Subject: Fundamental Rights,DPSP

1. History + Evolution
2. Features
3. Amendments
4. Basic Structure

Revision of creamy layer income limit ‘need of the hour’:

The Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) has reiterated the need to revise the “creamy layer” income ceiling for OBC reservation benefits. It called the revision the “need of the hour”, citing inflation and rising income levels, which have rendered the current ₹8 lakh per annum limit (fixed in 2017) inadequate. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE), however, stated that there is currently no proposal under consideration for a revision.

Understanding the “Creamy Layer” Concept

Introduced following the Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) judgment of the Supreme Court, which upheld 27% OBC reservation but excluded the socially advanced among them.
The creamy layer criterion is an economic threshold: those above the prescribed annual family income are excluded from OBC reservation benefits.
Initially set at ₹1 lakh (1993), it has been revised periodically, ₹2.5 lakh in 2004, ₹4.5 lakh in 2008, ₹6 lakh in 2013, ₹6.5 lakh in 2014, ₹8 lakh in 2017 (last revision)
1. As per DoPT norms, revision should occur every 3 years.

OBC Reservations in India: Historical Background

Constitutional Foundation

Article 15(4): Allows the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes (SEBCs), Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Article 16(4): Empowers the State to provide reservation in appointments or posts in favour of any backward class not adequately represented in State services.
Article 340: Empowers the President to appoint a commission to investigate conditions of backward classes and recommend measures.

Significance of Revising the Creamy Layer Limit

Social Justice: Ensures benefits reach those who truly need them, keeping pace with economic changes.
Reducing Inequality: Supports more OBC families in accessing education, jobs, and government schemes.
Compliance with Policy Guidelines: DoPT’s 1993 order mandates periodic revisions.

Challenges

Balancing Reservation Benefits: Avoiding over-expansion that may dilute benefits for the most marginalized.
Economic vs. Social Backwardness: Income is only one indicator; social deprivation is harder to quantify.
Political Consensus: Reservation policy changes are politically sensitive.

Committee’s Concerns on the Current ₹8 Lakh Threshold

Erosion by Inflation: Rising basic income levels have reduced the effectiveness of the threshold.

Exclusion of Needy Segments: Many OBC families in need of reservation benefits are above ₹8 lakh but still economically disadvantaged in terms of education and access to resources.

Socio-Economic Goals: Wider coverage will help raise the social and educational status of more OBC families.

Way Forward

Periodic & Transparent Revision: Institutionalize automatic inflation-indexed adjustments.
Comprehensive Backwardness Index: Incorporate education, occupation, and rural/urban disparities along with income.
Targeted Scholarships: Expand pre-matric support for lower classes to improve educational pipelines.
Better Data: Conduct regular socio-economic surveys for evidence-based policy.

The creamy layer provision is a critical filter to ensure reservation benefits reach the truly disadvantaged among OBCs. With inflation and rising income levels, the current ₹8 lakh ceiling may no longer serve its purpose effectively. The Parliamentary Committee’s push for revision aligns with constitutional principles of equality and social justice, but implementation will require careful balancing of inclusivity, efficiency, and fairness.

Value Addition

Key Developments:

First Backward Classes Commission (Kaka Kalelkar Commission, 1953) – recommended caste-based reservations, but not implemented due to lack of quantifiable data.
Second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission, 1979) – recommended 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs and educational institutions, implemented in 1990.
Indra Sawhney Case (1992) – capped total reservation at 50% and introduced the creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.

Recent Trends

The 102nd Constitutional Amendment (2018) gave constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
The 105th Constitutional Amendment (2021) restored the power of states to identify OBCs for their own purposes.

Mains Practice Questions:

“Reservation for backward classes should be based on social and educational backwardness rather than economic criteria alone.” Discuss.
The creamy layer in OBC reservation is a safeguard for ensuring equity within equity.’ Comment.

August 9, 2025

Legal Status of Right to Vote

Why in the News?

The ongoing Supreme Court hearings on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar have reignited discussions on the legal status of the ‘right to vote’ in India.

About Right to Vote in India:

Overview: It is also known as suffrage, allows citizens to elect their representatives in democratic institutions.
Constitutional Basis: Guaranteed under Article 326 of the Constitution of India, which provides for universal adult franchise.
Eligibility: Every citizen of India aged 18 and above is entitled to vote, unless disqualified by law.
Supervision: Organised and overseen by the Election Commission of India.
Supporting Laws:
- Representation of the People Act, 1950: Defines voter eligibility and grounds for disqualification.
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the procedures for conducting elections.

