The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional obligation, not a mere formality. Failure to comply makes the arrest illegal, violating Articles 22(1) and 21, which protect fundamental rights and personal liberty.
About Article 22 of the Indian Constitution:
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution ensures protection to individuals against arbitrary arrest and preventive detention.
It has two parts:
1. Article 22(1) & 22(2) – Protection in Ordinary Arrests:
The arrested person must be informed of the grounds of arrest as soon as possible.
The person has the right to consult and be defended by a lawyer of their choice.
They must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
2. Article 22(3) to 22(7) – Preventive Detention Provisions:
Preventive detention without trial cannot exceed 3 months, unless approved by an Advisory Board.
The government may deny disclosure of reasons if it affects public interest.
Parliament can extend detention beyond 3 months in special cases.
Key Highlights of Supreme Court’s Recent Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that informing an arrested person of the grounds of arrest is a fundamental right.
Non-compliance violates both Articles 22(1) and 21 (Right to Liberty), rendering the arrest invalid.
Grounds of arrest must be clearly conveyed in an effective manner.
Providing the grounds in writing is the best practice (as suggested in Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India).
As per Section 50A of CrPC, the accused’s family or nominated person must also be informed to allow legal representation.
Magistrates must ensure compliance. If Article 22(1) is not followed, the arrest is illegal, and the accused must be released.
Violation of Article 22(1) is a ground for Bail. Even if statutory restrictions on bail exist, courts can grant bail if fundamental rights are violated.
If the accused claims non-compliance, the Investigating Officer must prove that Article 22(1) was followed.
Relevant Supreme Court Judgments:
Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India (2023): SC advised that grounds of arrest should ideally be provided in writing.
Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978): “Procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
DK Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997): Established guidelines to prevent custodial abuse and ensure due process.
Ram Manohar Lohia vs State of Bihar (1965): Distinguished between law and order (individual impact) and public order (societal impact).
PYQ:
[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:
Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate and such an accused is locked up in a police station, not in jail.
During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar said that some groups take advantage of the legal system for their own gain and weaken the country’s unity.
Why is the discussion of regionalism v/s nationalism considered problematic in the context of India?
Threat to National Unity: Excessive emphasis on regionalism can fuel separatist tendencies, as seen in the Khalistan movement in Punjab and insurgencies in the Northeast, undermining India’s unity and sovereignty.
Federalism vs. Centralization Conflict: India’s governance relies on cooperative federalism, where both the Union and states share powers. However, debates like Tamil Nadu’s opposition to central exams like NEET highlight tensions between regional autonomy and national policies.
Political Exploitation & Vote Bank Politics: Political parties sometimes exploit regional sentiments for electoral gains, leading to polarization. For example, Maharashtra’s “sons of the soil” policy has led to conflicts over job reservations for locals, creating friction between states.
Economic Disparities & Development Hurdles: Overemphasis on regional identity can obstruct national projects. Protests against infrastructure projects like hydroelectric dams in Arunachal Pradesh due to local concerns show how regional interests can sometimes slow down national development.
Cultural & Linguistic Divides: Attempts to impose a singular national identity, such as making Hindi the sole link language, have faced resistance from states like Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, highlighting the delicate balance between regional pride and national integration.
What are the specific divisive forces that undermine national unity?
Caste and Religious Polarization: Social divisions based on caste and religion are exploited for political and electoral gains, leading to communal tensions (e.g., Muzaffarnagar riots in 2013 fueled by religious divisions).
Regionalism and Sub-Nationalism: Excessive regional pride sometimes leads to demands for secession or special status, disrupting national integration (e.g., Gorkhaland agitation in West Bengal, calls for an independent Nagalim in the Northeast).
External Influence and Misinformation: Foreign-backed propaganda and misinformation campaigns on social media create unrest by deepening societal divisions (e.g., Pakistan-backed online campaigns related to Article 370 abrogation in Jammu & Kashmir).
How are attempts being made to influence the electoral process?
Foreign Interference & Propaganda: External forces use misinformation campaigns on social media to shape voter perceptions (e.g., Allegations of foreign-backed digital campaigns influencing Indian elections, as seen in narratives around Article 370).
Money Power & Undisclosed Funding: Illicit election financing and opaque political donations influence outcomes (e.g., Concerns over electoral bonds and their impact on political funding transparency).
