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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: The IISERs have a leadership problem

    Question (2014, GS2): “Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students? Discuss in light of the growing challenges.
    Linkage: This question directly addresses the central conflict in your prompt: the struggle of premier national science and technology institutes to maintain their academic independence and elite status when confronted with structural and administrative constraints.

    Mentor Comment

    Several of the seven Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research are operating under temporary, divided or incomplete leadership, with chairpersons holding simultaneous charge of two or three other institutions and nominated positions for eminent scientists lying vacant. The institutions were created to give students an intellectually vibrant research environment and prize autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, which sits against a statutory Board structure dominated by government officials and nominees.

    What are the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research?

    1. Why they were created: The Indian government created the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) to offer students an intellectually vibrant research environment and to bring them into research at a relatively early stage by the standards of the Indian system.
    2. What they prize: They treat autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, specifically the ability of scientists to decide which questions are worth pursuing and with what resources, and top down control is inimical to that vision.
    3. Their statutory basis: They were brought within the framework of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. How many there are: Seven IISERs are in operation, each with its own Board of Governors.

    How are IISER Boards of Governors constituted?

    1. The statutory requirement: The 2007 Act requires each IISER to have a Board of Governors that includes senior government officials and other government nominees.
    2. Named ex officio positions: The IISER statutes specify, among others, the secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru.
    3. The accountability rationale: Publicly funded science should be publicly accountable, which is the justification for the government presence on the Boards.
    4. Where the rationale runs out: Suboptimal appointments or outright vacancies are objectionable because they lead to policy paralysis at best, which is a failure of accountability rather than an exercise of it.

    What does the current composition of the seven Boards show?

    1. The IISc director’s spread: The director of the Indian Institute of Science is an ex officio member of most IISERs.
    2. IISER Pune: The chair of its Board is also the chairperson of the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
    3. IISER Berhampur: Its Board chair was given additional charge while also chairing the Board of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati. Nominated positions on the same Board lie vacant, including one for an Indian Institute of Technology director and two for eminent scientists.
    4. IISER Bhopal: Its current director is listed as director in charge, after the previous director left to join NITI Aayog in June.
    5. IISER Thiruvananthapuram: Its chairperson simultaneously chairs the Boards of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam and the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kurnool.
    6. The cumulative position: Interim appointments are routine and vacancies arise during transitions, and ex officio positions change when officials move between posts, but taken together several IISERs are operating under temporary or incomplete leadership.

    Who is leading India’s basic science institutions?

    1. IISER Pune’s chairperson: A retired Indian Administrative Service officer whose educational background is in commerce and journalism.
    2. IISER Pune’s director: A chemical engineer by training, whereas the IISERs have little focus on engineering.
    3. IISER Thiruvananthapuram’s chairperson: A surgeon.
    4. IISER Tirupati’s chairperson: A chemical engineer and the co founder of an industrial group.
    5. IISER Berhampur’s chairperson: An executive in the footwear industry.
    6. The measurable outcome: Going by awards, fellowships or global achievement and recognition, there are few outstanding scientists in positions of authority on the IISER Boards today.

    Why does the professional background of a chairperson matter for a basic science institution?

    1. There is no legal bar: No rule requires that the chairperson of a scientific institution must be a scientist.
    2. Why it matters regardless: It bears on each institution’s credibility and on its vision, both of which rest on who is seen to be setting the research direction.
    3. What the Boards do gain from outsiders: Expertise in administration, industry, finance and public policy is genuinely useful to a Board.
    4. What the case for scientists rests on: Institutions focused on basic science should draw their leadership from the scientific community, where many people combine distinguished research careers with substantial experience in running academic and research organisations.
    5. The practice that was dropped: The government had earlier appointed the finest scientists to the IISERs’ helm before discontinuing the practice.
    6. The question that actually arises: It is not whether the current leaders are competent, it is why India’s many accomplished scientists are not being asked to lead institutions whose central purpose is basic science.

    How does divided and interim leadership weaken institutional autonomy?

    1. Attention divided across institutions: Leaders whose attention is already split between two or three institutions cannot supply sustained direction to any one of them.
    2. Control shifting away from scientists: With outsiders and divided attention at the top, scientists have less control over decisions that affect their own work.
    3. Rotation instead of recruitment: The availability of a research cadre calls into question the practice of moving the same people between institutions rather than recruiting from the scientific community.
    4. Administration falling behind: People familiar with the IISERs’ functioning describe an administration losing its ability to keep up with students’ needs in respect of a good education in basic science.
    5. The internal assessment: A senior scientist at one of the IISERs described the position as one in which there is no vision or imagination and no sense of leadership propelling the institution towards its core goals of carrying out high quality frontier research in and teaching basic science at an international level.
    6. The powers that go unused: By design, the directors and the Board hold the power to institute positive changes, so the deficit is one of direction rather than of authority.

    Challenges to institutional autonomy in India’s basic science institutions

    1. Lagging decline masked by reputation: An institution whose governance has begun to decline can remain scientifically productive for years as long as the people who built its reputation remain and the institutional label is still valuable, which delays any corrective response. e.g. the IISERs continue to attract strong entrants through the joint admission route while several Boards run without full leadership.
    2. Concentration of authority: Weak collegial governance shifts decisions towards a small group at the top, reducing faculty participation in academic direction. e.g. the flagging of a risk of concentration of authority as a consequence of the IISERs’ present leadership arrangements.
    3. Risk averse research culture: Where leadership lacks a research background, funding and hiring decisions favour safe incremental work over frontier problems. e.g. the expectation of an increasingly risk averse institutional culture as the cumulative effect of the IISERs’ governance decline.
    4. Vacancies in nominated positions: Seats reserved for eminent scientists and institute directors go unfilled, removing the very expertise the statute intended the Board to carry. e.g. the IISER Berhampur Board, with one Indian Institute of Technology director position and two eminent scientist positions vacant.
    5. Interim leadership without a mandate: A director in charge cannot commit an institution to long horizon research investments. e.g. IISER Bhopal, run by a director in charge after the previous director left for NITI Aayog in June.
    6. Government nominee dominance: The statutory requirement of senior officials and nominees on the Board makes institutional direction dependent on the postings cycle of the civil service. e.g. the ex officio membership of the secretary of higher education on IISER Boards under the 2007 Act statutes.
    7. Underfunding of basic research: India’s gross expenditure on research and development remains below one per cent of gross domestic product, so institutional autonomy is further constrained by dependence on annual government grants. e.g. the persistent share of roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product against the two per cent and above spent by comparable research economies.
    8. Faculty attrition to better resourced systems: Weak governance and uncertain research support push early career scientists towards positions abroad or in the private sector. e.g. the reliance of schemes such as Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami fellowships on reversing exactly this outflow.

    Conclusion

    The IISERs were created on the premise that scientists deciding their own research questions produces better science than top down direction, and the statutory Board structure was the accountability counterweight to that autonomy. The counterweight has become the whole of it, with chairpersons drawn from outside the scientific community, ex officio members spread across several institutions, and seats reserved for eminent scientists left vacant. Restoring the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists to the helm, and filling the nominated positions the statutes already provide, requires no change in the law.

    Basic Scientific Research in India

    1. What it covers: Basic research is investigation directed at understanding fundamental phenomena without a specified application, distinguished from applied research and from experimental development.
    2. Institutional spread: It is conducted through the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, the Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space institutions, the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, the Indian Institute of Science, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the central universities.
    3. Scale of national spending: India’s gross expenditure on research and development stands at roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product, against about two per cent or more in most comparable research economies.
    4. Composition of that spending: The government accounts for the larger share of research spending in India, whereas in most leading research economies the private sector accounts for the bulk of it.
    5. Global standing on output: India ranks among the top three countries in the world by annual volume of scientific publications, and its citation impact remains below that publication rank.
    6. The IISER model: The IISERs were designed as a distinct category from the Indian Institutes of Technology, combining a five year integrated science programme with a research faculty, so that undergraduates enter laboratories early.
    7. The funding reform: The Anusandhan National Research Foundation, established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023, is intended to fund research across universities and colleges, with a substantial share of its corpus expected from non government sources.

    Government Initiatives for Science Education and Research

    1. Anusandhan National Research Foundation: Established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023 as the apex body for seeding, growing and promoting research across the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, environmental and earth sciences, health and agriculture, with a mandate to fund university and college research.
    2. INSPIRE: The Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research programme of the Department of Science and Technology offers scholarships to school students, undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships in the basic and natural sciences, and faculty fellowships.
    3. Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana: A fellowship programme to identify and support students with an aptitude for research careers in the basic sciences, since merged into the INSPIRE stream.
    4. Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami Re entry Fellowships: Offered by the Science and Engineering Research Board and the Department of Biotechnology respectively to bring Indian scientists working abroad back into Indian institutions.
    5. PM Research Fellowship: Provides doctoral fellowships at institutions of national importance with an enhanced stipend and a research grant, to retain top undergraduates within the domestic research system.
    6. National Research Professorship and J.C. Bose Fellowship: Recognise and support distinguished scientists to continue active research beyond conventional retirement.
    7. Vigyan Jyoti and Women in Science and Engineering KIRAN: Target the participation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and research careers.

    Key Facts about the IISERs

    1. Number and locations: Seven institutes, at Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal, Thiruvananthapuram, Tirupati and Berhampur.
    2. Year of first establishment: The first two, at Kolkata and Pune, were established in 2006, followed by Mohali in 2007, Bhopal and Thiruvananthapuram in 2008, Tirupati in 2015 and Berhampur in 2016.
    3. Statutory status: They are Institutes of National Importance under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. Administering ministry: The Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    5. Flagship programme: A five year BS-MS dual degree in the basic sciences, with admission through the IISER Aptitude Test and other channels.
    6. Governance structure: A Board of Governors chaired by a chairperson, with a director as the chief executive, and a Senate for academic matters.
    7. Named ex officio Board members: The secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, among others.

    Back2Basics: National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007

    1. What it is: A central Act that declares certain institutions to be Institutes of National Importance and provides for their incorporation, governance and funding.
    2. Enacted: 2007, originally covering the National Institutes of Technology, and later extended to the IISERs and to the Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology.
    3. What Institute of National Importance status confers: Autonomy to award its own degrees, direct central funding, and exclusion from the University Grants Commission’s affiliation framework.
    4. Governance it prescribes: Each institute has a Board of Governors as the principal executive body, a Senate for academic decisions, a chairperson, a director and a registrar.
    5. Composition requirement: The Board must include senior government officials and other government nominees, which is the provision that places the secretary of higher education and the Indian Institute of Science director on IISER Boards through the institute statutes.
    6. The Council: The Act also creates a Council for the institutes it covers, chaired by the Union Minister in charge, to coordinate across them.
    7. Why it governs this item: It is the statutory source of both the IISERs’ autonomy and the government dominated Board structure that the present appointments have made the operative feature.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore scientist leadership at the helm: Reviving the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists as chairpersons and directors requires no amendment to the 2007 Act, only a change in the selection practice.
    2. Fill the vacant nominated seats: Appointing to the eminent scientist and institute director positions already provided in the statutes restores the scientific expertise the Board structure was designed to carry.
    3. Bar simultaneous multiple chairmanships: A rule against holding the chair of more than one Institute of National Importance would end the divided attention that leaves several IISERs without sustained direction.
    4. Time bound filling of directorships: A fixed outer limit on how long an institute may run under a director in charge would prevent interim leadership becoming the standing arrangement.
    5. Publish selection criteria and search process: A transparent search committee process, with published criteria for research standing and institution building experience, would make appointments contestable on merit.
    6. Build a leadership pipeline from the research cadre: Structured administrative training for mid career scientists would widen the pool beyond the same individuals rotated between institutions.
    7. Strengthen Senate authority over academic direction: Vesting curriculum, faculty recruitment and research priorities firmly with the Senate would insulate scientific decisions from Board level turnover.
    8. Raise and stabilise research funding: Multi year block grants through the Anusandhan National Research Foundation would reduce the dependence on annual allocations that constrains long horizon research.

  • Census 2027: rights groups flag gaps in disability categories

    Why in the News

    Disability rights organisations have objected to the nine category disability question proposed for Census 2027, against the 21 specified disabilities recognised in law. The objection turns on a design choice, since the categories printed on the schedule decide which conditions can be counted at all, and a condition without its own box is recorded inside a broader one or not at all.

    What does Census 2027 propose to record on disability?

    1. The nine proposed categories: Seeing, hearing, speech, mobility, intellectual disability, mental illness, disability due to acid attack, disability due to chronic neurological disease, and blood disorder.
    2. What carries over from 2011: Six of the nine, namely seeing, hearing, speech, mobility, intellectual disability and mental illness, are the 2011 Census categories, with “mental retardation” renamed “intellectual disability”.
    3. What is new: Acid attack, chronic neurological disease and blood disorder are the three additions over the 2011 schedule.
    4. Multiple disability recording: The questionnaire allows up to three disabilities to be recorded for one person, entered in the order of severity.

    What are “specified disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

    1. The statutory list: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 recognises 21 specified disabilities in its Schedule, covering physical, intellectual, mental, blood related and multiple disabilities.
    2. The expansion it made: The Act replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and raised the recognised types from seven to 21, treating disability as a dynamic and evolving concept.

    Why do rights groups say the nine categories fall short?

    1. The assurance on record: The Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment stated in March 2026 that Census 2027 would capture data on all 21 disabilities.
    2. Conditions without a distinct box: Autism spectrum disorder, specific learning disabilities, dwarfism, leprosy cured persons and multiple disabilities including deafblindness are not distinctly placed under any proposed category.
    3. Distinct conditions collapsed into one: Thalassemia, haemophilia and sickle cell disease are reduced to the single category “blood disorder”, which erases the difference between three separate conditions with different prevalence and support needs.
    4. Other statutory conditions absent: Cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis are recognised in the Act but not separately represented in the proposed schedule.
    5. Scale of the objection: The statement of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD), citing information from the Politics and Disability Forum, was endorsed by more than 400 signatories.

    What is the Registrar General’s defence of the design?

    1. Broad categories by design: The nine are described as broader categories that include other detailed specific disabilities within them.
    2. Severity ordering retained: The option to record up to three disabilities in order of severity is offered as the mechanism for capturing multiple disability.
    3. Consultation claimed: Categories were finalised after consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and other stakeholders.
    4. Enumerator competence: Field functionaries are not technically qualified to assess or confirm a specific disability, which is the stated reason for keeping categories broad.
    5. Training provided: A three day training covering all aspects of the questionnaire is held for enumerators and supervisors.
    6. Comparison with 2011: The 2027 schedule enumerates a larger number of disabilities than the 2011 schedule did.

    Why does the classification itself decide the count?

    1. The instrument sets the ceiling: An enumerator can only record what the schedule offers, so a condition without a category is absorbed into a broader one and disappears from the published table.
    2. Untrained recognition: Broad categories without a notified training module on which specific disability sits under which head leave the classification to the enumerator’s judgement.
    3. The respondent’s own knowledge: A person who neither communicates nor understands the correct name of their disability cannot correct a wrong entry, which compounds the error.
    4. Self declaration and stigma: Census disability data is self reported, and households under reported disability in earlier rounds because of stigma, which a broad category does nothing to correct.
    5. Downstream consequence: Undercounting a specific group weakens the evidence base for scheme design, budget allocation and reservation entitlements tied to that disability.

