💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under POSH Act

    Why in the News?

    A student in Odisha, died by suicide after her sexual harassment complaint was rejected by her college’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), showing the urgent need for stronger grievance systems.

    About Internal Complaints Committee (ICC):

    • Legal Basis: Mandated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
    • Applicability: Mandatory in all organizations with 10 or more employees.
    • Purpose: Provides a redressal mechanism to ensure a safe and dignified workplace for women.
    • Composition:
      • A Presiding Officer who is a senior woman employee.
      • At least two internal members with legal or social expertise.
      • One external member from an NGO or with knowledge of sexual harassment issues.
      • Minimum 50% of ICC members must be women.

    Powers and Functions:

    • Complaint Handling:
      • Accepts complaints within 3 months of the incident.
      • Offers conciliation (on request) or initiates a formal inquiry.
    • Inquiry Process:
      • Holds powers similar to a civil court (summon, evidence collection, sworn statements).
      • Must complete inquiry within 90 days.
    • Confidentiality: Identity of complainant, respondent, witnesses, and proceedings must be kept confidential.
    • Post-Inquiry Actions:
      • Recommends disciplinary action or closure.
      • Employer must act on recommendations within 60 days.
      • Assists in filing FIRs if the complainant seeks criminal action.

    Back2Basics: POSH Act, 2013

    • Full Form: The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
    • Background:
      • Originated from the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) issued by the Supreme Court.
      • Inspired by the Bhanwari Devi case and public pressure after the Nirbhaya case (2012).
    • Constitutional and Global Basis:
      • Upholds gender justice under Article 15.
      • Based on India’s commitment to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979) (ratified in 1993).
    • Key Provisions
      • Workplace Scope: Includes private and public sectors, government offices, NGOs, informal sectors, and domestic work.
      • Definition of Harassment: Covers physical contact, unwelcome advances, sexually coloured remarks, explicit content, and verbal or non-verbal conduct.
      • Mandatory ICC: All organizations with 10+ employees must set up an Internal Complaints Committee.
      • Local Committee: District-level Local Committees must be set up for smaller workplaces or domestic workers.
    • Employer Responsibilities:
      • Conduct awareness sessions and training.
      • Ensure safety and publish the organization’s POSH policy.
    • Timelines:
      • Complaints must be filed within 3 months.
      • Inquiries must be completed within 90 days.
    • Penalties:
      • Fine of up to ₹50,000 for non-compliance.
      • Repeat violations can lead to license cancellation.

     

    [UPSC 2007] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Judge (Inquiry) Bill 2006 contemplates establishing a Judicial Council which will receive complaints against Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices, and Judges.

    2. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman can file a petition before a 1st Class Judicial Magistrate.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2* (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • Healing Manipur Fragile peace demands political actors pursue genuine reconciliation

    Why in the News?

    Recently, President’s Rule in Manipur has been extended by another six months from August 13, 2025, amid an ongoing ethnic conflict between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities.

    What led to the decline in misuse of the President’s Rule?

    • S.R. Bommai Judgment (1994) – Judicial Review Introduced: The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s decision under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. Eg: This judgment set a precedent for checking arbitrary dismissals of State governments.
    • Rise of Coalition Politics and Regional Parties: Since the 1990s, strong regional parties became key players in national coalitions, reducing the Centre’s dominance. Eg: Parties like TDP, DMK, and TMC gained influence during UPA and NDA regimes, deterring misuse.
    • Increased Public Awareness and Media Scrutiny: Growing media vigilance and civil society activism led to public opposition against politically motivated President’s Rule. Eg: Protests and legal action followed the controversial imposition of President’s Rule in Uttarakhand (2016).
    • Strengthening of Federal Values and Political Maturity: A maturing democracy and greater respect for federalism encouraged restraint in using Article 356. Eg: Even in politically complex States like Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra, elected governments were allowed to continue despite crises.
    • Legal and Political Repercussions of Misuse: Judicial reversals and reputational damage have made misuse risky for ruling parties at the Centre. Eg: Arunachal Pradesh (2016) – SC restored the dismissed government, exposing the misuse of President’s Rule.

    Why was President’s Rule extended in Manipur?

    • Continued Ethnic Conflict and Fragile Peace: The deep-rooted ethnic tensions between the Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities remain unresolved. Though violence has reduced, the situation is still fragile, and buffer zones continue to segregate communities.
    • Political Vacuum after Resignation of N. Biren Singh: The resignation of the Chief Minister and collapse of the elected BJP government led to a governance void, necessitating central intervention.
    • Need for Security and Rule of Law: Despite some return of displaced families, the situation requires de-weaponisation and control of militant groups. President’s Rule enables stronger administrative and security measures to restore normalcy.

    What is the background history of the Manipur Crisis?

