💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Anti-paper-leak law amended amid exam-integrity protests

    Why in the News

    The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to strengthen the 2024 law against organised cheating and examination paper leaks amid concerns over NEET and recruitment examination irregularities.

    What is the Public Examination Act, 2024?

    1. Objective: Criminalises organised cheating, paper leaks, impersonation and other unfair means.
    2. Coverage: Applies to major public examinations conducted by bodies such as UPSC, SSC and NTA.
    3. Penalties: Provides imprisonment and heavy fines for organised examination malpractice.
    4. Focus: Targets organised networks rather than genuine candidate errors.

    Why was it amended?

    • Exam-leak crisis: Repeated paper leaks and irregularities exposed weaknesses in examination governance.
    • Enforcement gaps: Strengthening was considered necessary after experience with the 2024 framework.
    • Public trust: Fair examinations are essential for merit-based recruitment and equal opportunity.

    What does the crisis reveal?

    • Aspiration-opportunity gap: Large numbers of candidates compete for limited government jobs.
    • Institutional trust deficit: Repeated leaks undermine confidence in recruitment institutions.
    • Governance challenge: Legal punishment alone cannot ensure examination integrity without secure technology, accountable agencies and speedy investigation.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Act: Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
    • Ministry/Department: Department of Personnel and Training
    • Targets: Organised cheating, paper leaks and impersonation
    • Important distinction: The Act does not automatically cover all university or State board examinations unless the concerned government adopts the framework.

    “[2024, GS2, 15] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • Parliament curbs states’ power to tax minerals

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. It bars states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights except on terms set by the Centre, reopening a fiscal federalism dispute.

    What does the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 do?

    1. Levy restriction: States cannot impose specified taxes on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land except as the Centre prescribes.
    2. Dues extinguished: Pre-amendment dues estimated near 2 lakh crore rupees stand extinguished.
    3. Scope: The Bill applies to major minerals such as iron ore, coal, bauxite, manganese, and copper.

    Why is this a fiscal federalism flashpoint?

    1. 2024 ruling reversed in effect: The Supreme Court in 2024 upheld states’ power to tax mineral rights, which the Bill now constrains.
    2. Revenue dependence: Mining was 84.9% of Jharkhand’s non-tax revenue in 2024-25.
    3. Mineral-rich states hit: States holding large mineral reserves lose an expected revenue stream.

    What is the Centre’s justification?

    1. Uniform rates: The government argues uniform mineral rates prevent a patchwork of state levies.
    2. No revenue loss claim: The Centre states that states retain powers over minor minerals.
    3. Investment climate: Predictable levies are framed as protecting mining-sector investment.

    What are the major debates surrounding it?

    1. Tax versus royalty: The dispute turns on whether a levy on minerals is a tax or a royalty, which the 2024 ruling addressed.
    2. Tribal concerns: Mineral belts overlap with Scheduled Areas, raising questions of local benefit-sharing.
    3. Divisible resource control: Centralising mineral levies shifts fiscal power toward the Union.

    Conclusion

    The amendment centralises control over mineral taxation soon after the Supreme Court affirmed states’ taxing power. The immediate stage is enactment, with a likely constitutional challenge the next development.

    Back2Basics

    Constitutional Framework Governing mineral taxation

    1. Entry 50, State List: Taxes on mineral rights, subject to Parliament’s limitations relating to mineral development.
    2. Entry 54, Union List: Regulation of mines and mineral development declared expedient in public interest.
    3. Article 246: Distributes legislative power between Union and states via the Seventh Schedule.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in 2024?

    The Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL judgment is the constitutional backdrop to the 2026 amendment. The 9-judge Constitution Bench, by 8:1 majority, held that royalty is not a tax and that States have legislative competence to tax mineral rights under Entry 50, State List. It also recognised the States’ power to tax mineral-bearing land under Entry 49, State List.

    • Royalty ≠ Tax: Royalty paid under the MMDR Act is consideration for the right to extract minerals and is distinct from a tax.
    • State Taxing Power: States can impose taxes on mineral rights under Entry 50, List II, subject to limitations imposed by Parliament.
    • Mineral-Bearing Land: States can also levy taxes on land under Entry 49, List II.
    • MMDR Limitation: The Court held that the MMDR Act, as it then stood, did not impose a limitation on the States’ taxing power.

    Why is the 2026 Amendment significant?

    The 2026 amendment seeks to alter this position prospectively by restricting State taxation of mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, except in accordance with conditions or restrictions prescribed by the Centre

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2025] Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?

    Linkage: The 2025 PYQ examines the evolution of Centre–State financial relations and their impact on fiscal federalism. The Bill raises fresh concerns over the Union’s role in restricting States’ mineral revenue powers and fiscal autonomy.

  • Parliament passes National Co-operative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in the News?

    Parliament passed the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, enabling the NCDC to provide loans and grants directly to cooperative societies.

    What is NCDC?

    • NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation) is a statutory corporation established under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962.
    • Functions under the Ministry of Cooperation.
    • Promotes and finances cooperatives involved in production, processing, marketing, storage and trade of agricultural and allied produce.

    What does the Amendment Change?

