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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Do you think that BIMSTEC is a parallel organisation like the SAARC? What are the similarities and dissimilarities between the two? How are Indian foreign policy objectives realized by forming this new organisation?

    According to S. Jaishankar, SAARC has become a dead horse. In this context, BIMSTEC, established in 1997, to promote regional cooperation among South and Southeast Asian countries has emerged as a pragmatic alternative to SAARC.

    BIMSTEC as a Parallel Organisation like the SAARC – Similarities

    Regional Cooperation Objective to promote economic, technical, and social cooperation. Eg- SAFTA and BIMSTEC FTA negotiations

    Developmental Focus: Emphasis on poverty reduction, trade, connectivity, and sustainable growth. Eg- BIMSTEC Transport Connectivity Master Plan

    Consensus-Based Decision-Making: Eg- BIMSTEC Charter, 2022 was adopted only after all members’ approval

    Institutional Mechanisms: Function through summits, ministerial meetings, and working groups. Eg- BIMSTEC Leaders’ Summit

    Multi-sectoral Agenda: Cooperation in transport, energy, agriculture, health, environment, and security. Eg- SAARC 11 priority sectors and BIMSTEC 14 priority areas

    Differences

    BIMSTEC connects South and Southeast Asia, while SAARC is confined to South Asia.

    SAARC includes Pakistan, leading to frequent political blockages. BIMSTEC is ‘SAARC-Pakistan’

    SAARC is primarily a political and developmental forum, whereas BIMSTEC focuses on sectoral partnerships in economy, connectivity, and technology.

    SAARC functioning is largely stalled, whereas BIMSTEC is expanding sectoral cooperation, adopted its Charter in 2022 and established a permanent Secretariat in Dhaka

    SAARC has limited security cooperation, whereas BIMSTEC actively engages in counter-terrorism, cyber security, maritime security, and disaster management. Eg- BIMSTEC National Security Advisers’ Meetings

    SAARC maintains Permanent Observer Status at the UN whereas BIMSTEC does not.

    BIMSTEC Fulfilling India’s Foreign Policy Objectives

    Regional Integration – Provides a Pakistan-free alternative to pursue regional cooperation and development.

    Bridge to Southeast Asia: advances India’s Act East Policy. Eg- IMT Trilateral Highway.

    Neighbourhood First and Indo-Pacific strategies – Increased connectivity, humanitarian cooperation, and development projects project India as a responsible power.

    SAGAR Vision: Reinforces India’s role as a “Net Security Provider” in the Indian Ocean through cooperation in maritime security, disaster management, and coastal resilience.

    Tapping Trade Potential in the Bay of Bengal through blue economy initiatives and port-led development.

    Group’s cohesion and sustainability is key to realise ‘Vision 2030’ adopted in the recent 6th BIMSTEC summit.

  • Discuss the procedures to decide the disputes arising out of the election of a Member of the Parliament or State Legislature under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. What are the grounds on which the election of any returned candidate may be declared void? What remedy is available to the aggrieved party against the decision? Refer to the case laws.

    Article 329(b) bars judicial intervention in elections except through an election petition under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Part VI (Sections 80-122) governs adjudication of election disputes

    Procedure to decide election disputes

    Election Petition (Section 80) – No civil suit; only election petition can challenge an election.

    Who Can File (Section 81) – Any candidate or elector of the constituency may file petition.

    Time Limit (Section 81) – Filed within 45 days from date of declaration of result.

    Jurisdiction (Section 80A) – Heard by single judge of the High Court designated by Chief Justice.

    Time-Bound Disposal (Section 86(7)) – Petition to be disposed of within 6 months as far as practicable.

    Grounds for declaring election void (section 100)

    Disqualification of Returned Candidate (Section 100(1)(a)) – Candidate not qualified or disqualified under Constitution/RPA on election date.

    Corrupt Practices (Section 100(1)(b)) – Bribery, undue influence, religious appeals, false statements, booth capturing, expenditure violations (Section 123).