    • Ethnic Composition and Historical Tensions: Manipur is divided between Meiteis (majority, valley-based) and Kuki-Zo tribes (minority, hill-based). Ethnic fault lines have persisted due to political underrepresentation and land ownership issues.
    • Trigger: Meitei Demand for ST Status: In April 2023, the Manipur High Court asked the state to consider granting Scheduled Tribe (ST) status to Meiteis. Tribal communities opposed it, fearing erosion of constitutional protections in hill areas.
    • Outbreak of Violence – May 2023: The “Tribal Solidarity March” on May 3 turned violent, leading to clashes, displacement, and destruction of homes and churches. Over 60,000 people were displaced and more than 200 killed.
    • Governance Failure and Communal Polarisation: The state government, led by CM N. Biren Singh, was accused of ethnic bias and failure to act impartially. Security forces struggled to maintain order amid growing militia activity and creation of buffer zones.
    • Central Intervention and Stalemate: The Centre imposed President’s Rule in 2024, but a political solution remains elusive. The Kuki-Zo community is now demanding a separate administration, while tensions continue.

    What role should the Centre play in resolving Manipur’s crisis? (Way forward)

    • Foster Political Dialogue and Reconciliation: The Centre must take proactive political initiatives to bridge the ethnic divide and not leave the crisis entirely to bureaucracy and security forces. Eg: A central-led peace process involving both Meitei and Kuki-Zo groups can build trust and prevent hardliner dominance.
    • Ensure Rule of Law and Demilitarisation: Continued action is needed to de-weaponise the region and curb militant groups that promote ethnic violence. Eg: The crackdown on armed groups since President’s Rule helped reduce open violence and enabled the return of displaced families.
    • Support Inclusive Civil Society Engagement: The Centre should empower moderate voices and civil society organisations that seek peace and reconciliation.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023] Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s.

    Linkage: This question directly relates to President’s Rule, which is explicitly mentioned in the Manipur source as being extended due to the severe internal security challenges, despite its general decline since the 1990s due to factors like the S.R. Bommai judgment and the rising influence of regional parties. The Manipur situation is a contemporary example of Article 356’s application in a crisis.

  • [pib] Lokpal of India

    Why in the News?

    The Lokpal of India, India’s central anti-corruption ombudsman, is moving forward to fill 81 approved posts on a deputation basis.

    Historical Context of the Lokpal:

    • Initial Proposal (1966): First proposed by the First Administrative Reforms Commission to tackle high-level corruption.
    • Legislative Failures (1971–2008): Multiple Lokpal Bills introduced in Parliament but none were passed.
    • Jan Lokpal Movement (2011): Nationwide agitation led by Anna Hazare demanded a powerful and independent anti-corruption body, catalyzing public and political support.
    • Enactment of Law (2013): The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was passed in 2013, providing for:
      • A Lokpal at the central level.
      • Lokayuktas in states.
    • Formal Establishment (2014): Lokpal of India was notified on January 16, 2014 under Section 3 of the Act.
    • Initial Functioning: Operated with encadred staff (mostly Central Secretariat Service); became functionally active only in 2019.
    • Organisational Restructuring (2024):
      • Due to rising complaints and staffing gaps, a new Organogram was approved in August–September 2024.
      • The Full Bench of Lokpal, using powers under Section 34, sanctioned 81 deputation posts.
      • These are stop-gap until regular recruitment begins under the upcoming Service Regulations, 2024.

    About Lokpal [vs. Lokayukta, A Comparative Overview]:

    Lokpal (Central) Lokayukta (State)
    Legal Basis Established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 Also mandated under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Section 63); specifics vary by state
    Jurisdiction Covers central public servants, including the Prime Minister (with some exceptions), Ministers, MPs, and officials in Groups A–D Handles cases involving state public servants, such as Chief Ministers, Ministers, MLAs, and state officials
    Appointment Appointed by the President based on recommendations of a Selection Committee (PM, LoP, CJI, jurist) Appointed by the Governor; appointment process defined by state legislation
    Composition Chairperson (former CJI/SC judge/eminent person) + up to 8 members (50% from SC/ST/OBC/Women/Minorities) Composition varies by state; usually includes a Chairperson and members with similar qualifications
    Tenure 5 years or until the age of 70, whichever is earlier Defined by respective state laws
    Salary & Removal Chairperson = salary of CJI;

    Members = salary of SC Judges;

    Removal by President after SC inquiry

    		 Modelled on Lokpal Act; removal by Governor based on state-specific processes
    Powers
    • Investigates corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act
    • Can confiscate illegal assets
    • Can refer cases to CBI
    • Jurisdiction over NGOs receiving significant foreign or govt. funds
    • Submits reports to President, tabled in Parliament
    • Investigates under state anti-corruption laws
    • Can recommend prosecution/disciplinary actions
    • Handles complaints related to state schemes, contracts
    • Submits reports to Governor, tabled in State Legislature
    Recent Institutional Reform
    • In 2024, Lokpal approved a new Organogram and framed Service Regulations, 2024 for structured staffing.
    • As a stopgap, 81 posts are being filled via deputation.
    		 Varies across states; no uniform push for staff standardization as seen at the central level.