    • Direct lending: NCDC can directly provide loans and grants to cooperative societies.
    • Wider coverage: Definition of foodstuffs expanded to include processed food and other food items notified by the Centre.
    • No additional budgetary outlay: The Bill does not provide for additional government financial assistance.

    Why is it Needed?

    • Faster flow of credit by removing intermediary delays.
    • Supports over 8 lakh cooperatives with more than 30 crore members.
    • Extends cooperative financing into value added food chains.

    Why are States Concerned?

    • Cooperation is largely a State subject.
    • Direct central lending may bypass State governments and registrars.
    • Raises concerns about cooperative federalism and centralisation.

    Key Challenges

    • Financial weakness and poor governance of PACS (Primary Agricultural Credit Societies).
    • Dual regulatory control.
    • Regional concentration of cooperatives.
    • Delayed elections and audits.
    • Limited professional management.
    • Centre State friction.

    Constitutional Framework

    • Entry 32, State List: Incorporation and regulation of cooperative societies within a State.
    • Article 43B: Promotes voluntary formation and autonomous functioning of cooperatives.
    • Part IXB, Articles 243ZH to 243ZT: Constitutional provisions on cooperatives.
    • Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: Governs cooperatives operating across multiple States.

  • India examines the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement binding Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan

    Why in the news?

    Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, a trilateral mutual defence pact that borrows the collective security logic of Article 5 of the NATO charter. The signing exposes a central question for New Delhi: whether the pact gives Pakistan a shield to escalate against India, or whether it is a loose instrument of strategic hedging without the integration of a real military alliance. India’s foreign ministry says it is tracking the situation carefully.

    What is the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement?

    1. About: A mutual defence pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, signed in 2026, that treats an armed attack on any one member as an attack on all.
    2. Design borrowing: It borrows elements of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) charter, including its collective security clause, marking a shift away from the US security umbrella toward regional self-reliance.

    What is Article 5 of the NATO charter?

    1. Collective defence clause: It commits every member to treat an armed attack against one member as an attack against all, and to assist in response.
    2. Why it matters here: The Mecca pact replicates this trigger among three states, which raises the question of how Turkey reconciles it with its existing NATO obligations.

    What is Operation Sindoor?

    1. About: An Indian military operation against terror infrastructure that serves as the reference case for how the three signatories behaved during an India-Pakistan confrontation.
    2. Behaviour observed: Turkey provided Pakistan diplomatic and rhetorical support and sold drones, but stopped short of tangible military assistance, and Saudi Arabia stayed silent.

    What are the three power centres the pact combines?

    1. Pakistan: A declared South Asian nuclear power contributing a powerful conventional military and a functional nuclear arsenal, though it is unclear whether Islamabad has offered a nuclear umbrella.
    2. Saudi Arabia: Provides political and financial clout as leader of the Sunni world and controller of one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
    3. Turkey: The successor of the Ottoman Empire, contributing a powerful military, NATO operational experience, and a highly capable defence industry.
    4. Stated adversaries: The unstated targets are Iran, leader of the Shia world with proxies including Hezbollah and Hamas across Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and Israel, an intelligence powerhouse and undeclared nuclear power.

    What is the pattern of prior cooperation among the three?

    1. Bilateral base: Pakistan has provided military training and technical assistance to Saudi Arabian forces for decades.
    2. September 2025 pact: Riyadh and Islamabad signed a bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, which evolved into the trilateral Mecca Agreement with Ankara’s participation.
    3. Force deployment: Pakistan deployed some 8,000 troops, a squadron of JF-17 fighter aircraft, drones, and HQ-9 air defence systems to Saudi Arabia.
    4. Financial and naval ties: Riyadh has repeatedly provided financial bailouts to Islamabad, and Turkey and Pakistan have exchanged warships and training aircraft.

    Why does the pact worry India directly?

    1. Cold War precedent: Pakistan has a long record of hitching its wagon to pacts to oblige Western powers and gain geopolitical advantage against India, joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 to secure advanced weaponry for its struggle over Jammu and Kashmir.
    2. Global South rivalry: Saudi Arabia and Turkey are seen as piggybacking on Pakistan to seek a bigger strategic role in Asia and to challenge India’s ambition to lead the Global South.
    3. Forum coordination: The bloc can coordinate positions in international forums such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on issues including Kashmir and maritime security.
    4. Technology integration: Turkish defence industry output, funded by Saudi capital and deployed in Pakistan, can enhance Rawalpindi’s capabilities in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), electronic warfare, and naval platforms.

    Is this an “Islamic NATO” or strategic hedging? (the central tension)

    1. Case against alarm: Calling it an Islamic NATO is premature because NATO’s efficacy relies on a unified command, pre-assigned forces, and deep interoperability, while the Mecca pact lacks an integrated military headquarters, joint command mechanisms, and institutionalised doctrine.
    2. Divergent priorities: Saudi Arabia is focused on hedging against Iran and Houthi threats, Turkey on defence exports and Islamic-world leadership, and Pakistan on economic bailouts and leverage against India.
    3. Legal limit on the trigger: Mutual defence treaties apply strictly to unprovoked external aggression, so Indian counter-terrorism strikes against Pakistani terror infrastructure do not constitute a treaty trigger.
    4. Saudi restraint: Riyadh’s relationship with New Delhi has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar strategic partnership spanning energy, trade, and intelligence, and the Saudi Crown Prince has no interest in being dragged into a South Asian military conflict.