    Improper Rejection of Nomination: If a nomination was wrongfully rejected.

    The result was “materially affected” by:

    Improper acceptance of any nomination.

    Improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote.

    Non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the RPA, 1951.

    Remedy against decision

    Direct Appeal to Supreme Court (Section 116A) within 30 days.

    Supreme Court may stay High Court’s order under stringent conditions.

    Landmark case laws

    Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) – Allahabad HC set aside PM’s election for corrupt practices; led to Emergency.

    N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952) – Established Article 329(b) as absolute bar; election petition is sole remedy.

    Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978) – Justice Krishna Iyer: Free and fair elections part of basic structure.

    Lily Thomas v. UoI (2013) – Struck down Section 8(4) RPA; automatic disqualification on conviction with 2+ years.

    Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) – Constitution Bench broadened Section 123(3) – appeal to religion, caste, race by any party is corrupt practice.

    Thus, the disqualification provisions ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.

  • Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Articles 153-167 (Part VI) deal with the State Executive, and the Governor acts as the Chief Executive Head of the State. Under Article 213, the Governor has the power to promulgate ordinances.

    Legislative Powers-

    Summoning and Proroguing Houses (Article 174)

    Article 200 – Giving assent to the Bills

    Article 175- Addresses the first session of the State Legislature after each general election.

    Appoints the Speaker of the House

    Reservation of Bills for President’s Consideration (Article 201)

    Nominates one-sixth members of the Legislative Council (if it exists).

    Ordinance-Making Power (Article 213)

    Essential Conditions for Exercise of Legislative Powers by the Governor

    Legislature Not in Session – Ordinance can be issued only when both Houses (or the sole House) of the State Legislature are not in session.

    Immediate Need – The Governor must be satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary to take immediate legislative action.

    Legislative Competence – The ordinance can only be issued on a subject within the State Legislature’s competence under State or Concurrent Lists.

    Presidential Assent (Proviso to Article 213(1)) – Required if-

    The Bill would need the President’s previous sanction; or

    The law conflicts with any Parliamentary law; or

    It covers subjects where Parliament has overriding powers.

    Temporary Nature – The ordinance must be laid before the Legislature and will cease to operate six weeks after its reassembly, unless replaced by an Act.

    Legality of Re-promulgation of Ordinances

    Judicial Precedents

    D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar (1987) – Re-promulgation of ordinances without legislative approval was termed as a “fraud on the Constitution”. SC has held that, An ordinance can be challenged if it-

    Constitutes colorable legislation;

    Violates Fundamental Rights;

    Contravenes constitutional provisions (e.g., Article 301); or

    Has unconstitutional retrospective effect.

    Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) – Placing an ordinance before the Legislature is mandatory. Re-promulgation without fresh justification is invalid and violates legislative supremacy.

    R.C. Cooper case (1970) – Judicial review permissible if there is no genuine requirement of immediate action.

    A.K. Roy v. Union of India (1982)- The Supreme Court held that an ordinance cannot substitute parliamentary legislation and must be used only in cases of extreme urgency or unforeseen emergency.

    Constitutional and Democratic Implications

    Re-promulgation violates the “3D principle” – Debate, Discussion, Deliberation.

    It converts an emergency power into a routine legislative tool, eroding separation of powers.

    Failure to place an ordinance before the Legislature constitutes an “abuse of power” and fraud on the Constitution.

    Way Forward

    Mandatory Legislative Review within a fixed timeframe.

    Transparency in Justification – The Governor’s satisfaction for issuing an ordinance should be recorded in writing and made public.

    Adherence to Constitutional Morality – Governors must act within the spirit of the Constitution, using ordinance powers only in genuine emergencies.

    The ordinance power of the Governor is a tool of urgency, not convenience. As Soli Sorabjee observed, Governors can be a “driving force for democracy” only when they respect the principles of separation of powers and constitutional propriety.

  • While the national political parties in India favour centralisation, the regional parties are in favour of State autonomy. Comment.