     

    [UPSC 2025] Consider the following statements about Lokpal:

    I. The power of Lokpal applies to public servants of India, but not to the Indian public servants posted outside India. II. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a Member of the Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, and only the Chief Justice of India, whether incumbent or retired, has to be its Chairperson. III. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a person of less than forty-five years of age on the date of assuming office. IV. Lokpal cannot inquire into the allegations of corruption against a sitting Prime Minister of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) III only* (b) II and III (c) I and IV (d) None of the above statements is correct

    [2013] ‘A national Lokpal, however strong it may be, cannot resolve the problems of immorality in public affairs’. Discuss.

     

  • [pib] PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PM-VBRY)

    Why in the News?

    The Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme has been officially launched as the PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PM-VBRY), effective from 1st August 2025.

    About PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PM-VBRY):

    • Objective: Promote formal employment and inclusive job creation.
    • Outlay: ₹99,446 crore (Aug 2025 – July 2027).
    • Aim:  3.5 crore new jobs, including 1.92 crore first-time entrants into the workforce.
    • Focus: Expanding EPFO coverage and supporting Viksit Bharat vision.
    • Sectoral Coverage: Open to all sectors, with special focus on manufacturing for long-term growth.

    PM Viksit Bharat Rozgar Yojana (PM-VBRY)

    Key Features:

    1. Incentives for Employees
      • Eligible: First-time EPFO-registered workers earning ≤ ₹1 lakh/month.
      • Benefit: 1-month EPF wage (max ₹15,000) in two parts — after 6 and 12 months.
      • Condition: Completion of a financial literacy programme; Part of the amount is locked in a savings scheme.
    1. Incentives for Employers
      • Applies to: New hires with salary ≤ ₹1 lakh/month.
      • Minimum hires: 2 (if firm <50 employees), 5 (if ≥50).
    • Incentive per employee/month:
      • ₹1,000 (wages ≤ ₹10,000)
      • ₹2,000 (₹10,001–₹20,000)
      • ₹3,000 (₹20,001–₹1 lakh)
    • Manufacturing sector: Extended benefits for 3rd & 4th years.
    1. Payment Mechanism
    • To employees: Direct Benefit Transfer via Aadhaar-based system.
    • To employers: Paid to PAN-linked bank accounts.
    [UPSC 2024] With reference to the Pradhan Mantri Shram Yogi Maan-dhan (PM-SYM) Yojana, consider the following statements:

    1. The entry age group for enrolment in the scheme is 21 to 40 years

    2. Age specific contribution shall be made by the beneficiary

    3. Each subscriber under the scheme shall receive a minimum pension of ₹ 3,000 per month after attaining the age of 60 years

    4. Family pension is applicable to the spouse and unmarried daughters

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

     

  • [25th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The India-U.K. FTA spells a poor deal for public health

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] In a crucial domain like the public healthcare system, the Indian State should play a vital role to contain the adverse impact of marketisation of the system. Suggest some measures through which the State can enhance the reach of public health care at the grassroots level.

    Linkage: The article highlights how tariff-free entry of HFSS products leads to “lower prices” and “aggressive marketing,” posing “grave long-term health risks”. The question’s call for the Indian State to play a “vital role to contain the adverse impact” and suggest measures aligns perfectly in the article’s advocacy for “strong measures to regulate the advertising of HFSS” and “mandatory FOPNL” to protect public health.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  India and the United Kingdom signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on July 24, 2025, during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the UK. While the deal promises economic benefits, it has triggered serious public health concerns due to the likely surge of tariff-free imports of unhealthy, ultra-processed food products from the UK into India.

    Today’s editorial analyses the recently signed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and the United Kingdom. This topic is important for GS Paper II (International Relations) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    India and the United Kingdom recently signed a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to boost bilateral trade, reduce tariffs, enhance market access, and strengthen economic and strategic ties between both nations.

    What are the key provisions of the India–UK FTA?

    • Tariff Reductions on Goods: Reduction or elimination of customs duties on products like textiles, leather, and machinery from India and premium liquor, automobiles, and pharma from the UK.
    • Services Sector Access: Easier market access for Indian professionals (e.g., IT experts, nurses, yoga instructors) and UK financial, legal, and education services.
    • Investment and Regulatory Cooperation: Investor protection clauses and liberalised FDI norms to encourage bilateral investments with predictable regulatory environments.
    • Digital Trade and Intellectual Property Rights: Provisions for secure cross-border data flows, IPR enforcement, and e-commerce facilitation, supporting startups and tech trade.
    • Labour Mobility and Social Security Coordination: Allows short-term professionals to avoid double social security payments, benefiting workers on temporary assignments.