    What did the 2011 Census record on disability?

    1. Total count: The 2011 Census counted 2.68 crore persons with disabilities, which was 2.21 percent of the country’s population.
    2. Categories used: The 2011 schedule carried six of the nine categories now proposed.
    3. Concentration of the count: Movement or locomotor, hearing and vision related disabilities together accounted for over half of the country’s population with disabilities.
    4. What the 2011 base implies: A count already limited to six categories in 2011 sets the comparison base against which any 2027 increase will be read.

    Challenges to accurate disability enumeration

    1. Self reporting and stigma: Households conceal disability, particularly mental illness and intellectual disability, to avoid social consequences for marriage and employment. e.g. the 2011 Census figure of 2.21 percent sits well below global disability prevalence estimates of around 15 percent of population.
    2. Untrained enumerators on clinical categories: A three day training cannot equip a field functionary to distinguish autism spectrum disorder from intellectual disability. e.g. specific learning disabilities are invisible without assessment and were absent from the 2011 count entirely.
    3. Severity capping at three: Persons with more than three conditions lose the rest of their profile, which particularly affects multiple disability. e.g. deafblindness combines two sensory disabilities and has no distinct category in the proposed schedule.
    4. No linkage to certification data: Census figures are not reconciled with the Unique Disability ID database, so the two official counts diverge. e.g. UDID certification is issued against the 21 statutory categories while the Census will record nine.
    5. Question placement and time: The disability question sits late in a long household schedule, where fatigue produces default negative answers. e.g. the 2027 self enumeration form is completed by the respondent without any enumerator prompt at all.
    6. Definitional change across rounds: Renaming and regrouping categories between censuses breaks comparability of the time series. e.g. “mental retardation” in 2011 becomes “intellectual disability” in 2027, and three blood conditions are merged into one new head.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is not about whether Census 2027 counts persons with disabilities but about whether its nine category schedule can carry the 21 categories the law recognises. The Registrar General’s position is that the nine are containers holding the specific conditions, and the rights groups’ position is that a container without a notified mapping and enumerator training will not produce disaggregated data. The self enumeration window for snowbound areas is open until 31 August 2026, with the second phase of population enumeration in those areas from 1 to 30 September 2026 and a revisional round from 1 to 5 October 2026. Any change to the disability question must therefore be made before the main enumeration schedule is frozen.

    “[2026] Which of the following statements with regard to the persons with disabilities in India is/are correct?

    1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, an Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2018, mandates reservation in education and employment, places a legal duty on Governments to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination.

    2. The Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan focuses on achieving universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities across three key domains, built infrastructure, transport systems and information and communication technology.

    3. The National Divyangjan Finance and Development Corporation (NDFDC) is a public sector organisation set up by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a not-for-profit company to promote entrepreneurship among Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 1 and 3

    (d) 1 only

  • Due diligence: curbs on surrogate advertising must avoid regulatory overreach

    Why in the News

    The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner has begun summoning celebrity endorsers of a pan masala brand, treating the endorsement as a surrogate promotion of tobacco. The action moves enforcement from the manufacturer to the person who supplies the brand recall, and it tests whether the state can discharge the burden of proof that the courts have already placed on it.

    What is surrogate advertising?

    1. Definition: Surrogate advertising is the promotion of a banned product through a legally saleable substitute that carries the same brand name, packaging and visual identity.
    2. How it operates: A tobacco or liquor manufacturer registers an extension product such as elaichi, soda or music CDs, then advertises that extension so the parent brand stays visible where direct advertising is prohibited.
    3. The legal test: An advertisement becomes surrogate when the substitute product has no market identity independent of its association with the prohibited product.
    4. The case at hand: The FDA holds that the pan masala brand endorsed by three leading film actors has no identity independent of tobacco, so endorsing it amounts to endorsing tobacco.

    What is endorser liability?

    1. Meaning: Endorser liability is the statutory responsibility placed on a celebrity or influencer for a false or misleading claim made in an advertisement they lend their name to.
    2. Source of the duty: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 created this liability along with monetary penalties, which removes ignorance of the manufacturer’s intent as a defence.

    Why has enforcement shifted from the manufacturer to the endorser?

    1. The asymmetry named: The person carrying the persuasive power bears almost none of the health or economic cost of the product being consumed.
    2. Where the cost lands: The consumer absorbs that cost, and an underfunded public health system absorbs the treatment burden that follows.
    3. Why the manufacturer route stalls: Brand extension is legal on its face, so acting only against the manufacturer leaves the advertisement itself untouched.
    4. Why the endorser route bites: Requiring endorsers to explain their decision making applies the endorser liability principle at the enforcement stage rather than only after a complaint.
    5. The wider field: The same asymmetry runs through advertisements making unsubstantiated health claims such as “boosts immunity”, and through educational and financial products.

    What must the state prove before it can call an advertisement surrogate?

    1. The governing ruling: The Delhi High Court in DGHS vs Som Pan Product Pvt. Ltd. (2024) held that the state carries the responsibility of proving a case of surrogate advertising.
    2. Brand registration is not proof: The mere registration of an extension brand does not by itself establish that the advertisement is surrogate.
    3. Legality is not a shield either: The existence of a technically legal product does not automatically permit the particular advertisement built around it.
    4. What follows for the FDA: Suspicion must be converted into inquiries under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 and its Rules and under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that survive judicial scrutiny.

    Why does the existing regulatory regime struggle with such advertisements?

    1. Fragmentation: Regulation is scattered across a series of Acts and Rules with no single authority owning the surrogate advertising question end to end.
    2. Forum shopping: Advertisers use the multiplicity of legal and administrative instruments to draw the judiciary into the dispute and stall enforcement.
    3. Definitional gap: No statute defines the threshold at which an extension product’s independent market identity becomes real rather than nominal.
    4. Health stakes: India carries the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is what makes treatment of these advertisements as unfair trade practices a consumer health question rather than a marketing dispute.

    Does tougher enforcement strengthen the rule or invite regulatory overreach?

    1. The case for acting: Penalties or prohibitions in this case would materially narrow the space that surrogate advertising currently exploits.
    2. The case for restraint: An action that fails the evidentiary standard set in 2024 becomes a precedent that advertisers cite in every later proceeding.
    3. The self defeating outcome: Enforcement seen as arbitrary strengthens the very practice it was meant to end, by converting a public health question into a dispute about administrative excess.
    4. The distinction that matters: Targeting the marketing chain is legitimate, targeting individuals without completing the statutory inquiry is not.

    Challenges to regulating surrogate advertising

    1. Proving the negative: The state must establish that a lawfully sold product has no independent market, which requires sales and distribution evidence that regulators rarely collect. e.g. brand extensions in elaichi and mouth freshener categories report genuine retail sales, which manufacturers cite as proof of independent identity.
    2. Split jurisdiction: Tobacco control sits with the health administration, food safety with the FDA and unfair trade practices with consumer authorities, so no single body carries the case through. e.g. the present action begins with a state FDA whose primary statute is the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, not COTPA.
    3. Digital advertising escapes the frame: Influencer posts and platform advertisements are transient and geo targeted, so they leave little evidence for a later inquiry. e.g. short video endorsements of betting and fantasy gaming platforms circulate widely without the disclosure labels print and television carry.
    4. Weak deterrence in practice: Penalties are small relative to advertising budgets and are contested for years. e.g. tobacco control prosecutions under COTPA are typically compounded at low fines rather than pursued to conviction.
    5. Sponsorship and event routes: Prohibited categories reach audiences through sports and cultural sponsorship where the brand appears without any product claim. e.g. surrogate liquor branding through music, soda and sporting event sponsorship has continued despite the advertising prohibition.
    6. Enforcement capacity: State drug and food administrations are staffed for sampling and licensing work, not for evidentiary media investigations. e.g. food safety officer vacancies in several States leave routine sampling targets unmet, before any advertising inquiry is added.

    Conclusion

    The action against celebrity endorsers is a defensible extension of endorser liability into the enforcement stage, and it addresses a real asymmetry between who persuades and who pays the health cost. Its survival depends entirely on whether the inquiry under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 meets the evidentiary standard the Delhi High Court fixed in 2024. A well grounded order would narrow the space for surrogate advertising across tobacco, health claims, education and finance. An unsupported one would leave the practice stronger than it found it.

    Advertising Regulation in India

    1. What it covers: Advertising regulation governs the content, placement and truthfulness of commercial communication, and reaches the advertiser, the agency, the publisher and the endorser.
    2. Mixed model: India uses statutory control for specific product categories alongside self regulation by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a voluntary industry body whose code is not itself law.
    3. Statutory anchor since 2019: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, can order the discontinuation of a misleading advertisement and impose penalties on the advertiser and the endorser.
    4. Prohibited categories: Direct advertising of tobacco products is banned, and liquor advertising is restricted, which is precisely what creates the incentive for brand extension.
    5. Scale: India is among the world’s largest advertising markets by volume of impressions, with digital and influencer marketing now the fastest growing segment and the least documented.

    Laws and Rules Governing Advertising and Surrogate Promotion

    1. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003: Prohibits direct and indirect advertisement, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and regulates sale to and around minors.
    2. Section 5: Bars advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including indirect advertisement, which is the provision surrogate advertising is tested against.
    3. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines misleading advertisement, creates the CCPA, and imposes liability and penalties on manufacturers and endorsers.
    4. Endorser penalty: Provides monetary penalty on an endorser for a false or misleading advertisement, with a prohibition on further endorsements for a stated period on repetition.
    5. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Regulates food product claims and advertising, and prohibits misleading claims about the nature, quality or health effect of a food.
    6. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Bars advertisement of prohibited products on cable television through the Advertisement Code framed under it.
    7. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954: Prohibits advertisements claiming cure for listed diseases and conditions.
    8. Central Consumer Protection Authority (Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements) Guidelines, 2022: Set conditions for a non misleading advertisement, regulate bait and surrogate advertisements, and fix due diligence duties for endorsers.
    9. Endorsement Know hows for digital advertising, 2023: Require celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers to disclose a material connection with the advertiser in a clear and prominent manner.

    Government Initiatives in Advertising and Consumer Protection

    1. National Tobacco Control Programme (NTCP): Implemented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to enforce COTPA, run awareness campaigns and support cessation, targeted at tobacco users and youth.
    2. National Tobacco Quitline and mCessation: Provide telephone and mobile based cessation support to tobacco users seeking to quit.
    3. Jago Grahak Jago: Consumer awareness campaign of the Department of Consumer Affairs, aimed at informing consumers about misleading advertisements and grievance routes.
    4. National Consumer Helpline and the INGRAM portal: Give consumers a single point to lodge complaints against misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
    5. Eat Right India: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) campaign to curb misleading food claims and promote safe and healthy food, aimed at consumers and food businesses.

    Key Facts about Tobacco Control and Advertising Regulation

    1. World No Tobacco Day is observed on 31 May each year.
    2. India has the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is the health basis for the strict treatment of tobacco surrogate advertising.
    3. India is a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), the first international public health treaty, which India ratified in 2004.
    4. Pictorial health warnings must cover 85 percent of the principal display area on both sides of a tobacco product package in India, among the largest such requirements globally.
    5. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) was set up in 1985 as a voluntary self regulatory body and its code has no statutory force of its own.

    Challenges in Advertising and Consumer Protection Regulation

    1. Self regulation without teeth: ASCI rulings bind only members and carry no penalty, so a non member advertiser faces no consequence. e.g. several offshore betting and crypto platforms advertising into India are outside ASCI’s membership entirely.
    2. Influencer economy outpaces disclosure rules: Paid endorsements are presented as personal opinion, and disclosure labels are omitted or hidden. e.g. financial influencers recommending securities without registration led the Securities and Exchange Board of India to restrict regulated entities from associating with unregistered advice givers.
    3. Dark patterns in digital interfaces: Design choices such as false urgency and forced action steer consumers without any express claim to test. e.g. the Department of Consumer Affairs notified guidelines in 2023 listing thirteen specified dark patterns on e commerce platforms.
    4. Regulatory capacity gap: The CCPA and State food and drug administrations have small investigation teams against a very large advertising volume. e.g. misleading claims in the coaching and edtech sector produced a separate CCPA advisory only after repeated complaints.
    5. Cross border advertising: Advertisements served from outside India for products banned within India are hard to reach through domestic statutes. e.g. offshore betting platforms advertise through surrogate news and sports content channels aimed at Indian audiences.
    6. Health claims without evidence: Immunity, weight loss and fortification claims sit between food law and drug law and are contested at the margin. e.g. claims on health supplements and nutraceuticals repeatedly draw FSSAI action for lacking substantiation.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)

    1. Governing Act: Established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
    2. Year established: Constituted in 2008, with the Act’s substantive provisions brought into force from 2011.
    3. Parent ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    4. Mandate: Lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import and advertising.
    5. Composition: Headed by a Chairperson of the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, with a Chief Executive Officer and members drawn from States, industry, consumer groups and food technology.
    6. Enforcement structure: Implemented on the ground by State Food Safety Commissioners, Designated Officers and Food Safety Officers, which is why a State FDA leads the present action.

    Way Forward

    1. Complete the statutory inquiry: Convert the summons into a documented proceeding under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that records evidence of the extension product’s dependent market identity.
    2. Define independent market identity: Notify an objective test combining sales volume, distribution reach and advertising spend of the extension product relative to the parent brand.
    3. Single window coordination: Create a joint mechanism between the CCPA, the health administration and State food and drug administrations so one authority carries a surrogate advertising case to conclusion.
    4. Raise the penalty to advertising spend: Link penalties to the advertising outlay of the campaign so the fine is not absorbed as a cost of business.
    5. Mandatory pre certification for prohibited categories: Require prior vetting of advertisements for brand names shared with tobacco and liquor products before release.
    6. Extend disclosure enforcement to digital: Audit influencer endorsements for the material connection disclosure and publish enforcement outcomes so the rule becomes visible.
    7. Consumer side remedy: Publicise the CCPA and National Consumer Helpline routes so complaints against misleading endorsements do not depend on regulator initiative alone.

    “[2014, GS2, 12.5 marks] The setting up of a Rail Tariff Authority to regulate fares will subject the cash strapped Indian Railways to demand subsidy for obligation to operate non-profitable routes and services. Taking into account the experience in the power sector, discuss if the proposed reform is expected to benefit the consumers, the Indian Railways or the private container operators.”

  • Workers protesting for higher wages spent over 50 days in jail on average until courts intervened

    Why in the News

    An investigation into 222 bail orders arising from the April 2026 wage protests by factory workers in Noida found that relief was granted in 188 of them, or 84 per cent, after courts repeatedly held that mere presence in a protesting crowd is not evidence of criminal intent. The average protester nonetheless spent 53 days in custody before that relief arrived. Two protests over comparable grievances in the same month produced opposite outcomes, one ending in a ministerial resignation and an assurance of no prosecution, the other in mass arrests and preventive detention.

    What is the National Security Act, 1980?

    1. What it is: A central preventive detention law that allows the State to detain a person to prevent an apprehended act, without trial and without a criminal charge being proved.
    2. The period it permits: It allows detention for up to one year without trial.
    3. Who orders it: A district magistrate, a commissioner of police or the State government may pass the detention order, and the State government must confirm it.
    4. Its use in this case: Two of those arrested in the Noida protests were booked under the Act, a former journalist and a university graduate, and their pleas are pending before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court respectively.

