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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Italy suspends Schengen pact with Spain amid Ceuta migrant crisis

    Why in the News?

    Around 60,000 migrants crossed from Morocco into Spain’s Ceuta enclave within 24 hours, prompting Italy to temporarily suspend the Schengen Agreement with Spain for one month by reintroducing border checks.

    What is the Schengen Area?

    • A passport-free travel zone that abolishes internal border checks among participating European countries.
    • Members maintain common external border controls.
    • Internal border checks may be temporarily reintroduced on grounds of national security or public order.

    What Happened in Ceuta?

    • Around 60,000 migrants attempted to enter Ceuta from Morocco.
    • At least 57 migrants died during the crossing.
    • Spain deployed the armed forces and additional police to restore order.
    • Morocco used tear gas to disperse migrants near the border.

    Why is it Significant?

    • Highlights vulnerabilities at the EU’s external borders.
    • Tests the functioning of the Schengen free movement system.
    • Demonstrates that one member state can temporarily restore internal border controls during security emergencies.
    • Raises concerns over irregular migration, border management and humanitarian protection.

    Challenges

    • Rising irregular migration and human smuggling.
    • Balancing border security with humanitarian obligations.
    • Coordination among EU member states.
    • Political tensions between Spain, Morocco and other EU members.

    Ceuta

    • An autonomous Spanish city on the north coast of Africa, bordering Morocco.
    • Together with Melilla, forms the European Union’s only land border with Africa.
    • Frequently used as an entry point for migrants seeking access to Europe.

    Schengen Area

    • Established under the Schengen Agreement (1985).
    • Schengen Convention: 1990.
    • Implemented from 1995.
    • Comprises 29 countries (25 EU members and 4 non-EU countries).
    • Non-EU Schengen Members: Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein

    [2019] Which of the following adopted a law on data protection and privacy for its citizens known as ‘General Data Protection Regulation’ in April 2016 and started implementation of it from 25th May, 2018?

    (a) Australia

    (b) Canada

    (c) The European Union

    (d) The United States of America.

  • Govt on UN Rapporteurs SIR concern: Due process followed

    Why in the News

    The Union government told the Rajya Sabha on 30 July that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was carried out by following due process of law without prejudice to any group or community. The reply came almost three months after three United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteurs wrote to the government raising concern over large scale deletion of electors and alleged discrimination through the exercise.

    How does the Special Intensive Revision work?

    1. Enumeration: Booth level officers distribute and collect enumeration forms from every elector in the area under revision, requiring proof of citizenship, age and ordinary residence rather than relying only on the existing electoral roll entry.
    2. Draft roll: Once forms are collected and verified, the Election Commission of India (ECI) publishes a draft electoral roll reflecting the revised list of electors.
    3. Claims and objections: Electors and political parties can file claims for inclusion or objections to entries during a specified window before the roll is finalised.
    4. Final roll: The ECI publishes the final electoral roll after disposing of claims and objections, and this roll is used for elections held after that date.

    Who are UN Special Rapporteurs?

    1. Independent experts appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to examine and report on specific human rights themes or country situations.
    2. They do not represent the UN as an institution, and their communications, including the one on the SIR, carry no binding legal authority over member states.

    What did the Special Rapporteurs allege?

    1. Scale of deletion: The communication raised concern over large scale deletion of electors from the rolls during the SIR exercise.
    2. Discrimination claim: It alleged the exercise had a discriminatory effect on specific groups or communities.
    3. Delay in response: The government’s reply came nearly three months after the communication was received, and only after the matter was raised in the Rajya Sabha.

    Why is a due process claim not enough to settle the matter?

    1. No numbers offered: The government’s reply asserted due process was followed but did not place before Parliament the actual scale of deletions the Special Rapporteurs had flagged.
    2. Parallel legal challenges: The same deletions remain under separate examination in pending petitions before the Supreme Court, meaning the due process claim is being tested in a forum whose outcome is still open.
    3. International scrutiny continues: A reply to Parliament does not close the UN communication, which remains part of the Human Rights Council’s special procedures record regardless of the government’s domestic response.
    4. Verification burden: Requiring citizenship and residence documents from every elector shifts the burden of proof onto individuals, affecting poor, migrant and undocumented voters more than others, the groups the Special Rapporteurs’ discrimination claim centres on.

