly burdened by central interference.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a crucial moment in the evolution of Indian constitutional law. It highlights the role of the judiciary in upholding democratic values and safeguarding the federal structure. While the judgment has generated some controversy, its larger implications for strengthening democracy and federalism cannot be ignored. Going forward, the judiciary must focus on judicial efficiency and procedural reforms to ensure that such important constitutional matters are addressed in a timely and coherent manner. The evolving nature of constitutional interpretation, as demonstrated in this case, will continue to shape India’s democratic journey.

Link to Previous Year’s Questions:

  • 2019 – “Examine the role of the Governor in the Indian federal system and discuss the implications of the recent judicial pronouncements in this regard.”
  • 2017 – “Critically analyze the impact of judicial review on the functioning of constitutional offices in India, with special reference to the role of the President and the Governor.”
  • 2015 – “Discuss the evolution of the interpretation of federalism in India, with a focus on the role of the executive and the judiciary.”

 

Model Answer:

The Governor, as per the Indian Constitution, is the nominal executive head of a State, appointed by the President under Article 155. However, the recent Supreme Court verdict in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2024) reaffirms that this office is bound by constitutional morality and the principles of responsible government.

At the heart of the case was the Governor’s inaction on a series of Bills duly passed by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly — some pending since 2020. The Court ruled that such inaction subverts representative democracy, violating Article 200, which allows the Governor to:

  1. Assent to a Bill,
  2. Withhold assent (with a return for reconsideration), or
  3. Reserve it for the President.

The Supreme Court held that the Governor cannot indefinitely withhold assent without reason, nor can he bypass the advice of the State’s Council of Ministers, except in narrowly defined cases. Importantly, the Court invoked Article 142 to deem the 10 re-enacted Bills as assented, given the Governor’s unconstitutional delay.

While some critics see this as judicial overreach, the verdict upholds the essence of federalism. The Governor is not an autonomous power centre but a constitutional functionary accountable to the spirit of democracy. His discretionary powers are limited and subject to judicial review, as seen in Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (2006).

Thus, the judgment is a significant step toward rebalancing Centre-State relations, reaffirming the federal ethos of the Constitution and ensuring that governors do not become political tools undermining elected governments.

Links to Previous Years’ UPSC Questions:

  1. UPSC GS Paper II (2022)
    Q. Discuss the role of the Governor in the context of the recent controversies relating to the non-grant of assent to bills passed by state legislatures.
  2. UPSC GS Paper II (2021)
    Q. “The role of the Governor in Indian polity is becoming increasingly controversial.” Critically examine.
  3. UPSC GS Paper II (2020)
    Q. “The Governor of a State acts as a vital link between the Union and the State governments.” In the light of recent events, critically examine this statement.
  4. UPSC GS Paper II (2019)
    Q. Discuss the essential conditions for the exercise of the Governor’s discretionary powers under the Constitution of India.

Introduction

The Supreme Court, in its April 2024 judgment (Tamil Nadu vs. Governor R.N. Ravi), ruled that the Governor’s inordinate delay in granting assent to bills is unconstitutional. The verdict reinforces cooperative federalism by limiting gubernatorial discretion and prescribing strict timelines, ensuring that elected legislatures are not undermined.

Constitutional Provisions Under Article 200

  1. Assent Options: The Governor can:
    • Grant assent
    • Withhold assent and return the bill for reconsideration
    • Reserve the bill for the President’s consideration (only if it threatens the High Court’s constitutional role).
  2. Mandatory Timelines:
    • Bills must be returned “as soon as possible” (interpreted as a three-month limit).
    • If the legislature re-passes the bill, the Governor must assent within one month.

Key Aspects of the Judgment

  • No Pocket Veto: The Court held that withholding assent indefinitely is unconstitutional, as it subverts representative democracy.
  • Judicial Review: The Governor’s decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent arbitrary actions (State of Punjab vs. Principal Secretary, 2024).
  • President’s Role: A three-month deadline is set for the President’s decision on reserved bills.
  • Deemed Assent: Under Article 142, the Court declared 10 pending bills as automatically approved due to the Governor’s delay.

Way Forward

  • Codify Timelines: Amend Article 200 to specify clear deadlines, reducing ambiguity.
  • Strengthen Federalism: Ensure Governors act as neutral constitutional functionaries, not political appointees.
  • Judicial Oversight: Extend similar timelines to collegium recommendations to prevent executive overreach.