Judicial Route & PIL Misuse: Frequent litigation is filed to delay elections, challenge candidates, or question EVMs without solid evidence (e.g., Multiple PILs questioning EVM credibility, despite SC and EC assurances).
Targeted Voter Suppression: Manipulative voter deletion campaigns and fake voter registration attempts (e.g., Complaints of large-scale voter deletions in Karnataka elections, raising concerns over fairness).
Big Tech & Algorithmic Manipulation: Social media platforms and AI-driven algorithms are used to spread divisive narratives and influence voter sentiment (e.g., Allegations of biased content promotion on platforms like Facebook and X (Twitter) during elections).
Way forward:
Strengthening Electoral and Judicial Integrity: Implement stricter regulations on election funding, curb misuse of judicial processes, and enhance transparency in political donations to safeguard democratic institutions.
Promoting National Cohesion Through Inclusive Policies: Foster cooperative federalism, ensure balanced regional development, and encourage cultural inclusivity to prevent divisive narratives and reinforce national unity.
Mains PYQ:
Q Do you agree that regionalism in India appears to be a consequence of rising cultural assertiveness? Argue.(UPSC IAS/2020)
Recently, the Uttarakhand government introduced new rules under the Uniform Civil Code to regulate live-in relationships. These rules require couples to complete a 16-page form and, if they wish to marry, obtain a certificate from a religious leader confirming their eligibility.
What has Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code mandated with respect to the registration of live-in relationships?
Mandatory Registration: Couples in live-in relationships must register their relationship with the government within 30 days of entering into it. This requirement applies to all residents of Uttarakhand, including those living outside the state.
Documentation Required: Couples must complete a 16-page registration form and provide various documents, which include: Proof of age, Proof of residency, Details of any previous relationships (marital or live-in) and a certificate from a religious leaderconfirming eligibility to marry if they choose to do so.
Should the parents of the individuals be notified by the registrar?
Yes, under Uttarakhand’s Uniform Civil Code (UCC), the registrar is required to notify the parents of individuals in live-in relationships if either partner is under 21 years of age.
This notification is part of the registration process aimed at ensuring parental awareness and consent for younger individuals entering such relationships. For those above 21, their information will be kept confidential, and parents will not be notified.
Are there penalties for concealing the relationship?
Failure to Register: Couples who do not register their live-in relationship within the specified time frame may face penalties, including:
A jail term of up to three months or a fine up to ₹10,000 for failing to register within 30 days.
If a notice is issued by the registrar and the individual fails to comply, they could face a jail term of up to six months or a fine up to ₹25,000.
False Information: Providing false information during registration can also lead to penalties, including imprisonment and fines.
What about privacy?
Intrusive Registration Process: The UCC requires couples to provide extensive personal information during the registration of their live-in relationships, which many individuals find intrusive. Critics argue that this process compromises their privacy by mandating the disclosure of sensitive details about their relationships, including previous partnerships and eligibility for marriage.
Parental Notification: The requirement to notify parents if either partner is under 21 years old adds another layer of intrusion into personal lives. This provision can lead to unwanted scrutiny from family members, particularly for couples seeking to maintain privacy from their families.
Potential for Misuse: The UCC allows third parties to raise complaints about live-in relationships, which could lead to moral policing and harassment. This aspect raises fears of social scrutiny and the possibility of individuals facing backlash or pressure from their communities or families based on their relationship status.
Data Security Risks: Concerns have been voiced about the security of the data collected through the UCC’s online registration portal, especially in light of recent cyberattacks that have impacted Uttarakhand’s IT infrastructure. Residents question how their personal information will be protected and what measures are in place to prevent unauthorized access or breaches.
Way forward:
Safeguard Privacy & Data Protection – The government should implement stringent data security measures and ensure that personal details remain confidential, limiting access only to authorized personnel. The provision of parental notification for those under 21 should be reconsidered to balance individual rights with social concerns.
Simplify Registration & Reduce Intrusiveness – The registration process should be streamlined with minimal documentation requirements, avoiding unnecessary personal disclosures. Instead of a blanket mandate, an opt-in registration system or voluntary declaration could be considered to respect personal choices.