    What are the challenges to the Special Intensive Revision?

    1. Documentation burden: Migrant workers, the poor and the elderly are least likely to hold the specific documents demanded, raising the risk of wrongful exclusion rather than genuine deduplication.
    2. Timeline pressure: Conducting a house to house enumeration across a state within a compressed window increases the chance of errors by booth level officers working under time pressure.
    3. Appeal window adequacy: A short claims and objections period limits the time available for a wrongly excluded elector to be restored to the rolls before an election is notified.
    4. Judicial pendency: With petitions challenging the SIR still pending before the Supreme Court, the exercise continues in several states even as its legal validity remains undecided.
    5. Reputational cost: Simultaneous scrutiny from Parliament, the courts and UN human rights mechanisms complicates the government’s ability to present the exercise as procedurally settled.

    Conclusion

    The government’s due process claim does not resolve the dispute over the SIR. The scale of the deletions remains undisclosed, petitions challenging the exercise remain pending before the Supreme Court, and the UN communication remains on record with no reply addressing its specific numbers. The next milestone is the Supreme Court’s disposal of the pending petitions, which will determine whether the due process claim withstands judicial scrutiny.

    Back2Basics:

    Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    1. An intensive, house to house revision of electoral rolls conducted by the Election Commission of India under its powers over preparation and revision of electoral rolls, distinct from the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Requires fresh verification of every elector’s citizenship, age and ordinary residence rather than a review limited to additions and deletions since the last roll.
    3. The current round began in Bihar and has since been extended to other states ahead of scheduled elections.
    4. Political parties and civil society groups have challenged aspects of the exercise before the Supreme Court, citing the risk of wrongful deletion.

    Special Summary Revision (SSR)

    1. SSR is the routine, annual exercise conducted by the ECI to update existing voter lists.
    2. How it works : Unlike SIR, it does not mandate a door-to-door check for every single person. It mostly relies on citizens voluntarily submitting online or offline applications for fresh registration, deletion, or corrections.
    3. Purpose : Accommodating newly eligible young voters (who just turned 18) and making minor changes before an ordinary election cycle.

    Continuous Revision (CR)

    1. Continuous revision runs constantly between the conclusion of a summary revision and the announcement of the next major election.
    2. How it works : The voter list remains open dynamically. Eligible citizens can use the ECI’s Voter Service Portal or Voter Helpline App to update their addresses or register at any point in the year

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ examines electoral reforms and measures to strengthen the integrity of the electoral process. The article analyses the Special Intensive Revision (SIR), highlighting concerns over voter roll verification, inclusion, and electoral fairness.

  • [31st July 2026] The Hindu OpED: The Bay of Bengal as India’s SHANTI anchor

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2022]     What are the maritime security challenges in India? Discuss the organisational, technical and procedural initiatives taken to improve the maritime security.
    Linkage: It examines India’s maritime security challenges and initiatives to strengthen regional maritime governance.The article analyses SHANTI as India’s new framework to enhance maritime cooperation, security, and resilience in the Bay of Bengal through BIMSTEC.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The External Affairs Minister introduced Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity (SHANTI) on 13 July while launching India’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 2028-29 term, naming the Bay of Bengal as the region to operationalise it first. The framework arrives in a region where growing naval and infrastructure capacity has outpaced any shared set of maritime norms among its littoral states.

    What is SHANTI?

    1. Full form and origin: SHANTI stands for Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity, introduced on 13 July alongside India’s UNSC candidature announcement.
    2. Lineage: It builds on Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), articulated in 2015 around the idea of equity in development, and Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions (MAHASAGAR), announced in 2025 to widen that vision to the interconnectedness of security across the Indo Pacific and the Global South.
    3. Function: SHANTI is presented as a normative framework, offering shared principles for maritime security, disaster response, the blue economy and environmental resilience, rather than a new institution or treaty.
    4. Rollout sequence: The Bay of Bengal is named as the first region where SHANTI is meant to move from principle to practice, before any wider application across the Indo Pacific.

