A seven-judge Constitution Bench will hear from 6 October 2026 whether legislative privileges override the freedom of speech. The reference revives a dispute from the 2003 attempt by the Tamil Nadu Assembly to arrest journalists over a critical editorial.
What is the constitutional question?
Privilege versus speech: Whether privileges under Article 194 can override Article 19(1)(a) free speech.
Interplay of Articles: The case engages Articles 194(3), 19, and 21 together.
Origin: It stems from a 2003 Assembly resolution to arrest newspaper journalists.
What are legislative privileges?
Definition: Special rights of a legislature and its members to function without external interference.
Article 194: Grants privileges to state legislatures, mirroring Article 105 for Parliament.
Uncodified: Privileges remain largely uncodified, drawing on British parliamentary practice.
Why is the tension unresolved?
Two rights collide: A legislature’s authority to punish for contempt sits against a citizen’s free speech.
Judicial review scope: Whether courts can review a House’s exercise of privilege is itself disputed.
Chilling effect: Broad privilege can deter press criticism of legislatures.
“[2023, GS2, 10] Discuss the role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality in conducting legislative work and in facilitating best democratic practices.”
[2017] Which one of the following statements is correct?
[A] Rights are absolute and can never be restricted by the State.
[B] Rights are legally enforceable claims that individuals have against the State
[C] Rights are privileges granted by the government that can be revoked at any time.
[D] Rights are moral values that do not require legal protection.
The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC). The referral has renewed attention on how parliamentary committees shape legislation.
What is a Joint Parliamentary Committee?
Ad hoc committee: A JPC is set up for a specific bill or inquiry and dissolves after it reports.
Composition: Members are drawn from both Houses, in proportion to party strength.
Recommendations: Its recommendations are advisory, not binding on the government.
Why does the committee route matter?
Scrutiny space: Committees allow detailed, less partisan examination away from the floor.
Declining use: Bills referred to committees fell from about 71% in the 15th Lok Sabha to about 16% in the 17th.
Delay lever: Referral can also defer a contentious bill.
What is contested in the FCRA amendment?
Foreign funding control: The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 governs foreign donations to NGOs and associations.
Civil society concern: Tighter rules are opposed as constraining non-governmental organisations and religious bodies.
Conclusion
The referral subjects a contested bill to committee scrutiny without settling it. The current status is examination by the JPC, with its report the next milestone.
Back2Basics: Parliamentary Committees
Standing committees: Permanent bodies such as the Public Accounts Committee and departmental committees.
Ad hoc committees: Temporary bodies such as a JPC or a Select Committee.
Financial committees: Public Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings.
“[2023, GS2, 15] Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalization of Indian Parliament?”
[2018] With reference to the Parliament of India, which of the following Parliamentary Committees scrutinizes and reports to the House whether the powers to make regulations, rules, sub-rules, by-laws etc. conferred by the constitution of delegated by the Parliament are being properly exercised by the Executive within the scope of such delegation ?
A parliamentary inquiry committee found all three charges proved against a former High Court judge, including failure to explain cash recovered from his residence and interference with evidence. The issue is whether the removal process can continue after his resignation.
Removal of Judges: Constitutional Framework
Article 124(4): Supreme Court judges can be removed only for proved misbehaviour or incapacity.
Article 217: Deals with the tenure and removal of High Court judges.
Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968: Provides the inquiry mechanism and formulation of charges.
Parliamentary approval: Removal requires a special majority in each House, in the same session.
Final step: After Parliament passes the address, the President issues the removal order.
What did the Inquiry Committee Find?
All three charges were proved.
The judge failed to satisfactorily explain the cash recovered from his residence.
The committee found attempts to interfere with evidence.
Key Constitutional Issue After Resignation
Removal is primarily linked to holding judicial office.
Resignation ends the judge’s tenure, creating a question about whether Parliament can still complete the removal process.
Possible consequences involving pension or future disqualification make the issue constitutionally significant.
There is no settled precedent on completing the removal process against a judge who has already resigned.
Prelims Facts
Ground for removal → Proved misbehaviour or incapacity
High Court judge → Article 217
Supreme Court judge → Article 124
Inquiry procedure → Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968
Removal requires → Special majority in both Houses
Final removal order → President
Policy disagreement → Not a ground for removal
Historical fact → No Indian judge has so far been removed after completion of the parliamentary removal process.
“[2025, GS2, 15] “Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.”