Mains PYQ:
Q Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizen a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy. (UPSC IAS/2017)
Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an order stating that, in the future, only children whose parents are U.S. citizens or green card holders will be eligible for U.S. citizenship.
What are the two different principles which govern citizenship laws in various countries?
Jus Soli (Right of Soil): This principle grants citizenship based on the place of birth. A child born within the territory of a country automatically acquires citizenship, regardless of the nationality of their parents.
Countries such as the United States, Canada, and many Latin American nations follow this principle, allowing for what is often referred to as birthright citizenship.
Jus Sanguinis (Right of Blood): Under this principle, citizenship is determined by the nationality or citizenship of one or both parents. A child inherits citizenship from their parents, irrespective of where they are born.
Many countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia, including Germany, India, and Egypt, adopt this principle, meaning that a child’s citizenship is based on their parents’ nationality rather than their birthplace.
What was the system in the U.S.?
Historically, the United States has operated under the jus soli principle, as established by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in 1868. This amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”. The U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed this interpretation in 1898, confirming that all children born on U.S. soil are entitled to citizenship regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
However, President Trump’s recent executive order seeks to alter this long-standing practice by restricting citizenship to children born in the U.S. only if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident (green card holder).
This order has faced legal challenges, with critics arguing it contradicts constitutional protections established over a century ago.
How are India’s citizenship laws different?
Aspect
U.S. Citizenship
Indian Citizenship
Principle
Jus Soli (by birth)
Jus Sanguinis (by descent) since 1987
Law
14th Amendment (1868)
Citizenship Act, 1955 (Amended in 1987, 2004, and 2019)
Recent Changes
Attempt to limit birthright citizenship (stayed by court)
CAA 2019 excludes Muslims from fast-track citizenship
What would be the impact on India?
The executive order creates uncertainty for many families within the Indian-American community, especially those on temporary visas such as H-1B. Children born in the U.S. to these parents have traditionally been granted citizenship automatically.
This change could potentially affect thousands of Indian families who may now face challenges regarding their children’s citizenship status if they are born in the U.S.
What are the challenges for the executive order of the president?
Legal Challenges: A coalition of four states—Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—has filed a lawsuit seeking to temporarily suspend the executive order while the court examines its legality.
This request is part of a broader legal challenge involving 18 Democratic-led states and various civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, which argue that the order violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
Judicial Response: A federal judge in Seattle has already issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s executive order, labelling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Way forward:
Judicial Review & Constitutional Adherence: The U.S. judiciary should ensure that any changes to citizenship laws align with the 14th Amendment and established Supreme Court precedents, preventing unconstitutional restrictions on birthright citizenship.
Policy Reforms & Legislative Clarity: Instead of executive orders, any significant change to citizenship laws should go through Congress with bipartisan consultation, ensuring legal stability and safeguarding the rights of affected families.
PYQ:
[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements :
There is only one citizenship and one domicile.
A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State.
A foreigner once granted the citizenship cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Governor’s role as Chancellor of State universities has been a topic of significant debate. It is frequently misinterpreted as a post-independence mechanism designed to protect universities from political interference.
What are the implications of having the Governor serve as Chancellor for university autonomy?
Reduced Autonomy: The role of the Governor as chancellor has historically restricted the autonomy of universities, as this model was inherited from colonial rule. The powers granted to Governors include appointing Vice-Chancellors and presiding over university bodies, which can lead to political interference rather than safeguarding academic independence.
Political Interference: Instead of insulating universities from politics, the involvement of Governors often exacerbates political influence, particularly when Governors act in alignment with the Central government’s agenda, compromising the universities’ operational independence and academic freedom.
Dual Authority System: The existence of both the Governor and State governments creates a dual authority that can lead to conflicting directives and administrative paralysis, particularly in Opposition-ruled states where disagreements may delay critical decisions such as Vice-Chancellor appointments.
How does the role of Governors as Chancellors align with or contradict the principles of federalism?
Concurrent Legislative Powers in Education (Entry 25, List III, Seventh Schedule): Since education falls under the Concurrent List, the Governor’s role as Chancellor facilitates coordination between state and national education policies, promoting synergy.
Governor Acting Beyond State Government’s Advice (Article 163): When Governors act in their discretionary capacity as Chancellors bypassing the elected state government undermines democratic accountability and state autonomy.