Judicial Interpretation:

N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer (1952): Declared the Right to Vote as a statutory right.
Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal (1982): Reiterated that the Right to Vote is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right.
People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003): Recognised the Right to Vote as at least a constitutional right.
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006): Held that the Right to Vote continues to be a statutory right.
Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2015): Recognised the Right to Vote as a constitutional right.
Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023):
- Majority View: Right to Vote is a statutory right.
- Dissenting Opinion by Justice Ajay Rastogi:
  - Linked the Right to Vote with the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).
  - Considered it essential to free and fair elections and thus part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Current Legal Status:

Nature: It is legally a statutory right.
Constitutional Context: It is shaped by constitutional provisions but does not hold the status of a fundamental right.

Back2Basics: Other Types of Rights in India

	Description	Enforceability
*Natural Rights*	Inherent and inalienable rights (e.g., life, liberty); not directly enforceable unless linked to fundamental rights.	Indirectly through Fundamental Rights
*Fundamental Rights*	Guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution (e.g., right to equality, speech, life).	Enforceable in Supreme Court under Article 32
*Constitutional Rights*	Rights given in the Constitution but outside Part III (e.g., property, trade).	Enforceable under Article 226 via High Courts
*Statutory Rights*	Granted by ordinary laws (e.g., MGNREGA, Forest Rights Act, Food Security Act).	Enforceable as per respective legislations

[UPSC 2017] Right to vote and to be elected in India is a:

Options: (a) Fundamental Right (b) Natural Right (c) Constitutional Right* (d) Legal Right

July 22, 2025

The issue with criminalizing all adolescent relationships

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court of India’s May 2025 judgment in Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents has come into the spotlight due to its landmark stance on adolescent sexuality, criminal justice, and the limitations of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in dealing with consensual relationships involving minors.

What about the POCSO Act?

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a comprehensive law enacted by the Government of India to protect children (below 18 years) from sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and pornography. It ensures a child-friendly legal process and provides for special courts to conduct speedy trials.

Why is reforming the age of consent under POCSO being debated?

Criminalisation of Consensual Adolescent Relationships: The current age of consent (18 years) under the POCSO Act criminalises all sexual activity involving minors, even when it is consensual and non-exploitative. Eg: In the 2025 Supreme Court case from West Bengal, a 14-year-old girl in a consensual relationship faced legal action, despite her opposition to the punishment of her partner.
Disconnect Between Law and Ground Realities: There is a gap between the legal framework and social realities, as many POCSO cases involve romantic relationships rather than abuse. Eg: An Enfold study (2016–2020) found that 24.3% of POCSO cases in Assam, Maharashtra, and West Bengal involved consensual romantic relationships, with 82% of victims refusing to testify against the accused.
Need to Recognise Adolescent Agency with Safeguards: Critics argue that adolescents aged 16–18 are capable of giving informed consent under certain conditions, and blanket criminalisation undermines their agency. Eg: The UNCRC’s General Comment No. 20 recommends non-criminalisation of consensual acts between adolescents of similar age and calls for laws that address coercion, not curtail autonomy.

How does the 2025 Supreme Court judgment reflect a rights-based approach?

Upholding the Right to Dignity and Autonomy (Article 21): The Court acknowledged the woman’s emotional and financial struggles, choosing not to impose a sentence on the accused to protect her well-being and dignity. This affirms the constitutional right to life with dignity and shifts focus from punitive justice to restorative justice.
Prioritising the Voice of the Affected Individual: By forming an expert committee to assess the now-adult woman’s preferences before sentencing, the Court ensured her voice and agency were central to the legal outcome, a key tenet of rights-based jurisprudence.
Recognising Systemic Failures and Suggesting Reforms: The Court acknowledged the collective failure of social and legal systems and directed the central government to consider reforms such as comprehensive sexuality education, life-skills training, and rehabilitation support — addressing structural rights violations beyond the courtroom.

Case study:

Canada – Close-in-Age Exemption: Canada sets the age of consent at 16, but allows consensual sexual activity between adolescents through close-in-age exemptions (e.g., a 14-year-old can engage in consensual activity with someone less than 5 years older).

South Africa – Teddy Bear Clinic Case (2013): The Constitutional Court ruled that criminalising consensual sex between adolescents aged 12–15 violates their rights to dignity and privacy.

How can the law better balance adolescent protection with agency? (Way forward)

Introduce a Close-in-Age Exemption: Laws can decriminalise consensual relationships between adolescents close in age (e.g., 16–18), while still penalising exploitation or coercion. Eg: Several countries (like Canada) apply a “close-in-age” defence to avoid criminalising consensual teenage relationships.
Differentiate Between Exploitative and Non-Exploitative Acts: Legal provisions should recognise that not all sexual activity involving adolescents is exploitative. The law must distinguish abuse of power from mutual adolescent relationships. Eg: General Comment No. 20 under UNCRC urges states not to criminalise non-exploitative, consensual adolescent activity.
Incorporate Adolescent Perspectives in Legal Processes
Courts should ensure that adolescents’ voices and choices are considered, especially in determining intent, coercion, and consent. Legal procedures should be sensitive to their evolving capacities. Eg: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents (2025), the Supreme Court consulted the adolescent before deciding sentencing.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of a child in the womb to establish its paternity.