[2021] With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements: 1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the president of India. 2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
An explainer revisits the constitutional limits on arrest after a 2025 Supreme Court ruling. It reaffirms that an arrested person must be meaningfully informed of the grounds of arrest.
What does Article 22 guarantee on arrest?
Grounds of arrest:Article 22(1) requires that grounds be communicated meaningfully, not as a formality.
Legal counsel: The arrested person has the right to consult a lawyer of choice.
Production before magistrate:Article 22(2) requires production within 24 hours of arrest.
No prolonged custody: Continued detention beyond 24 hours requires Magistrate’s authorisation.
Exception: These safeguards under Article 22(1) and 22(2) do not apply to enemy aliens and persons detained under preventive detention laws under Article 22(3).
What did the recent ruling and precedents establish?
Vihaan Kumar (2025): The Court held that failure to communicate grounds vitiates the arrest.
Arnesh Kumar (2014): Arrest must be the exception for offences carrying up to seven years, not routine.
D.K. Basu (1997): The Court prescribed safeguards including an arrest memo, informing relatives and medical examination to prevent custodial abuse.
Arrest memo: Procedural safeguards require a documented arrest memo.
What did the Supreme Court Rule in Vihaan Kumar Case?
The judgment of the Supreme Court of India (Supreme Court) in the case of Vihan Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2025) marked a crucial milestone in protecting the fundamental rights of arrested persons.
Mandatory information about the reasons for arrest: The Supreme Court has made it clear that the person arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest immediately. This is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
Arrest is invalid: If the accused is not informed of the reasons for the arrest, the arrest becomes illegal and unconstitutional.
Cancellation of further proceedings: If fundamental rights are violated during the arrest process itself, subsequent remand orders issued by the courts or charge sheets filed by the police cannot rectify that mistake (Vitiated).
Language awareness: The reasons for the arrest should be communicated in a language that the accused understands, and should not be a mere formality.
Human rights and dignity (Article 21)
Ban on shackles in hospitals: The Supreme Court has strongly condemned the practice of shackles and chains on Vihan Kumar when he was admitted to the hospital due to medical reasons.
Right to Life: The court held that the right to live with dignity is part of Article 21 , and chaining the accused to a hospital bed falls under the category of human rights violation.
How is preventive detention different?
Without trial: Preventive detention permits custody without a charge to prevent an anticipated act.
Advisory Board: Detention beyond three months requires review by an Advisory Board.
Narrow safeguards: Several ordinary arrest protections under Article 22 do not apply to preventive detention.
Preventive: Unlike ordinary detention, it is not punitive. It is intended to prevent an anticipated act prejudicial to specified interests.
No 24-hour Magistrate requirement under Article 22(3).
Grounds of detention must generally be communicated, subject to non-disclosure in public interest.
What is the “Golden Triangle”?
Articles 14, 19, 21: Together they form the core of personal liberty jurisprudence.
Maneka Gandhi (1978): Established that a law depriving personal liberty must prescribe a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable.
Article 22: Provides specific procedural safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention, complementing the broader protection under Article 21.
Conclusion
The ruling restates settled safeguards and closes an enforcement gap on communicating arrest grounds. It sharpens the line between lawful arrest and arbitrary detention.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2023] “The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society.” Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.
Linkage: The PYQ examines the expanding scope of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. Arrest safeguards and preventive-detention limits show how judicial interpretation strengthens protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 seeks to strengthen the 2024 law against organised cheating and examination paper leaks amid concerns over NEET and recruitment examination irregularities.
What is the Public Examination Act, 2024?
Objective: Criminalises organised cheating, paper leaks, impersonation and other unfair means.
Coverage: Applies to major public examinations conducted by bodies such as UPSC, SSC and NTA.
Penalties: Provides imprisonment and heavy fines for organised examination malpractice.
Focus: Targets organised networks rather than genuine candidate errors.
Why was it amended?
Exam-leak crisis: Repeated paper leaks and irregularities exposed weaknesses in examination governance.
Enforcement gaps: Strengthening was considered necessary after experience with the 2024 framework.
Public trust: Fair examinations are essential for merit-based recruitment and equal opportunity.
What does the crisis reveal?
Aspiration-opportunity gap: Large numbers of candidates compete for limited government jobs.
Institutional trust deficit: Repeated leaks undermine confidence in recruitment institutions.
Governance challenge: Legal punishment alone cannot ensure examination integrity without secure technology, accountable agencies and speedy investigation.