    What is the current status of the right to protest in India?

    1. A derived right, not an enumerated one: The right to protest is not written into the Constitution as a separate right, it is derived from the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
    2. The qualification on it: Both freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
    3. The peaceful assembly limit: Protection extends only to assembly that is peaceable and unarmed, so the State may act against an assembly once it turns violent.
    4. The bail standard courts applied here: Judges in these cases held that mere presence at a protest is not evidence to deny bail, that the absence of specific evidence outweighs the gravity of the charges, and that ordinary workers cannot be equated with those found organising or instigating violence.
    5. Preventive detention sits alongside it: A person may be detained without trial under a preventive detention law even where no offence has been proved, which is the route taken against two of the accused here.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Protest, Liberty and Preventive Detention

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, from which the right to protest is derived.
    2. Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    3. Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations or unions, the basis of the right to organise labour.
    4. Article 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions on speech and on assembly in the interests of public order.
    5. Article 21: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, read to require a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
    6. Article 22(1) and 22(2): Guarantee an arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, to consult a legal practitioner, and to be produced before a magistrate within twenty four hours.
    7. Article 22(3): Expressly withdraws those protections from a person detained under a preventive detention law.
    8. Article 22(4) and 22(5): Cap preventive detention at three months unless an Advisory Board of persons qualified to be High Court judges reports sufficient cause, and require the grounds of detention to be communicated to the detainee.
    9. Entry 9, Union List and Entry 3, Concurrent List: Place preventive detention connected with defence and foreign affairs with the Union, and preventive detention for reasons connected with State security and the maintenance of public order on the Concurrent List.
    10. Article 23: Prohibits forced labour, the constitutional anchor of minimum wage jurisprudence.
    11. Article 43: Directs the State to secure a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life, as a Directive Principle.

    What triggered the Noida wage protests?

    1. Rising fuel costs: Rising liquefied petroleum gas cylinder prices amid the West Asia crisis, with workers additionally citing black market prices for cylinders.
    2. A rumour about the Labour Codes: WhatsApp rumours in late March that the new Labour Codes would raise minimum wages.
    3. A neighbouring wage settlement: Wage hike protests in Haryana's Manesar, which produced a settlement that workers in Noida then demanded for themselves.
    4. The underlying grievances: Workers cited unrealistic work targets, the absence of social security benefits such as provident fund, and hiring on a temporary basis through contractors.
    5. Working hours in practice: Workers said they were officially on eight hour shifts but routinely worked ten to twelve hours with few breaks, with safety, especially for women, a further concern.

    What did the wage revisions actually deliver?

    1. The Haryana settlement: After the Manesar protests, the State government announced a 35 per cent hike in minimum monthly wages on 9 April, backdated to 1 April.
    2. The Haryana figures: Rs 15,220.71 for unskilled workers and Rs 19,425.85 for highly skilled workers.
    3. The effect on Noida: The Haryana announcement intensified the Noida protests, which turned violent as workers and activists took to the streets.
    4. The Uttar Pradesh interim hike: Calm returned after the State announced its own interim revision on 14 April, raising unskilled wages from Rs 11,313 to Rs 13,690 and skilled wages from Rs 13,940 to Rs 16,868 in Gautam Buddh Nagar and Ghaziabad.
    5. The parallel warning: Authorities in Noida warned contractors that complaints against them would be dealt with harshly.

    What did the bail orders across the seven FIRs establish?

    1. First Information Report 149 of 2026, Noida Phase III: 31 granted bail and 6 denied, on an allegation that 300 to 400 accused entered an electronics firm's premises in Sector 67 on 13 April carrying lathis, sticks, bricks, stones and deadly weapons and extended threats to kill. The sessions court held that the mere fact that an accused was part of the crowd cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that he possessed the same grave criminal intent, and found that the prosecution had described the crowd's acts in a collective manner without specifying individual roles. Fourteen further grants came from the High Court.
    2. First Information Report 151 of 2026, Noida Phase III: 37 granted bail, on an allegation of stone pelting with intent to cause death and vandalism of security gates, closed circuit television cameras, glass structures and office property. The prosecution relied on an informant's statement, an inspection of the site and closed circuit television footage, and the court found that no such footage or electronic record had been placed on record depicting the accused in any violent activity.
    3. First Information Report 163 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 3 granted bail and 10 denied, arising from protests by workers of three garment and apparel firms between 10 and 11 April. Bail went to three who had remained in judicial custody for a long period once the chargesheet was filed, and was refused to ten on prima facie allegations of an active conspiratorial role, including the creation of WhatsApp groups in the names of companies and the recovery of banners, posters and pamphlets from their residences.
    4. First Information Report 165 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 29 granted bail and 6 denied, on an allegation that 450 to 500 workers assembled in Sector 84 and elsewhere on 13 April over wages, overtime and bonuses, and that the protest turned violent between 8.30 am and 9.30 pm. The prosecution cited independent witnesses including a water vendor, a chowmein cart owner and a rickshaw puller, and the court found it was not clear how they were previously acquainted with or able to identify the accused, adding that the presence of an accused at a labourers' protest is not unnatural. Six further grants came from the High Court.
    5. First Information Report 169 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 26 granted bail and 1 denied, on an allegation that garment exporter employees blocked gates, restrained workers from entering and threatened vandalism and arson from 10 April. The court noted the First Information Report was lodged nearly ten days after the incident with several accused not named in it and no explanation for the delay, and that the complaint reflected no actual incident of arson or injuries. The single refusal rested on closed circuit television footage establishing a specific role.
    6. First Information Report 172 of 2026, Noida Phase I: 21 granted bail and 7 denied, on an allegation that workers of an auto components manufacturer blocked a public road, damaged government and company property and injured police personnel. The court held that the only allegation was presence in the protesting crowd, that the role of every person in a crowd cannot be treated the same, and that mere presence does not by itself make every accused equally liable where no specific act is attributed.
    7. First Information Report 164 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 41 granted bail and 4 denied, with 39 of the 41 grants coming from the Allahabad High Court, which applied a broad standard resting on the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and grounds of parity.

    On what grounds was bail refused?

    1. The common accusation: Those denied relief face an alleged role in the conspiracy rather than an alleged act at the protest.
    2. Administering WhatsApp groups: Courts cited data showing certain accused were administrators of a WhatsApp group alleged to have been created to facilitate the commission of violence.
    3. Mobilisation from outside: Bail was refused to accused said to have called others to Noida for the protests or to have run groups to mobilise and instigate workers.
    4. Absence of an employment link: One court held that persons with no direct employment relationship with the companies concerned stand on a different footing from the companies' own workers.
    5. Statements of co accused: In one case bail was refused on the statements of co accused despite the defence pointing to the absence of prior criminal antecedents.
    6. Preventive detention instead of bail: On 13 May, nearly a month after the protests turned violent, the State invoked the National Security Act, 1980 against a 60 year old former journalist from Lucknow and a 25 year old Delhi University graduate, taking both outside the bail process altogether.
    7. The material cited in the detention orders: The grounds included membership of a political organisation, writing described as inciting a new generation to join a rebel organisation, joining a library run by a co accused, the recovery of a book on Indian revolutionaries described as a controversial work of literature, and participation in earlier protests over citizenship registration and over Gaza. One police report used the term andolanjeevi.

    What did the arrests cost the workers and their families?

    1. Time in custody: Across the 106 arrests carrying substantive allegations, ranging from rioting and arson to attempt to murder, the average period a protester spent in custody was 53 days.
    2. Arrest away from any protest: A 34 year old daily wage worker was picked up from Labour Chowk on 14 April while looking for work, and was released on bail 40 days later.
    3. Cost of the process itself: That worker's family, migrants from Bihar, spent nearly Rs 50,000 on jail and court visits alone, and his mother lost her factory job over the frequency of those visits.
    4. The scale of borrowing: The families of two young men aged 20 and 18 from Sitamarhi spent almost Rs 3 lakh between them on bail, and sought relatives' help for surety bonds.
    5. Length of detention for the young: One of those two completed three months and a day in jail, and was released two days after the other because of a documentation problem.
    6. The lasting effect: A 19 year old picked up on 14 April after stepping out of his workplace for a meal was released on 18 May, and reports that his parents now call six times a day fearing he will be picked up again.

    Why did two protests over comparable grievances end so differently?

    1. The first outcome: The Jantar Mantar protest demanding a leak proof examination system ended with the Union Education Minister's resignation and an assurance by the Centre and the States that the police would pursue no case against the protesters.
    2. The second outcome: The week long protest beginning 10 April by factory workers in Noida demanding higher wages drew a police crackdown, with up to 200 people taken into custody.
    3. The distinction was not the demand: Both protests raised a grievance against a State failure, one over examination integrity and the other over the statutory minimum wage.
    4. The distinction was the protester: The workers were largely contract hires, migrants and daily wagers with no institutional voice, which is what left them dependent on the courts for relief the other protesters received by executive assurance.
    5. The State conceded the demand anyway: Uttar Pradesh raised wages on 14 April, so the substance of the workers' claim was accepted while the workers themselves remained in custody.
    6. The relief was judicial, not political: Courts granted relief in 84 per cent of the bail pleas, which means the correction came from the judiciary rather than from the executive that had made the arrests.

    Major debates surrounding preventive detention and the right to protest

    1. Preventive detention inside a rights guaranteeing Constitution: India is among the few democracies to carry preventive detention in the Constitution itself, and Article 22(3) removes the very safeguards Article 22(1) and 22(2) create for an arrested person.
    2. Public order against ordinary law and order: Preventive detention is available only for a threat to public order, and the line between a law and order breach and a public order breach determines whether the ordinary criminal process or detention without trial applies.
    3. Collective liability against individual act: The prosecution treats the crowd as the accused while the courts require a specific act attributed to a named individual, and the bail record here shows the two standards producing opposite results.
    4. Bail as the rule and jail as the exception: The settled principle collides with a practice in which the average protester spent 53 days in custody before a court applied it.
    5. Speech and association as evidence: Books read, library membership, publishing and participation in earlier protests were cited in the detention grounds, which raises whether protected expression can supply the material for a preventive order.
    6. Advisory Board review against judicial review: Preventive detention is reviewed by an Advisory Board rather than by a trial, so the detenu's remedy is a writ petition, which is slower than a bail application.
    7. The right to strike: Indian law recognises no fundamental right to strike, so a wage agitation has no protected status independent of the general freedom of assembly.

    Challenges to protecting the right to protest

    1. Procedure as punishment: Even where charges fail, the time spent in custody before bail is itself the penalty. e.g. the 53 day average custody in these Noida cases against an 84 per cent eventual bail rate.
    2. Collective First Information Reports: Naming 300 to 500 unidentified persons in a single complaint makes individual defence impossible and shifts the burden onto the accused. e.g. First Information Report 149 of 2026, where the sessions court found the prosecution had described the crowd's acts in a collective manner without specifying individual roles.
    3. Preventive detention bypasses bail entirely: Once a detention order is passed, the bail jurisprudence stops applying and the detenu must approach a constitutional court. e.g. the two National Security Act, 1980 detentions of 13 May 2026, whose pleas remain pending before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court.
    4. Cost of accessing justice: Surety bonds, travel, lawyers and jail visits impoverish families whose original grievance was a wage below subsistence. e.g. one family spending nearly Rs 50,000 on visits and another almost Rs 3 lakh on two sons.
    5. Contract hiring removes institutional protection: Workers hired through contractors have no recognised union and no employer of record to negotiate on their behalf. e.g. courts here treated persons with no direct employer employee relationship with the companies as standing on a different footing when refusing bail.
    6. Delay in registering complaints: Complaints filed days after the event allow names to be added without contemporaneous evidence. e.g. First Information Report 169 of 2026, lodged nearly ten days after the incident with several accused not named in it.
    7. Unequal executive response: The executive can extend an assurance of no prosecution to one set of protesters and none to another, with no standard governing the choice. e.g. the Jantar Mantar assurance against the Noida crackdown in the same month.
    8. Absence of accountability for wrongful arrest: No consequence attaches to an investigating agency whose case collapses at the bail stage. e.g. senior police officers linked to this investigation declined comment on the findings.

    Conclusion

    The Noida record shows a criminal process in which the crowd, rather than a named individual with a proved act, was treated as the accused, and in which the correction came from the courts rather than from the agency that made the arrests. The State conceded the wage demand on 14 April while the workers who raised it remained in custody for weeks longer, so the substance of the grievance was accepted without any consequence for the arrests. The pending challenges to the two National Security Act, 1980 detentions, before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court respectively, are the next milestone in the matter.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    1. About: Preventive detention is the confinement of a person to prevent an apprehended future act, rather than to punish a proved past offence, and it therefore involves no charge, trial or conviction.
    2. Rationale: It exists to allow the State to act on an anticipated threat to public order or State security in advance of the harm, on the reasoning that a completed offence would be too late to prevent.
    3. Punitive detention distinguished: Punitive detention follows conviction after a trial, preventive detention precedes any trial and rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
    4. The constitutional cap: Detention beyond three months requires an Advisory Board of persons qualified to be High Court judges to report sufficient cause, under Article 22(4).
    5. The grounds requirement: The authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee and afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation, under Article 22(5).
    6. The judicial standard: Because the satisfaction is subjective, courts review the procedure and the relevance of the material rather than the sufficiency of the grounds themselves.

    Key Concerns Regarding Preventive Detention

    1. Constitutional safeguards expressly withdrawn: Article 22(3) removes the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, to counsel and to production before a magistrate for a preventively detained person.
    2. No requirement to prove an offence: Detention rests on apprehension rather than evidence of a committed act, so the ordinary standard of proof never applies.
    3. Executive rather than judicial review: An Advisory Board, not a trial court, examines the detention, and the detenu's only judicial route is a writ petition.
    4. Vague standards for public order: The distinction between a law and order breach and a public order breach is not statutorily defined, so classification is a matter of executive judgment.
    5. Successive detention orders: A fresh order can follow the revocation of an earlier one, extending confinement beyond the period any single order permits.
    6. Use against speech and association: Writing, publishing, reading and participating in earlier protests have been cited as material in detention grounds, converting protected expression into evidence of apprehended threat.

    Laws and Rules Governing Preventive Detention and Public Order in India

    1. Preventive Detention Act, 1950: The first post independence preventive detention statute, tested in A.K. Gopalan versus State of Madras in 1950, and allowed to lapse in 1969.
    2. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971: Provided for preventive detention on internal security grounds and was repealed in 1978.
    3. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974: Permits preventive detention in smuggling and foreign exchange matters, and remains in force.
    4. National Security Act, 1980: Permits detention for up to one year to prevent a person from acting prejudicially to the defence of India, the security of the State, relations with foreign powers, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
    5. Detention orders may be passed by a district magistrate, a commissioner of police or the State government, and must be confirmed by the State government.
    6. Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988: Provides preventive detention in narcotics cases.
    7. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Governs terrorist and unlawful association offences, with restrictive bail conditions in place of ordinary bail jurisprudence.
    8. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and carries the preventive powers of the police and the magistracy, including the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.
    9. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Carries the substantive offences of rioting, unlawful assembly, mischief and criminal conspiracy on which protest prosecutions are built.
    10. State security legislation: Several States operate their own public safety or goonda acts providing for preventive detention on locally defined grounds.