    According to Edmund Burke, “Political parties are a group of people sharing common ideology and coming together for the pursuit of common interest.” In India’s quasi-federal system, political orientation of parties influences the federal balance.

    National Political Parties – Tilt Towards Centralisation

    Political Reasons

    Ideological focus on unity and integrity – Eg- Emphasis on “One Nation” narrative

    National security concerns – Strong Centre seen as vital for sovereignty. Eg- AFSPA

    High-command party culture – Central leaders dominate over state units.

    Uniform electoral strategy – Centralised messaging ensures consistency.

    Institutional Reasons

    Constitutional centralism – Support for Centre’s powers under Articles 249, 356, and 352.

    Governor’s role – Used as a central instrument in state politics.

    Economic Reasons

    Fiscal centralisation – Centre controls major taxes and revenue flows.

    Centralised planning legacy – Planning Commission model favoured top-down control.

    Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS) – Used for visibility and control (e.g., PM-KISAN).

    Uniform economic policy – Eg- GST.

    Social & Cultural Reasons

    Nation-building agenda – Eg- Ek Bharat, Sreshtha Bharat

    Integration of diversity – Central schemes for social cohesion and inclusion. Eg- One Nation, One Ration Card

    Promotion of national language/symbols – Eg- Three Language Formula

    Regional Political Parties – Favour State Autonomy

    Political Reasons

    Rooted in regional identity movements- Eg – DMK (Tamil identity), TMC (Bengal pride).

    Opposition to central interference- Resist misuse of Article 356 and Governor’s powers.

    Institutional Reasons

    Representation in central bodies- Seek stronger role for states in institutions like Finance Commission and NITI Aayog.

    Push for cooperative federalism- Eg- Anandpur Sahib Resolution on centre-state relations

    Economic Reasons

    Fiscal autonomy- Demand greater tax devolution and freedom in fund usage.

    Resource control- Want more authority over natural resources and industries.

    Discontent over CSS- Oppose Centrally Sponsored Schemes that restrict flexibility.

    Social & Cultural Reasons

    Language and cultural protection- Eg – DMK’s anti-Hindi protests.

    Address local inequalities- Focus on state-specific social justice and caste realities.

    “Federalism is not a monolith; it is a dialogue between self-rule and shared rule.” It must rest on the principles of autonomy, adequacy, and elasticity.

    Constitutional and Statutory Bodies

  • To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots ?

    73rd and 74th CAA are the embodiment of grass-root democracy and democratic decentralization in India. They are inspired by Gandhiji’s concept of “Oceanic Circles of Power” and “Swaraj”.

    Positive Transformations in Governance Landscape

    Rajni Kothari described local bodies as “schools of democracy” where political awareness and participation are cultivated at the grassroots level.

    Democratic Deepening with over 32 lakh elected representatives across 2.6 lakh Panchayats and 4,000+ urban bodies.

    Social Inclusion and Equity – Reservation for SCs, STs, and women enhanced representation of marginalised groups in decision-making. Eg- Women’s Representation at 46.44%

    Panchayats manage programmes like MGNREGA, PMAY-G, Jal Jeevan Mission, bringing last-mile efficiency.

    Participatory Planning – Gram Sabhas and Ward Committees have improved local accountability and need-based development. Eg- Social Audits of MGNREGA

    Strengthened Disaster Response – Eg- during COVID-19 and Kerala floods.

    Efficient Resource Management- Eg- Hiware Bazar in Maharashtra effectively managed water resources through watershed development.

    Conflict Resolution- Reports indicate a 30% reduction in petty disputes reaching district courts due to effective Panchayat mediation.

    Challenges

    “PRIs exist as over-structured but underpowered organisations.” (2nd ARC)

    No decentralisation of power, rather decentralisation of corruption – Mani Shankar Iyer Committee

    Dependence on higher tiers- Around 95% of Panchayat funds come from Central/State transfers, limiting fiscal autonomy.

    Limited own-source revenue- Poor tax collection efficiency (>1% own tax).