Prelims Pointers
Act: Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024
Ministry/Department: Department of Personnel and Training
Targets: Organised cheating, paper leaks and impersonation
Important distinction: The Act does not automatically cover all university or State board examinations unless the concerned government adopts the framework.
“[2024, GS2, 15] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”
[2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements: 1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it. 2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026. It bars states from imposing specified levies on mineral rights except on terms set by the Centre, reopening a fiscal federalism dispute.
What does the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 do?
Levy restriction: States cannot impose specified taxes on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land except as the Centre prescribes.
Dues extinguished: Pre-amendment dues estimated near 2 lakh crore rupees stand extinguished.
Scope: The Bill applies to major minerals such as iron ore, coal, bauxite, manganese, and copper.
Why is this a fiscal federalism flashpoint?
2024 ruling reversed in effect: The Supreme Court in 2024 upheld states’ power to tax mineral rights, which the Bill now constrains.
Revenue dependence: Mining was 84.9% of Jharkhand’s non-tax revenue in 2024-25.
Mineral-rich states hit: States holding large mineral reserves lose an expected revenue stream.
What is the Centre’s justification?
Uniform rates: The government argues uniform mineral rates prevent a patchwork of state levies.
No revenue loss claim: The Centre states that states retain powers over minor minerals.
Investment climate: Predictable levies are framed as protecting mining-sector investment.
What are the major debates surrounding it?
Tax versus royalty: The dispute turns on whether a levy on minerals is a tax or a royalty, which the 2024 ruling addressed.
Tribal concerns: Mineral belts overlap with Scheduled Areas, raising questions of local benefit-sharing.
Divisible resource control: Centralising mineral levies shifts fiscal power toward the Union.
Conclusion
The amendment centralises control over mineral taxation soon after the Supreme Court affirmed states’ taxing power. The immediate stage is enactment, with a likely constitutional challenge the next development.
Back2Basics
Constitutional Framework Governing mineral taxation
Entry 50, State List: Taxes on mineral rights, subject to Parliament’s limitations relating to mineral development.
Entry 54, Union List: Regulation of mines and mineral development declared expedient in public interest.
Article 246: Distributes legislative power between Union and states via the Seventh Schedule.
What did the Supreme Court hold in 2024?
The Mineral Area Development Authority v. SAIL judgment is the constitutional backdrop to the 2026 amendment. The 9-judge Constitution Bench, by 8:1 majority, held that royalty is not a tax and that States have legislative competence to tax mineral rights under Entry 50, State List. It also recognised the States’ power to tax mineral-bearing land under Entry 49, State List.
Royalty ≠ Tax: Royalty paid under the MMDR Act is consideration for the right to extract minerals and is distinct from a tax.
State Taxing Power: States can impose taxes on mineral rights under Entry 50, List II, subject to limitations imposed by Parliament.
Mineral-Bearing Land: States can also levy taxes on land under Entry 49, List II.
MMDR Limitation: The Court held that the MMDR Act, as it then stood, did not impose a limitation on the States’ taxing power.
Why is the 2026 Amendment significant?
The 2026 amendment seeks to alter this position prospectively by restricting State taxation of mineral rights and mineral-bearing lands, except in accordance with conditions or restrictions prescribed by the Centre
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2025] Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?
Linkage: The 2025 PYQ examines the evolution of Centre–State financial relations and their impact on fiscal federalism. The Bill raises fresh concerns over the Union’s role in restricting States’ mineral revenue powers and fiscal autonomy.
Parliament passed the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, enabling the NCDC to provide loans and grants directly to cooperative societies.
What is NCDC?
NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation) is a statutory corporation established under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962.
Functions under the Ministry of Cooperation.
Promotes and finances cooperatives involved in production, processing, marketing, storage and trade of agricultural and allied produce.
What does the Amendment Change?
Direct lending: NCDC can directly provide loans and grants to cooperative societies.
Wider coverage: Definition of foodstuffs expanded to include processed food and other food items notified by the Centre.
No additional budgetary outlay: The Bill does not provide for additional government financial assistance.
Why is it Needed?
Faster flow of credit by removing intermediary delays.
Supports over 8 lakh cooperatives with more than 30 crore members.
Extends cooperative financing into value added food chains.
Why are States Concerned?
Cooperation is largely a State subject.
Direct central lending may bypass State governments and registrars.
Raises concerns about cooperative federalism and centralisation.