State Authority over Universities (Entry 32, List II, Seventh Schedule): Control over universities is a state subject, and direct interference by Governors in university administration contradicts the federal principle of centralising authority.
What is the role of the President vs Governors as Chancellors?
President: As the constitutional head, the functions are based on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers at the Union level under Article 74 of the Constitution. The President does not directly act as a Chancellor for any educational institution.
Governor: The Governor, appointed by the President under Article 155, acts as the constitutional head of the state and also serves as the Chancellor of State universities as per state laws, often with discretionary powers. This dual role blurs the line between their constitutional duties and state governance.
What alternative models for university governance could be considered?
Governor as Ceremonial Chancellor: This model would limit the Governor’s powers, requiring them to act on the advice of the State Council of Ministers in university matters. States like Gujarat, Karnataka, and Maharashtra have implemented variations of this approach.
Chief Minister as Chancellor: This model proposes that the Chief Minister take on a ceremonial role. While West Bengal and Punjab have passed bills for this system, they await Presidential assent.
State-Appointed Chancellor: Implemented in Telangana, this model allows state governments to appoint a ceremonial Chancellor who is an eminent academic or public figure, thus ensuring greater alignment with local governance and accountability.
Chancellor Elected by University Bodies: Similar to models in prestigious institutions like Oxford and Cambridge, this approach empowers university bodies and alumni to elect their Chancellor, promoting institutional self-governance and reducing political influence.
Chancellor Appointed by University’s Executive Council: This model involves universities appointing their Chancellors through transparent selection processes within their governing bodies, fostering independence from external political pressures.
Way forward:
Decentralize University Governance: Empower universities to elect or appoint Chancellors through their governing bodies, fostering institutional autonomy, and transparency to reduce external political interference.
Restrict the Governor’s Role to Ceremonial Functions: Limit the Governor’s powers in university matters to a ceremonial capacity, ensuring that academic decisions align with the principles of state autonomy and federalism.
Mains PYQ:
Q Discuss the essential conditions for the exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of the re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. (UPSC IAS/2022)
The High Court was hearing a petition from two residents’ groups in Mumbai’s Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), and Chunabhatti areas, complaining about mosques and madrasas using loudspeakers too loudly and at forbidden times.
What are the present directions by the Bombay High Court?
The Court directed the state to implement a mechanism for controlling decibel levels in loudspeakers and sound-emitting devices at religious places, suggesting the use of “calibration or auto-fixation” of decibel limits.
The Mumbai Police Commissioner is required to ensure police officers use mobile applications to measure decibel levels and identify violations.
A four-step graded penalty system was prescribed, including caution for first-time offenders, fines for repeat violations, seizure of loudspeakers and cancellation of licenses for continued violations, and initiation of complaints against the violators.
Why did the Bombay High Court rule that the use of loudspeakers is not essential to religious practices (ERP)?
Non-Essential Practice: The court emphasized that using loudspeakers for prayers or religious discourses does not constitute an essential part of any religion. It clarified that such practices are not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to practice religion.
Public Health Concerns: The court highlighted that noise pollution poses significant health hazards. It asserted that allowing the unrestricted use of loudspeakers could infringe on the rights of residents living nearby, thus prioritizing public interest and health over the claimed religious rights associated with loudspeaker use.
Legal Framework Compliance: The ruling reinforced that all religious institutions must comply with noise pollution regulations, specifically the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which set permissible noise levels in residential areas. The court directed strict enforcement of these laws, indicating that violations should result in penalties rather than exemptions based on religion.
What are the Supreme Court Judgements related to essential religious practices (ERP)?
Shirur Mutt Case (1954): This case established the foundation for the ERP doctrine, where the Supreme Court ruled that Article 25 protects not only religious beliefs but also the outward expressions of those beliefs through rituals and ceremonies. The court emphasized that what constitutes an essential part of religion should be determined based on the doctrines of that religion itself.
Durgah Committee Case (1961): In this ruling, the Supreme Court adopted a more restrictive approach, stating that only practices essential and integral to a religion are protected under Article 25. The court differentiated between superstitious practices and those that are essential, marking a shift to a narrower interpretation of protected religious practices.
Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1995): This case involved the Babri Masjid land acquisition issue. The Supreme Court held that while offering prayers is an essential Islamic practice, doing so in a mosque is not necessarily required unless the mosque has specific religious significance, highlighting an inconsistency in applying the ERP test.
Dr. Mahesh Vijay Bedekar v. Maharashtra (2016): The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasized that the use of loudspeakers is not an essential religious practice and cannot be claimed as a fundamental right under Article 25 (freedom of religion) or Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).
Sabarimala Temple Entry Case (2018): The Supreme Court ruled that barring women from entering the Sabarimala temple violated their rights to equality and non-discrimination.
Way forward:
Implementation of Strict Noise Regulations: Ensure effective enforcement of noise pollution laws, using technology like mobile apps to monitor decibel levels, and impose a clear and consistent penalty system for violations at religious places.
Public Awareness and Sensitization: Raise awareness about the non-essential nature of loudspeaker use in religious practices, while balancing religious freedom with public health and the rights of nearby residents. Encourage dialogue between religious institutions and local authorities to find peaceful solutions.
Mains PYQ:
Q What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of Secularism? (UPSC IAS/2019)
PYQ Relevance: Q) ‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions. (UPSC CSE 2021)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on ‘Scope of Fundamental Rights’ (2017) and Components of Constitutional Morality (2021).
The interpretation of personal liberty under Article 21 has continuously adapted to address emerging issues like environmental rights, gender equality, and the rights of marginalized communities.
Today’s editorial emphasizes the need to critically examine how core constitutional values are facing an ethical and moral crisis. This content can be used in your Mains Answer for presenting the challenges particularly regardingpersonal liberty and the Judicial efforts for its dissent implementation.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
As India celebrates 75 years of its Constitution, there is a call to reflect on the ethical and moral challenges that undermine its core values.
On account of these celebrations, it is crucial to critically examine the Right to Personal Liberty as an essential element of justice.
What has been the evolution of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution over the past 75 years?
Over the past 75 years, the interpretation and application of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution have undergone significant evolution, reflecting changing societal values and judicial perspectives.
• Initial Interpretation: When the Constitution came into effect in 1950, Article 21 was interpreted narrowly, focusing primarily on the physical aspect of personal liberty. • The landmark case of A.K. Gopalan vs. State of Madras (1950) established that personal liberty was limited to the physical body, without broader implications for rights such as freedom of movement.
Landmark Judgments:
• Maneka Gandhi Case (1978): This pivotal ruling expanded the scope of Article 21, asserting that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity and lead a meaningful life. The Supreme Court held that personal liberty encompasses various rights, including the right to travel abroad and the right to livelihood. • Olga Tellis Case (1985): This case further broadened the interpretation by recognizing the right to livelihood as an integral part of the right to life. The court ruled that deprivation of livelihood without due process violates Article 21.
• Inclusion of Additional Rights: Over time, Article 21 has been interpreted to include rights such as privacy, health, and a clean environment, reflecting a more comprehensive understanding of personal liberty. The Supreme Court has emphasized that these rights are essential for ensuring individual dignity and a meaningful existence.
• Judicial Activism: The judiciary’s proactive stance has positioned Article 21 as a cornerstone of fundamental rights in India. It has led to increased scrutiny over state actions that infringe upon individual liberties, particularly in cases involving preventive detention and arbitrary arrests. Despite these advancements, issues such as preventive detention under anti-terror laws and prolonged custody without trial continue to pose challenges to personal liberty.
The evolving interpretation of Article 21 remains crucial in addressing these contemporary issues while safeguarding individual rights.
How effective has the judiciary been in upholding Constitutional justice and protecting personal liberties?
The Supreme Court has actively protected individual rights, especially through the Puttaswamy case, which recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
In Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Union’s 2018 Electoral Bond Scheme, ruling it unconstitutional for violating voters’ right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It also safeguarded individuals from arbitrary actions by the state.
Despite these advancements, the judiciary grapples with a significant backlog of approximately 82,000 cases. This inefficiency undermines public trust and access to justice, costing the economy around 1.5% of GDP annually due to delays in legal proceedings.
Since Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna took over in November 2024, there has been a focus on reducing the number of pending cases, leading to a 16% increase in case resolutions shortly after his appointment. This shows a commitment to improving judicial efficiency.