Linking with Previous Year Questions

  • “Discuss the role of the Governor in state legislatures and the controversies surrounding the misuse of discretionary powers.” (UPSC Mains 2019)
  • “Examine how judicial interventions have shaped the balance of power between the Centre and states in India.” (UPSC Mains 2021)

Conclusion

The judgment is a landmark step in upholding federalism and legislative autonomy. By curbing gubernatorial overreach, the Court has reinforced constitutional morality and democratic governance.

Key Takeaways for UPSC Aspirants

  • Constitutional Provisions: Article 200 & 201 define the Governor’s role in bill assent.
  • Judicial Safeguards: SC rulings (Punjab Governor case, 2024) prevent misuse of discretion.
  • Federal Balance: The verdict strengthens state autonomy while ensuring accountability.
  • Relevance: Connects to broader debates on Centre-State relations and separation of powers.

Answer:

The Supreme Court’s landmark April 8, 2024, judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu marks a significant judicial intervention in ensuring the smooth functioning of India’s federal structure. By setting a three-month deadline for the President to decide on Bills referred by Governors, the Court addresses longstanding concerns over undue delays in granting assent to State legislation under Article 200 and Article 201 of the Constitution.

Constitutional Implications:

  1. Clarification on Article 200 & 201:
    The judgment reaffirms that Governors cannot indefinitely withhold assent to State Bills. By fixing a three-month window from the date of referral to the President, the Court ensures accountability and reduces arbitrariness.
  2. Presidential Discretion and Article 143:
    The Court advises that, as a measure of prudence, the President may consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 when a Bill is reserved on constitutional grounds. This provides a non-mandatory yet recommended constitutional safeguard against potential misuse of executive discretion.
  3. Federalism and Separation of Powers:
    The decision reinforces the principle that legislative intent of State Assemblies must be respected, and that delays or obstructions by the Governor or Centre cannot violate the federal spirit embedded in the Constitution.

Practical Implications:

  1. Reduction in Executive Delays:
    The decision curbs the increasing trend of Governors sitting on Bills without action, as was observed in Tamil Nadu where 10 Bills were delayed for months without valid explanation.
  2. Judicial Pre-screening of Legislation:
    Encouraging pre-legislative scrutiny by constitutional courts ensures that unconstitutional provisions are filtered out early, saving time and avoiding post-enactment litigation.
  3. Balance of Power:
    The Court also cautions that this preventive approach should not become a tool to curtail State legislative powers, preserving the balance of power between the Union and the States.

Comparative Insight – The Sri Lankan Model:

Justice Pardiwala cited Sri Lanka, where the President is obligated to refer any potentially unconstitutional provincial Bill to the Supreme Court. If the court finds it valid, the Governor must give assent. This model, though more structured, inspires the Indian suggestion without enforcing a rigid system.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court’s judgment is a welcome step in streamlining legislative processes, protecting federal values, and preventing executive overreach. By subtly introducing a role for judicial scrutiny and urging timely decisions, the Court walks the fine line between preserving constitutional values and avoiding judicial overreach. Going forward, this judgment could serve as a foundational precedent in reforming Centre-State legislative dynamics.

Introduction:

Judicial accountability is a cornerstone of a robust democracy, ensuring public trust in the judiciary. Recent controversies, such as the allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma and the in-house inquiry initiated by the Supreme Court, have reignited debates on the efficacy of existing accountability mechanisms.

Existing Mechanisms for Judicial Accountability:

  1. Impeachment Process (Article 124(4)):
    • The Constitution provides for the removal of judges through impeachment, requiring a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
    • Criticism: Rarely used due to political consensus issues (e.g., only one impeachment motion against Justice V. Ramaswami in 1993 failed).
    • Defence: Protects judicial independence from executive interference.
  2. In-House Inquiry Procedure:
    • The Supreme Court’s in-house mechanism investigates judicial misconduct but lacks statutory backing.
    • Criticism: Opaque and slow (e.g., Justice Nirmal Yadav’s case took 15 years for acquittal despite evidence).
    • Need for Reform: Legislative backing (as suggested in Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat, 1991) could enhance credibility.
  3. Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010:
    • Proposed measures like disclosure of assets and disciplinary bodies but lapsed.
    • Criticism: Failed to address structural issues (e.g., familial favouritism in appointments).