    Why has the FTA triggered health concerns in India?

    • Stricter Intellectual Property (IP) Provisions: The UK is pushing for TRIPS-plus measures such as patent term extensions and data exclusivity, which could delay the entry of generic medicines in India. Eg: Cancer or HIV patients in India may face delayed access to affordable generics if extended patents block local production.
    • Threat to Domestic Pharma Industry: Indian generic manufacturers fear reduced competitiveness due to stricter IP norms, which may raise medicine costs and affect public health schemes. Eg: India’s role as the “pharmacy of the Global South” may weaken, affecting exports to Africa and Latin America.
    • Limited Access to Government Procurement: If the FTA includes government procurement commitments, it may restrict India’s ability to prioritise domestic firmsfor health supplies under public schemes. Eg: Public procurement for schemes like Jan Aushadhi may face restrictions, impacting affordable medicine distribution.

    How does Mexico’s NAFTA experience inform India’s approach to FTAs?

    • Uneven Gains Across Sectors: NAFTA boosted Mexico’s manufacturing exports, especially to the US, but agriculture suffered due to competition from heavily subsidised US farms, displacing small farmers. Eg: India should protect its small-scale agriculture and MSMEs in FTAs to avoid rural distress and job losses.
    • Job Creation Without Security: While NAFTA generated employment in export-driven industries, these jobs were often low-paid, lacked labour rights, and offered poor working conditions. Eg: India must ensure FTAs include labour safeguards and social protection for workers, especially in textiles and electronics.
    • Weak Domestic Supply Chains: Mexico became heavily dependent on foreign inputs and technologies, undermining local value chains and domestic innovation. Eg: India should strengthen its Make in India and Atmanirbhar Bharat efforts by ensuring technology transfer and local sourcing mandates in FTAs.

    What are the regulatory differences between India and the UK on unhealthy food products?

    Aspect India United Kingdom (UK)
    Front-of-Pack Labelling Voluntary system; no mandatory warning labels for high fat/sugar/salt Mandatory traffic light system highlighting fat, sugar, and salt levels
    Advertising to Children Limited restrictions; junk food often advertised during kids’ content Strict regulations on TV and online adstargeting children for junk food
    Nutritional Standards in Schools No uniform enforcement across states; junk food in/near schools persists Banned sale of sugary drinks and high-fat snacks in school premises

    Why is Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling (FOPNL) important post-FTA?

    • Protects Public Health from Imported Junk Food: With the FTA, imports of ultra-processed and unhealthy foods may rise. FOPNL provides clear warnings (e.g., high in sugar, fat, salt) to help consumers make healthier choices. Eg: Chile introduced warning labels, leading to a drop in sugary drink sales by 25%.
    • Empowers Consumers with Informed Choices: Indian consumers often lack nutritional awareness. FOPNL enables them to understand the health risks of packaged foods at a glance, regardless of foreign branding or marketing. Eg: In Brazil, FOPNL helped rural consumers avoid misleading “natural” claims on unhealthy imported snacks.
    • Counters Aggressive Marketing by Foreign Brands: Post-FTA, multinational food companies may flood the Indian market with aggressive marketing. FOPNL acts as a visual deterrent, discouraging overconsumption, especially among children. Eg: In Mexico, FOPNL helped reduce the purchase of snacks targeted at children despite flashy packaging.

    Way forward: 

    • Implement Mandatory Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPNL): The Indian government should finalize and enforce strong, interpretive FOPNL regulations (like warning labels) based on WHO guidelines to help consumers easily identify foods high in salt, sugar, and fat.
    • Strengthen Domestic Food Standards and Surveillance: Ensure alignment between imported and domestic food safety regulations, backed by robust monitoring by FSSAI. This will prevent imported unhealthy products from bypassing scrutiny and harming public health.

  • Clean house: On India’s septic tank desludging

    Why in the News?

    Recently, a social audit tabled in Parliament revealed 150 hazardous cleaning deaths in 2022–23, exposing unsafe outsourcing, poor implementation of safety laws, and inadequate funding under schemes like NAMASTE. Despite Supreme Court orders and successful models in states like Odisha and Tamil Nadu, enforcement and mechanisation remain critically lacking nationwide.

    Why has manual scavenging persisted despite laws and schemes like NAMASTE?