While judicial activism has led to important protections for fundamental rights, critics argue that it sometimes encroaches on legislative authority. Recent rulings have sparked debates about the separation of powers and whether the judiciary is overstepping its bounds in policymaking.
What contemporary threats to personal liberty exist and what measures can be taken to address them?
Preventive Detention Laws: The misuse of preventive detention laws allows authorities to detain individuals without trial, often based on vague justifications. Recent Supreme Court rulings in Jaseela Shaji vs. Union of India (2024) emphasizes that preventive detention laws must be applied sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, yet their routine use persists, raising concerns about arbitrary detention.
Arbitrary Arrests: Law enforcement agencies frequently arrest individuals under stringent laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, often without sufficient evidence. This practice undermines the presumption of innocence and leads to prolonged custody.
Censorship and Freedom of Expression: The government has increased censorship of media and online platforms, blocking websites and social media accounts that criticize it or document hate speech against minorities. This curtails freedom of expression and restricts right to information.
Targeting Activists and Civil Society: Human rights activists and civil society organizations face harassment, including raids and cancellation of licenses under foreign funding laws. This stifles dissent and reduces accountability.
Further, India has the highest number of internet shutdowns globally, which disproportionately affects marginalized communities by denying them access to essential services.
What measures are needed to address these threats?
Reforming Preventive Detention Laws: Stricter guidelines should be established for the application of preventive detention, ensuring that it is used only in genuine emergencies.
Strengthening Judicial Oversight: Courts should rigorously scrutinize arrests made under stringent laws to protect individuals’ rights and ensure fair trials.
Protecting Freedom of Expression: Legislative measures should be enacted to safeguard media freedom and prevent arbitrary censorship, ensuring that journalists can operate without fear of reprisals.
Supporting Civil Society: The government should foster an environment where civil society organizations can operate freely without undue interference or harassment.
Ensuring Internet Access: Policies should be implemented to prevent unjustified internet shutdowns, ensuring that all citizens have access to information and essential services.
A Kolkata court sentenced Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor in August 2024, despite widespread public demand for the death penalty.
What are the current statistics around the Death Penalty in India?
As of the Annual Statistics Report 2023, 561 prisoners are under a sentence of death in India.
Despite the significant number of death sentences, India sees more than 31,000 reported rape cases annually, indicating a mismatch between the deterrent effect of capital punishment and the reality of crime rates.
The death penalty in India is often seen as disproportionately applied to the poor and marginalized sections of society.
What are the key arguments around the Death Penalty (For/Against)?
The arguments in favour of the death Penalty:
Retribution and Justice: Supporters argue that the death penalty serves as a just punishment for the “rarest of rare” cases, especially for heinous crimes like rape and murder. The desire for justice for victims and their families, including a sense of closure, is often emphasized.
Deterrence: Some proponents believe that the death penalty deters heinous crimes, particularly acts of violence like murder and rape, by instilling fear of the ultimate punishment.
Public Sentiment: In the case of particularly gruesome crimes, public outcry demands strong actions like the death penalty, seeing it as a symbol of societal moral condemnation.
The arguments against the death penalty:
Moral and Existential Arguments: The death penalty is viewed as an act of violence, and critics argue that one form of violence cannot be justified as a solution for other forms of violence. It is considered inhumane and degrading by organizations like Amnesty International.
Ineffectiveness as a Deterrent: Studies from countries that have abolished the death penalty (e.g., Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands) show no significant rise in crime rates, indicating that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime more than life imprisonment or other punishments.
Disproportionate Application: The death penalty is disproportionately applied to the poor, marginalized, and downtrodden, as opposed to affluent or powerful individuals, raising concerns about systemic injustice.
Diverts Focus from Structural Issues: Instead of focusing on capital punishment, critics argue the real issue lies in the cultural normalization of violence and toxic masculinity, which drives crimes like rape and murder. Emphasis should be on education, socialization, and cultural transformation.
What are the key reforms and guidelines established after the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab Case?
Rarest of Rare Doctrine: The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, ruled that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases. This ruling set a framework for judicial discretion in sentencing, ensuring that the death penalty is applied only in cases where the crime is so grave that life imprisonment would not suffice.