    Barriers to Local Taxation- Freebie culture and fear of losing popularity discourage local taxation.

    Incomplete devolution- less than 20% of States have transferred all 29 subjects under 11th Schedule (MoPR, 2022). (​​overall Panchayat Devolution Index is only 43.89% (2021-22))

    Centralised Welfare via Cash Transfers – The welfare state now relies on DBT through JAM, bypassing panchayats and reducing local accountability and participatory governance

    Shortage of staff- Average 0.67 Panchayat Secretaries per Gram Panchayat, as low as 0.33 in Uttar Pradesh.

    Weak Gram Sabhas- Low participation, elite domination, and token meetings.

    Gender and social barriers leading to proxy control. (Sarpanch Pati)

    Manishankar Aiyar Committee recommendations.

    Establish National Commission for Panchayati Raj.

    Create Panchayat Ombudsman for grievance redressal.

    Set up a separate cadre of Panchayat bureaucracy with a code of conduct.

    Adopt activity mapping for clear delineation of 3Fs – Funds, Functions, Functionaries.

    To realise the vision of “Gram Uday se Bharat Uday”, India needs second-generation Panchayati Raj reforms

  • Discuss the role of the Vice-President of India as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

    The Vice-President of India, under Article 64 of the Constitution, is the ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha (Council of States).

    Role of the Vice-President

    Presiding Authority – The Vice-President, as ex-officio Chairman, conducts proceedings, maintains order and decorum, and ensures smooth legislative functioning.

    Regulator of Debates – Allocates time, permits discussions, and ensures equal opportunity to both treasury and opposition benches.

    Interpreter of Rules – Decides points of order and interprets parliamentary rules to maintain procedural consistency.

    Casting Vote – Does not ordinarily vote but exercises a casting vote in case of a tie, ensuring impartial decision-making.

    Promotes Deliberation – Facilitates meaningful debates and consensus-building, enabling Rajya Sabha to act as a House of Review.

    Upholds Federal Balance – Protects state interests and ensures fair representation of diverse regional perspectives.

    Encourages Transparency – Ensures proceedings are open and accessible (e.g., live telecast of sessions) to enhance accountability.

    Maintains Impartiality – Expected to act above party lines, setting high ethical standards in conduct.

    Limitations of the Vice-President Compared to the Speaker of Lok Sabha

    Does not preside over joint sittings of Parliament (Article 118).

    The Vice-President cannot suspend or expel MPs for disorderly conduct, unlike the Speaker who can act under Rules 373 and 374A.

    No Role in Money Bills under Article 110.

    No Power Over Confidence Motions

    The Vice-President as Chairman ensures that the Rajya Sabha functions as the House of sober second thought, balancing federal interests and national priorities.

  • Discuss the role of the National Commission for Backward Classes in the wake of its transformation from a statutory body to a constitutional body.

    The 102nd Constitution Amendment Act, 2018 inserted Article 338B, elevating the commission to par with the NCSC and NCST.

    Role of the National Commission for Backward Classes

    Investigating Constitutional Safeguards provided to backward classes under the Constitution.

    Exercising Civil Court Powers to summon officials, demand public records, and examine witnesses during active inquiries.

    Inquiry into Rights Violations: investigates specific citizen grievances regarding the outright denial or subversion of rights belonging to SEBCs.

    Advising on Socio-Economic Development: Formulates policy guidelines and advises both Union and State governments on targeted welfare planning for backward communities.

    Evaluating Departmental Progress: Reviews and audits the grassroots performance and execution speed of central and state-level affirmative action schemes.

    Presents comprehensive structural review reports to the President of India regarding the operational health of welfare frameworks.

    The Union and State governments consult the NCBC on all major policy matters affecting SEBCs.

    Enforcing Reservation Compliance: Monitors and checks public sector recruitment pipelines to guarantee strict adherence to the mandated 27% OBC quotas.

    Aids the institutional procedure of identifying and reviewing communities for the Central OBC list under Article 342A.