    • Weak Enforcement of Legal Provisions and Court Orders: Despite the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Supreme Court directions to cancel offending contracts and penalise principal employers, enforcement remains minimal. Eg: In 2024, Parliament revealed that 150 workers died in 2022–23 due to hazardous cleaning.
    • Poor Implementation and Underfunding of Schemes: Schemes like NAMASTE are hindered by insufficient financial support, poor outreach, and lack of protective equipment or training. Eg: Of the 57,758 workers involved in hazardous cleaning, only 16,791 received PPE kits, and a mere ₹14 crore had been released under NAMASTE—inadequate for mechanisation in even one major city.
    • Obscured Employer Liability through Subcontracting: The use of contractual and ‘loaned’ labour allows government and private employers to avoid responsibility for worker safety. Eg: A social audit tabled in Parliament found that out of 54 hazardous cleaning deaths, only five workers were on government payroll, while others were ‘loaned’ to private contractors, making accountability unclear.

    How have Odisha and Tamil Nadu offered viable alternatives to manual scavenging?

    • Odisha has ensured identified sanitation workers are equipped with PPE kits and have access to mechanised desludging vehicles, reducing the need for manual entry.
      Eg: Workers now use vacuum trucks for sewer cleaning instead of entering toxic manholes, improving safety and dignity.
    • Tamil Nadu has piloted robotic interventions to eliminate manual scavenging in urban areas.
      Eg: In Chennai, sewer robots have been deployed to clean over 5,000 manholes, showcasing how technology and political will can prevent hazardous practices.

    How does the lack of rural data hinder sanitation worker reforms?

    • Exclusion from Mechanisation Schemes: Without reliable data on rural sanitation workers, schemes like NAMASTE do not extend their benefits (e.g. robotic cleaning or desludging machines) to villages. Eg: In many gram panchayats of Bihar, manual pit cleaning is still done without equipment as workers remain unregistered and thus unaccounted for in policy rollouts.
    • No Health or Safety Monitoring: The lack of worker enumeration means occupational health risks go unnoticed, and safety training or PPE kitsare not distributed in rural regions. Eg: In Chhattisgarh’s rural blocks, no health cards or protective equipment have been distributed to sanitation workers, exposing them to toxic gases and infections.
    • Obstructs Legal Accountability and Compensation: If workers are not documented, accidental deaths are often unreported or misclassified, preventing compensation to families and accountability for employers. Eg: In a 2023 case in Madhya Pradesh, a worker died while cleaning a septic tank, but due to lack of registration, the case was recorded as a general accident, not as a violation of the Manual Scavenging Act.

    What are the steps taken by the Indian Government?

    • Legislation and Legal Ban: The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 bans manual scavenging and mandates identification and rehabilitation of affected workers.
    • NAMASTE Scheme (2023): The National Action for Mechanised Sanitation Ecosystem (NAMASTE) scheme promotes mechanised cleaning, provides training, PPE kits, and financial support to sanitation workers.
    • Welfare and Skill Development Initiatives: The government has launched surveys, provided one-time cash assistance, health insurance under Ayushman Bharat, and livelihood loans to support entrepreneurship among workers.

    What reforms can ensure safety and rehabilitation for workers?

    • Mandatory Mechanisation and Licensing: Urban local bodies should mandate mechanised sewer cleaning, make it a licensed profession, and classify manual cleaning without valid certification as a cognisable offence. This will ensure accountability and eliminate unsafe practices.
    • Rehabilitation Through Financial and Social Support: Provide sanitation workers with housing, education scholarships, health cards, and loans to operate mechanised equipment. These should be linked to guaranteed municipal contracts, enabling long-term economic and social upliftment.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Poverty and malnutrition create a vicious cycle, adversely affecting human capital formation. What steps can be taken to break the cycle?

    Linkage: Manual scavenging represents an extreme form of poverty and human capital degradation. This article mentions that “Two-thirds of validated workers are also Dalits, yet rehabilitation packages rarely include housing or scholarships that might help families exit contemptible occupations”. This question allows for a discussion of how ending such hazardous labor and providing meaningful rehabilitation can break this vicious cycle.

  • Decoding ECI’s counter affidavit on SIR

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court defending the constitutionality of the citizenship verification process being carried out as part of the voter list revision in the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.

    What is the legal basis for the SIR exercise in Bihar?

    • Article 326 of the Constitution: It states that every citizen of India shall be entitled to be registered as a voter. The ECI invokes this to justify verifying citizenship before including names in the electoral rolls.
    • Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: This section empowers the Election Commission to prepare and revise electoral rolls under its “superintendence, direction and control.”
    • Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950: It allows the ECI to order a “special revision” of electoral rolls for specific constituencies. However, the term “intensive” is not mentioned in the Act, making the legal foundation of SIR somewhat vague.
    • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: The 1987 amendment introduced the concept of “intensive” and “summary” revisions, but did not define or elaborate the legal modality for intensive revisions, including SIR.