Guidelines for Sentencing: The court sets guidelines to determine whether a crime warrants the death penalty, including the nature of the crime, the circumstances, and whether the accused is beyond reform or rehabilitation. It emphasized considering the “mitigating factors,” such as the background of the accused.
Judicial Review: The ruling clarified that the death sentence must be subject to judicial review and that higher courts must ensure that the death penalty is only handed out after thorough deliberation on all aspects of the case.
Focus on Rehabilitation: The case pointed towards the importance of rehabilitation, requiring courts to assess the potential for the accused to reform before considering a death sentence.
Way forward:
Strengthening Judicial Scrutiny and Transparency: To ensure the death penalty is applied fairly and consistently, there should be enhanced judicial oversight which includes a thorough review of sentencing decisions at multiple levels.
This could involve greater emphasis on mitigating factors and the potential for rehabilitation, ensuring that capital punishment is reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases.
Focus on Preventive Measures and Social Reform: Rather than relying solely on the death penalty, efforts should be redirected toward addressing the root causes of heinous crimes.
This includes tackling societal issues such as gender inequality, toxic masculinity, and cultural normalization of violence, while investing in education, social reform, and stronger support systems for survivors of violence.
Mains PYQ:
Q Instances of President’s delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time specified for the President to accept/rejectsuch petitions? Analyse. (UPSC IAS/2014)
As we mark 75 years since the Constitution of India came into effect, it’s important to look back and assess how the country has followed its core values before deciding the way forward.
What are the foundational values that define the Indian state?
Sovereignty, Democracy, and Republic: The Constitution of India guarantees the sovereignty of the nation and democratic governance by the people through elected representatives.
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity: These values are enshrined in the Preamble and reflect the commitment to social democracy.
Justice: Social, economic, and political justice is emphasized to create an inclusive society.
Federalism: Though not explicitly mentioned, federalism underpins the constitutional framework, balancing powers between the Union and States.
Secularism: Ensures the separation of religion and state, guaranteeing religious freedom and equality.
Rule of Law: Establishes the supremacy of the Constitution and equality before the law.
Unity in Diversity: Encourages harmony and fraternity among diverse cultural, linguistic, and regional groups.
How have recent legislative and political changes impacted India’s commitment to these values?
Secularism: India’s constitutional commitment to secularism has been challenged by the laws related to religious identity.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019, which provides citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from neighboring countries but excludes Muslims, has raised concerns about violating Article 14 (Right to Equality) and the secular ethos of the Constitution.
Social Justice: The push for affirmative action through reservations continues, but new measures have sparked debates about inclusivity.
The introduction of the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) reservation (103rd Constitutional Amendment) raised debates over its exclusion of marginalized communities already under the SC/ST/OBC reservation framework, potentially diluting the focus on caste-based historical injustices.
Federalism: Legislative changes have altered the balance between the Union and states, raising concerns about cooperative federalism.
The abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir and its reorganization into Union Territories in 2019 was criticized for bypassing the state legislature, raising questions about federalism under Article 1 and Article 370.
Freedom of Speech and Expression: Political changes have led to an environment where dissent and criticism of the government are often met with punitive action.
The use of sedition laws under Section 124A of the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against journalists and activists has raised concerns about stifling democratic dissent.
Inclusive Development: Legislative efforts to boost development have sometimes led to neglect of environmental sustainability and marginalized communities.
The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, intended to protect the rights of tribal communities, has faced dilution through recent amendments to environmental laws, prioritizing infrastructure over community rights.
Equality and Gender Justice: Legislative progress has been seen, but gaps remain in implementation.
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, which introduced stringent punishment for crimes against women, shows legislative intent. However, underreporting and delayed justice continue to challenge gender equality.
What steps can be taken to reinforce India’s foundational values moving forward? (Way forward)
Strengthening Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Safeguards: To reinforce India’s foundational values, it is essential to strengthen the role of the judiciary in safeguarding constitutional rights to ensure that laws and policies align with the principles of equality, secularism, and justice.
Inclusive and Transparent Policy Making: Policies should be designed to foster inclusive development, ensuring that marginalized communities are not left behind.
Strengthening Inclusive Governance and Social Justice: Ensure that affirmative action policies, including reservations, are consistently aligned with the principle of social justice, addressing the historical and contemporary needs of marginalized communities.