    What is BIMSTEC?

    1. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is a regional grouping of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, connecting South and Southeast Asia around the Bay of Bengal.
    2. At its National Security Advisers’ meeting in New Delhi in July 2026, BIMSTEC members adopted common principles for maritime law enforcement and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. They also agreed to hold their first joint maritime security exercise in the Bay in November 2026.

    Why is the Bay of Bengal treated as SHANTI’s proving ground?

    1. Strategic centrality: The Bay links India’s Act East policy with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), gives access to the Malacca Strait, and connects the eastern Indian Ocean to major global trade and energy routes.
    2. Comparative advantage: The western Indian Ocean is marked by active conflict and fragile economies. The Bay’s littoral states instead face similar, non military challenges such as cyclones, coastal erosion, fisheries management and undersea cable protection, which makes cooperation more feasible than confrontation.
    3. Institutional gap: The region is not short of institutions but suffers from fragmentation among them, and SHANTI is framed as a common framework to align existing mechanisms rather than add another one.
    4. Geopolitical pressure: China’s reliance on the Malacca Strait, often called its Malacca dilemma, has driven an expanding Chinese presence through ports and infrastructure projects in the same littoral states SHANTI seeks to anchor.

    Can SHANTI move beyond being another acronym?

    1. Fragmentation risk: The region’s stated problem is institutional fragmentation, and a new framework risks adding to that fragmentation unless it visibly aligns existing mechanisms.
    2. Stewardship versus dominance: India’s convening role depends on being accepted as a preferred security partner and first responder, a position that rests on restraint rather than the naval and economic weight India commands in the region.
    3. Early stage outputs: Concrete outcomes so far are limited to a declaration of common principles, a first joint maritime exercise scheduled for November 2026, and a white shipping information sharing agreement still under discussion, none of which are yet operational.
    4. Norms without enforcement: SHANTI rests on shared principles rather than a binding treaty, leaving compliance dependent on the willingness of littoral states rather than an enforceable obligation.

    What are the challenges to SHANTI?

    1. Overlap with existing bodies: SHANTI must coordinate with, rather than duplicate, existing mechanisms such as BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, each with its own membership and mandate.
    2. Financing gap: Disaster response, undersea cable protection and blue economy cooperation require capital that several BIMSTEC members cannot supply on their own, raising the risk that shared projects become dependent on Indian or external financing.
    3. Limited replicability: The Bay of Bengal is easier ground precisely because it lacks the active conflict of the western Indian Ocean, so success there does not guarantee the same framework will work in more contested Indo Pacific waters.
    4. Competing infrastructure presence: Continued Chinese port and infrastructure investment in the same littoral states complicates India’s claim to a natural convening role.
    5. Dependence on voluntary compliance: Because SHANTI is a set of norms rather than a binding agreement, its durability depends on continued political will among BIMSTEC members rather than any enforcement mechanism.

    Conclusion

    SHANTI’s substance will not be judged by its acronym but by whether the Bay of Bengal’s BIMSTEC linked initiatives, the first joint maritime exercise due in November 2026 and the pending white shipping information sharing agreement, convert shared principles into functioning practice. Until those steps are completed, SHANTI remains a stated framework rather than a demonstrated one.

    Back2Basics:

    BIMSTEC

    1. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation was formed in 1997 and renamed after Bhutan and Nepal joined in 2004, expanding it from its original five members to seven.
    2. Its secretariat is based in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and its membership spans Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
    3. The 6th BIMSTEC Summit, held in Bangkok in April 2025, adopted the Bangkok Vision 2030 and a Maritime Transport Agreement covering national treatment for vessels, crew and cargo among member states.
    4. BIMSTEC connects South Asia and Southeast Asia and has expanded its cooperation beyond trade into security, disaster management, energy and connectivity.

  • Activists raise alarm over PM CARES denial of access to audit statements

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not published audited financial statements for the last three financial years. The government maintains that the trust is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and is therefore not bound by its disclosure requirements. Activists argue that the fund has all the characteristics of a public body. They point out that the Prime Minister is its Chairperson, Union Ministers serve as ex officio trustees, and government employees have contributed from their salaries. Yet, the fund remains outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).