Key Challenges
Financial weakness and poor governance of PACS (Primary Agricultural Credit Societies).
Dual regulatory control.
Regional concentration of cooperatives.
Delayed elections and audits.
Limited professional management.
Centre State friction.
Constitutional Framework
Entry 32, State List: Incorporation and regulation of cooperative societies within a State.
Article 43B: Promotes voluntary formation and autonomous functioning of cooperatives.
Part IXB, Articles 243ZH to 243ZT: Constitutional provisions on cooperatives.
Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: Governs cooperatives operating across multiple States.
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan have signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, a trilateral mutual defence pact that borrows the collective security logic of Article 5 of the NATO charter. The signing exposes a central question for New Delhi: whether the pact gives Pakistan a shield to escalate against India, or whether it is a loose instrument of strategic hedging without the integration of a real military alliance. India’s foreign ministry says it is tracking the situation carefully.
What is the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement?
About: A mutual defence pact among Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, signed in 2026, that treats an armed attack on any one member as an attack on all.
Design borrowing: It borrows elements of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) charter, including its collective security clause, marking a shift away from the US security umbrella toward regional self-reliance.
What is Article 5 of the NATO charter?
Collective defence clause: It commits every member to treat an armed attack against one member as an attack against all, and to assist in response.
Why it matters here: The Mecca pact replicates this trigger among three states, which raises the question of how Turkey reconciles it with its existing NATO obligations.
What is Operation Sindoor?
About: An Indian military operation against terror infrastructure that serves as the reference case for how the three signatories behaved during an India-Pakistan confrontation.
Behaviour observed: Turkey provided Pakistan diplomatic and rhetorical support and sold drones, but stopped short of tangible military assistance, and Saudi Arabia stayed silent.
What are the three power centres the pact combines?
Pakistan: A declared South Asian nuclear power contributing a powerful conventional military and a functional nuclear arsenal, though it is unclear whether Islamabad has offered a nuclear umbrella.
Saudi Arabia: Provides political and financial clout as leader of the Sunni world and controller of one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Turkey: The successor of the Ottoman Empire, contributing a powerful military, NATO operational experience, and a highly capable defence industry.
Stated adversaries: The unstated targets are Iran, leader of the Shia world with proxies including Hezbollah and Hamas across Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, and Israel, an intelligence powerhouse and undeclared nuclear power.
What is the pattern of prior cooperation among the three?
Bilateral base: Pakistan has provided military training and technical assistance to Saudi Arabian forces for decades.
September 2025 pact: Riyadh and Islamabad signed a bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement, which evolved into the trilateral Mecca Agreement with Ankara’s participation.
Force deployment: Pakistan deployed some 8,000 troops, a squadron of JF-17 fighter aircraft, drones, and HQ-9 air defence systems to Saudi Arabia.
Financial and naval ties: Riyadh has repeatedly provided financial bailouts to Islamabad, and Turkey and Pakistan have exchanged warships and training aircraft.
Why does the pact worry India directly?
Cold War precedent: Pakistan has a long record of hitching its wagon to pacts to oblige Western powers and gain geopolitical advantage against India, joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) in 1954 to secure advanced weaponry for its struggle over Jammu and Kashmir.
Global South rivalry: Saudi Arabia and Turkey are seen as piggybacking on Pakistan to seek a bigger strategic role in Asia and to challenge India’s ambition to lead the Global South.
Forum coordination: The bloc can coordinate positions in international forums such as the United Nations (UN) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) on issues including Kashmir and maritime security.
Technology integration: Turkish defence industry output, funded by Saudi capital and deployed in Pakistan, can enhance Rawalpindi’s capabilities in unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), electronic warfare, and naval platforms.
Is this an “Islamic NATO” or strategic hedging? (the central tension)
Case against alarm: Calling it an Islamic NATO is premature because NATO’s efficacy relies on a unified command, pre-assigned forces, and deep interoperability, while the Mecca pact lacks an integrated military headquarters, joint command mechanisms, and institutionalised doctrine.
Divergent priorities: Saudi Arabia is focused on hedging against Iran and Houthi threats, Turkey on defence exports and Islamic-world leadership, and Pakistan on economic bailouts and leverage against India.
Legal limit on the trigger: Mutual defence treaties apply strictly to unprovoked external aggression, so Indian counter-terrorism strikes against Pakistani terror infrastructure do not constitute a treaty trigger.