    Case Studies

    Enforcing Creamy Layer Compliance in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)

    The commission played a central key role in implementation of the 27% OBC reservation within the All India Quota for undergraduate and postgraduate medical and dental courses (NEET).

    Major issues

    Recommendations are not binding on executive

    Overlapping jurisdiction with other bodies like NHRX, NCW etc

    Lack of administrative and financial autonomy

    Strengthening the NCBC is essential to achieve constitutional objective of Social Justice

  • The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment.

    The RPwD Act, 2016 was enacted to align India’s legal framework with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to promote equality, ensure dignity, and protect rights of PwDs.

    Key Features of the RPwD Act, 2016

    Expanded definition: Disability categories increased from 7 to 21, including autism, thalassemia, acid attack survivors, etc.

    Reservation: 4% in government jobs and 5% in higher education for PwDs.

    Accessibility: Mandates barrier-free public infrastructure, ICT accessibility, and universal design.

    Institutional Framework: Establishment of Central and State Advisory Boards, Chief Commissioner and State Commissioners for PwDs.

    Legal Protection: Punishment for discrimination, and provision of special courts to handle disability-related matters.

    Major Issues Hindering Effective Implementation

    Bureaucratic Issues

    Poor Institutional Implementation- As per Department of Empowerment of PwDs, only 23 of 35 States/UTs had constituted State Advisory Boards.

    Inaccessible Infrastructure- Under Accessible India Campaign (Sugamya Bharat), only 3% of government buildings were made fully accessible by 2024.

    Tokenistic Compliance- Disability cells in ministries lack funds and trained staff.

    Delay in appointing state commissioners and lack of special courts restrict legal recourse for PwDs.

    Fragmented Coordination- Overlap between ministries (Social Justice, Urban Affairs, HRD) causes slow execution of inclusive programs.

    Citizen Awareness and Social Sensitisation Issues

    Social Stigma and Prejudice- PwDs continue to face exclusion, pity narratives, and stereotypes in media and public life.

    Lack of Awareness Among Citizens and Local Institutions- Rural households and PRIs remain unaware of provisions such as disability certificates or reservation rights.

    Educational Exclusion- Despite RTE inclusion, schools lack special educators and assistive devices; enrolment gaps persist.

    Digital Divide and Communication Barriers- Most government websites and platforms fail web accessibility compliance standards (WCAG).

    Media Misrepresentation- Stereotyping of PwDs continues despite Supreme Court directives (2024) against derogatory portrayals in films and media.

    Way Forward

    Sensitisation – Conduct mandatory disability awareness training for civil servants, teachers, and health workers.

    Grassroots Awareness Campaigns: Use community radio, local NGOs, and ASHA/Aanganwadi networks.

    Institutional Strengthening: Fully operationalize State Advisory Boards, ensure adequate funding and monitoring.

    Accessibility Revolution: Enforce Sugamya Bharat milestones with real-time audits.

    True inclusion demands a “whole-of-society” approach-one that blends policy, participation, and perception change to realise the vision of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas.”

  • Reforming the government delivery system through the Direct Benefit Transfer Scheme is a progressive step, but it has its limitations too. Comment.

    As per World Bank (2023), India’s DBT architecture is the largest social protection systems globally, covering over 900 million people.

    Progressive Aspects of the DBT Scheme

    Cost Savings – DBT system helped India achieve by eliminating ghost beneficiaries, duplication, and leakages. (BlueKraft Digital Foundation, 2025)

    Better targeting – Subsidy allocations reduced from 16% (pre-DBT) to 9% of total government expenditure.

    Transparency and Reduction in Leakages – DBT has significantly reduced ghost beneficiaries and duplication. Eg-In PAHAL (LPG subsidy)

    Financial Inclusion – PM Jan Dhan Yojana enabled over 50 crore accounts, empowering poor women and rural households to receive funds directly.

    Efficiency and Timeliness – Eliminated intermediaries and delays. Eg-MNREGA, PM-KISAN, and PMUY payments.