    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Establishment: Set up in March 2020 and registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with its trust deed registered in New Delhi on 27 March 2020, to support relief during public health emergencies and other disasters.
    2. Composition: The Prime Minister serves as ex officio Chairperson, and the Union Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex officio trustees.
    3. Funding: Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from individuals and organisations, with the government stating it receives no budgetary support.
    4. Tax and foreign funding benefits: Donations qualify for a 100% deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, count as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fund holds an exemption under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to receive donations from overseas.

    What financial disclosure has the fund made?

    1. Last published statement: The last publicly available audited statement, for financial year 2022 23, showed an opening balance of Rs 5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of Rs 909.64 crore, total receipts of Rs 6,723.07 crore, total payments of Rs 439.38 crore, and a closing balance of Rs 6,283.68 crore as of 31 March 2023.
    2. Disclosure gap: Only the audited statements for 2019 20, 2020 21, 2021 22 and 2022 23 are available on the fund’s website, leaving the last three financial years without any published audit.
    3. Primary use: The fund has primarily financed India’s COVID 19 response and emergency health infrastructure.

    Why does the government’s “not a public authority” position sit uneasily with the fund’s structure?

    1. Government’s legal position: The government maintains the trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs retrospectively amended the relevant Companies Act rules to support this position.
    2. Activists’ counter: Activists argue the fund was presented as set up by the Union government, carries the sanctity of the Prime Minister’s office as chairperson, and drew contributions from government employees’ salaries, features that make it appear to be a public authority in substance.
    3. The accountability gap: The fund remains outside the RTI Act’s disclosure obligations, outside parliamentary scrutiny, and outside audit by the CAG, the three principal mechanisms that apply to ordinary government spending.

    What are the challenges to ensuring transparency in the PM CARES Fund?

    1. A named precedent: Activists cite the electoral bonds case, where sustained anonymity in political funding enabled quid pro quo arrangements between donors and the government, before the Supreme Court struck the scheme down in February 2024 for violating the right to information.
    2. No independent constitutional audit: Without CAG audit, no independent constitutional auditor verifies how contributions, including those from government employees’ salaries, are spent.
    3. Retrospective rule change: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ retrospective amendment to Companies Act rules narrows the scope for legal challenge based on the fund’s original design.
    4. CSR channel scrutiny: Because CSR contributions to PM CARES count toward companies’ mandatory CSR spending obligations, opacity in fund utilisation also affects corporate accountability for those obligations.
    5. No periodic review clause: Unlike time bound government schemes, PM CARES has no periodic legislative or parliamentary review clause forcing disclosure at fixed intervals.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund’s structure gives it the outward markers of a public authority, a Prime Minister led chairpersonship, ministerial trustees and salary contributions from government employees, while its legal classification as a private trust keeps it outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny and CAG audit. Three consecutive years without a published audited statement leave activists’ comparison to the electoral bonds case as the operative risk to track. Whether the fund publishes its pending audits or its RTI exempt status changes remains the open question.

    Back2Basics:

    Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India

    1. Constitutional basis: The CAG is a constitutional authority under Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution, appointed by the President.
    2. Governing law: Its powers and duties are laid out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    3. Mandate: Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and state governments, including bodies substantially financed by government grants, and reports findings for placement before the legislature.
    4. Tenure and independence: Holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through a process similar to a Supreme Court judge’s removal.
    5. Relevance here: PM CARES Fund’s exclusion from CAG audit means its accounts face no scrutiny from this constitutional auditor, unlike most bodies with government backed establishment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ tests the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.The article examines the PM CARES Fund’s exemption from the RTI Act and the resulting concerns over public accountability.

  • CWMA upholds CWRC’s order to Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu

    Why in the News

    The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on 30 July upheld an order of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) directing Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water a day to Tamil Nadu for 15 days despite Karnataka’s own appeal citing drought. The ruling exposes that Karnataka and Tamil Nadu still have no agreed formula for sharing shortfalls in the Cauvery basin, years after the Supreme Court’s final verdict on the dispute.