    How could the interlocking alliances backfire?

    1. World War I analogy: A matrix of interlocking military alliances of exactly this kind triggered World War I, and repeating that blunder would be a serious risk.
    2. Unreconciled obligations: If Israel strikes a Saudi facility and Turkey responds under the Mecca pact, it is unclear whether the 32 NATO countries would be treaty-bound to support Turkey.
    3. Operational hedging: Saudi Arabia’s passivity when Pakistan clashed with Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s non-involvement when Saudi Arabia faced Iranian and Houthi strikes, show these pacts often pair political rhetoric with operational hedging.

    How has the military balance on India’s borders shifted?

    1. Strike corps repurposed: The Indian Army converted a 60,000-strong strike corps configured for the India-Pakistan border into a mountain strike corps for the China border.
    2. Divisions reassigned: Two mountain divisions raised over the last two decades were assigned entirely to the China border.
    3. Earmarking change: Where 70 per cent of the Indian Army was once earmarked for the Pakistan border, only about 55 per cent is today.

    What should India’s calibrated response be?

    1. Discreet engagement: Engage Saudi Arabia candidly through high-level channels to secure assurances that the pact’s defensive clauses apply only to the West Asian theatre and cannot be weaponised by Pakistan.
    2. Firm deterrence: Maintain a firm deterrence doctrine so that Indian responses to state-sponsored terrorism remain resolute and unaffected by third-party arrangements.
    3. Gulf partnerships: Double down on bilateral economic, trade, and strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the broader Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
    4. Technology watch: Monitor Turkey-Pakistan military-industrial co-development and prioritise indigenous research to neutralise advanced drones, electronic warfare, and naval platforms.
    5. Procurement reform: Fast-track defence procurement, which has been slowed by bureaucratic caution since the Bofors scandal.

    Conclusion

    The Mecca Agreement is best understood less as a binding warfighting alliance and more as an instrument of strategic hedging for a volatile region, fusing Saudi capital, Turkish technology, and Pakistani manpower into a collective deterrence shield. The central idea is that its danger to India lies not in an immediate collective-defence trigger but in the technology integration and diplomatic bloc it creates. A pragmatic Indian strategy combines firm counter-terrorism deterrence, deep economic engagement in the Gulf, and targeted defence innovation at home.

    West Asian Security Architecture: About

    1. US umbrella in retreat: The United States has signalled limits on its security guarantees to West Asian allies, prompting states to seek self-reliance.
    2. Israeli posture: Israel has demonstrated through its bombing of Iran-linked targets that it will accept no restraints on its perceived security interests.
    3. Realignment: Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad have come together in response, marking a shift away from dependence on Washington.

    Back2Basics: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

    1. Convening body: An intergovernmental organisation of Muslim-majority states that coordinates political and economic positions.
    2. Relevance: The Mecca bloc can use the OIC to coordinate positions on issues including Kashmir.
    3. India’s stance: India is not a member and has consistently rejected OIC pronouncements on Kashmir as interference in internal affairs.

    Challenges for India from the pact

    1. Diplomatic bloc formation: A formal political grouping can coordinate against Indian interests at the UN and OIC.
    2. Capability transfer: Turkish drone, electronic warfare, and naval technology reaching Pakistan raises the conventional threat.
    3. Two-front pressure: Deeper Pakistan alignments complicate India’s management of simultaneous China and Pakistan borders.
    4. Gulf balancing: India must protect its expanding Saudi and Gulf partnerships without endorsing the pact.
    5. Escalation ambiguity: Uncertainty over how the collective clause would be read in a crisis raises the risk of miscalculation.

    Way Forward

    1. Bilateral reassurance: Secure written or channelled Saudi and Emirati assurances that the pact excludes India-Pakistan sub-conventional conflict.
    2. Deterrence signalling: Communicate that counter-terror responses will remain resolute and unlinked to third-party pacts.
    3. Indigenous capability: Accelerate counter-drone, electronic warfare, and naval research, seeking foreign partners ahead in these fields.
    4. Economic anchoring: Deepen Gulf trade and energy ties to make India indispensable to Riyadh’s long-term economic vision.
    5. Procurement speed: Streamline defence acquisition to close capability gaps quickly.

    “[2023 GS2 15m] ‘The expansion and strengthening of NATO and a stronger US-Europe strategic partnership works well in India.’ What is your opinion about this statement? Give reasons and examples to support your answer.”

  • Parliamentary panel questions govt on de-dollarisation agenda for the 18th BRICS Summit

    Members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs have asked the government whether it will push a de-dollarisation agenda at the 18th BRICS Summit, which New Delhi hosts in September 2026. The question exposes a tension between the pursuit of greater financial sovereignty and the risk of provoking US retaliation. India holds the rotating chairship of BRICS through 2026, which makes the host nation’s posture on the dollar a live diplomatic choice rather than an abstract one.

    What is de-dollarisation?