    Why is the demand for citizenship proof for existing voters controversial?

    • Burden shifts to already registered voters: The SIR process forces existing electors—who were added through due process—to resubmit proof of citizenship, treating them with suspicion. Eg: A voter registered in 2010 using valid documents must now provide fresh documents, despite no change in their status.
    • Lack of evidence for illegal migrants in voter rolls: The ECI affidavit does not provide data on the presence of foreign nationals or illegal migrants in electoral rolls, especially in Bihar, weakening the justification for a blanket citizenship test. Eg: Over 600 pages of complaints attached to ECI’s affidavit did not cite any case of foreigner inclusion in Bihar’s voter list.
    • No legal rule for asking voters to prove citizenship: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 does not require voters to give proof of citizenship. There are already legal ways to remove non-citizens from the voter list if someone complains with proof. So, asking all voters to show documents again is unnecessary and legally doubtful.

    How is SIR similar to or different from the Assam NRC?

    • Similarities:
      • Both involve citizenship verification based on documentary evidence.
      • Both processes have significant exclusion risks and logistical challenges.
      • The CAA 2003-based criteria used in NRC Assam are being replicated in Bihar SIR (e.g., birth dates of voters and parents).
    • Differences:
      • The NRC in Assam was conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court, based on a specific clause in the Assam Accord.
      • The SIR in Bihar is being conducted by the ECI independently, without a similar legal precedent or court mandate.
      • NRC was formally initiated by the Registrar General of India, which has not happened for a nationwide NRC; SIR lacks such authority.

    What is the 2003 electoral roll?

    • The 2003 electoral roll as a baseline refers to the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) decision during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2025 to treat the voter list prepared in 2003 as a reference point for proving citizenship and voter eligibility.
    • In simple terms: If a person’s name was already included in the 2003 electoral roll, or if they are a child of someone listed in that roll, they are not required to submit additional documents to prove their citizenship during the current revision process.

    What are the implications of using the 2003 electoral roll as a baseline?

    • Creates legal inconsistency: Prioritising the 2003 electoral roll over rolls from the last two decades undermines the validity of later voter lists, creating legal confusion and questions of equal treatment for all voters.
    • Lacks evidence of reliability: The ECI affidavit does not provide proof that the 2003 SIR involved thorough citizenship verification. Without such evidence, treating the 2003 roll as more authentic is unjustified.
    • Grants unequal advantage: Voters listed in 2003 and their children are exempted from submitting documents, while others must provide multiple proofs, leading to discrimination and inequity in the revision process.

    Why are documents like Aadhaar and ration cards being rejected in the SIR process?

    • Aadhaar not considered proof of citizenship: The ECI argues that while Aadhaar can confirm identity and residence, it does not prove Indian citizenship.
    • Ration cards seen as forgery-prone: The ECI claims that many fake ration cards exist and hence rejects them as valid proof.

    Way forward: 

    • Adopt a targeted verification approach: Instead of a blanket citizenship test for all voters, the ECI should focus on specific complaints supported by evidence, using existing legal mechanisms to identify and remove ineligible voters. This ensures efficiency, legal compliance, and avoids harassment of genuine voters.
    • Accept a broader range of documents with safeguards: The ECI should allow widely held documents like Aadhaar and ration cards as supporting evidence, along with robust verification procedures to detect forgeries. This promotes inclusivity, especially for marginalised groups, while maintaining the integrity of the electoral rolls.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.

    Linkage: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, which is the subject of the ECI’s counter affidavit, is presented as an effort to refine electoral rolls, inherently linking it to the broader discourse on electoral reforms in India. The article critically evaluates the ECI’s rationale and legal arguments for undertaking such an intensive revision, which the ECI seems to position as a measure to address typical defects like duplication and non-deletion, and implicitly, to ensure the integrity of the voter list.

     

  • Extension of President’s Rule in Manipur

    Why in the News?

    Home Minister is set to move a statutory resolution in the Rajya Sabha to extend President’s Rule in Manipur by another 6 months.

    What is President’s Rule?

    • Overview: It refers to the suspension of a state’s constitutional machinery, placing the state under direct control of the Union Government.
    • It is also known as State Emergency or Constitutional Emergency.
    • Constitutional Basis:
      • Article 355: Obligates the Union to ensure that governance in every state is in accordance with the Constitution.
      • Article 356(1): Allows the President to assume control of a state’s executive if the Governor reports a constitutional breakdown or the President independently concludes so.
      • Article 365: Deems a state’s failure to comply with Union directions as a failure of constitutional machinery.