    How does the Cauvery water sharing mechanism work?

    1. Two tier structure: The CWRC functions within the CWMA, which implements the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018.
    2. Composition: The CWRC is headed by the Member (Water Resources) of the CWMA and includes Chief Engineers of all basin states along with representatives of the India Meteorological Department (IMD), Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    3. Monitoring role: It tracks daily water levels, inflows and storage at eight reservoirs, four in Karnataka, three in Tamil Nadu and one in Kerala. It also issues seasonal water release directions for each basin state.
    4. Appeal route: A state aggrieved by a CWRC order can appeal to the CWMA. The CWMA, as the apex body monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, can uphold, modify or set aside the CWRC’s order.
    5. Unit of measure: Releases are set in cusecs, a rate of flow measured in cubic feet per second, while cumulative volume is tracked in thousand million cubic feet, referred to as tmc ft.

    Why did the CWRC order the release now?

    1. Deficient inflows: Karnataka’s four reservoirs recorded a combined inflow shortfall of about 60% against the 30 year average, and the deficit at the Biligundulu gauge, where Karnataka’s flow to Tamil Nadu is measured, was 90%.
    2. Storage position: As on 30 July, Karnataka’s four reservoirs held 65.34 tmc ft against a total capacity of 114.57 tmc ft.
    3. Forecast: The IMD gave no optimistic outlook for the following weeks, which shaped the CWRC’s view that Karnataka could still spare water.
    4. Buffer assessment: The CWMA noted Karnataka’s reservoirs stood to gain a minimum of 15 tmc ft in the next 15 days and that releasing 4.5 tmc ft would not affect Karnataka’s drinking water needs.

    Why do both states reject the outcome as unfair?

    1. Karnataka’s distress claim: Karnataka cited a super El Nino effect, said it had not begun irrigation releases this year, and argued Tamil Nadu would separately gain from the northeast monsoon later in the season.
    2. Karnataka’s carryover argument: Karnataka contended Tamil Nadu already held substantial carryover storage from earlier releases, reducing its immediate need.
    3. Tamil Nadu’s shortfall claim: Tamil Nadu sought 9.45 tmc ft over 15 days at 7,000 cusecs a day under the distress formula, arguing the ordered 3,500 cusecs was insufficient given a 90% deficit at Biligundulu.
    4. Tamil Nadu’s cultivation needs: Tamil Nadu’s ongoing kuruvai season needs at least 30 tmc ft against a Mettur storage of about 36 tmc ft, of which 10 tmc ft is reserved for drinking water. The following samba thaladi season needs a minimum of 180 tmc ft.
    5. Political fallout: Karnataka’s Chief Minister called an all party meeting in Bengaluru on 2 August to consider legal options, and farmer protests have already begun in the Cauvery basin against the release order.

    What are the challenges to the Cauvery dispute resolution mechanism?

    1. No distress sharing formula: Both the CWRC chief and Tamil Nadu’s position point to the absence of an agreed formula for splitting shortfalls in a deficient year, forcing an ad hoc order each time rainfall fails.
    2. Recurring litigation: Karnataka has approached the CWMA and is weighing further legal options, repeating a cycle of appeals seen in nearly every distress year since the tribunal’s award.
    3. Compliance risk: The CWMA can direct a release, but implementation still depends on Karnataka’s cooperation, a dependence that has previously produced Supreme Court contempt proceedings against Karnataka.
    4. Climate variability: A pattern of super El Nino effects and deficient monsoons increases the frequency of distress years, straining a formula built around long term averages rather than year on year swings.
    5. Political cost: A release ordered during an acknowledged drought risks becoming a flashpoint for farmer unrest and inter state friction, regardless of the technical merits of the CWRC’s assessment.

    Conclusion

    The CWMA’s ruling shows the institutional mechanism functioning as designed, yet satisfying neither riparian state. Karnataka calls the release unfair given its own distress, and Tamil Nadu calls the quantum inadequate for its cultivation needs. What remains unresolved is not whether the tribunal award should be enforced, but whether Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will ever agree on a distress sharing formula that removes the need for fresh litigation every deficient season. The CWRC is scheduled to meet again on 11 August to review compliance.