    Back2Basics: The Four Labour Codes

    1. What they are: Four consolidated central statutes that subsume 29 earlier central labour laws into a single framework covering wages, industrial relations, social security and workplace safety.
    2. Code on Wages, 2019: Merges four laws including the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and provides for a statutory floor wage set by the Centre below which no State may fix its minimum wage.
    3. Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Merges three laws on trade unions, standing orders and industrial disputes, and raises the threshold for prior government permission for retrenchment and closure to establishments with 300 or more workers.
    4. Code on Social Security, 2020: Merges nine laws on provident fund, gratuity, maternity benefit and employees' state insurance, and for the first time brings gig and platform workers within the definition of beneficiaries.
    5. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020: Merges 13 laws on factories, contract labour, migrant workmen and specific hazardous sectors.
    6. Coverage of minimum wages: The Code on Wages, 2019 extends minimum wage entitlement to all employees in both organised and unorganised sectors, whereas the earlier law applied only to scheduled employments.
    7. Why they figure here: A rumour in late March 2026 that the Codes would raise minimum wages was one of the three stated triggers of the Noida protests.

    Way Forward

    1. Require individualised allegations in a First Information Report: A complaint naming an unascertained crowd should be treated as insufficient to sustain custody absent a specific act attributed to a named person.
    2. Apply a statutory bail timeline in protest cases: A fixed outer limit for the first bail hearing would prevent the process itself becoming the punishment, as the 53 day average shows it did.
    3. Restrict preventive detention to defined public order threats: A statutory definition distinguishing a law and order breach from a public order breach would narrow the discretion the National Security Act, 1980 currently leaves to the detaining authority.
    4. Bar expression and association as sole detention grounds: Books read, publications authored and participation in earlier lawful protests should not by themselves constitute material for a preventive order.
    5. Enforce the Code on Wages, 2019 floor wage: Timely notification and revision of minimum wages removes the grievance that produced the agitation, since Uttar Pradesh conceded the revision within four days of the protests.
    6. Regulate contract hiring: Registration of contractors and a statutory grievance route for contract workers gives them a channel short of street protest, addressing the absence of any union or employer of record.
    7. Institutionalise a protest response protocol: A published standard for how the police respond to a peaceful assembly, applied uniformly, would end the disparity between the assurance given at Jantar Mantar and the crackdown at Noida.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023] Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances. 2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to person being held for preventive detention 3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Answer: (a)”

  • Clean electoral rolls are a necessary condition, and their selective use is the risk

    Why in the News

    The United States President’s appreciation of India’s election mechanism, and his social media post citing India’s Chief Election Commissioner on how the United States conducts elections without a valid photo identity, has put election integrity in both democracies under simultaneous scrutiny. Both political systems agree that rolls should be clean and voting should be verified, and disagree completely on who the requirement is meant to exclude.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Definition: Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a comprehensive, time bound house to house verification drive involving fresh enumeration forms for all voters, door to door verification by Booth Level Officers, document verification of citizenship, deletion of ineligible entries and inclusion of omitted voters.
    2. How it differs from the routine exercise: Summary Revision is the routine annual update of additions, deletions and corrections carried out before general, Assembly and bye elections, with a qualifying date typically of 1 January.
    3. When it is triggered: SIR is exceptional and is triggered only when rolls have remained largely unchanged for years or when large scale irregularities are suspected.
    4. Statutory basis: Electoral rolls are prepared and maintained by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with intensive revision mandated under Sections 22 and 23 of that Act.

    What is the current status of electoral roll revision in India?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Frequency in history: Intensive revisions have been carried out only 13 times in India’s history, in 1952, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
    2. The current exercise: The Election Commission launched a nationwide SIR 2.0 from 4 November 2025, the first in 21 years, covering 9 States and 3 Union Territories and targeting approximately 51 crore voter records.
    3. Method used: The exercise uses artificial intelligence driven duplicate detection and facial and identity match algorithms alongside field verification.
    4. The officer chain: The Chief Electoral Officer at State level, the District Election Officer at district level, the Electoral Registration Officer at constituency level and Booth Level Officers at polling booth level carry out the work.
    5. The immediately preceding exercise: The January 2025 Special Summary Revision was completed with no issues raised before the Bihar SIR was announced.
    6. The presumption cutoff: The exercise uses 2003 as the citizenship presumption cutoff, which effectively re verifies every voter added between 2003 and 2025.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Elections and Electoral Rolls

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Article 324: Establishes the Election Commission of India and vests in it the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President.
    2. Article 325: Guarantees that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in, or claim to be included in, a special electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
    3. Article 326: Provides that elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, so every citizen not disqualified by a specific legal exception may vote.
    4. Articles 327 and 328: Authorise Parliament and State Legislatures respectively to make laws on all election related matters, including electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies.
    5. Article 329: Bars courts from questioning laws relating to delimitation of constituencies, making Delimitation Commission orders final and non justiciable.
    6. Part XV: Articles 324 to 329 together constitute the electoral provisions of the Constitution, and they are the source of the Election Commission’s status as a constitutional body.

    Why has election integrity become contested in both democracies at the same time?

    1. Partisan mistrust as the common driver: Partisan politics in both countries has fostered political mistrust, which leads election losers to repeatedly question electoral integrity.
    2. Both sides want purification, in opposite directions: The liberal and progressive strands and the conservative and nativist strands in both countries want to purify and streamline electoral rolls and processes, in different and often contradictory ways.
    3. The ruling side’s claim: Ruling dispensations in both countries hold that the election process is too permissive and allows foreigners to obtain voting rights.
    4. The opposition’s claim: Their opponents point to systematic and premeditated efforts to target social groups in the name of election integrity.
    5. The point of agreement is narrow: No one disagrees that the process should be fair and transparent, and the agreement ends there.
    6. The shared opportunity: India and the United States could lead a shared democratic agenda on election rules, but only after restoring trust and integrity in their own electoral processes.

    How do the American and Indian election administration systems differ?

    1. United States, a decentralised and federalised process: The American electoral process is highly federalised and governed by fragmented rules and politics that resist the idea of a nationwide SIR type exercise.
    2. United States, the constitutional allocation: The Constitution grants each State its own methods, subject to the qualification that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.
    3. United States, the pending federal law: The expanded Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act was passed in February and is pending in the Senate, and would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo identity for voting.
    4. United States, the gap identified: The decentralised system leaves too many loopholes in the process of enrolment and voting, and could benefit from a more robust national framework of the kind the Election Commission of India provides.
    5. India, a constitutional election authority: The Indian Constitution establishes the Election Commission as a constitutional body, unlike the American arrangement of State by State methods.
    6. India, a nationalised administration under strain: India’s nationalised election administration system has largely worked well and now faces a crisis of legitimacy.
    7. The common legal position: There is no ambiguity in existing law in either country that only citizens may register and vote, and the controversy is entirely about the process of ensuring this.

    Why can a legitimate requirement of clean rolls still damage trust?

    1. The requirement itself is elementary: Clean electoral rolls of citizens, and voting with photo identity, are elementary requirements of a fair process, and neither is objectionable in principle.
    2. The manner of introduction is the objection: In India the SIR is introducing the citizenship proof requirement without transparency, adequate consultation or sufficient time.
    3. Frequency argues for care, not speed: SIR is meant to be conducted only once in 20 years, which is precisely why it should be carried out carefully and inclusively.
    4. The same rule can serve two purposes: A requirement designed to exclude non citizens can equally be used to exclude citizens who lack the documents, and the two outcomes are indistinguishable in the roll.
    5. The standard both countries must meet: In both countries the state must not selectively weaponise these requirements against those not in power.

    Major debates surrounding electoral roll revision in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Bihar, the scale of deletion: A 47 lakh net reduction in the final roll, with 3.66 lakh removed in the last phase after draft publication, and allegations of large scale deletions in four border districts ahead of State elections.
    2. Bihar, the process failure: Booth Level Officers collected forms without acknowledgement slips, and contradictory deadlines of 25 July and 31 August caused mass confusion.
    3. West Bengal, the notice requirement: Large scale deletions were alleged, with Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which requires individual notice before deletion, alleged to have been violated, and petitions filed in the Calcutta High Court against a contesting Commission affidavit.
    4. Uttar Pradesh, the quality of verification: Concerns were raised over disproportionate deletions in minority heavy constituencies, with field verification by Booth Level Officers reported as cursory and forms collected in bulk.
    5. Migrant voters: Multiple States including Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Assam reported that migrant workers away from their registered constituencies were deleted without notice.
    6. Timing without a stated trigger: The SIR was announced within six months of a clean January 2025 summary revision with no new justification offered.
    7. Feasibility of the timeline: The Commission’s own Assam National Register of Citizens experience shows that verification of this kind cannot be completed within the 90 days allotted.

    Challenges to a credible electoral roll revision

    1. Burden of proof falls on the voter: An intensive revision requires the voter to establish eligibility rather than requiring the state to establish ineligibility. e.g. the 2003 presumption cutoff placing the documentary burden on everyone enrolled between 2003 and 2025.
    2. Migrant and mobile populations are structurally exposed: Voters absent from their registered address during door to door verification are recorded as untraceable and deleted. e.g. migrant workers in Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Assam reported as deleted without notice.
    3. Notice requirements are unevenly observed: Deletion without individual notice removes the only opportunity to contest an error before publication. e.g. the alleged violation of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 in West Bengal.
    4. Field capacity does not match the timeline: Booth Level Officers carry the entire verification load within a compressed window, and shortcuts follow. e.g. forms collected in bulk without acknowledgement slips in Bihar and cursory verification reported in Uttar Pradesh.
    5. Algorithmic deduplication carries error: Facial and identity match algorithms produce false positives that are removed before any human confirms the match. e.g. SIR 2.0 applying artificial intelligence driven duplicate detection across approximately 51 crore records.
    6. Contradictory administrative communication: Multiple deadlines and changing instructions destroy the voter’s ability to comply. e.g. the 25 July and 31 August deadlines issued in Bihar.
    7. Verification errors survive to the draft roll: Voters who submitted forms still appear in the deleted category, which shifts the burden to a post publication correction process. e.g. voters in Telangana finding their names listed under permanently shifted or dead in the recently released draft roll despite having filed forms.

    Conclusion

    Clean electoral rolls of citizens and voting with photo identity are elementary requirements of a fair process, and the disagreement in both India and the United States is about who the requirement is applied to and how. India’s nationalised system offers the national framework the American process lacks, and it is that system that now faces a crisis of legitimacy. An exercise conducted once in 20 years, over approximately 51 crore records, has to be carried out carefully and inclusively or it converts a legitimate purification into a selective exclusion. The obligation on the state in both countries is the same, not to weaponise these requirements against those not in power.

    What is Election Integrity?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. About: Election integrity is the condition in which every stage of an election, from enrolment to the declaration of results, is conducted according to law and is accepted as such by winners and losers alike.
    2. Rationale: Democratic legitimacy rests on the losing side accepting the result, so integrity is measured by trust in the process rather than by the accuracy of the count alone.
    3. Pre poll phase: Covers electoral roll preparation and revision, delimitation and representation, candidate scrutiny and disqualification, and the registration and recognition of political parties.
    4. During poll phase: Covers the Model Code of Conduct, the voting mechanism including electronic voting machines and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail, and corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
    5. Post poll phase: Covers exit and opinion poll regulation under Sections 126A and 126(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and election disputes through election petitions before High Courts.
    6. The statutory division: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs the preparatory side including rolls and delimitation, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 governs the conduct of elections including candidates, offences and disputes.

    Laws and Rules Governing Electoral Rolls and Elections

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx, supplemented

    1. Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides for allocation of seats in Parliament and State Legislatures, delimitation of constituencies, and the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, and defines the machinery of electoral officers.
    2. Section 21: The provision under which electoral rolls are prepared and maintained.
    3. Sections 22 and 23: The provisions mandating correction, deletion and inclusion of entries, under which intensive revision is conducted.
    4. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the conduct of elections, qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, nomination and scrutiny, corrupt practices, election offences, expenditure limits and election petitions.
    5. Section 8: Provides for disqualification on conviction, with immediate disqualification of a sitting legislator convicted and sentenced to two years or more, continuing for six years after release.
    6. Section 29A: Provides for registration of political parties with the Election Commission.
    7. Section 29C: Requires parties to disclose all donations above twenty thousand rupees annually to the Commission.
    8. Section 100: Sets out the grounds on which an election may be declared void.
    9. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Prescribe the procedure for preparation and revision of rolls, with Rule 18 requiring individual notice before deletion of an entry.
    10. Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: Governs recognition of parties as State or National parties and the allotment of reserved and free symbols.
    11. Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Service Conditions) Act, 2023: Governs the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
    12. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (supplemented, not drawn from the Backgrounder): Prescribe the detailed procedure for nomination, polling, counting and declaration of results under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

    Election Commission Initiatives to Strengthen the Electoral Process

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Electronic Voting Machines: Deployed across India since 2004, replacing the ballot box system used from 1952.
    2. Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail: Deployed at all polling stations from the 2019 elections, printing a slip visible to the voter for seven seconds before it falls into a sealed compartment.
    3. National Voters Services Portal: Allows voters to register, modify and confirm their electoral details online.
    4. cVIGIL mobile application: Introduced for the 2019 elections, enabling over 20,000 complaints of electoral malpractice to be reported directly to the Commission, with complaints attended within 100 minutes in Bihar.
    5. Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation: Targeted voter education campaigns that contributed to a turnout of approximately 67 percent in 2019, among the highest in Indian electoral history.
    6. Photo electoral rolls: All voter lists carried photographs by the 2019 elections, reducing impersonation risk.
    7. Election Seizure Management System: Provides real time reporting of interceptions of cash, liquor and other inducements, alongside 824 flying squads deployed in Bihar and static surveillance teams.
    8. Biometric identification: Piloted in select constituencies during State elections to verify voter identity more accurately.

    Key Facts about Elections and Electoral Rolls in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Voter access commitments: No polling station is to have more than 1,200 voters, and polling stations are to be located within 2 km of voters’ residences.
    2. Urban apathy measures: Polling stations are set up inside high rise buildings and residential colonies, with basic amenities guaranteed at every polling station.
    3. Seat freeze: The Lok Sabha seat count has been frozen at 543 on the basis of 1971 Census figures, and average voters per constituency has grown from roughly 10 lakh in 1971 to 18 lakh today.
    4. Delimitation Commissions: Four have been constituted so far, in 1952, 1963, 1973 and 2002.
    5. Expenditure ceiling: The official Lok Sabha election expenditure limit is now 95 lakh rupees, up from 25,000 rupees in 1951-52.
    6. Verification record of the machines: Over 4 crore Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail slips have been tallied with the electronic counts of their control units without a single mismatch recorded.