    1. About: De-dollarisation is a deliberate reduction in the use of the US dollar for international trade invoicing, cross-border settlement, and foreign exchange reserves.
    2. Mechanism: Countries settle bilateral trade in their own national currencies or through a shared settlement arrangement, bypassing dollar clearing and dollar-denominated payment channels.

    What is BRICS?

    1. About: BRICS is an intergovernmental grouping originally of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, later expanded to admit new members, that coordinates positions on trade, finance, and reform of global governance.
    2. Chairship: The chairship rotates annually among members, and India assumed it on 1 January 2026 and leads the bloc until the end of the year.

    What is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)?

    1. About: A CBDC is a digital form of a country’s sovereign currency issued and backed by its central bank, distinct from private cryptocurrencies.
    2. Relevance here: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has repeatedly advocated linking the official digital currencies of BRICS countries to facilitate cross-border trade and tourism payments.

    Why is the parliamentary panel pressing the government?

    1. Direct question posed: The panel asked whether the government plans to push a de-dollarisation agenda at the summit New Delhi hosts in September.
    2. Financial sovereignty framing: Members questioned why the government was not pursuing greater financial sovereignty that could help countries bypass US sanctions.
    3. Host-nation leverage: They sought to know whether India, as the host nation, would push a BRICS-led de-dollarisation agenda.
    4. Stalled precedent cited: Members noted that India’s effort to establish a local currency trade mechanism with Russia had not taken off.

    What is the case for reducing dollar reliance?

    1. RBI framework: The central bank has argued that linking BRICS digital currencies could reduce reliance on the US dollar amid rising geopolitical tensions.
    2. Sanctions insulation: A shared settlement mechanism would let member economies transact even when cut off from dollar clearing systems.
    3. Payment efficiency: Direct local currency settlement lowers conversion costs in cross-border trade and tourism payments.

    Why does a de-dollarisation push carry risks?

    1. US retaliation threat: The US President has repeatedly warned BRICS countries against creating an alternative currency or challenging the dollar’s dominance, threatening punitive tariffs.
    2. Weak internal record: India’s own local currency trade mechanism with Russia has not taken off, exposing the practical difficulty of moving away from the dollar.
    3. Host-nation exposure: As chair and host, a visible Indian push would identify New Delhi with the agenda and concentrate any retaliatory response on it.

    Conclusion

    The panel has flagged the gap between the RBI’s advocacy for a BRICS payments architecture and the government’s caution on committing to de-dollarisation. The immediate status is that the government has not confirmed whether it will table the agenda. The next milestone is the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi in September 2026, where India’s posture as chair will become clear.

    About BRICS

    1. Origin: The term BRIC was coined in 2001, the first leaders’ summit was held in 2009, and South Africa joined in 2010 to make it BRICS.
    2. Expansion: The bloc admitted new members from 2024 onward, widening its economic and geographic weight.
    3. Institutions: BRICS created the New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai, and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to provide financing and liquidity support.
    4. Weight: The grouping represents a large share of the world’s population and a substantial share of global output, giving it standing in debates over multilateral reform.

    Back2Basics: New Development Bank (NDB)

    1. Convening body: Established by BRICS members to fund infrastructure and sustainable development projects.
    2. Headquarters: Shanghai, China.
    3. Function: Lends to member and partner economies, part of the bloc’s push to build financial institutions parallel to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

    “[2025] Consider the following statements with regard to BRICS:

    I. The 16th BRICS Summit was held under the Chairship of Russia in Kazan.

    II. Indonesia has become a full member of BRICS.

    III. The theme of the 16th BRICS Summit was Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) I and II

    (b) II and III

    (c) I and III

    (d) I only

  • Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls; Telangana Congress warns 73 lakh voters face removal

    Why in the news?

    The Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee urged the Election Commission to re verify the 73 lakh voters proposed for deletion under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the State. The controversy has exposed a tension between an inclusion driven history of the franchise and a revision that critics say works on a presumption of exclusion. The draft voters’ list is due on 17 August.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

    1. Definition: The Special Intensive Revision is an exercise by the Election Commission to intensively update and verify electoral rolls, involving field verification of existing electors.
    2. Deletion mechanism: Electors flagged as ineligible or unverified are proposed for deletion and published in a draft roll for objection.
    3. Onus on the elector: The revision requires electors to establish continued eligibility, which critics read as a presumption of exclusion.

    What is the Election Commission of India?

    1. Constitutional authority: The Election Commission of India is the constitutional body under Article 324 responsible for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.
    2. Composition: It presently functions as a multi member body of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
    3. Roll preparation: It prepares and periodically revises the electoral rolls on which the franchise depends.

    What is the current status of the franchise and roll revision in India?

    1. Universal adult franchise: Every citizen aged 18 and above is entitled to be registered as a voter, an entitlement extended from age 21 originally.
    2. Historical inclusion drive: In the first election of 1952 the Commission worked to register 80 million eligible women, though 2.8 million were struck off for refusing to be recorded by name rather than as the wife or daughter of a man.
    3. Gender gap closed: The gender gap in voting closed by 2019, marking the maturation of electoral equality into lived equality.
    4. Draft roll timeline: In Telangana the draft roll is scheduled for 17 August, with 73 lakh electors proposed for deletion under the SIR.