    Back2Basics:

    Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)

    1. Established in June 2018 by the Union Jal Shakti Ministry to implement the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (2007) as modified by the Supreme Court’s verdict of the same year.
    2. Constituted under Section 6A of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, following the Supreme Court’s directions.
    3. Composition includes a Chairman, a Secretary and Members, including a full time Member (Water Resources) who also heads the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
    4. Jurisdiction covers water release, storage and supply regulation across the Cauvery basin states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
    5. Functions as the apex body for compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, with the CWRC as its technical monitoring arm.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.

    Linkage: It examines the effectiveness of constitutional and institutional mechanisms for resolving inter-state river water disputes. The article highlights recurring Cauvery disputes, the absence of a distress-sharing formula, and continuing litigation despite the CWMA framework.

  • Centre defends CEC panel without CJI

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.

    What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?

    The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
    • Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha

    What changed?

    • The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
    • This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.

    What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?

    • Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
    • Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
      • Prime Minister
      • Leader of the Opposition
      • Chief Justice of India
    • The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.

    Centre’s Arguments

    • Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
    • The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
    • Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
    • Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • The committee lacks a neutral member.
    • A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
    • Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.

    [2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
    1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners.
    2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections.
    3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 3 only

    [C] 2 and 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • A medical education more inclusive

    Why in the News

    The National Medical Commission (NMC) issued revised guidelines on 27 July 2026 for admitting persons with disabilities to MBBS courses, replacing certificate-based disqualification with a functional assessment of whether a candidate can acquire the competencies needed to practise medicine. The change follows repeated legal challenges, including before the Supreme Court, to the earlier guidelines’ blanket exclusions.

    Key Highlights

    • Shift to Functional Assessment
      • MBBS eligibility will now be based on an applicant’s functional ability rather than the disability certificate alone.
      • Assessment will determine whether the candidate can acquire the competencies required to practise medicine.
      • Designated medical boards will conduct individual functional assessments.
    • Recognition of Reasonable Accommodation
      • Disability itself is not a ground for disqualification.
      • The guidelines recognise that: Assistive technology. Institutional support. Accessible infrastructure can enable candidates to successfully complete medical education.

    Why Were the Earlier Guidelines Challenged?

    • Earlier guidelines relied on fixed disability categories and thresholds.
    • Candidates could be declared ineligible solely because of the nature or extent of disability.
    • Petitioners argued that such blanket exclusions violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
    • The Supreme Court observed that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities should be eliminated.

    Significance

    • Promotes inclusive medical education.
    • Aligns with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
    • Shifts from a disability-based to a competency-based admission framework.

    Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

    • Replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
    • Expanded recognised disabilities from 7 to 21.
    • Provides 4% reservation in government jobs and 5% reservation in higher educational institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities.
    • Administered by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

    National Medical Commission (NMC)

    • Established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
    • Replaced the Medical Council of India (MCI).
    • Regulates medical education and medical professionals in India.

    [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 organization set up by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a not-for-profit company to promote entrepreneurship among Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
    Select the answer using the code given below:

    [A] 1 and 2

    [B] 2 only

    [C] 1 and 3

    [D] 1 only

  • RS passes Bill to criminalise disrespect to Vande Mataram

    Why in the News

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 on 29 July 2026, in the absence of most Opposition members who staged a walkout. The Bill extends criminal punishment for disrespecting national symbols to the National Song, Vande Mataram, placing it on the same legal footing as the National Anthem for the first time since the original 1971 law.

    What does the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 change?

    1. Original law: The Bill amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises insults to the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem.
    2. New provision: The amendment extends criminal punishment to acts of obstruction or disturbance during the singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram.
    3. Penalty: Intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly singing it, will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both.
    4. Legislative path: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai and will now go to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passage.

    What is the historical background to Vande Mataram’s status?

    1. Origin: Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875, but only two stanzas were adopted as the National Song.
    2. Adoption decision: Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru limited the National Song to two stanzas in 1937, years before he became independent India’s first Prime Minister.
    3. Constituent Assembly reference: On 24 January 1950, Rajendra Prasad told the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram should be honoured on par with Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem.