Saudi restraint: Riyadh’s relationship with New Delhi has evolved into a multi-billion-dollar strategic partnership spanning energy, trade, and intelligence, and the Saudi Crown Prince has no interest in being dragged into a South Asian military conflict.
How could the interlocking alliances backfire?
World War I analogy: A matrix of interlocking military alliances of exactly this kind triggered World War I, and repeating that blunder would be a serious risk.
Unreconciled obligations: If Israel strikes a Saudi facility and Turkey responds under the Mecca pact, it is unclear whether the 32 NATO countries would be treaty-bound to support Turkey.
Operational hedging: Saudi Arabia’s passivity when Pakistan clashed with Afghanistan, and Pakistan’s non-involvement when Saudi Arabia faced Iranian and Houthi strikes, show these pacts often pair political rhetoric with operational hedging.
How has the military balance on India’s borders shifted?
Strike corps repurposed: The Indian Army converted a 60,000-strong strike corps configured for the India-Pakistan border into a mountain strike corps for the China border.
Divisions reassigned: Two mountain divisions raised over the last two decades were assigned entirely to the China border.
Earmarking change: Where 70 per cent of the Indian Army was once earmarked for the Pakistan border, only about 55 per cent is today.
What should India’s calibrated response be?
Discreet engagement: Engage Saudi Arabia candidly through high-level channels to secure assurances that the pact’s defensive clauses apply only to the West Asian theatre and cannot be weaponised by Pakistan.
Firm deterrence: Maintain a firm deterrence doctrine so that Indian responses to state-sponsored terrorism remain resolute and unaffected by third-party arrangements.
Gulf partnerships: Double down on bilateral economic, trade, and strategic partnerships with Saudi Arabia and the broader Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
Technology watch: Monitor Turkey-Pakistan military-industrial co-development and prioritise indigenous research to neutralise advanced drones, electronic warfare, and naval platforms.
Procurement reform: Fast-track defence procurement, which has been slowed by bureaucratic caution since the Bofors scandal.
Conclusion
The Mecca Agreement is best understood less as a binding warfighting alliance and more as an instrument of strategic hedging for a volatile region, fusing Saudi capital, Turkish technology, and Pakistani manpower into a collective deterrence shield. The central idea is that its danger to India lies not in an immediate collective-defence trigger but in the technology integration and diplomatic bloc it creates. A pragmatic Indian strategy combines firm counter-terrorism deterrence, deep economic engagement in the Gulf, and targeted defence innovation at home.
West Asian Security Architecture: About
US umbrella in retreat: The United States has signalled limits on its security guarantees to West Asian allies, prompting states to seek self-reliance.
Israeli posture: Israel has demonstrated through its bombing of Iran-linked targets that it will accept no restraints on its perceived security interests.
Realignment: Riyadh, Ankara, and Islamabad have come together in response, marking a shift away from dependence on Washington.
Back2Basics: Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
Convening body: An intergovernmental organisation of Muslim-majority states that coordinates political and economic positions.
Relevance: The Mecca bloc can use the OIC to coordinate positions on issues including Kashmir.
India’s stance: India is not a member and has consistently rejected OIC pronouncements on Kashmir as interference in internal affairs.
Challenges for India from the pact
Diplomatic bloc formation: A formal political grouping can coordinate against Indian interests at the UN and OIC.
Capability transfer: Turkish drone, electronic warfare, and naval technology reaching Pakistan raises the conventional threat.
Two-front pressure: Deeper Pakistan alignments complicate India’s management of simultaneous China and Pakistan borders.
Gulf balancing: India must protect its expanding Saudi and Gulf partnerships without endorsing the pact.
Escalation ambiguity: Uncertainty over how the collective clause would be read in a crisis raises the risk of miscalculation.
Way Forward
Bilateral reassurance: Secure written or channelled Saudi and Emirati assurances that the pact excludes India-Pakistan sub-conventional conflict.
Deterrence signalling: Communicate that counter-terror responses will remain resolute and unlinked to third-party pacts.
Indigenous capability: Accelerate counter-drone, electronic warfare, and naval research, seeking foreign partners ahead in these fields.
Economic anchoring: Deepen Gulf trade and energy ties to make India indispensable to Riyadh’s long-term economic vision.
Procurement speed: Streamline defence acquisition to close capability gaps quickly.
“[2023 GS2 15m] ‘The expansion and strengthening of NATO and a stronger US-Europe strategic partnership works well in India.’ What is your opinion about this statement? Give reasons and examples to support your answer.”