Transparency in Judicial Inquiries:

  • Recent trends (e.g., video evidence in Justice Varma’s case) show a shift towards transparency.
  • Need for Institutionalization: Regular publication of inquiry reports while safeguarding natural justice.

Role of Executive in Judicial Appointments:

  • Collegium System vs. NJAC Debate:
    • Collegium System: Criticized for opacity (e.g., selective disclosure of appointment rationales under Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s collegium).
    • NJAC (Struck down in Fourth Judges Case, 2015): Proposed executive involvement but was seen as a threat to independence.
  • Way Forward: Balance transparency (publicly reasoned appointments) and independence (limited executive role).

Contempt of Court Laws:

  • Need for Liberalization: Allows constructive criticism but must deter malicious attacks on judiciary.

Conclusion:

While judicial independence is paramount, accountability mechanisms need reforms—legislative backing for in-house inquiries, transparency in misconduct probes, and a balanced appointment process. Strengthening peer reviews and bar association inputs can further enhance accountability without compromising independence.

Previous Years’ Questions (PYQs) Link:

  1. “Judicial independence is a basic feature of the Constitution, but accountability is equally important.” Discuss (GS-II, 2021).
  2. “Examine the challenges in ensuring judicial accountability in India. Suggest reforms.” (GS-II, 2019).
  3. “Critically analyse the collegium system of judicial appointments.” (GS-II, 2017).

Introduction:

Delimitation, as per Articles 82 and 170 of the Constitution, mandates readjustment of constituencies after every census. While grounded in the democratic principle of “one person, one vote,” the upcoming delimitation exercise post-2026 raises serious concerns about regional equity, federalism, and the penalization of States that successfully controlled population growth.

  1. Constitutional and Legal Basis of Delimitation:
  • Article 82: Empowers Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census.
  • Article 170: Relates to delimitation for State Legislative Assemblies.
  • 42nd and 84th Amendments: Froze seat allocation till 2026, recognizing population control efforts and potential imbalance.
  1. The Federalism vs Population Principle Dilemma:
  1. Impact on Southern States:
    • States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh that have achieved demographic stabilization stand to lose relative political influence.
    • States with higher fertility rates may gain more seats, despite lower social development indices.
  2. Cooperative Federalism at Risk:
    • Disproportionate representation could tilt power in favour of populous States, marginalizing developed regions.
    • Violates the spirit of “equal respect and voice” among States.
  3. Quantitative Imbalance:
    • Average population per MP has risen from 7.32 lakh (1951) to ~27 lakh (2024).
    • Some constituencies like Malkajgiri (29.5 lakh) dwarf others like Lakshadweep (57,760 electors), raising questions of equitable representation.

III. Rethinking the Basis of Representation:

  1. Representation Beyond Numbers:
    • Legislatures are primarily law-making bodies; the number of constituents does not necessarily impact representational quality.
    • Surveys don’t conclusively show that smaller constituencies yield better governance.
  2. Alternative Governance Focus:
    • Strengthening the third tier (local bodies) may better address citizens’ day-to-day needs.
    • Role of MPs is more aligned with policy than grievance redressal.
  1. Suggested Alternatives:
  1. TFR-Based Moderation Formula:
    • Use Total Fertility Rate (TFR) as a deflator to offset undue political gain from higher population growth.
    • Prevents penalization of States that promoted population control under national policy.
  2. Weighted Representation or Capped Seats:
    • Assign weightage to MPs’ votes rather than increasing seats.
    • Cap the number of seats per State to ensure reasonable balance.
  3. Bicameral Correction via Rajya Sabha:
    • Strengthen Rajya Sabha’s role to act as a federal equalizer, ensuring equitable State representation regardless of population.
  4. Constitutional Safeguards:
    • Similar to the Finance Commission, periodic review mechanisms can be instituted to adapt representation based on social indicators, development performance, and governance standards.

Conclusion:

The current delimitation framework must evolve to preserve the essence of cooperative federalism while honoring democratic representation. A rigid population-centric formula may inadvertently rupture the federal fabric and penalize progressive States. Hence, a multi-factorial, nuanced formula is essential for sustaining a balanced and equitable Indian democracy.