    Challenges in India’s Electoral System

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Criminalisation of politics: A record 251 of the 543 members elected to the 18th Lok Sabha in 2024, or 46 percent, have criminal cases registered against them, and the proportion with serious charges rose from 24 percent in 2004. e.g. the conviction rate for politicians involved in crimes standing at only 6 percent, so most accused legislators complete full terms.
    2. Money power and unaccounted funding: Over 60 percent of party income often comes from unknown sources, and registered political parties now exceed 2,800. e.g. cash, liquor and drugs worth over 100 crore rupees seized in Bihar in 2025 and 733.43 crore rupees in Karnataka in 2023.
    3. Seizures that do not convert into convictions: The burden of proving that seized cash was meant to influence votes defeats most cases. e.g. 303.86 crore rupees seized in the 2014 Lok Sabha election released after income assessment, with criminal cases filed in only three of hundreds of instances.
    4. Frozen representation: Seats fixed on 1971 population data leave voters in high growth States under represented, and any correction risks penalising States that reduced fertility. e.g. five southern States together standing to lose approximately 24 seats under a straight redistribution of the existing 543.
    5. Women’s under representation: Women form 49 percent of the population and held approximately 11 percent of Lok Sabha seats as of 2021. e.g. the Women’s Reservation Bill, first introduced in 1996, having failed multiple times, and state laws eroding the grassroots gains secured by the 73rd and 74th Amendments through retrograde eligibility criteria.
    6. Model Code of Conduct without statutory backing: The Code lacks statutory force and is enforced indirectly through existing law. e.g. the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Harbans Singh Jalal (2001) holding that the Code comes into force on the day the election date is announced, and opining that legalising the Code may not be suitable.
    7. Trust deficit in the Commission: Repeated controversies over electronic voting machines, SIR and turnout data have eroded the Commission’s moral authority. e.g. the demand that the Commission release detailed verification data and establish mechanisms for public scrutiny.
    8. Exit and opinion poll regulation gaps: Parliament limited only exit poll publication until the final phase, leaving opinion polls comparatively unrestricted. e.g. exit polls after the 2024 general elections significantly missing the actual result.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India (ECI)

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Constitutional status: A constitutional body established on 25 January 1950 under Article 324, governed by Articles 324 to 329 in Part XV of the Constitution.
    2. Jurisdiction: Conducts and supervises elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President.
    3. Composition: A multi member body comprising one Chief Election Commissioner and up to two Election Commissioners.
    4. Status of the Chief Election Commissioner: Holds the same status, salary and perquisites as a judge of the Supreme Court, and can be removed only by a parliamentary address in the manner of a Supreme Court judge.
    5. Removal of Election Commissioners: An Election Commissioner can be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
    6. Appointment: Governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Service Conditions) Act, 2023, under which a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha recommends candidates.
    7. The appointment dispute: The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India (2023) had directed that the selection panel include the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law, and the 2023 Act omitted the Chief Justice, which is under challenge.
    8. Administrative functions: Preparation and revision of electoral rolls, notification of election dates, scrutiny of nomination papers, recognition of political parties and allotment of symbols.
    9. Advisory and quasi judicial functions: Advises the President on disqualification of members of Parliament and Governors on State legislature disqualifications, cancels and reschedules polls for rigging or violence, and acts as a court for disputes on party recognition and symbols.

    Way Forward

    1. Publish the verification trail: Release booth level data on forms received, entries deleted and the reason recorded for each deletion, so that a claimed clean up is auditable rather than asserted.
    2. Enforce the individual notice requirement: Make compliance with Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 a precondition for deletion, with a recorded acknowledgement for every form collected.
    3. Match the timeline to the task: Set the revision period from the verification workload of the largest States rather than a uniform 90 day window, given the Assam experience.
    4. Provide a portable enrolment route for migrants: Enable remote or transferable enrolment so that absence from the registered address during verification does not by itself trigger deletion.
    5. Require human confirmation of algorithmic matches: Treat artificial intelligence generated duplicate and identity matches as flags for field verification rather than as grounds for deletion.
    6. Publish a single calendar: Issue one set of deadlines for each State at the outset, so that contradictory dates of the kind issued in Bihar do not recur.
    7. Restore the appointment safeguard: Settle the composition of the Selection Committee for Election Commissioners, since the Commission’s perceived independence is the foundation of any acceptance of its roll revision.
    8. Build a bilateral democratic agenda on rules, not on claims: Convert the shared interest of India and the United States in citizen only rolls and verified voting into a technical exchange on enrolment standards, after each restores trust in its own process.

    “[2018, GS2, 10 marks] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?”

  • Punjab’s decade-long journey towards a formal sacrilege law

    Why in the News

    Punjab brought a stringent sacrilege law into force in April 2026 by amending an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, avoiding the Presidential assent that had defeated three earlier attempts. The route exposes a conflict between a State's determination to legislate on religious sentiment and the constitutional limits set by secularism, equality, proportionality and the division of legislative competence. A challenge to the Act is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    What does Punjab's 2026 sacrilege law do?

    1. What it penalises: It punishes sacrilege committed against the Guru Granth Sahib, and covers no other religious scripture.
    2. The sentence it carries: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, leaving no room for a judge to calibrate punishment to the facts of a case.
    3. The statute it amends: It amends a pre existing State law concerned specifically with the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, rather than the central penal code.
    4. How it was brought into force: Because the State argued the amendment falls within its own legislative competence, it claimed no Presidential assent was needed, and the Governor's signature brought it into force in April 2026.

    What is the current status of sacrilege law in India?

    1. The central provision: Insulting religion or religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intent is an offence under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the successor to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    2. The settled constitutional position: Section 295A was upheld in Ramji Lal Modi, and the Supreme Court has not revisited that ruling in almost sixty years.
    3. The intent requirement on paper: Conviction requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a threshold the court reads into the provision.
    4. Where the practical harm falls: Indian criminal procedure allows a First Information Report to be lodged and an accused arrested well before any court examines whether that intent was present, so the chilling effect operates at the point of complaint, not at the point of conviction.
    5. No standalone national sacrilege statute: There is no separate central law on sacrilege beyond the religious offence provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is why Punjab has repeatedly attempted a State law.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Sacrilege, Speech and Secularism

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law, and permits classification only where an intelligible differentia bears a rational nexus to the law's stated purpose.
    2. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
    3. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom in the interests of public order, decency or morality, among other grounds.
    4. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has read as requiring a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform even where this cuts against religious custom.
    6. Entry 1, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places criminal law within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.
    7. Article 254: Provides that a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same Concurrent List subject is void to that extent.
    8. Article 254(2): Saves such a State law only where it has been reserved for and has received the assent of the President.

    How did Punjab arrive at this law across a decade?

    1. 2016, the first attempt: The then Akali Dal and Bharatiya Janata Party government passed a bill imposing life imprisonment for sacrilege committed specifically against the Guru Granth Sahib. The Centre returned it, objecting that a law protecting only one religion's scripture could not sit easily with India's secular Constitution.
    2. 2018, the second attempt: The succeeding Congress government extended the same life sentence to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Bible, through a new Section 295AA of the penal code. That Bill was also returned without Presidential assent.
    3. July 2025, the third attempt: The Aam Aadmi Party government introduced the Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, again covering all four texts, with sentences ranging from ten years to life. It was sent to a select committee and has since been effectively shelved.
    4. April 2026, the successful route: The State abandoned the amendment of the central penal code and instead amended an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, bringing the law into force on the Governor's signature alone.
    5. The pattern the sequence shows: A State legislature has persistently tried, by one route or another, to entrench a sacrilege code of ever increasing severity, undeterred by repeated constitutional rebuffs.

    Why does a religion specific penal law run into the equality guarantee?

    1. The classification test it must pass: A provision drawing a line between one community's sacred text and every other's needs an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to its stated purpose, the test the Supreme Court set out in State of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar.
    2. Why the classification fails on its own terms: The Act's stated purpose is communal harmony, framed in terms of all communities, and singling out one faith's scripture does not serve a purpose framed in terms of all of them.
    3. The objection is not new: By protecting only the Guru Granth Sahib, the 2026 Act revives precisely the objection that sank the 2016 attempt.
    4. The pending litigation: In May 2026, the Anglican Church of India, through its Amritsar bishop, petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court arguing that the Act creates a religion specific penal regime violating equality before law, and sought both the quashing of the Act and a stay on its implementation.
    5. The standing wrinkle: The Bench reportedly questioned how a church whose own scripture the Act does not touch could claim to be aggrieved by it, a question that demonstrates the very defect alleged, since a law can discriminate in structure while leaving those it excludes without the conventional standing to challenge it. The petition remains pending.

    Why does the mandatory life sentence raise a proportionality problem?

    1. What the Act does: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, removing all sentencing discretion from the trial judge.
    2. The controlling precedent: In Mithu versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court struck down a different mandatory sentencing provision precisely because it stripped courts of discretion.
    3. The standard applied: Mithu applied the requirement of a just, fair and reasonable procedure that Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India had read into Article 21.
    4. The parallel is close: The earlier case also arose out of Punjab, which makes the comparison with the 2026 Act direct rather than analogical.
    5. Why proportionality matters here: Sacrilege covers conduct ranging from a deliberate desecration to an inadvertent act, and a single fixed maximum sentence prevents a court from distinguishing between them.

    Does the State have the legislative competence to enact this law?

    1. Where the subject sits: Criminal law sits on the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and the State legislature may legislate on it.
    2. The repugnancy rule: Article 254 makes a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same subject void to that extent, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries its own provisions on sacrilege and on outraging religious feeling.
    3. The only saving route: Article 254(2) saves such a State law only where it has received Presidential assent, which is the requirement that defeated the 2016 and 2018 Bills.
    4. How Punjab avoided it: The State amended a pre existing, ostensibly ceremonial statute rather than the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita directly, and argued that no assent was therefore needed.
    5. The challenge to that route: A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court argues that a life sentence is a matter of criminal law and cannot dodge central scrutiny merely by changing which statute book it sits in.

    Why does the free speech objection survive despite Ramji Lal Modi?

    1. The vagueness of the operative terms: Section 295A and its successor in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 rest on terms such as outrage, insult and religious feelings, policed after the fact by whichever officer receives the complaint.
    2. The precedent that should apply: In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India in 2015, the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety, holding that criminalising online messages using undefined terms such as offensive and menacing left the provision impermissibly vague, invited arbitrary enforcement and chilled protected speech in violation of Article 19(1)(a).
    3. The terms are no more precise: The words on which the religious offence provisions rest are as undefined as the words the court found fatal in Shreya Singhal.
    4. What the court has not done: It has never brought the Shreya Singhal reasoning to bear on Section 295A, whose constitutionality it settled in Ramji Lal Modi almost sixty years earlier and has not revisited since.
    5. The reason for the gap: The inconsistency reads as reluctance rather than principle, since it is easier to strike down a recent statute governing an unfamiliar medium than to unsettle an eighty year old precedent with a long and emotionally fraught history behind it.
    6. What the vagueness enables: A cartoon, a novel, a documentary or a stray remark on social media can all be made to fit the language of insult without any accompanying threat of actual disorder.

    Major debates surrounding sacrilege law

    1. Secularism as an unamendable limit: Secularism was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, precisely so that the State could neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, and a sacrilege law does the second.
    2. Religious freedom against religious reform: Article 25 protects the practice of religion and at the same time preserves the space for social reformers, sceptics and atheists to challenge religious practice, since the right is subject to public order, morality and health and the State may legislate for reform.
    3. Public order as a threshold or a label: One position requires an actual threat of disorder before speech may be punished, the other treats the giving of offence as itself a disturbance of public order.
    4. Ramji Lal Modi against Shreya Singhal: Two lines of authority now sit in tension, one upholding a vague religious offence provision and the other striking down a vague online speech provision on the same reasoning.
    5. Federal competence against local sentiment: A State legislature responding to local religious sentiment collides with a national criminal code and the Article 254 assent requirement designed to keep criminal law uniform.
    6. Deterrence against chilling effect: Severe sentences are defended as deterrence against desecration, and are opposed on the ground that the harm is inflicted at the stage of arrest, long before any court weighs intent.

    Challenges to enforcing a sacrilege law

    1. Undefined operative terms: Insult and outrage are not statutorily defined, so the same conduct produces prosecution in one district and none in another. e.g. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal in 2015 for exactly this defect.
    2. Arrest precedes adjudication of intent: A First Information Report can be registered and an accused arrested before any court tests the deliberate and malicious intent the offence requires. e.g. the 2026 Punjab Act's life sentence attaches to a charge that a magistrate never has to evaluate before custody begins.
    3. Selective protection invites litigation: Protecting one scripture and not others invites an equality challenge that can stall the law for years. e.g. the Anglican Church of India's May 2026 petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, still pending.
    4. No sentencing discretion: A mandatory minimum forces the same punishment on a deliberate desecration and an inadvertent act. e.g. Mithu versus State of Punjab struck down a mandatory sentencing provision for removing exactly this discretion.
    5. Repugnancy risk to the whole statute: A State criminal law that overlaps a central enactment is void to the extent of repugnancy unless it carries Presidential assent, so the entire Act can fall on a procedural ground. e.g. the 2016 and 2018 Punjab Bills were both returned without assent.
    6. Incentive for mob complaint: A severe penalty attached to a subjective standard makes the police complaint itself a weapon against critics, writers and artists. e.g. the returned 2018 Bill would have extended a life sentence to insult of four separate scriptures, multiplying the categories of complainant.
    7. Standing gap for excluded groups: A community whose scripture the law does not cover may be told it is not aggrieved, so the discrimination cannot be tested. e.g. the Punjab and Haryana High Court's question to the Amritsar bishop in the pending petition.

    Conclusion

    Punjab's 2026 Act carries three distinct constitutional infirmities at once: an equality defect under the Anwar Ali Sarkar test, a proportionality defect under Mithu, and a legislative competence defect under Article 254. Each of these is separate from the broader secularism objection that a State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one. The petitions challenging the Act remain pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the next milestone is that court's decision on the quashing and stay applications.

    What is Secularism as a Constitutional Doctrine?

    1. About: Indian secularism requires the State to maintain equal distance from all religions, neither establishing nor favouring one, while retaining the power to regulate the secular aspects of religious practice.
    2. Rationale: It exists to secure equal citizenship in a society of multiple faiths, so that a citizen's legal standing does not vary with religious affiliation.
    3. Its constitutional status: It was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, and was written into the Preamble by the Forty second Amendment in 1976.
    4. Its distinguishing feature: Unlike a strict wall of separation, the Indian model allows positive State intervention in religion for social welfare and reform, which Article 25(2) expressly authorises.
    5. Where it is enforced: Articles 25 to 28 supply the operative provisions, and Article 15 and Article 16 bar religious discrimination by the State.

    Key Concerns Regarding Constitutional Secularism

    1. State regulation shading into State preference: The power to reform religious practice can be exercised unevenly across communities, converting regulation into favour.
    2. Religious offence provisions in a secular code: Criminal provisions protecting religious feelings require the State to adjudicate what counts as an insult to faith, a task secularism was meant to keep it out of.
    3. Uneven codification of personal law: Some communities' family law is codified and reviewable while others' is not, producing different legal protection for identically placed citizens.
    4. The essential religious practices test: Courts must decide what is essential to a religion before they may regulate it, drawing judges into theological determination.
    5. Local majoritarian legislation: State legislatures respond to locally dominant religious sentiment, so a nationally uniform standard fragments at the State level.
    6. Enforcement discretion at the police station: Where the offence turns on a subjective standard, the identity of the complainant rather than the conduct determines whether the law is invoked.