Members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs have asked the government whether it will push a de-dollarisation agenda at the 18th BRICS Summit, which New Delhi hosts in September 2026. The question exposes a tension between the pursuit of greater financial sovereignty and the risk of provoking US retaliation. India holds the rotating chairship of BRICS through 2026, which makes the host nation’s posture on the dollar a live diplomatic choice rather than an abstract one.
What is de-dollarisation?
About: De-dollarisation is a deliberate reduction in the use of the US dollar for international trade invoicing, cross-border settlement, and foreign exchange reserves.
Mechanism: Countries settle bilateral trade in their own national currencies or through a shared settlement arrangement, bypassing dollar clearing and dollar-denominated payment channels.
What is BRICS?
About: BRICS is an intergovernmental grouping originally of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, later expanded to admit new members, that coordinates positions on trade, finance, and reform of global governance.
Chairship: The chairship rotates annually among members, and India assumed it on 1 January 2026 and leads the bloc until the end of the year.
What is a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)?
About: A CBDC is a digital form of a country’s sovereign currency issued and backed by its central bank, distinct from private cryptocurrencies.
Relevance here: The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has repeatedly advocated linking the official digital currencies of BRICS countries to facilitate cross-border trade and tourism payments.
Why is the parliamentary panel pressing the government?
Direct question posed: The panel asked whether the government plans to push a de-dollarisation agenda at the summit New Delhi hosts in September.
Financial sovereignty framing: Members questioned why the government was not pursuing greater financial sovereignty that could help countries bypass US sanctions.
Host-nation leverage: They sought to know whether India, as the host nation, would push a BRICS-led de-dollarisation agenda.
Stalled precedent cited: Members noted that India’s effort to establish a local currency trade mechanism with Russia had not taken off.
What is the case for reducing dollar reliance?
RBI framework: The central bank has argued that linking BRICS digital currencies could reduce reliance on the US dollar amid rising geopolitical tensions.
Sanctions insulation: A shared settlement mechanism would let member economies transact even when cut off from dollar clearing systems.
Payment efficiency: Direct local currency settlement lowers conversion costs in cross-border trade and tourism payments.
Why does a de-dollarisation push carry risks?
US retaliation threat: The US President has repeatedly warned BRICS countries against creating an alternative currency or challenging the dollar’s dominance, threatening punitive tariffs.
Weak internal record: India’s own local currency trade mechanism with Russia has not taken off, exposing the practical difficulty of moving away from the dollar.
Host-nation exposure: As chair and host, a visible Indian push would identify New Delhi with the agenda and concentrate any retaliatory response on it.
Conclusion
The panel has flagged the gap between the RBI’s advocacy for a BRICS payments architecture and the government’s caution on committing to de-dollarisation. The immediate status is that the government has not confirmed whether it will table the agenda. The next milestone is the 18th BRICS Summit in New Delhi in September 2026, where India’s posture as chair will become clear.
About BRICS
Origin: The term BRIC was coined in 2001, the first leaders’ summit was held in 2009, and South Africa joined in 2010 to make it BRICS.
Expansion: The bloc admitted new members from 2024 onward, widening its economic and geographic weight.
Institutions: BRICS created the New Development Bank (NDB), headquartered in Shanghai, and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to provide financing and liquidity support.
Weight: The grouping represents a large share of the world’s population and a substantial share of global output, giving it standing in debates over multilateral reform.
Back2Basics: New Development Bank (NDB)
Convening body: Established by BRICS members to fund infrastructure and sustainable development projects.
Headquarters: Shanghai, China.
Function: Lends to member and partner economies, part of the bloc’s push to build financial institutions parallel to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
“[2025] Consider the following statements with regard to BRICS:
I. The 16th BRICS Summit was held under the Chairship of Russia in Kazan.
II. Indonesia has become a full member of BRICS.
III. The theme of the 16th BRICS Summit was Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Telangana Pradesh Congress Committee urged the Election Commission to re verify the 73 lakh voters proposed for deletion under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in the State. The controversy has exposed a tension between an inclusion driven history of the franchise and a revision that critics say works on a presumption of exclusion. The draft voters’ list is due on 17 August.
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
Definition: The Special Intensive Revision is an exercise by the Election Commission to intensively update and verify electoral rolls, involving field verification of existing electors.
Deletion mechanism: Electors flagged as ineligible or unverified are proposed for deletion and published in a draft roll for objection.