Relevant Previous Years’ Questions (PYQs):

  1. UPSC CSE Mains 2020 (GS Paper 2):
    “‘Cooperative federalism’ is said to be the base of Indian federalism. In this context, examine the recent trends and suggest measures to enhance cooperative federalism.”
  2. UPSC CSE Mains 2019 (GS Paper 2):
    “Do you think that constitutionally mandated bodies like the Finance Commission and the Delimitation Commission have succeeded in ensuring fairness in representation and resource distribution? Examine.”
  3. UPSC CSE Mains 2015 (GS Paper 2):
    “Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that the Union is indestructible, the States are not. In the light of the statement, explain whether the India Constitution is federal or unitary in nature.”

Introduction:

Term limits for executive leadership have long been debated as instruments of democratic health and accountability. While the U.S. Constitution, through its 22nd Amendment, restricts its Presidents to two elected terms, India’s Parliamentary democracy allows its Prime Minister to serve multiple terms, subject to retaining the confidence of the Lok Sabha. This contrast reflects divergent constitutional philosophies and governance models.

Body:

1. U.S. Presidential System and Term Limits:

  • The 22nd Amendment (1951) was enacted in response to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four terms, ensuring no President is elected more than twice.
  • Designed to prevent authoritarianism and ensure leadership rotation, it limits tenure even for non-consecutive terms.
  • Legal loopholes, such as succession via Speaker of the House, have been discussed but remain speculative and controversial.
  • Even indirect ascension, like through the Vice Presidency, is constitutionally restricted via the 12th Amendment.

2. Global Trends in Extending Tenure:

  • Russia: Vladimir Putin extended his rule through constitutional amendments and role-shifting.
  • Turkey: Erdogan reshaped the system through a referendum, consolidating power.
  • China: Xi Jinping removed term limits entirely in 2018, signaling centralization of authority.
  • Germany/UK/Canada: Leaders like Angela Merkel or UK PMs operate without term limits but remain bound by parliamentary confidence.

3. India’s Parliamentary Context:

  • As per Article 75(3), the Prime Minister holds office during the pleasure of the President, effectively meaning so long as they command a Lok Sabha majority.
  • No constitutional or statutory term limit exists for the PM.
  • Rationale:
    • Ensures parliamentary accountability, not time-based restriction.
    • Reflects voter sovereignty — people can re-elect or reject a leader periodically.
    • Encourages stable leadership in large, diverse democracies.

4. Checks and Balances in Indian System:

  • No-confidence motions have toppled governments (e.g., V.P. Singh in 1990, Vajpayee in 1999).
  • Electoral democracy ensures regular assessment by the people.
  • Judiciary, media, Election Commission, and coalition pressures act as additional constraints.
  • The absence of term limits is offset by institutional safeguards and public accountability.

5. Should India Consider Term Limits?

  • Arguments for:
    • Could prevent personalisation of power and promote internal party democracy.
    • May encourage fresh leadership and innovation.
  • Arguments against:
    • Could undermine democratic choice.
    • Risks destabilizing leadership in the absence of strong party structures.
    • Already moderated by political pluralism, elections, and public discourse.

Way Forward:

India need not mechanically import term limit models but should strengthen internal democracy, ensure transparency in party functioning, and uphold institutional checks. Debates on term limits should be contextual, not merely comparative.

Conclusion:

While term limits suit the Presidential system of the U.S. designed to check concentrated power, India’s parliamentary system relies on accountability to the legislature and electorate. Instead of rigid term limits, India’s focus should remain on upholding democratic institutions, competitive elections, and voter awareness to ensure power remains answerable and rotational.

Previous UPSC Linkages:

  • GS Paper II 2022: “Discuss the role of the Vice President of India in the context of the functioning of the Rajya Sabha.”
  • GS Paper II 2015: “Discuss the significance of the principle of checks and balances in the Indian political system.”

 Introduction

India’s federal structure is facing a critical juncture as the constitutional freeze on delimitation (based on the 1971 Census) expires in 2026. The upcoming delimitation exercise, coupled with financial devolution, has triggered concerns over political representation, especially between demographically divergent states. Southern states, with lower fertility rates, fear losing political weight, while northern states stand to gain due to higher population growth. This debate necessitates a balanced approach to uphold equity and national cohesion.