    Constitutional provisions related to elections and the electoral roll:

    1. Article 324: Vests superintendence, direction and control of elections and roll preparation in the Election Commission.
    2. Article 325: Bars exclusion from the electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex, and provides one general roll for every constituency.
    3. Article 326: Establishes elections to the House of the People and State Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage.
    4. Article 327: Empowers Parliament to make provision on all matters relating to elections, including preparation of electoral rolls.

    What are the concerns raised in Telangana?

    1. Scale of proposed deletion: The Telangana Congress flagged 73 lakh voters proposed for deletion and sought detailed re verification before any removal.
    2. Genuine electors at risk: It maintained that genuine electors should not be removed without thorough scrutiny.
    3. Opportunity to establish eligibility: It demanded that every genuine voter be given a chance to establish eligibility before deletion.
    4. Draft roll deadline pressure: With the draft list due on 17 August, the window to correct wrongful deletions is compressed.

    Why does the revision reopen the inclusion versus exclusion tension?

    1. Presumption of exclusion: The current SIR appears to work on the presumption of exclusion, in contrast to the 1952 drive that worked to include the eligible.
    2. Own name weaponised: Ownership of one’s own name, which historically announced gender electoral equality, has been turned against women in online attacks on female protesters.
    3. Gendered doxxing: Women who joined recent protests were doxxed, with names, numbers and addresses uploaded and abuse directed at them.
    4. Paternalistic framing: Public remarks singling out the conduct of women protesters divided the participants along gendered lines while ignoring identical conduct by men.
    5. Erosion of an old promise: The revision and the online abuse together strain the founding promise of equality regardless of gender.

    What are the major debates surrounding electoral roll revision?

    1. Purity versus inclusion: A roll must exclude ineligible entries while not disenfranchising genuine electors, and the SIR is contested on which side it errs.
    2. Burden of proof: Placing the onus on the elector to prove eligibility risks excluding the poor, the mobile and the marginalised.
    3. Timeline adequacy: A compressed objection window after a large proposed deletion raises due process concerns.
    4. Federal and political friction: State units allege that mass deletions fall unevenly, injecting the revision into electoral competition.

    Conclusion: The SIR in Telangana has proposed 73 lakh voters for deletion, and the State Congress has demanded re verification before any removal. The dispute turns on whether the revision presumes inclusion or exclusion of the eligible voter. The draft rolls are due on 17 August, after which the objection and correction process will determine the final deletions.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India

    1. Constitutional basis: Article 324, with the Commission established on 25 January 1950.
    2. Composition: Chief Election Commissioner and such number of Election Commissioners as the President fixes, currently a multi member body.
    3. Tenure and removal: The Chief Election Commissioner is removable only by the process applicable to a Supreme Court judge, securing independence.
    4. Functions: Superintends roll preparation, conducts elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President, and resolves disputes on splits and mergers of recognised parties.
    5. Statutory backing: The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 govern roll preparation and the conduct of elections.

    Way Forward:

    1. Verification before deletion: Require field verification and notice to the elector before any name is struck off.
    2. Accessible appeal: Provide accessible objection and appeal mechanisms with adequate time after the draft roll.
    3. Protect vulnerable electors: Design safeguards so that the poor, migrants and women identified by their own names are not wrongly excluded.
    4. Transparency of criteria: Publish the deletion criteria and category wise data to allow public scrutiny.
    5. Grievance redress: Establish a time bound grievance channel for wrongful deletions before the final roll.

    “[2017] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.

    2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.

    3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 3 only

  • Parliament passes Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026 renaming State Keralam

    Why in the news?

    Parliament passed the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026, renaming the State Keralam and amending the First Schedule of the Constitution. The Rajya Sabha cleared the Bill by voice vote, over two years after the State Assembly unanimously resolved for the change. The measure has surfaced pending name change proposals from other States, including West Bengal’s request to become Bangla.

    How is a State renamed under the Constitution?

    1. Article 3 power: Parliament may by law alter the name of a State, and such a bill can be introduced only on the recommendation of the President.
    2. State legislature reference: The President must refer the bill to the concerned State legislature for its views within a specified period, though those views are not binding.
    3. First Schedule amendment: Renaming requires an amendment to the First Schedule, which lists the States and Union Territories, effected under Article 4 as an ordinary law.

    What is the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026?

    1. Core change: The Bill changes the name of the State from Kerala to Keralam and makes the consequential amendment to the First Schedule.
    2. Origin: It continues the Kerala Assembly’s 2024 resolution urging the Union government to rename the State Keralam.
    3. Passage: The Lok Sabha passed it on Tuesday and the Rajya Sabha by voice vote on Wednesday, with all MPs supporting the rename.

    What is the current status of State name changes in India?

    1. Precedents: Madras became Tamil Nadu, and several States and cities have been renamed over the decades.
    2. Pending proposals: West Bengal’s proposal to become Bangla has been pending for eight years, and members sought renaming of other States, cities and railway stations.
    3. Ordinary majority: A First Schedule amendment for renaming is passed as an ordinary law, not requiring the special majority reserved for other constitutional amendments.
    4. Linguistic basis: Keralam is the Malayalam name of the State, and the change reflects respect for regional language identity.