Onus on the elector: The revision requires electors to establish continued eligibility, which critics read as a presumption of exclusion.
What is the Election Commission of India?
Constitutional authority: The Election Commission of India is the constitutional body under Article 324 responsible for superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections.
Composition: It presently functions as a multi member body of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
Roll preparation: It prepares and periodically revises the electoral rolls on which the franchise depends.
What is the current status of the franchise and roll revision in India?
Universal adult franchise: Every citizen aged 18 and above is entitled to be registered as a voter, an entitlement extended from age 21 originally.
Historical inclusion drive: In the first election of 1952 the Commission worked to register 80 million eligible women, though 2.8 million were struck off for refusing to be recorded by name rather than as the wife or daughter of a man.
Gender gap closed: The gender gap in voting closed by 2019, marking the maturation of electoral equality into lived equality.
Draft roll timeline: In Telangana the draft roll is scheduled for 17 August, with 73 lakh electors proposed for deletion under the SIR.
Constitutional provisions related to elections and the electoral roll:
Article 324: Vests superintendence, direction and control of elections and roll preparation in the Election Commission.
Article 325: Bars exclusion from the electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex, and provides one general roll for every constituency.
Article 326: Establishes elections to the House of the People and State Assemblies on the basis of adult suffrage.
Article 327: Empowers Parliament to make provision on all matters relating to elections, including preparation of electoral rolls.
What are the concerns raised in Telangana?
Scale of proposed deletion: The Telangana Congress flagged 73 lakh voters proposed for deletion and sought detailed re verification before any removal.
Genuine electors at risk: It maintained that genuine electors should not be removed without thorough scrutiny.
Opportunity to establish eligibility: It demanded that every genuine voter be given a chance to establish eligibility before deletion.
Draft roll deadline pressure: With the draft list due on 17 August, the window to correct wrongful deletions is compressed.
Why does the revision reopen the inclusion versus exclusion tension?
Presumption of exclusion: The current SIR appears to work on the presumption of exclusion, in contrast to the 1952 drive that worked to include the eligible.
Own name weaponised: Ownership of one’s own name, which historically announced gender electoral equality, has been turned against women in online attacks on female protesters.
Gendered doxxing: Women who joined recent protests were doxxed, with names, numbers and addresses uploaded and abuse directed at them.
Paternalistic framing: Public remarks singling out the conduct of women protesters divided the participants along gendered lines while ignoring identical conduct by men.
Erosion of an old promise: The revision and the online abuse together strain the founding promise of equality regardless of gender.
What are the major debates surrounding electoral roll revision?
Purity versus inclusion: A roll must exclude ineligible entries while not disenfranchising genuine electors, and the SIR is contested on which side it errs.
Burden of proof: Placing the onus on the elector to prove eligibility risks excluding the poor, the mobile and the marginalised.
Timeline adequacy: A compressed objection window after a large proposed deletion raises due process concerns.
Federal and political friction: State units allege that mass deletions fall unevenly, injecting the revision into electoral competition.
Conclusion: The SIR in Telangana has proposed 73 lakh voters for deletion, and the State Congress has demanded re verification before any removal. The dispute turns on whether the revision presumes inclusion or exclusion of the eligible voter. The draft rolls are due on 17 August, after which the objection and correction process will determine the final deletions.
Back2Basics: Election Commission of India
Constitutional basis: Article 324, with the Commission established on 25 January 1950.
Composition: Chief Election Commissioner and such number of Election Commissioners as the President fixes, currently a multi member body.
Tenure and removal: The Chief Election Commissioner is removable only by the process applicable to a Supreme Court judge, securing independence.
Functions: Superintends roll preparation, conducts elections to Parliament, State legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President, and resolves disputes on splits and mergers of recognised parties.
Statutory backing: The Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951 govern roll preparation and the conduct of elections.
Way Forward:
Verification before deletion: Require field verification and notice to the elector before any name is struck off.
Accessible appeal: Provide accessible objection and appeal mechanisms with adequate time after the draft roll.
Protect vulnerable electors: Design safeguards so that the poor, migrants and women identified by their own names are not wrongly excluded.
Transparency of criteria: Publish the deletion criteria and category wise data to allow public scrutiny.
Grievance redress: Establish a time bound grievance channel for wrongful deletions before the final roll.
“[2017] Consider the following statements:
1. The Election Commission of India is a five-member body.
2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections.
3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties.