Key Issues in Delimitation & Financial Devolution

  1. Population vs. Representation Dilemma
    • Historically, Lok Sabha seats increased with population (from 7.3 lakh/seat in 1951 to 10.1 lakh/seat in 1971). Post-2026, projections suggest 20 lakh/seat, disproportionately reducing southern states’ representation.
    • Example: Tamil Nadu (6.7% population) may lose seats to Uttar Pradesh (16.9% population), despite contributing more economically.
  2. Federal Tensions & Regional Disparities
    • Southern states argue that penalizing them for successful demographic transition (lower fertility) is unfair.
    • 15th Finance Commission’s Shift to 2011 Census Data partially addressed this by introducing “demographic performance” (rewarding states with controlled population growth).
  3. Economic & Developmental Inequities
    • Southern states contribute significantly to tax revenues but may receive fewer funds if population remains the sole criterion.
    • Concern: Fiscal devolution may further marginalize high-performing states.
  4. Constitutional & Practical Challenges
    • Article 81 mandates “one person, one vote,” but strict adherence may undermine federal balance.
    • North-East Precedent: Smaller states like Sikkim have protected representation despite low population—should this logic extend to the south?

Way Forward: Balancing Equity & Federalism

  1. Multi-Criteria Delimitation Formula
    • Beyond Population: Include factors like:
      • Demographic Performance (rewarding states for lower fertility).
      • Economic Contribution (GDP, tax share).
      • Population Density (urban vs. rural needs).
    • Example: A hybrid model where 50% weight is given to population, 30% to tax contribution, and 20% to demographic progress.
  2. Cap on Seat Expansion
    • Instead of increasing Lok Sabha seats to 753 (as projected), cap it at 600-650 to prevent overrepresentation of populous states.
    • Rationale: Ensures manageable legislature size while accommodating population growth.
  3. Strengthening the Rajya Sabha’s Role
    • Enhance federal balance by increasing Rajya Sabha’s legislative influence, where states have equal representation.
  4. Constitutional Safeguards
    • Amend Article 81 to incorporate demographic performance in seat allocation.
    • Example: Freeze southern states’ seat share at current levels while allowing incremental increases for northern states.
  5. Consensus-Building & Interstate Dialogue
    • Establish a Delimitation Reform Commission with state representatives to negotiate an equitable formula.
    • Precedent: Similar to the Sarkaria Commission for Centre-State relations.
  6. Financial Devolution Reforms
    • 15th Finance Commission’s “demographic performance” criterion should be expanded to include:
      • Human Development Index (HDI).
      • Environmental sustainability.
      • Gender parity.

Conclusion

The delimitation exercise must not become a zero-sum game between states. A forward-looking approach, incorporating demographic progress, economic contributions, and federal equity, is essential to preserve India’s unity in diversity. By adopting a multi-dimensional criteria-based model, India can ensure fair political representation while incentivizing progressive policies across states.

Introduction:

India’s ambition to transition to sustainable mobility is being actively supported by a range of policy measures including FAME-I & II, the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme for Advanced Chemistry Cells (ACC), and recently the Scheme to Promote Manufacturing of Electric Passenger Cars in India (SPMEPCI) (March 2024). Yet, despite these developments, India lags significantly in indigenous technology development, particularly in battery manufacturing and other core EV technologies. Technology transfer, a crucial element for long-term competitiveness and self-reliance, remains largely unaddressed.

Body:

  1. Overview of Current Policy Measures:
  • SPMEPCI Scheme (2024): Offers 15% concessional duty on imported EVs if manufacturers invest ₹4,150 crore in India and meet 25% domestic value addition (DVA) in 3 years, rising to 50% in 5 years.
  • FAME-II: ₹10,000 crore outlay for 2019–2024 to incentivize adoption of EVs.
  • PLI for ACC (2021): ₹18,100 crore allocated to boost local battery cell manufacturing.
  1. Challenges in India’s EV Strategy:
  1. Delayed Start and Global Lag:
    • India began EV policy push in 2015, five years after China and the US.
    • In 2024, global EV sales were 17 million, of which China alone accounted for 11.3 million, vs India’s modest share (~1%).
  2. Lack of Technology Transfer:
    • Unlike China, which mandated joint ventures for foreign EV firms until 2022, India’s policy doesn’t ensure knowledge spillover.
    • India’s 25% DVA presently repurposes ICE components, without contributing to core battery or motor innovation.
  3. Weak Battery Ecosystem:
    • India lacks upstream supply chains — mining, refining, and cell-level integration.
    • Overdependence on imports undermines long-term self-reliance.
  4. Inadequate Charging Infrastructure:
    • China has over 1 million public chargers; India is significantly behind.