    Duration and Extension of President’s Rule:

    • Initial duration: Valid for 6 months from the date of proclamation.
    • Extensions: Can be extended every six months, subject to parliamentary approval, for a maximum of 3 years.
    • Parliamentary Approval (Article 356(3)):
      • Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 2 months.
      • Requires a simple majority (members present and voting).
    • Beyond 1 Year: Allowed only if:
      • A National Emergency (Article 352) is in operation in the whole or part of the state.
      • The Election Commission of India certifies that elections to the Legislative Assembly cannot be held.
    • Beyond 3 Years: Requires a constitutional amendment (e.g., 67th and 68th Amendments extended President’s Rule in Punjab).

    Implications of President’s Rule on a State:

    • Executive Powers (Article 356(1)(a)):
      • The President assumes functions of the state government via the Governor.
      • Administration is carried out by the Governor, with support from the Chief Secretary and advisors.
    • Legislative Powers (Article 356(1)(b)):
      • The Legislative Assembly is either suspended or dissolved.
      • Legislative powers are exercised by Parliament or delegated to the President.
    • Financial Powers (Article 356(1)(c)):
      • The President may authorize expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State pending Parliament’s approval (under Article 206 and Article 357).

    Revocation:

    • President’s Rule can be revoked at any time by the President under Article 356(2).
    • No parliamentary approval is required for revocation.

    Supreme Court Judgments related to it:

    • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
      • President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
      • A floor test is the proper method to prove majority.
      • The Governor’s report alone is not sufficient for justification.
    • Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005): Widened the scope of Article 355 for preventive action by the Union.
    • Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):
      • Dissolution of Bihar Assembly was declared unconstitutional.
      • Use of Article 356 to prevent political defections was struck down.

    Key Reforms/Recommendations:

    • Sarkaria Commission (1987): President’s Rule should be used only as a last resort after exploring all other options.
    • Punchhi Commission (2010): Proposed localized emergency provisions for specific districts or regions instead of the entire state.
    • National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2000):
      • Article 356 should remain but be used sparingly.
      • Suggested amendments to allow its use without National Emergency if elections cannot be held.
    [UPSC 2018] If the President of India exercises his power as provided under Article 356 of the Constitution in respect of a particular State, then

    Options: (a) the Assembly of the State is automatically dissolved.

    (b) the powers of the Legislature of that State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament.

    (c) Article 19 is suspended in that State.

    (d) the President can make laws relating to that State.

     

  • India ranks 77th in Henley Passport Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    India has improved its global mobility ranking, moving up eight places to 77th in the Henley Passport Index 2025, up from 85th in 2024.

    About Henley Passport Index, 2025

    • Overview: A global ranking of passports based on the number of destinations accessible without a prior visa.
    • Compiled by: Published by Henley & Partners using data from the International Air Transport Association (IATA).
    • Coverage: Includes 227 travel destinations and is updated quarterly.
    • Purpose: Reflects changes in global mobility, international relations, and travel freedoms.

    Global Scenario (2025 Rankings):

    • 1st Rank: Singapore – Visa-free access to 193 destinations.
    • 2nd Rank: Japan and South Korea – Access to 190 destinations.
    • 3rd Rank (tie): Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Finland, Denmark, Ireland – Access to 189 destinations.
    • United States: Fell to 10th rank – Access to 182 destinations.
    • Overall Trend:
      • Asian and European passports dominate top positions.
      • Countries with restrictive or unstable foreign policies rank lower.

    India’s Achievements:

    • 2025 Rank: 77th, up from 85th in 2024 – an 8-place improvement.
    • Access Level: Indian passport holders have visa-free or visa-on-arrival access to 59 countries.
    • New Additions: Philippines, Sri Lanka.
    • Context:
      • Despite gaining access to only two new countries, India’s rank rose significantly due to global reshuffling.
      • This marks a recovery from a 5-place drop in 2024, indicating improved travel diplomacy.

    India ranks 77th in Henley Passport Index, 2025

    [UPSC 2011] In terms of economy, the visit by foreign nationals to witness the XIX Commonwealth Games in India amounted to-

    Options: (a) Export (b) Import (c) Production (d) Consumption

     

  • [24th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Can Presidential Reference change a judgment?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

    Linkage: This question is about the power and role of the Supreme Court of India. It helps us understand how the Court gives advice to the President and what limits exist when it comes to reviewing or changing its past decisions.

     

    Mentor’s Comment: On July 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued notices to the Union Government and all States on a Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures. This comes in the wake of the Court’s April 8 judgment, which held that delays by Governors in granting assent to Bills are unconstitutional, and laid down judicially enforceable timelines for action. The Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, will hear the matter in detail around mid-August under Article 143(1), which allows the President to seek the Court’s advisory opinion on matters of public importance.