Promoting Secularism and Protecting Fundamental Rights: Strengthen and uphold the secular fabric of the nation by ensuring that laws and policies respect religious diversity and equality, in line with the Constitution’s guarantees.
Mains PYQ:
Q What was held in the Coelho case? In this context, can you say that judicial review is of key importance amongst the basic features of the Constitution? (UPSC IAS/2016)
The Pushkar Dhami Cabinet in Uttarakhand approved the UCC with plans to roll it out after the local body elections. Uttarakhand will be the first state in India to implement the UCC.
What is the Uniform Civil Code?
The UCC refers to a single law that governs personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and succession for all citizens of India, irrespective of their religion.
Constitutional Basis: Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) in the Indian Constitution envisions a UCC to promote national integration by eliminating discrepancies in personal laws.
What are the significance of UCC?
Equality and Justice: UCC ensures equal treatment of all citizens, irrespective of religion, caste, or gender, by replacing diverse personal laws with a unified legal framework. This promotes fairness and eliminates discriminatory practices in personal matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
Gender Parity and Women’s Empowerment: Personal laws often favor patriarchal norms, disadvantaging women in areas like inheritance and divorce. UCC addresses these disparities, granting women equal rights and fostering gender justice.
National Integration: By unifying personal laws across communities, UCC strengthens national unity and reduces divisions based on religion or community-specific laws. It promotes secularism and reinforces the idea of “one nation, one law”.
Simplification of Legal Systems: A common civil code simplifies the legal process by eliminating inconsistencies among various personal laws, making it easier for citizens to understand their rights and obligations.
Closing Loopholes in Personal Laws: UCC addresses biases and loopholes in existing personal laws that perpetuate inequality or favouritism, ensuring a more just legal system for all citizens.
What is the Judicial stand on it?
Mohd. Ahmed Khan vs. Shah Bano Begum (1985): This case marked a pivotal moment when the Supreme Court urged the government to enact a UCC.
The Court highlighted that a common civil code would promote national integration by eliminating conflicting loyalties to different personal laws.
Jordan Diengdeh vs. S.S. Chopra (1985): The Court reiterated the “immediate and compulsive need for a uniform civil code”.
Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India (1995): In this case, the Supreme Court criticised the government’s inaction regarding the UCC, asserting that over 80% of citizens were already governed by codified personal laws and that there was no justification for delaying its introduction any further.
John Vallamattom vs. Union of India (2003): The Supreme Court again stressed the need for a UCC, lamenting that Article 44 had not been implemented and reiterating its role in fostering national unity by resolving contradictions arising from diverse personal laws.
Shayara Bano vs. Union of India (2017): In addressing the issue of triple talaq, the Supreme Court underscored that the Constitution mandates the state to provide for a UCC to address various social injustices and legal inconsistencies stemming from personal laws.
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira (2019): The Court expressed disappointment over the lack of progress towards a UCC, noting that while personal laws reflect religious beliefs, they should not be exempt from reform in a secular state.
What are the challenges?
Cultural Resistance: There is significant opposition from various religious groups who view the UCC as an infringement on their cultural and religious practices. This resistance can lead to social unrest and political backlash.
Political Controversy: The UCC is often a contentious political issue, with parties divided along ideological lines. This can complicate legislative processes and delay implementation.
Legal Complexity: The integration of diverse personal laws into a single code poses substantial legal challenges. Ensuring that the new code respects individual rights while being comprehensive enough to address various community needs requires careful drafting.
Awareness and Training: Effective implementation requires extensive training for officials and awareness campaigns for citizens to understand their rights under the new code. This necessitates significant resources and time.
Way forward:
Phased Implementation and Pilot Projects: Begin with optional UCC adoption in specific regions or for limited personal law aspects (e.g., marriage or inheritance) to test feasibility and address concerns gradually.
Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement: Conduct extensive consultations with religious leaders, community representatives, and legal experts to build consensus and ensure the code respects India’s diversity while upholding constitutional values.
Mains PYQ:
Q Discuss the possible factors that inhibit India from enacting for its citizen a uniform civil code as provided for in the Directive Principles of State Policy. (UPSC IAS/2015)