Way Forward:

  • Mandate Joint Ventures (JV):
    • Replicate China’s model to require technology-sharing JVs for foreign EV firms to access benefits.
  • Strengthen R&D Investment:
    • Allocate part of the SPMEPCI and PLI funds to Indian R&D institutions for battery chemistry innovation (e.g., Sodium-ion, Solid-state).
  • Strategic Mineral Access:
    • Secure Lithium, Cobalt assets abroad and boost domestic exploration under KABIL (Khanij Bidesh India Ltd).
  • Build Battery Recycling Ecosystem:
    • Introduce standards and incentives for battery circular economy to reduce raw material dependency.
  • Expand EV Charging Infrastructure:
    • Integrate with public transport and urban planning; promote swapping stations for two- and three-wheelers.

Conclusion:

India’s EV transition has moved in the right direction, but without deep localisation of core technologies, it risks becoming a mere assembly hub. Strategic policy shifts toward technology transfer, battery ecosystem development, and JV mandates are essential to ensure India’s competitive and sustainable participation in the global EV revolution.

Link to UPSC Syllabus:

  • GS-III (Economic Development): Industrial Policy; Infrastructure; Effects of Liberalization on the Economy.
  • GS-III (Environment): Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation.
  • GS-III (Science & Tech): Developments and their applications and effects in everyday life.

Relevant Previous Year Questions (PYQs):

  • GS-III (2022): “What are the key features of the National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP) and FAME schemes?”
  • GS-III (2020): “What are the challenges in achieving electric mobility in India? Suggest solutions with examples.”
  • GS-III (2019): “‘Electric vehicles are the future of mobility in India.’ Critically examine.”

Introduction:

Delimitation refers to the redrawing of boundaries of electoral constituencies based on population data, aimed at ensuring proportional representation. As per Articles 81 and 170 of the Constitution and the 84th Constitutional Amendment (2002), the current freeze on delimitation is set to end after the first Census conducted post-2026. With the 2027 Census now scheduled, this exercise may significantly alter the distribution of Lok Sabha seats—a development that has triggered apprehension among southern states like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka.

Body:

  1. Concerns of Southern States:
  1. Demographic Efficiency vs Political Penalty:
    • Southern states have successfully controlled population growth through better health and education interventions.
    • A population-based seat allocation may reduce their parliamentary representation, penalizing them for good governance.
  2. Regional Imbalance in Representation:
    • Hindi-speaking states with high population growth (e.g., Uttar Pradesh, Bihar) may gain disproportionately, affecting federal parity.
  3. Political Timing and Allegations:
    • Delays in the Census and the proposed timeline for delimitation (before 2029 General Elections) have raised allegations of political manipulation.
  1. Constitutional and Legal Context:
  • The 42nd Amendment (1976) froze seat allocation based on 1971 data until 2000, extended to 2026 by the 84th Amendment.
  • After 2026, Delimitation Commission may be formed to redistribute seats using the latest Census (2027).

III. Government Response:

  • MHA clarified that all stakeholders will be consulted, and the concerns of southern states will be addressed.
  • Postponement of Census to 2027 attributed to COVID-19 disruptions and dependence on school teachers as enumerators.

Way Forward:

  1. Balanced Criteria for Delimitation:
    • Consider factors beyond population such as Human Development Index, urbanization, and resource contribution.
  2. Parliamentary Reforms:
    • Increase total number of Lok Sabha seats without reducing existing quotas to maintain political equity.
  3. Stakeholder Consultations:
    • Create a Delimitation Dialogue Forum under Inter-State Council for consensus building.
  4. Data Quality Assurance:
    • Ensure transparent digital enumeration and data protection for the 2027 Census to avoid manipulation.
  5. Reform of Representation System:
    • Evaluate the feasibility of proportional representation or weighted voting systems to address emerging disparities.

Conclusion:

Delimitation is essential for representative democracy, but it must not erode federal trust and cooperative governance. A nuanced approach that balances demographic realities with developmental equity is vital for sustaining national unity and democratic integrity in a diverse polity like India.