    Constitutional provisions related to State renaming:

    1. Article 3: Empowers Parliament to form new States and to alter areas, boundaries or names of existing States.
    2. Article 4: Provides that laws under Articles 2 and 3, including consequential First Schedule and Fourth Schedule amendments, are not deemed constitutional amendments under Article 368.
    3. First Schedule: Lists the States and Union Territories and their territories, amended to record the new name.
    4. Article 3 proviso: Requires presidential recommendation and reference to the State legislature before introduction.

    What does the Bill do procedurally?

    1. Amends the First Schedule: Substitutes Keralam for Kerala in the constitutional list of States.
    2. Consequential amendments: Makes the necessary changes so that references in law read as Keralam.
    3. Voice vote clearance: Passed in the Upper House by voice vote with cross party support during the Monsoon Session.

    How does renaming differ from creating or altering a State?

    1. Name only: Renaming changes only the label, leaving territory, boundaries and administrative structure intact.
    2. Same Article, different effect: Article 3 covers both renaming and territorial reorganisation, but renaming carries no boundary or population change.
    3. No special majority: Both are enacted by simple majority under Article 4, unlike amendments under Article 368.

    What are the major debates surrounding State renaming?

    1. Federal courtesy: Members urged that the Union work closely with States and respect regional languages, framing the change within cooperative federalism.
    2. Pending parity: The eight year delay on West Bengal’s Bangla proposal raised the question of consistent and timely treatment of State requests.
    3. Symbolic versus substantive: One member argued the Centre should change its behaviour on disaster funding, not just the name, contrasting symbolic recognition with substantive support.

    Conclusion: Parliament has passed the Kerala (Alteration of Name) Bill, 2026, renaming the State Keralam and amending the First Schedule under Article 3. The change gives effect to the Kerala Assembly’s 2024 resolution and reflects the State’s Malayalam identity. The next step is presidential assent, after which the First Schedule stands amended.

    Back2Basics: First Schedule and States reorganisation

    1. First Schedule: Lists the 28 States and 8 Union Territories with their territorial extents.
    2. States Reorganisation Act, 1956: Reorganised State boundaries largely on linguistic lines, the framework within which Kerala was formed.
    3. Renaming precedents: Madras to Tamil Nadu (1969), Mysore to Karnataka (1973), Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (2007), and Orissa to Odisha (2011).
    4. Process anchor: Article 3 read with Article 4 governs formation, alteration and renaming of States.

  • Supreme Court clarifies scope of police custody under Section 187(2) BNSS

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court held in The State of Andhra Pradesh vs Suda Suresh Veera Venkata Naga Raju that Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 enlarges the window during which police custody may be sought. The ruling has exposed the difference between the new code and the old regime, under which police custody was confined to the first 15 days of remand alone. Police custody is now available in parts, though in aggregate not exceeding 15 days, during the first 40 or 60 days of detention.

    What is Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?

    1. Governing provision: Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), the criminal procedure code that replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, governs the detention of an accused when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours.
    2. Enlarged window: Under Section 187(2), a magistrate may authorise detention not exceeding 15 days in the whole, or in parts, at any time during the initial 40 days or 60 days of a total detention period of 60 or 90 days.

    What is default bail?

    1. Definition: Where investigation is not completed within the stipulated period, the accused becomes entitled to release, widely known as default bail.
    2. Time limits under Section 187(3): Judicial detention may extend up to 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of 10 years or more, and up to 60 days for any other offence.

    What is the current status of pre-trial custody rights in India?

    1. Twenty four hour rule: Section 58 of the BNSS provides that a person arrested without warrant cannot be detained beyond 24 hours without a magistrate’s authorisation under Section 187.
    2. Fifteen day cap on police custody: Police custody remains capped at 15 days in aggregate, but may now be spread across the early investigation period rather than the first 15 days alone.
    3. Right to counsel: Section 38 of the BNSS entitles an arrested person to meet an advocate of choice during interrogation, though not throughout interrogation.
    4. Recording safeguard: Audio visual recording of the actual interrogation and of any discovery or recovery satisfies the transparency requirement.

    Constitutional provisions related to arrest and detention:

    1. Article 22(1): Guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of arrest and to consult a legal practitioner of choice.
    2. Article 22(2): Requires production before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
    3. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, permitting deprivation only by a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law.
    4. Article 20(3): Protects against self incrimination, relevant to the presence of counsel during interrogation.

    What did the Supreme Court hold?

    1. No absolute outer limit: A magistrate cannot place an absolute and non extendable outer limit on custody, since such a limit forecloses recourse to Section 187(2) of the BNSS.
    2. Purpose of the change: The enlarged window is intended to meet situations where fresh facts, discoveries or leads emerge during the course of investigation.
    3. Additional custody granted: The Court permitted 7 days of additional police custody so that the total police remand would not exceed 15 days.
    4. Facts of the case: In a custodial death case the victim’s body remained untraced, the original CCTV hard disks were yet to be discovered, and recoveries under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam were imminent.

    How does the new remand window differ from the old code?