    Laws and Rules Governing Speech Restrictions in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Limits on Speech.docx

    1. Constitutional provision: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech and Article 19(2) permits enumerated reasonable restrictions.
    2. Constitutional anchors for hate speech regulation: Article 14 on equality, Article 15 on non discrimination, Article 21 on dignity, Article 51A on the fundamental duty of harmony, and the Preambular value of fraternity.
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 196 on promoting enmity between groups, Section 197 on imputations prejudicial to national integration, Section 299 on outraging religious feelings, and Section 356 on defamation.
    4. Section 152, effective from 1 July 2024, replaced Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminalises acts exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist feelings or endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity, with punishment extending to life imprisonment.
    5. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 123(4) prohibits false statements about candidates during elections, and the Act carries the electoral speech restrictions.
    6. Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Govern online content, intermediary due diligence and takedown obligations.
    7. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Prohibits misleading and prohibited broadcast content under its Programme Code.
    8. Cinematograph Act, 1952: Governs film certification and censorship.
    9. Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Restricts indecent depiction of women in publications and advertisements.
    10. Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962): Sedition requires both a tendency to create disorder and incitement to violence, and vigorous criticism of government measures is protected.
    11. Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015): Distinguishes discussion, advocacy and incitement, protects discussion and advocacy even where unpopular, and holds that vague terms such as annoyance or inconvenience cannot be the basis for restricting speech.
    12. Amish Devgan versus Union of India (2020): Applies a three part contextual test of content, intent of the speaker and harm caused or likely to be caused, with public figures held to a higher standard.
    13. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India (29 April 2026): The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions seeking new hate speech laws, holding that creating criminal offences belongs exclusively to the legislature and that the existing framework is adequate, the real problem being an enforcement deficit.

    Back2Basics: S.R. Bommai versus Union of India

    1. What it is: A Supreme Court ruling of 1994 delivered by a nine judge bench, arising out of the dismissal of State governments and the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356.
    2. Its holding on federalism: It made the exercise of Article 356 justiciable, requiring the proclamation to rest on relevant material and permitting courts to restore a dismissed government.
    3. Its holding on secularism: It declared secularism a part of the Constitution's basic structure, and therefore beyond the amending power under Article 368.
    4. The consequence for State action: A State government acting against secularism can itself be a ground for action under Article 356.
    5. Why it governs this item: It is the authority for the proposition that the State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, which is the core objection to a scripture specific penal law.
    6. Its broader effect: It sharply reduced the routine use of President's Rule, which had been invoked over a hundred times before the ruling.

    Way Forward

    1. Legislate through the correct route: A State that wishes to create a criminal offence on a Concurrent List subject should reserve the Bill for Presidential assent under Article 254(2) rather than route it through a ceremonial statute.
    2. Protect all scriptures equally or none: A provision framed around communal harmony must apply uniformly across faiths to satisfy the intelligible differentia and rational nexus test.
    3. Restore sentencing discretion: Replacing the mandatory minimum with a graded range lets courts distinguish deliberate desecration from an inadvertent act, meeting the Mithu standard.
    4. Define the operative terms: Statutory definitions of insult and religious feelings, and an express requirement of proximate incitement, would reduce the vagueness Shreya Singhal identified as fatal.
    5. Insert a pre registration safeguard: Requiring a preliminary inquiry or prior sanction before a First Information Report is registered addresses the chilling effect that operates at the point of complaint.
    6. Refer Ramji Lal Modi for reconsideration: A larger bench revisiting the 1957 ruling in the light of Shreya Singhal would settle the doctrinal inconsistency that now runs through religious offence law.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] 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?”

  • National Medical Commission proposes a single national licence to practise medicine

    Why in the News

    The National Medical Commission has notified draft regulations under which a doctor registered with any one State Medical Council would be able to practise anywhere in India without fresh registration, using a unique identification number in the National Medical Register. The right to practise is being nationalised while the power to discipline stays with the State where the alleged misconduct occurred.

    What do the draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 propose?

    1. The core change: A medical practitioner once registered with a State Medical Council would be eligible to practise across India without obtaining fresh registration or a licence in another State.
    2. The identifier: The practitioner would be allotted a Unique Identification (UID) number in the National Medical Register (NMR), which becomes the single reference for the right to practise.
    3. What it amends: The draft amends the 2023 regulations governing registration and licensing of doctors, and routes the process through a unified registration portal of the Commission's Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    4. Stage and consultation: The draft was notified by the Commission on 11 August 2026, and objections and suggestions have been invited for 30 days from the date of notification.

    What is the National Medical Register (NMR)?

    1. Function: The National Medical Register is the central repository of registration details of all medical practitioners in India, maintained by the National Medical Commission alongside the State Medical Registers kept by each State Medical Council. Under the draft it would also hold disciplinary records and the active or inactive status of every licence.

    Who is the Ethics and Medical Registration Board?

    1. Role: The Ethics and Medical Registration Board is one of the four autonomous boards of the National Medical Commission, responsible for maintaining the National Medical Register and regulating professional conduct and ethics. Under the draft it would allot the unique identification number and operate the unified registration portal.

    How would the unique identification number work?

    1. Composition of the number: The unique identification number assigned in the register would incorporate the State or Union Territory code and the practitioner's State Medical Register number.
    2. Sequence of grant: The State Medical Council first grants registration, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board then allots the unique identification number.
    3. Effect of allotment: Once the number is allotted, the doctor would not require fresh registration or a separate licence to practise in another State or Union Territory.
    4. Register synchronisation: The draft proposes automatic electronic synchronisation between the national and State registers, so a change made in one register is reflected in the other.

    What changes for State Medical Councils?

    1. Entry point unchanged: State Medical Councils would continue to scrutinise applications and to grant registration and licence for doctors to practise.
    2. Dual reflection of approval: The approval would be reflected in both the State Medical Register and the National Medical Register.
    3. Central oversight added: The Ethics and Medical Registration Board and the Commission would have powers to seek records and monitor State Medical Councils.
    4. The stated purpose of oversight: The monitoring power is intended to promote uniformity and transparency in regulation across States.

    How is disciplinary jurisdiction handled under the draft?

    1. Territorial principle retained: Disciplinary jurisdiction stays primarily with the State Council in whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged professional misconduct, unethical conduct or medical negligence occurred.
    2. Powers of that Council: It has the power to inquire into and decide the matter, and to record the outcome against the practitioner's credentials in the online register.
    3. Cross council cases: Where disciplinary action is recommended by a State Council other than the doctor's primary registering council, the action would be reflected in the National Medical Register.
    4. Automatic flow back: That action would then be automatically updated in the State register of the council of primary registration.
    5. What the register would carry: The National Medical Register would hold disciplinary proceedings including suspension, removal and restoration of registration, and details of disciplinary action taken.

    What happens to licence validity and renewal?

    1. Validity retained: The proposal retains the five year validity of a licence to practise.
    2. Renewal window: If a doctor does not apply for renewal within three months of expiry, the registration will be marked inactive.
    3. Consequence of inactive status: A practitioner whose registration is marked inactive is not entitled to practise medicine.
    4. Visibility of status: The National Medical Register would carry whether a doctor's licence is active or inactive, so the status is nationally visible.

    Does a national licence without a national disciplinary forum close the accountability gap?

    1. Portability of practice is immediate: A single number confers the right to practise in every State and Union Territory from the moment it is allotted.
    2. Portability of accountability is derived: Discipline still runs through whichever State Council has territorial jurisdiction over the place of the alleged misconduct, and reaches the rest of the country only through register synchronisation.
    3. The gap is procedural, not conceptual: If synchronisation lags or a State Council does not record an outcome, a suspended practitioner remains visible as active elsewhere.
    4. Uniformity of standards is not guaranteed: Different State Councils apply the professional conduct regulations with differing rigour, and a national licence carries the outcome of the least rigorous forum as readily as the most rigorous.
    5. The Commission's answer is oversight, not adjudication: The draft responds with powers to seek records and monitor State Councils rather than with a central disciplinary forum.

    Challenges to the proposed national licence framework

    1. Synchronisation dependence: The entire accountability design rests on electronic updates between the national and State registers working without delay. e.g. a suspension recorded by one State Council but not reflected in the National Medical Register would leave a barred doctor practising elsewhere.
    2. Uneven State Council capacity: State Medical Councils differ widely in staffing, digitisation and case disposal, and the weakest becomes the entry point for the whole country. e.g. State Councils with long pending complaint backlogs would still be the first scrutiny layer for national practice rights.
    3. Forum shopping in registration: Applicants may seek primary registration with the council perceived to have the lightest scrutiny, since the licence is then valid everywhere. e.g. the unique identification number carrying the State code makes the choice of registering State visible but does not restrict it.
    4. Renewal lapse risk: A three month renewal window creates a cliff on which an administrative omission ends the right to practise. e.g. a practitioner on long clinical assignment abroad missing the window and finding registration marked inactive.
    5. Data accuracy in the register: A national register carries forward whatever errors and duplicates the State registers already contain. e.g. duplicate entries across State registers have long complicated counts of registered allopathic practitioners in India.
    6. No stated appellate route in the draft: The draft records the State Council's power to inquire and decide without setting out a national appellate forum against an adverse finding. e.g. a doctor disciplined by a State Council other than the primary registering council faces consequences nationally through the register.
    7. Interface with the criminal and consumer forums: Professional discipline runs alongside criminal prosecution and consumer litigation, and the register reflects only the first. e.g. a practitioner facing a medical negligence complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with no corresponding entry in the register.

    Conclusion

    The draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 stand notified by the National Medical Commission on 11 August 2026, with objections and suggestions invited for 30 days from the date of notification, which is the next milestone in the process. The proposal creates portable practice rights through a unique identification number while leaving discipline with the State Council of the place of misconduct. The accountability question turns on whether automatic synchronisation between the National Medical Register and the State registers actually works in practice. A national licence with a fragmented disciplinary record would widen mobility faster than it widens accountability.

    Medical Regulation in India

    1. The apex regulator: The National Medical Commission (NMC) regulates medical education and medical practice in India, having replaced the Medical Council of India in 2020.
    2. Four autonomous boards: The Under Graduate Medical Education Board, the Post Graduate Medical Education Board, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    3. Two tier registration: Registration is granted by State Medical Councils and recorded in State Medical Registers, with the National Medical Register maintained centrally.
    4. Common entrance and exit: Admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses runs through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, and the National Exit Test is provided for as a common final year and licentiate examination.
    5. Scale of the system: India has expanded medical college and undergraduate seat capacity substantially over the past decade, with the government citing a doctor to population ratio better than the World Health Organization norm of one per thousand when practitioners of all recognised systems are counted.
    6. Plural systems of medicine: Allopathic practice is regulated by the National Medical Commission. Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani and Siddha are regulated by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, and homoeopathy by the National Commission for Homoeopathy.

    Laws and Rules Governing Medical Practice in India

    1. National Medical Commission Act, 2019: Establishes the Commission and its four autonomous boards, provides for the National Medical Register, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test and the National Exit Test, and repealed the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
    2. Statutory basis of the register: The Act requires a National Register of licensed practitioners to be maintained and made publicly available.
    3. Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine Regulations, 2023: The regulations the present draft seeks to amend, governing registration and licensing procedure.
    4. National Medical Commission Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2023: Set out the ethical duties of doctors, including on prescribing by generic name, telemedicine and consent.
    5. Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010: Provides for registration and minimum standards for clinical establishments in adopting States and Union Territories.
    6. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Provides the forum for medical negligence claims as deficiency in service, separate from professional disciplinary proceedings.
    7. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Regulates the manufacture, sale and prescription of drugs that registered practitioners are authorised to prescribe.
    8. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Governs the treatment and rights of persons with mental illness and the registration of mental health professionals and establishments.
    9. Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994: Regulates removal, storage and transplantation of human organs, with obligations placed on registered practitioners.

    Government Initiatives in Medical Regulation and Health Human Resources

    1. National Medical Register portal: Launched by the Commission to create a verifiable public register of allopathic practitioners with unique identification numbers.
    2. Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission: Maintains the Healthcare Professionals Registry and the Health Facility Registry, linking verified practitioner identity to digital health records.
    3. Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana: Funds new All India Institutes of Medical Sciences and upgrades existing government medical colleges to expand tertiary care and teaching capacity.
    4. Centrally Sponsored Scheme for district hospital upgradation: Supports establishment of new medical colleges attached to existing district and referral hospitals in underserved districts.
    5. National Exit Test: Provided for under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 as a single examination serving as the final year undergraduate examination, the licentiate examination and the postgraduate entrance test.
    6. Telemedicine Practice Guidelines, 2020: Permit registered practitioners to consult remotely within a defined professional and ethical framework.
    7. eSanjeevani: The national teleconsultation platform connecting patients to registered practitioners through health and wellness centres and directly from home.

    Key Facts about the National Medical Commission

    1. Year of operation: The Commission came into being in 2020 on the repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the dissolution of the Medical Council of India.
    2. Composition: It is headed by a Chairperson and includes ex officio and part time members, with the presidents of the four autonomous boards as members.
    3. Medical Advisory Council: The Act creates a Medical Advisory Council as the primary platform through which States and Union Territories place their views before the Commission.
    4. Rating power: The Medical Assessment and Rating Board assesses and rates medical institutions and grants permission to establish new medical colleges.
    5. Fee regulation: The Commission frames guidelines for the determination of fees for a proportion of seats in private medical institutions and deemed universities.

    Challenges in Medical Regulation in India

    1. Maldistribution rather than absolute shortage: Doctors concentrate in metropolitan and urban districts while rural and tribal blocks remain unstaffed. e.g. persistent vacancies of specialists at Community Health Centres reported in successive Rural Health Statistics.
    2. Quackery and unqualified practice: Unregistered practitioners operate widely where regulated supply is thin, and a national register alone does not displace them. e.g. State Medical Councils issuing repeated public notices against unqualified practitioners in rural districts.
    3. Ethics enforcement capacity: Professional conduct proceedings are slow and outcomes are inconsistent across State Councils. e.g. complaints of professional misconduct pending for years before State Medical Councils.
    4. Cost of medical education: High private medical college fees shape both who enters the profession and where graduates practise. e.g. the Commission having to issue fee determination guidelines for a share of private and deemed university seats.
    5. Postgraduate seat bottleneck: Undergraduate seat expansion has outpaced postgraduate capacity, leaving a specialist training gap. e.g. the ratio of postgraduate to undergraduate seats remaining a standing constraint on specialist availability.
    6. Faculty shortage in new colleges: Rapid expansion of colleges has outrun the availability of qualified teaching faculty. e.g. assessment findings of faculty deficiencies at newly permitted medical colleges.
    7. Fragmented digital records: Practitioner data sits across State registers, the national register and separate health workforce databases with limited reconciliation. e.g. duplicate and outdated entries complicating any count of practising allopathic doctors.

    Back2Basics: National Medical Commission (NMC)

    1. Governing Act: Established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
    2. Year established: Constituted in 2020, replacing the Medical Council of India which functioned under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
    3. Parent ministry: Functions under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    4. Jurisdiction: Regulates medical education, medical institutions, medical research and medical professionals in the allopathic system across India.
    5. Composition: A Chairperson, ex officio members including the presidents of the four autonomous boards, part time members, and members representing States and Union Territories on a rotational basis.
    6. Autonomous boards: Under Graduate Medical Education Board, Post Graduate Medical Education Board, Medical Assessment and Rating Board, and Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    7. Core mandate: To improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high quality medical professionals, and maintain a national register of licensed practitioners.
    8. Key instruments: The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, the National Exit Test, the National Medical Register and the professional conduct regulations.