    What was the political dispute around the Bill’s passage?

    1. Government framing: Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said the Bill represents “India’s soul, national awareness, and cultural heritage” and accused the Congress of engaging in appeasement politics by opposing it.
    2. Opposition’s walkout reason: Nearly all Opposition members walked out demanding Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the police action against students protesting paper leaks at Jantar Mantar, rather than opposing the Bill’s substance.
    3. Cross-party support noted: The Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh said his party supports the Bill while also demanding a law against insulting the National Anthem and the Tricolour.

    Conclusion

    The Rajya Sabha has passed the Bill giving Vande Mataram the same criminal protection as the National Anthem, with the Lok Sabha’s consideration as the next legislative step. The Opposition’s walkout centred on demanding accountability for the police action against student protesters rather than opposing the Bill on its merits.

    Back2Basics:

    Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    1. Enactment: The original Act was passed in 1971 to penalise insults to the National Flag, the Constitution of India, and the National Anthem.
    2. Scope: It covers acts such as burning, mutilating or defacing the National Flag, and preventing or disturbing the singing of the National Anthem.
    3. Amendment history: The Act has been amended before, including through the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2005, to add flag code violations.

  • IRDAI Reforms to Revamp the Insurance Sector

    Why in News?

    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) approved a series of reforms to modernise the insurance sector and implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    Key Highlights

    • Reforms aim to:
      • Improve ease of doing business.
      • Enhance insurance penetration.
      • Strengthen governance and policyholder protection.
      • Provide greater operational and financial flexibility to insurers.
    • Liberalised norms for Investments. Capital infusion. Corporate restructuring. Transfer of shares and amalgamation of insurers.
    • Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund (PEPF) operationalised under Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999 to Promote insurance awareness. Improve grievance redressal. Trace unclaimed insurance amounts. Enhance policyholder services.
    • Insurance intermediaries reforms:
      • Mandatory tagging of the authorised salesperson with every insurance proposal and policy.
      • Perpetual registration for intermediaries through an annual fee system, replacing periodic renewals.

    About IRDAI

    • Statutory regulator established under the IRDA Act, 1999.
    • Regulates, promotes, and ensures orderly growth of the insurance sector.
    • Headquarters: Hyderabad.

    Prelims Facts

    • IRDA Act, 1999 established IRDAI.
    • PEPF aims to strengthen insurance literacy and policyholder protection.
    • The reforms implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    [2019] In India, which of the following bodies/mechanisms review the functioning of independent regulators like PFRDA, IBBI, AERA, and PNGRB?
    1.Ad Hoc Committees appointed by the Parliament.
    2.Parliamentary Standing Committees.
    3.NITI Aayog.
    4.Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC).
    5.Finance Commission.
    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 1, 3, and 4

    [C] 2, 4, and 5

    [D] 2 only

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in News?

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, extending legal protection to Vande Mataram by making its intentional disruption or prevention a punishable offence.

    Key Highlights

    • Amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
    • Makes intentional disruption or prevention of the singing of Vande Mataram punishable.
    • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
    • Seeks to accord the National Song legal protection similar to the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana).
    • Passed by the Rajya Sabha through a voice vote.

    About the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    • The Act penalises insults to: National Flag, Constitution of India, and National Anthem
    • The 2026 amendment adds protection for the National Song (Vande Mataram).

    Vande Mataram

    • Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • Originally appeared in the novel Anandamath (1882).
    • Adopted as the National Song on 24 January 1950.
    • Only the first two stanzas are accorded official status.

    Prelims Facts

    • National Anthem: Jana Gana Mana by Rabindranath Tagore.
    • National Song: Vande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • 24 January 1950: Constituent Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem while according Vande Mataram equal honour as the National Song.

    [2025] Consider the following pairs:
    Provision in the Constitution of India State under
    I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the Public services of the StateThe Directive principles of the State policy
    II. Valuing and preserving of the rich Heritage of our composite cultureThe Fundamental Duties
    III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factoriesThe Fundamental Rights
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] All the three

    [D] None