Syllabus Mapping:

  • GS Paper II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States; Federalism; Representation of People’s Act
  • GS Paper I (Society): Population and associated issues

Previous Year Questions Linkage:

  • UPSC GS II 2020: “Cooperative federalism is the need of the hour.” Discuss with suitable examples.
  • UPSC GS II 2019: Discuss the role of the Delimitation Commission in India.
  • UPSC GS II 2013: Discuss the impact of regional disparities on the federal structure of India.

Introduction:

The position of Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the second-highest constitutional office in the Lower House of Parliament, has remained vacant for two consecutive Lok Sabha terms (2014–2019 and 2019–2024). Recently, Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi (June 2025), urging the government to initiate the election process ahead of the Monsoon Session. This prolonged vacancy challenges both constitutional provisions and parliamentary conventions central to India’s democratic framework.

Body:

  1. Constitutional Mandate:
  • Article 93 of the Constitution states: “The House of the People shall, as soon as may be, choose two members to be respectively Speaker and Deputy Speaker…”
  • While it does not prescribe a timeframe, the phrase “as soon as may be” implies urgency and continuity in filling the post.
  1. Parliamentary Conventions:
  • Traditionally, the Deputy Speaker is elected in the second or third session after a new Lok Sabha is constituted.
  • The post has usually gone to a member of the principal opposition party, enabling a balance in the presiding roles and reinforcing bipartisan trust in parliamentary functioning.

III. Historical Precedent:

  • From the 1st to the 16th Lok Sabha, every House had a Deputy Speaker.
  • The 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024) and 18th Lok Sabha (post-2024 elections) are the first in Independent India’s history without an elected Deputy Speaker.
  1. Implications of Vacancy:
  1. Undermining Democratic Balance:
    • The Speaker is often from the ruling party; the absence of a Deputy Speaker denies the opposition a crucial institutional role.
  2. Parliamentary Deadlock Risk:
    • In the Speaker’s absence, the Deputy Speaker presides. A vacant post risks procedural delays or politicized appointments ad hoc.
  3. Judicial Scrutiny Potential:
    • Though courts have upheld legislative autonomy in internal proceedings (e.g., Kihoto Hollohan case, 1992), prolonged vacancies could invite public interest litigation questioning constitutional compliance.
  4. Global Democratic Standards:
    • Most parliamentary democracies, including the UK, have codified timeframes or structured practices to fill presiding officer posts promptly.

Way Forward:

  1. Codify a Time Limit:
    • Amend the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business to mandate election within 30–60 days of constitution of Lok Sabha.
  2. Bipartisan Agreement:
    • Institutionalize a cross-party consultation mechanism to nominate the Deputy Speaker.
  3. Empowering Parliamentary Committees:
    • The Rules Committee and Committee on Privileges should review and recommend timelines to uphold procedural sanctity.
  4. Public Accountability:
    • Civil society and parliamentary watch bodies (e.g., PRS Legislative Research) must flag such deviations and build public pressure for corrective action.

Conclusion:

The office of the Deputy Speaker is not a ceremonial formality but a constitutional necessity to ensure continuity, impartiality, and balance in Lok Sabha proceedings. Its continued vacancy reflects a concerning disregard for constitutional conventions. As India celebrates the deepening of democracy, reaffirming commitment to institutional integrity is vital. Prompt election and restoration of this office will restore faith in parliamentary norms and uphold the spirit of the Constitution.

Syllabus Mapping:

  • GS Paper II – Indian Constitution: Structure, functioning of Parliament, and issues and challenges
  • GS Paper II – Role of opposition, democratic institutions, and constitutional posts

Previous Years’ Question Linkages:

  • 2021 GS II: “Discuss the role of the presiding officers of state legislatures in maintaining the order and impartiality in conducting house business.”
  • 2018 GS II: “Whether the Supreme Court judgment (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lieutenant Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.”
  • 2015 GS II: “Discuss the power of the Speaker and the importance of his neutrality in conducting parliamentary business.”

For Enquiries Call Us - 9310364056

AURA IAS ACADEMY

  • Pillar No: 36, RTC X Roads, Ashok Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana.
Facebook Youtube Instagram Telegram

Quick Links

Courses

Start Your UPSC Journey with Aura IAS

At Aura IAS Academy, we believe every aspirant has the potential to achieve greatness with the right support and direction.

© 2025 Aura IAS Academy. All Rights Reserved by Aura IAS Academy