    1. Old Section 167 CrPC: Detention in police custody could not be granted beyond the initial 15 days in the whole under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    2. Alteration within the window: Even under the old code, during the first 15 days a magistrate could alter custody from judicial to police and back.
    3. New flexibility: Under the BNSS police custody may be sought in parts across the first 40 or 60 days, keeping the aggregate at 15 days.

    What did the Court hold on the presence of an advocate?

    1. Not continuous: Section 38 does not contemplate the continuous, ongoing physical presence of an advocate for the entirety of each interrogation session.
    2. Line of sight: The advocate may remain present within the site of interrogation from where he can see the accused, but not throughout the questioning.
    3. Recording over escort videography: Instead of uninterrupted videography of the accused in transit, audio visual recording of the interrogation and of any recovery meets the requirement.

    What are the major debates surrounding the enlarged custody window?

    1. Liberty versus investigation: Spreading police custody across 40 or 60 days risks repeated custodial spells, weighed against the need to pursue late emerging leads.
    2. Magistrate’s discretion: The ruling limits a magistrate’s power to foreclose future custody, raising the question of how liberty is protected during the extended window.
    3. Counsel access: The line of sight standard for the advocate leaves open how effectively the right against coercion is protected during interrogation.

    Way Forward:

    1. Reasoned remand orders: Require magistrates to record specific reasons linking each spell of police custody to investigative need.
    2. Guard against repeat custody: Frame guidelines to prevent the enlarged window becoming a route to successive custodial spells.
    3. Effective counsel access: Clarify practical standards for an advocate’s presence to protect against coercion.
    4. Mandatory recording compliance: Ensure audio visual recording of interrogation and recovery is uniformly implemented and preserved.
    5. Judicial training: Orient magistrates on the new remand architecture to balance liberty with investigation.

    Conclusion:

    The Court has clarified that police custody under the BNSS is capped at 15 days in aggregate but may be sought in parts through the first 40 or 60 days of investigation, not the first 15 days alone. The ruling reflects the legislative intent to accommodate fresh discoveries during a probe. The interpretation now governs how magistrates authorise and structure police remand under the new code.

    Back2Basics:

    BNSS, BNS and BSA

    1. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as the substantive criminal law.
    2. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governing procedure, arrest, investigation and trial.
    3. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: Replaced the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 governing admissibility of evidence.
    4. Effective date: The three codes came into force on 1 July 2024.
    5. Zero FIR and e-FIR: The BNSS recognises registration of a First Information Report irrespective of jurisdiction and enables electronic reporting.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2026] Which of the following statements about a Zero First Information Report (Zero FIR) under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 is/are correct?

    1. A Zero FIR can be lodged at a police station, even though the place of commission of a cognizable/non-cognizable offence is outside the territorial jurisdiction of that police station. 2. The Officer-in-Charge of the police station where a Zero FIR has been lodged may, with the permission of the competent authority, initiate a preliminary enquiry. 3. Under Zero FIR, it is obligatory for the informant to furnish information electronically.

    (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) 1 only

    Answer: D

  • NCSC to review Union de-reservation proposals of last three years

    The National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) has decided to comprehensively review all proposals from the Centre over the last three years to dereserve government posts. The decision has exposed a running clash between the Commission and Union departments over the practice of filling reserved vacancies as unreserved ones, particularly in promotion vacancies. The Commission holds that such proposals are often incomplete and fail to show alternate efforts to fill reserved posts.

    What is de-reservation?

    1. Definition: De-reservation is the practice of filling a reserved vacancy as an unreserved one, permitted only in exceptional circumstances.
    2. General ban: Department of Personnel and Training rules impose a general ban on dereserving posts, with very specific exceptions.
    3. Direct recruitment exception: A direct recruitment vacancy may be dereserved only where a Group A service vacancy cannot be allowed to remain vacant in public interest.

    What is the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC)?

    1. Constitutional body: The NCSC is a constitutional body established under Article 338 to safeguard the interests of Scheduled Castes against exploitation and to ensure their social, economic and educational advancement.
    2. Composition: It consists of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson and three other members appointed by the President.
    3. Advisory role on de-reservation: Any de-reservation proposal must first be examined by the Commission before it proceeds further.

    What is the current status of reservation in India?

    1. Category wise quotas: Scheduled Castes hold 15 per cent, Scheduled Tribes 7.5 per cent, Other Backward Classes 27 per cent for the non creamy layer, and Economically Weaker Sections 10 per cent.
    2. Ceiling position: The judicially settled ceiling on reservation is 50 per cent, subject to exceptions such as the EWS quota upheld by the Supreme Court.
    3. Promotion reservation: Reservation in promotions for SCs and STs is permitted subject to data on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency.
    4. Backlog and de-reservation: Reserved vacancies that remain unfilled generate a recurring pressure to dereserve, which the Commission is now examining across the last three years.

    Constitutional provisions related to reservation:

    1. Article 338: Establishes the NCSC and empowers it to investigate and monitor safeguards for Scheduled Castes, with the powers of a civil court.
    2. Article 16(4): Enables reservation in appointments for backward classes inadequately represented in state services.
    3. Article 16(4A): Enables reservation in promotions with consequential seniority for SCs and STs inadequately represented.
    4. Article 335: Requires that SC and ST claims be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration.
    5. Article 341: Empowers the President to specify the castes deemed Scheduled Castes for a State or Union Territory.