    Way Forward

    1. Guarantee synchronisation by design: Build the national and State registers on a single source of truth rather than on periodic updates, so that a suspension takes effect nationally the moment it is recorded.
    2. Set uniform disciplinary standards: Issue binding procedure and timeline norms for State Council inquiries, so that a national licence does not carry the outcome of the weakest forum.
    3. Create a national appellate tier: Provide an appeal from a State Council's disciplinary decision to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, since the consequence of that decision is now national.
    4. Clean the register before nationalising it: Complete deduplication and verification of State registers before unique identification numbers become the basis of practice rights everywhere.
    5. Make the register publicly searchable: Allow patients and employers to verify a practitioner's licence status and disciplinary record by unique identification number, which is the only way a register changes behaviour.
    6. Provide a renewal grace mechanism: Allow reactivation on application with reasons where the three month window has lapsed for demonstrable cause, so that an administrative lapse does not end a career.
    7. Use the register for workforce planning: Link active licence data to district level workforce mapping so that maldistribution can be measured and addressed rather than estimated.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Closest microtheme: Sectoral Regulatory Bodies.”

  • China completes first stage of ‘military base’ at disputed South China Sea reef

    Why in the News

    China has completed the first phase of construction on Antelope Reef in the Paracels archipelago, building a man-made island in the disputed South China Sea that analysts say will form part of its largest military base. The tension it exposes is that Chinese state media describe the feature as serving civilian needs such as weather forecasting and scientific research, while satellite imagery shows a wharf, a deep water harbour, a helicopter pad and the first excavation for a runway.

    What has China built on Antelope Reef?

    1. The feature: Antelope Reef is a reef in the Paracels archipelago in the northern South China Sea, now reclaimed into a man-made island.
    2. The stage reached: The first phase of construction is complete, with barges and dredgers having left after at least six months of work in the waterway.
    3. What is visible: Satellite images reviewed by Reuters show the reclaimed feature in outline for the first time, with building work started in the southeast corner including a helicopter pad.
    4. The imagery source: The images showing the southeast corner construction were taken on 19 July by Vantor, a commercial provider of satellite images.

    What is the Paracels archipelago?

    1. What it is: The Paracels are a group of islands, reefs and banks in the northern South China Sea, distinct from the Spratlys archipelago further south.
    2. Who holds them: China has occupied all the Paracels since 1974, when it forced off the navy of the former South Vietnam, and Vietnam claims the entire grouping as its own.

    What is a naval bastion?

    1. The concept: A bastion is a protected ocean area close to home ports within which a navy shields its nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines from rival attack.
    2. Why it matters here: Antelope could help support any Chinese bid to create bastions in the South China Sea, avoiding the need to send submarines out into the western Pacific where they are exposed.

    What do the satellite images actually show?

    1. Island dimensions: The reclaimed island is nearly 6 km long, with a straight line of coast longer than 3 km that some analysts see as a potential runway.
    2. Runway work under way: A study published this week by the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found that the first excavation work for a new runway appeared to have already started.
    3. Harbour infrastructure: A wharf stretching 680 m fronts a deep water harbour, with one satellite image showing a coast guard ship alongside.
    4. Aviation infrastructure: Construction of buildings has started in the southeast corner of the island, including a helicopter pad.
    5. The timeline of the work: An open source intelligence tracker first highlighted dredging at the reef in early January and reported spotting initial signs of work in December, with dredgers and barges departing after at least six months.
    6. Official silence: China’s defence ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and China has yet to acknowledge construction of a new military base.

    Why is the northern South China Sea strategically different from the Spratlys?

    1. The Taiwan linkage: The northern part of the South China Sea would be particularly important in a Taiwan conflict scenario, which places Antelope Reef in an ideal position.
    2. Command priority raised: The importance of the South China Sea and of the Southern Theater Command has been elevated in the last year by the Central Military Commission, China’s top military panel, largely in relation to Taiwan.
    3. Defensibility: Antelope could prove one of the Chinese military’s most important features in the South China Sea, larger than neighbouring Woody Island and easier to defend than the network of bases further south in the Spratlys.
    4. Basing for strategic assets: Chinese military planners might prefer to keep weapons such as H-6 strategic bombers in the Paracels and closer to the Chinese mainland rather than on the Spratlys.
    5. The existing Paracels network: Woody Island has served as the traditional administrative centre for China in the South China Sea and has at times housed jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles, while Triton Island, also in the Paracels, hosts extensive long-range surveillance devices.

    What does the build-up mean for submarine operations and nuclear deterrence?

    1. The bastion function: Antelope could support Chinese efforts to create protected ocean areas in the South China Sea to defend its nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines.
    2. The protection logic: Bastions close to home ports shield submarines from exposure to rival attack, removing the need to send them into the western Pacific.
    3. The surveillance role: The island build-up is likely to house extensive surveillance equipment.
    4. The effect on rivals: That surveillance could complicate submarine operations by the United States and Vietnam, both of which are active in the area.
    5. The escalation implication: A feature that protects a second-strike capability changes the risk calculus of any confrontation, since attacking it touches nuclear deterrence rather than only conventional assets.

    Why do China’s stated purpose and the observed build-out point in different directions?

    1. The official account: Chinese state media have said Antelope will serve civilian needs such as weather forecasting and scientific research.
    2. The scholarly framing: A Chinese South China Sea scholar described the construction work as “modest” in an opinion piece published in the official China Daily in June, arguing that rather than militarisation the purpose is peaceful and constructive, making the waters safer for everyone who depends on them.
    3. The precedent for that framing: The same explanation mirrors China’s previous accounts of its build-up in the Spratlys, in waters also claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei.
    4. The professional reading: Regional security analysts and military attaches say the feature is more likely to strengthen China’s military hold on the northern part of the vital waterway.
    5. What the physical evidence supports: A 680 m wharf on a deep water harbour, a helicopter pad, a 3 km straight coastline and runway excavation are assets of military utility, not of weather forecasting.
    6. The unresolved point: China has not acknowledged constructing a military base, so the gap between the stated purpose and the observed capability remains formally unclosed.

    Which states contest these waters and on what basis?

    1. Vietnam, the Paracels claim: Vietnam claims the entire Paracels grouping as its own, and China took full control of the group in 1974 by forcing off the navy of the former South Vietnam.
    2. Vietnam, the specific protest: Vietnam’s Foreign Ministry has previously asserted its sovereignty claim to Antelope, saying in March that it resolutely opposes such actions and has made representations.
    3. Vietnam, the counter build-up: Vietnam has moved in recent years to expand its own network of bases in the Spratlys archipelago.
    4. The Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei: All four join Vietnam in claiming waters in the Spratlys where China has previously built up features.
    5. The United States, the outside actor: The completion shows the South China Sea as an increasingly militarised arena of contest between China and the United States and its allies, as both jostle for advantages that could prove critical in any future conflict over Taiwan.

    “[2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news?

    (a) It is generally believed that they are artificial islands made by a country around South China Sea.

    (b) China and Japan engage in maritime disputes over these islands in East China Sea.

    (c) A permanent American military base has been set up there to help Taiwan to increase its defence capabilities.

    (d) Though International Court of Justice declared them as no man’s land, some South-East Asian countries claim them.

  • Why is the Supreme Court examining polygamy again?

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition challenging the constitutional status of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law. The court additionally asked the Centre to consider legislative steps to abolish the practice for all citizens, irrespective of religion. The dispute sets a religion specific statutory exemption against the equality guarantees the Constitution extends to every citizen.

    What is the legal basis of polygamy in India?

    1. The practice: Polygamy is the contracting of a further marriage by a person whose earlier marriage is still subsisting.
    2. The permitting provision: Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 applies Shariat rules to matters of marriage and dissolution for Muslims, and it is under this provision that polygamy is permitted.
    3. The prohibiting provision: Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes marrying another person during the subsistence of an existing marriage with imprisonment up to seven years, and it applies to non Muslims.
    4. The asymmetry at issue: The same act is a criminal offence for one set of citizens and a protected personal law entitlement for another.

    What is the current status of polygamy law in India?

    1. Permitted for Muslim men alone: Polygamy remains lawful for Muslim men under the 1937 Act, with the scriptural ceiling being four wives.
    2. A criminal offence for everyone else: Bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, carrying up to seven years, and applies to Hindus, Christians, Parsis and citizens married under civil law.
    3. No compulsory registration: Muslim marriages and divorces are not universally required to be registered with State authorities, so a subsisting marriage is often not on any official record.
    4. Related practices already struck down: Instant triple talaq was invalidated by the Supreme Court in August 2017, and the Centre followed by framing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, making the practice a punishable offence.
    5. Polygamy and nikah halala left open: The 2017 bench refrained from ruling on polygamy and nikah halala even though both had been sought, which is why the question returns to the court now.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Personal Law and Gender Equality

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person within India.
    2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    3. Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
    4. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read by the Supreme Court to include dignity and autonomy within marriage.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and expressly permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform.
    6. Article 44: Directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India, as a Directive Principle.
    7. Entry 5, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places marriage, divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.

    What are the petitioners seeking?

    1. Criminalisation of polygamy: The five petitioners want polygamy treated as a criminal offence under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for all citizens.
    2. Striking down the enabling provision: They have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 16.
    3. Annulment of the exemptions: They have sought annulment of the exemptions granted to polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.
    4. Compulsory registration: They want compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces with State authorities, so that a second or subsequent marriage by a man with a subsisting marriage can be prevented.
    5. Protection of the first family: Where registration is flouted, they want the first wife and her children to have the first and lasting right to the matrimonial home.
    6. Codification of Muslim Personal Law: They want the court to direct the Law Commission of India or the Union government to prepare a draft codifying Muslim Personal Law so that marriage, divorce and succession align with constitutional principles of gender equality.

    How has the Supreme Court ruled on plural marriage before?

    1. Sarla Mudgal (1995): The Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after converting to Islam, without dissolving the first marriage, is void, prohibiting conversion undertaken purely to marry again.
    2. Lily Thomas versus Union of India (2000): The court reiterated the Sarla Mudgal position, holding that a second marriage contracted after a feigned conversion to Islam was illegal and punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    3. Shayara Bano (2017): The court invalidated instant triple talaq on the argument that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women, on a petition in which two of the present activists were also involved.
    4. The gap the rulings leave: All three rulings addressed the abuse of conversion or the mode of divorce, none tested the validity of polygamy itself under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

    Does Islamic scripture itself sanction polygamy?

    1. The scriptural position: The Quran encourages monogamy and does not encourage polygamy, contrary to the common contention.
    2. The narrow permission: It permits a man up to four wives in special circumstances, such as marrying a widow or an orphan.
    3. The condition attached: It makes complete equality between wives incumbent on the man, and because that is a practical impossibility, it asks men to desist from multiple marriages.
    4. The text relied on: Verse 3 of Surah Nisa states that if a man fears he will fail to maintain justice, he should content himself with one wife, a verse revealed when many men had multiple spouses running into three figures.

    Major debates surrounding polygamy and personal law reform

    1. Equality against religious freedom: One position reads Articles 14, 15 and 16 as overriding a religion specific exemption, the other reads Article 25 as protecting a practice integral to a community's personal law.
    2. Judicial invalidation against legislative codification: The court can strike down Section 2 of the 1937 Act, but a durable settlement requires Parliament to codify Muslim Personal Law, which is what the petitioners are actually asking for.
    3. The essential religious practices test: The dispute turns on whether polygamy is an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 or a permitted social custom open to reform, and the two characterisations produce opposite outcomes.
    4. Uniform Civil Code against pluralism: The court's suggestion that the Centre abolish the practice for all citizens irrespective of religion moves the question toward Article 44, which reopens the standing dispute over a Uniform Civil Code.
    5. The evidence gap: There is no reliable national dataset on the current prevalence of polygamy, so both sides argue from contested estimates rather than measured incidence.
    6. Gender justice inside communities: The debate over whether reform of a minority's personal law is best driven by the courts, by Parliament or by the community itself remains unsettled.

    Challenges to abolishing polygamy through law

    1. Absence of marriage registration: Without compulsory registration, a subsisting marriage cannot be proved, so a bigamy prosecution collapses at the evidence stage. e.g. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has historically produced very few convictions because the prosecution must first prove a valid first marriage and then a valid second one.
    2. The essential practices doctrine: Courts must first decide whether the practice is essential to the religion before they can regulate it, which is a theological inquiry judges are poorly placed to conduct. e.g. the Sabarimala reference of 2019 sent exactly this question to a larger bench, where it remains pending.
    3. Standing and enforcement: A first wife who depends on her husband economically has little incentive to complain, so a criminal provision goes unused. e.g. the low prosecution rate for dowry related matrimonial offences despite a wide statutory framework.
    4. Community resistance to codification: Attempts to codify a minority's personal law are read as an intrusion on identity rather than a gender reform. e.g. the reversal of the Shah Bano ruling through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
    5. Displacement rather than abolition: Criminalisation can push plural unions outside the legal record, leaving second wives and their children without maintenance or inheritance rights. e.g. Hindu bigamy has continued through unregistered customary unions despite being an offence since 1955.
    6. Federal complexity: Marriage and divorce sit on the Concurrent List, so State level marriage registration laws vary and a national standard needs Parliamentary action.

    Conclusion

    The dispute before the court is not about the scriptural permissibility of polygamy but about whether a statutory exemption can hold when the same conduct is a criminal offence for other citizens. A judicial strike down of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 would remove the permission without supplying the registration and maintenance machinery that makes a prohibition workable. The Centre's response to the notice, and whether it accepts the court's invitation to legislate for all citizens, is the next milestone in the case.

    What is Personal Law in India?

    1. About: Personal law is the body of rules governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, succession and inheritance, applied to a person according to their religious community rather than their territory.
    2. Rationale: It survived as a distinct legal category because the colonial state declined to legislate on the family affairs of religious communities, and the Constitution retained it while placing the subject on the Concurrent List.
    3. The four principal systems:
    4. Hindu law: Codified through four statutes in 1955 and 1956, covering Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
    5. Muslim law: Largely uncodified, applied through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, with limited statutory intervention on divorce and maintenance.
    6. Christian law: Governed by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
    7. Parsi law: Governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
    8. The secular alternative: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 offers any two citizens a civil marriage independent of religion, along with a uniform succession regime.

    Key Concerns Regarding Personal Law

    1. Unequal entitlements between citizens: Rights on divorce, maintenance and inheritance differ by religion, so two women in identical situations receive different legal protection.
    2. Gender asymmetry within systems: Several personal law systems give men wider rights over the dissolution of marriage and over property than they give women.
    3. Uncodified rules resist reform: Where the law is not written into a statute, amending it requires either judicial intervention or community consensus, both of which are slow.
    4. Weak registration infrastructure: Absent compulsory registration across all communities, the State has no record against which to enforce even the rules it has enacted.
    5. Article 44 remains unimplemented: The Directive Principle on a Uniform Civil Code has produced State level initiatives rather than a national framework, leaving the constitutional aspiration unfulfilled.