    Strengthening Governance Accountability – Real-time monitoring via Public Financial Management System (PFMS) ensures audit trails and transparency.

    Inclusive Welfare Delivery and targeted support during crises. Eg-20 crore women Jan Dhan accounts.

    Promotes Digital and Cashless Economy – Eg- UPI handles 85% of India’s digital payments, processing (June 2025).

    Limitations of DBT Implementation

    Exclusion Errors: Aadhaar authentication failures lead to denial of benefits. Eg- Jharkhand PDS (2017) saw 10-15% exclusion (NITI Aayog).

    Digital Divide: Only 43% rural households have internet access (NFHS-5, 2021).

    Weak Banking Infrastructure: Shortage of bank branches and CSPs in rural and hilly areas.

    Data Privacy and Security Risks: Eg- Aadhaar and CoWIN data leaks.

    Technocratic Bias: Focus on automation sidelines those lacking digital literacy or documentation

    Administrative Delays: Verification and coordination issues cause payment rejections or delays. Eg- payment delays in MGNREGA

    Limited Grievance Redressal: Weak feedback mechanisms for correction of DBT errors.

    Way Forward

    Improve Authentication: Use offline Aadhaar, multi-factor verification, and local validation.

    Institutional Reforms: Apply Business Process Re-engineering (2nd ARC) for simpler workflows.

    Social Audits and Human Interface: Combine digital governance with local institutions for last-mile trust.

    Strengthen Digital Infrastructure: Accelerate BharatNet Phase-II to connect all Gram Panchayats

    Enhance Digital Literacy: Expand PMGDISHA and integrate digital literacy in school curricula (e-Kidz, IT clubs).

    India must move toward “Technology with Inclusion” – ensuring no beneficiary is left behind.

  • The most significant achievement of modern law in India in the constitutionalization of environmental problems by the Supreme Court. Discuss this statement with the help of relevant case laws.

    “The Constitution is not a mere lawyers’ document, it is a vehicle of Life, and its spirit is always the spirit of Age.”- B.R. Ambedkar

    Constitutionalization of environmental problems under Article 21 is the embodiment of this spirit.

    Constitutionalization is done through

    Expansion of Article 21

    Use of Directive Principles (Art. 48A, 51A(g))

    Development of Doctrines (Polluter Pays, Precautionary Principle, Public Trust, Absolute Liability, Intergenerational Equity)

    Expansion of Judicial Review & PILs

    Use of Continuous Mandamus

    Relevant case laws

    Industrial Pollution

    MC Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1986) – Established Absolute Liability for hazardous industries.

    Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. UOI (1996) – Applied Polluter Pays Principle.

    Water Pollution

    MC Mehta v. UOI (Ganga Pollution, 1988) – Ordered closure of polluting tanneries.

    Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti v. UOI (2017) – Directed installation of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs).

    Air Pollution

    MC Mehta v. UOI (Delhi Pollution, 1998) – Mandated conversion of public transport to CNG.

    MC Mehta v. UOI (Firecrackers, 2024) – Imposed ban to ensure clean air.

    Deforestation & Forest Rights

    T.N. Godavarman v. UOI (1997-ongoing) – Continuous mandamus for forest conservation.

    Niyamgiri Case (2013) – Empowered Gram Sabha to protect tribal rights.

    Climate Change

    M.K. Ranjitsinh v. UOI (2024) – Recognised Right against adverse climate impacts under Articles 14 and 21.

    Natural Resources

    MC Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) – Applied Public Trust Doctrine to rivers.

    Reliance Natural Resources v. RIL (2010) – Declared natural resources as public property.

    Development Projects

    Narmada Bachao Andolan v. UOI (2000) – Integrated sustainable development into constitutional law.

    Vanashakti v. UOI (2024) – Stressed need for prior environmental clearance.

    As Justice P.N. Bhagwati observed, “Right to life includes the right to live with human dignity” – and dignity today is inseparable from a clean and healthy environment.