    Today’s editorial analyses the Presidential Reference seeking clarity on whether the President and Governors can be judicially compelled to act within prescribed timelines on Bills passed by State legislatures.. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Supreme Court of India has asked the Union Government and all States to respond to a question raised by the President: Can the President and Governors be legally forced to take action within a fixed time on Bills passed by State Assemblies?

    What is Presidential Reference?

    Presidential Reference is a process under Article 143 of the Indian Constitution where the President of India seeks the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on important questions of law or fact that are of public importance.

    Background:

    In 2024, President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to ask the Supreme Court whether binding timelines can be imposed on the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures — especially in light of delays in assent or return of Bills, such as those witnessed in Tamil Nadu and Punjab.

    What is the significance of Article 143(1) in constitutional interpretation in the context of Presidential Reference?

    • Presidential Power to Seek Advice: Article 143(1) empowers the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or matters of public importance. Eg: In the Berubari Union case (1960), the President referred a question about the transfer of territory to Pakistan.
    • Advisory Role of the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court’s opinion is not binding, but carries high persuasive value in future interpretations and policy decisions. Eg: The Court’s opinion on the Ayodhya land issue (1993) was declined, as the reference was seen to violate secularism.
    • Clarifies Constitutional Dilemmas: Helps resolve grey areas in constitutional practice without formal litigation, especially in cases involving federal disputes or institutional responsibilities. Eg: The 2024 Presidential Reference seeks clarity on whether the SC can set timelines for Governors or the President in assenting to Bills.

    Why did Tamil Nadu’s plea over the Governor’s inaction raise constitutional concerns?

    • Delay Violates Constitutional Mandate: The Governor’s inaction on State Bills breaches Article 200, which requires prompt decision assent, reservation, or withholding on legislative proposals.
    • Threatens Federalism and State Autonomy: Prolonged inaction undermines the authority of the elected State government, disrupting the federal balance enshrined in the Constitution.
    • Triggers Judicial and Political Tensions: Such inaction forces judicial intervention, leading to constitutional ambiguity and disputes over the separation of powers between constitutional offices.

    How did the April 8 SC verdict reshape the Centre-State power balance?

    • Fixed a Time Limit for Governors’ Decisions: The Supreme Court ruled that Governors must act on Bills “as soon as possible”, preventing indefinite delays. Eg: In Tamil Nadu’s case, the Governor had withheld action on multiple Bills for months, leading to constitutional standoff.
    • Clarified Limits on Withholding Assent: The Court emphasized that Governors cannot sit on Bills indefinitely or reject them arbitrarily, reinforcing the legislative supremacy of elected State governments. Eg: The verdict curbed the misuse of Article 200 by Governors in opposition-ruled States.
    • Reinforced Cooperative Federalism: The judgment upheld that constitutional functionaries must act in harmony, ensuring Centre-State relations are based on trust and constitutional propriety. Eg: The verdict serves as a warning against politicized Governor roles that disrupt the federal structure.

    When can the Supreme Court refuse a Presidential Reference?

    • Lack of Public Importance: If the issue is not of sufficient public or constitutional importance, the Court may decline to give its opinion. Eg: Political or non-legal matters without broader legal impact.
    • Hypothetical or Vague Questions: The Court avoids answering abstract, premature, or unclear issues. Eg: In the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal case (1992), the Court refused as the matter was not ripe for consideration.
    • Risk of Judicial Overreach: If the reference could interfere with pending litigation, reopen settled judgments, or encroach on executive/legislative powers, the Court may refuse. Eg: Questions that challenge or revisit prior rulings.

    How does the non-binding nature of Article 143 opinions affect jurisprudence?

    • Encourages Deliberative Democracy: Since the opinion is not binding, it invites parliamentary debate and public discourse rather than closing the matter purely through judicial authority. Eg: After the SC’s advisory opinion in the In re Kerala Education Bill, 1957, political discussions shaped the final policy on minority education rights.
    • Enables Judicial Restraint in Political Questions: It allows the Court to share constitutional insight without overstepping into executive or legislative domains, maintaining the separation of powers. Eg: In the Ayodhya Reference case (1994), the SC declined to answer a politically loaded question, exercising restraint.
    • Promotes Flexibility in Constitutional Practice: Non-binding opinions allow the executive to consider but not be bound by the Court’s interpretation, creating space for evolving legal practices over time. Eg: The opinion in In re Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991) offered legal clarity, but the Centre retained room to manage interstate negotiations.

    Way forward: 

    • Make Advisory Opinions More Transparent and Accessible: Publish all Presidential References and advisory opinions in simple language to promote public understanding and ensure informed civic debate on constitutional matters.
    • Encourage Parliamentary Follow-Up: Parliament should deliberate on Supreme Court’s advisory views under Article 143(1) to align legislation or executive action with constitutional principles while respecting the non-binding nature of such opinions.