    Laws and Rules Governing Marriage and Personal Status in India

    1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869: Governs the dissolution of marriage among Christians.
    2. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Governs the solemnisation of Christian marriages.
    3. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Applies Shariat rules to Muslims in matters including marriage, dissolution, maintenance and succession.
    4. Section 2 is the provision under challenge, since it is the route through which polygamy is permitted.
    5. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Governs marriage and divorce among Parsis.
    6. Special Marriage Act, 1954: Provides a civil marriage available to any two citizens irrespective of religion, with its own divorce and succession rules.
    7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Codified Hindu marriage law and made bigamy void and punishable.
    8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Codified intestate succession for Hindus, amended in 2005 to make daughters coparceners by birth.
    9. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Enacted after the Shah Bano ruling to govern maintenance for divorced Muslim women.
    10. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Sets the minimum age of marriage and makes child marriage voidable at the option of the minor party.
    11. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Made the pronouncement of instant triple talaq void and a punishable offence.
    12. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 82 punishes bigamy with up to seven years, replacing Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

    Back2Basics: Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

    1. What it is: A short central statute that directs courts to apply Muslim personal law to Muslims in the matters it lists.
    2. Enacted: 1937, by the Central Legislative Assembly in British India.
    3. Subjects covered: Intestate succession, special property of females, marriage, dissolution of marriage including talaq, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and wakfs.
    4. Effect of Section 2: It displaces custom and usage in these matters and substitutes Shariat as the rule of decision.
    5. What it does not do: It does not codify Muslim personal law, it only directs which body of rules applies, which is why the substantive rules remain uncodified.
    6. Present relevance: It is the statute whose Section 2 is under constitutional challenge in the polygamy petition before the Supreme Court.

    Way Forward

    1. Enact compulsory marriage registration: A uniform registration requirement for all marriages and divorces, irrespective of religion, creates the record without which any bigamy prohibition is unenforceable.
    2. Codify Muslim Personal Law: A codified statute drafted with the community, as the petitioners seek from the Law Commission of India, converts contested custom into reviewable law.
    3. Secure the first family's rights first: Statutory protection of the first wife's and children's right to the matrimonial home and to maintenance addresses the harm even where the marriage itself is not annulled.
    4. Use the Special Marriage Act, 1954 route: Simplifying and publicising civil marriage gives couples an existing exit from personal law without waiting for its reform.
    5. Build the evidentiary base: A national survey of the prevalence of plural marriage would replace contested estimates with measured data on which any legislation must rest.
    6. Sequence reform through Parliament: A legislative framework, rather than a bare judicial strike down, supplies the transitional provisions, penalties and remedies that a court order cannot create.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one's right to marry the person of one's choice? (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29 Answer: (b)”

  • District Collectors in six border States, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh empowered to grant citizenship

    Why in the News

    The Union Home Ministry has notified the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, authorising District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories to grant registration or naturalisation to applicants found fit and proper. The power now sits with a single district officer in place of the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously exercised it, in exactly the regions where citizenship determination is most contested.

    What do the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 provide?

    1. Delegation of power: The Rules authorise District Collectors in the specified States and Union Territories to process applications seeking citizenship by registration or naturalisation.
    2. The operative provision: The Collector, on being satisfied with the suitability of the applicant, that he is a fit and proper person to be registered or naturalised, shall grant him the citizenship of India.
    3. Full processing authority: The gazette notification authorises Collectors to receive, scrutinise and dispose of such applications in accordance with the laid down parameters.
    4. Replacement of earlier authorities: Collectors in these States replace the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously held these powers, and all pending applications with those committees are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    What is the difference between registration and naturalisation?

    1. Registration: Acquisition of citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by persons with a defined connection to India, such as persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens and minor children of Indian citizens, on shorter residence conditions.
    2. Naturalisation: Acquisition under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by a foreigner with no such prior connection, on satisfying the longer residence and other conditions set out in the Third Schedule.

    What is the current status of citizenship acquisition in India?

    1. Single citizenship: India provides for a single citizenship of the Union with no separate State citizenship, and there is a single domicile for the whole territory.
    2. Five modes of acquisition: The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for acquisition by birth under Section 3, descent under Section 4, registration under Section 5, naturalisation under Section 6, and incorporation of territory under Section 7.
    3. Naturalisation threshold: The Third Schedule requires residence in India for twelve months immediately preceding the application, and residence or government service for eleven years in the aggregate in the fourteen years preceding those twelve months.
    4. Reduced threshold under the 2019 amendment: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduces the aggregate residence requirement to five years for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    5. Birth rule as it now stands: A person born in India on or after 3 December 2004 is a citizen by birth only if both parents are citizens, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of birth.
    6. Loss of citizenship: Citizenship may be lost by renunciation under Section 8, termination on voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship under Section 9, and deprivation by the Union government under Section 10 on specified grounds including fraud and disloyalty.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Citizenship

    1. Article 5: Confers citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution on persons domiciled in India who were born in India, or either of whose parents was born in India, or who had been ordinarily resident in India for at least five years.
    2. Article 6: Confers citizenship on persons who migrated to India from Pakistan, subject to conditions of date of migration and registration.
    3. Article 7: Deals with persons who migrated to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and later returned to India under a permit for resettlement.
    4. Article 8: Confers citizenship on persons of Indian origin residing outside India who register with an Indian diplomatic or consular mission.
    5. Article 9: Bars a person from being a citizen of India if that person has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State.
    6. Article 10: Provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen continues to be so, subject to any law made by Parliament.
    7. Article 11: Empowers Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law, which is the source of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and every amendment to it.
    8. Seventh Schedule, Union List Entry 17: Places citizenship, naturalisation and aliens exclusively within Parliament's legislative competence, which is why the Rules are made by the Union Home Ministry and not by States.

    Which regions and authorities does the new delegation cover?

    1. Six States: Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam and Tripura.
    2. Two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
    3. A carve out for tribal areas: In Assam and Tripura, the Rules specifically exclude tribal areas, which remain outside the Collector's new authority.
    4. Common characteristic of the list: Every State and Union Territory in the list shares an international land border, which is what links the eight jurisdictions.
    5. Transfer of pending cases: All applications pending with the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers in the specified regions are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    Why does routing this power through the District Collector matter?

    1. From a collegial body to a single officer: An Empowered Committee decides collectively while a Collector decides individually, which changes both the speed and the internal check on a citizenship grant.
    2. The standard is discretionary: The Rules turn on the Collector's satisfaction that the applicant is a fit and proper person, a formulation that leaves the assessment to the officer.
    3. Proximity to the applicant: The district is where residence, documents and antecedents can actually be verified, which is the administrative case for the delegation.
    4. Border districts are where determination is contested: The delegation applies precisely in the jurisdictions where migration histories, documentary gaps and citizenship disputes are most concentrated.
    5. A rules level change to a statutory power: The delegation is effected through subordinate legislation under the Citizenship Act, 1955 rather than through an amendment to the Act itself.

    Major debates surrounding citizenship determination in India

    1. Documentary burden versus lived residence: Determination rests on documents that the poorest and most mobile populations are least able to produce, which converts an evidentiary problem into an exclusion outcome.
    2. Executive determination versus judicial safeguard: Citizenship in India is decided in the first instance by executive authorities, with judicial review available only afterwards and at the individual's cost.
    3. The 2019 amendment and Article 14: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 uses religion and country of origin as criteria for a reduced naturalisation threshold, and its consistency with the equality guarantee is before the Supreme Court.
    4. National register proposals: The relationship between the National Population Register, a National Register of Indian Citizens and the Citizenship Rules is contested, particularly on whether enumeration becomes verification.
    5. The Assam experience: The Assam National Register of Citizens exercise, with its cut off of 24 March 1971 under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, remains the reference case for the administrative and human cost of large scale determination.
    6. Statelessness risk: A person excluded from citizenship without any other State recognising them has no status at all, and India is not a party to the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions.
    7. Uniformity across deciding authorities: Where dozens of district officers apply a fit and proper standard independently, the same facts can produce different outcomes in adjacent districts.

    Challenges to the Collector led citizenship grant framework

    1. Discretion without a stated test: The fit and proper standard is not defined in the Rules, so its content depends on the individual officer. e.g. two applicants with identical residence records in adjacent districts of Rajasthan can receive different outcomes.
    2. Workload of the office: A District Collector already carries revenue, magisterial, election, disaster and development functions, and citizenship scrutiny is added to that list. e.g. Collectors in border districts of West Bengal simultaneously handle electoral roll administration and law and order duties.
    3. Loss of collegial scrutiny: Replacing an Empowered Committee with a single officer removes the internal deliberation that a multi member body provided. e.g. pending applications before those committees now move to a single decision maker without any recorded transition of standards.
    4. No stated appeal route in the notification: The Rules set out the grant power without specifying an appellate forum against refusal at the district level. e.g. an applicant refused by a Collector is left to writ jurisdiction of the High Court rather than a departmental appeal.
    5. Tribal area exclusion creates a two track system: Applicants in the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura continue under the earlier authorities, producing different processes within the same State. e.g. two applicants in Tripura face different deciding authorities depending on whether their residence falls inside a tribal area.
    6. Verification capacity in border districts: Establishing residence and antecedents requires police and revenue verification chains that are already stretched in border districts. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens exercise showed how documentary verification at scale outruns administrative capacity.

    Conclusion

    The Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 have been notified in the Gazette and are in force, replacing Empowered Committees and Designated Officers with District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories, with tribal areas of Assam and Tripura excluded. The immediate next step named in the notification is the transfer of all pending applications to the relevant Collector, and the source states no further date or milestone beyond that. The change is administrative in form and consequential in effect, because it places a sovereign determination in the hands of a single district officer applying an undefined fit and proper standard. Whether the delegation speeds up disposal or widens variation depends on the guidance and appeal architecture that follows.

    What is Citizenship?

    1. About: Citizenship is the legal relationship between an individual and a State that carries full civil and political membership, including the right to vote, to hold public office and to hold an Indian passport.
    2. Rationale: It defines who belongs to the political community, and therefore who may claim the rights the Constitution reserves for citizens rather than for all persons.
    3. Rights reserved for citizens: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution are available only to citizens. Articles 14 and 21 extend to every person.
    4. Jus soli, the territorial principle: Citizenship by place of birth, which India applied without qualification until 1987.
    5. Jus sanguinis, the descent principle: Citizenship by parentage, which India progressively adopted through the 1986, 2003 and 2004 changes to the birth rule.
    6. Naturalisation, the acquired principle: Citizenship granted by the State to a foreigner on satisfying residence, conduct and language conditions, which is the mode the new Rules deal with.

    Laws and Rules Governing Citizenship in India

    1. Citizenship Act, 1955: The principal statute, enacted under Article 11, providing for acquisition, determination and termination of Indian citizenship.
    2. 1986 amendment: Ended unqualified citizenship by birth, requiring at least one parent to be an Indian citizen for those born on or after 1 July 1987.
    3. 2003 amendment: Introduced the concept of the illegal migrant, barred illegal migrants from citizenship, and provided for a National Register of Indian Citizens and compulsory registration of all citizens.
    4. 2005 amendment: Expanded the categories eligible for the Overseas Citizen of India status.
    5. 2015 amendment: Merged the Person of Indian Origin card with the Overseas Citizen of India card, creating the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder category.
    6. 2019 amendment: Reduced the naturalisation residence requirement to five years for six specified minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    7. Section 6A: Provides the Assam specific framework with the 24 March 1971 cut off, upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 2024.
    8. Citizenship Rules, 2009: The principal subordinate legislation prescribing forms, procedures and authorities for applications under the Act.
    9. Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024: Prescribed the application procedure and the district and empowered committee structure for grants under the 2019 amendment.
    10. Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026: Transfers the grant power in the specified border States and Union Territories to District Collectors.
    11. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: Consolidates the law on entry, stay and exit of foreigners, replacing the earlier Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000.
    12. Passports Act, 1967: Governs the issue of Indian passports and travel documents, for which proof of citizenship is a precondition.

    Government Initiatives Related to Citizenship

    1. Indian Citizenship Online portal: The Ministry of Home Affairs portal through which applications for citizenship by registration and naturalisation are filed and tracked.
    2. Dedicated portal and mobile application under the 2019 amendment: Launched in 2024 to receive applications from eligible applicants of the six specified communities.
    3. National Population Register: Maintained under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2003 as a register of usual residents, updated alongside the census housing phase.
    4. Long Term Visa scheme: Provides extended stay, employment and property rights to minority community migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan pending decision on their citizenship applications.
    5. Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder scheme: Provides lifelong visa free travel and parity with non resident Indians in specified economic and educational fields, without conferring citizenship or voting rights.

    Key Facts about Citizenship in India

    1. Constitutional location: Citizenship is dealt with in Part II of the Constitution, comprising Articles 5 to 11.
    2. Single citizenship: India follows single citizenship on the pattern of the United Kingdom, unlike the dual citizenship model of the United States.
    3. No dual citizenship: India does not permit dual citizenship, and voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship terminates Indian citizenship under Section 9.
    4. Overseas Citizen of India status is not citizenship: An Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder cannot vote, hold constitutional office or purchase agricultural land.
    5. The 2004 birth rule cut off: Persons born in India on or after 3 December 2004 must have at least one citizen parent and no illegal migrant parent.
    6. Union subject: Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens is Entry 17 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.

    Challenges in Citizenship Determination in India

    1. Documentary proof in a low documentation society: Establishing descent and residence over decades requires records many households never held. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens process excluded over 19 lakh persons from the final list published in 2019.
    2. Gendered documentation gap: Married women who moved at marriage often lack independent linkage documents to a parent's record. e.g. panchayat residence certificates for married women became a contested category of proof during the Assam exercise.
    3. Adjudication capacity: Determination bodies handle far more cases than their sanctioned strength can process fairly. e.g. Foreigners Tribunals in Assam handling large pendency with limited members.
    4. Detention and post declaration limbo: A person declared a foreigner with no country willing to receive them remains in indefinite administrative limbo. e.g. the Supreme Court's directions on conditional release of long term detainees from Assam detention centres.
    5. Legal challenge to the 2019 framework: The reduced naturalisation threshold for specified religious communities is under constitutional challenge, leaving the framework unsettled. e.g. petitions against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 pending before the Supreme Court.
    6. Variation across deciding authorities: Multiple district level authorities applying an undefined standard produce inconsistent outcomes. e.g. the fit and proper test in the 2026 Rules carrying no statutory definition.
    7. Absence of a statelessness framework: India has no domestic law on statelessness and is not party to the 1954 and 1961 conventions on the subject. e.g. persons excluded from a citizenship register having no recognised alternative legal status.

    Way Forward

    1. Issue binding guidance on the fit and proper test: Publish parameters, documentary standards and a reasoned order requirement so that Collector level discretion is structured rather than open ended.
    2. Provide a departmental appeal: Create an appellate authority above the Collector for refusals, so that recourse does not begin at the High Court.
    3. Mandate speaking orders and time limits: Require every grant and refusal to record reasons and to be disposed of within a stated period, with the position published in aggregate.
    4. Publish disposal data: Release district wise data on applications received, granted and refused, so that variation between Collectors becomes visible and correctable.
    5. Train and support district staff: Provide dedicated staff and training on citizenship law to Collectorates in the eight jurisdictions, given the additional workload placed on an already loaded office.
    6. Enact a statelessness framework: Provide in domestic law for the status, rights and documentation of persons who are found to be citizens of no country, so that exclusion does not produce legal invisibility.
    7. Harmonise the tribal area carve out: Specify which authority decides applications from the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura, so that no applicant falls between two regimes.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements: 1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile. 2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State. 3. A foreigner, once granted citizenship, cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 2 and 3 Answer: (a)”