    Why is the NCSC reviewing de-reservation proposals now?

    1. Recurring incompleteness: The Commission found that de-reservation proposals are often incomplete and do not reveal the alternate efforts made to fill the reserved posts.
    2. Consistent rejection: In four of the five Full Commission meetings held since 2024, de-reservation featured high on the agenda, and none of the proposals was agreed to by the NCSC.
    3. Spread of proposals: Proposals came for posts in public sector undertakings and in the Ministries of Law and of Housing and Urban Affairs, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Central Reserve Police Force and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
    4. Objection window extended: Nudging by the Commission led the Department of Personnel and Training to double the time SC and ST Commissions get to object, from two weeks to one month.
    5. Systemic remedy sought: The June 4 Full Commission meeting resolved to examine recurring issues and formulate recommendations for effective implementation of the reservation policy.

    What is the procedure for de-reservation?

    1. First scrutiny: A proposal is examined first by the National Commissions for SCs, STs or OBCs, whichever is applicable.
    2. Committee of Secretaries: It then goes to a Committee of Secretaries of the concerned Department, the Department of Personnel and Training and the Social Justice Ministry.
    3. Final authority in direct recruitment: The final decision rests with the Minister of Personnel and Training.
    4. Weaker check in promotions: For promotion vacancies, the recruiting Department or Ministry retains the final say even though it must submit a proposal to the National Commissions and the Department of Personnel and Training.
    5. Alternatives suggested: The Commission proposed that departments explore deputation or short term contracts to fill reserved vacancies with eligible SC candidates rather than dereserving them.

    What are the major debates surrounding de-reservation?

    1. Public interest versus social justice: The Group A public interest exception is contested where it is used to bypass the effort to find eligible reserved candidates.
    2. Weak promotion safeguard: The Commission’s objection carries less weight for promotion vacancies, where the recruiting Ministry retains the final say.
    3. Efficiency argument: Departments invoke administrative efficiency under Article 335, while the Commission stresses the mandate to fill reserved posts first.
    4. Data transparency: The dispute turns on whether departments disclose the alternate efforts and backlog data that justify de-reservation.

    Conclusion: The NCSC has decided to review all Union de-reservation proposals of the last three years and to formulate recommendations on their recurring shortcomings. The immediate friction is the Commission’s finding that such proposals hide the alternate efforts made to fill reserved posts. The next step is the Commission’s examination of the flagged proposals and its recommendations to secure effective implementation of the reservation policy.

    Back2Basics: National Commission for Scheduled Castes

    1. Governing provision: Article 338 of the Constitution.
    2. Origin: Created in its present form by the 89th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which bifurcated the earlier combined Commission for SCs and STs.
    3. Composition: Chairperson, Vice Chairperson and three other members appointed by the President by warrant.
    4. Powers: Investigates and monitors safeguards, inquires into specific complaints, and has the powers of a civil court while inquiring.
    5. Reporting: Submits reports to the President, which are laid before Parliament.

    Way Forward:

    1. Mandatory disclosure: Require every de-reservation proposal to attach the record of alternate efforts and the backlog position.
    2. Strengthen promotion check: Give the Commission a binding role in promotion vacancy de-reservation, not merely a consultative one.
    3. Backlog drives: Conduct special recruitment drives to clear reserved vacancy backlogs before considering de-reservation.
    4. Time bound examination: Use the extended one month window to ensure substantive scrutiny rather than lapse by default.
    5. Deputation and contract routes: Institutionalise deputation and short term contracts to keep reserved posts within the reservation policy.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018 GS2 10m] Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.”

  • Inquiry committee finds charges proved against Justice Yashwant Varma; removal under Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968

    Why in the News?

    A three member inquiry committee found all three charges proved against former judge Justice Yashwant Varma over unexplained burnt currency found at his official residence. The key issue is whether Parliament can continue the removal process after his resignation.

    Judicial Removal Process

    Under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968:

    1. Motion: Signed by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members.
    2. Admission: Speaker/Chairman may admit or reject it.
    3. Inquiry Committee: Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court, and Distinguished jurist
    4. Parliamentary approval: Motion must pass in both Houses by:
      • Majority of total membership, and
      • 2/3 of members present and voting
    5. Final removal: President issues the removal order.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 124(4): Removal of Supreme Court judges for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
    • Article 124(5): Parliament can regulate the inquiry procedure.
    • Articles 217 & 218: Apply the removal framework to High Court judges.
    • Article 121: Parliament cannot discuss a judge’s conduct except during a removal motion.

    Varma Inquiry: Three Charges

    1. Unexplained cash: Burnt currency found at his official residence.
    2. Evidence preservation: Failure to preserve the material evidence.
    3. Evasive explanations: Committee found his explanations misleading and unsupported.

    Key Constitutional Issue

    • Removal motion was admitted before his resignation.
    • The law does not expressly clarify whether proceedings can continue after resignation.
    • The issue therefore exposes a legal gap concerning post resignation proceedings and consequences for pension and other benefits.

    “[2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what constitutes “incapacity and proved misbehaviour” of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India.

    3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 (b) 3 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4