Linkage: The article talks about the right to privacy of young individuals, particularly in the context of their relationships and the subsequent legal interventions that deeply impact their lives. The Supreme Court’s revisiting of its stance and prioritizing the voice of the young person under Article 142 demonstrates the judiciary’s role in interpreting fundamental rights like privacy in complex social scenarios involving adolescents.

July 16, 2025

Revisit digital search powers under the I-T Bill 2025

Why in the News?

The proposed changes in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 allowing tax officials to access a person’s “virtual digital space” during search and seizure have sparked strong debate about privacy, government surveillance, and misuse of power.

What is the current legal framework for tax-related search and seizure?

Under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, search and seizure powers are currently restricted to physical spaces like houses, offices, and lockers.
These powers are exercised based on a reasonable suspicion of undisclosed income or assets, and apply only to the person under investigation.

What does the new proposal change?

Expansion to digital realm: The new proposal includes access to emails, cloud storage, social media accounts, digital applications, and vaguely “any other space of similar nature.”
Override of access barriers: Authorities can override access codes of devices to enter these digital spaces.
Open-ended scope: The vague phrasing leaves room for nearly any digital platform to fall under scrutiny, exposing data beyond the individual concerned.

What are the privacy risks of allowing tax access to digital spaces?

Deep intrusion into personal life: Digital spaces like emails, social media, and cloud drives contain private, non-financial information. Their access exposes not just the individual but also their family, friends, and professional networks.
Risk to confidentiality: Professionals like journalists and lawyers could have confidential sources and sensitive data compromised, affecting freedom of expression and legal rights.
Lack of oversight: The provision allows tax authorities to bypass judicial warrants, violating principles of transparency, accountability, and privacy.

What is the Proportionality Principle?

Proportionality Principle is a legal doctrine that ensures any action taken by the State—especially those that limit fundamental rights—must be reasonable, necessary, and least restrictive in achieving a legitimate aim.

How does the proposal violate the proportionality principle?

Absence of judicial safeguards: The proposal allows tax authorities to access an individual’s digital data without prior judicial approval or warrant. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court in Riley vs California mandated warrants before accessing digital content due to the sensitive nature of personal data.
No relevance filter for accessed data: The provision lacks a clear distinction between financial and non-financial data, enabling authorities to access personal content unrelated to tax evasion. For instance, a journalist’s device could reveal confidential sources and communications, compromising press freedom.
Fails the least intrusive means test: The measure does not explore less invasive options to meet enforcement goals and grants sweeping powers without ensuring necessity. The Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case clearly stated that any restriction on privacy must be necessary and adopt the least intrusive method.

Which global safeguards can India adopt for digital searches?

Judicial Authorization Before Search: In Canada, Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates that searches (including digital) must be pre-approved by a neutral and impartial judge, based on reasonable and probable grounds. This ensures accountability and protects citizens from arbitrary intrusions.
Warrant Requirement for Digital Devices: In the United States, the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014) held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before accessing data on cell phones, given the deeply personal nature of digital information. This aligns digital privacy with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
Taxpayer Bill of Rights: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforces the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which guarantees that searches are not more intrusive than necessary and are conducted with due process. It emphasizes that digital investigations must follow legal safeguards, respecting taxpayer privacy.

Way forward:

Mandate Judicial Oversight and Clear Warrants: Any access to an individual’s digital space must require prior approval from a neutral judicial authority, based on tangible evidence and specific relevance to the tax investigation.
Define ‘Virtual Digital Space’ Narrowly and Precisely: The term should be clearly limited to platforms directly linked to financial transactions, excluding unrelated personal data, to prevent excessive intrusion and ensure proportionality.

Mains PYQ:

Linkage: This question directly addresses the fundamental right to privacy, which is the central concern raised by the proposed digital search powers in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025. The article explicitly states that the Bill “raises significant concerns about privacy, overreach, and surveillance” and emphasizes that “The right to privacy cannot and must not be eroded under the garb of regulatory action”.

June 30, 2025

Magna Carta: The ‘blueprint for democracy’

Why in the News?

On June 15, 1215, King John of England agreed to a seminal document called the Magna Carta, laying down principles that would help establish the foundations of modern democracies.

About Magna Carta:

Overview: The Magna Carta, meaning “Great Charter” in Latin, was signed on June 15, 1215, at Runnymede near London by King John of England under pressure from rebel barons.
Content: The charter originally had 63 clauses, with two of the most important being:
- Clause 39: Protection against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.
- Clause 40: Guarantee of justice without delay or denial.
Context: It was created in response to military defeats and excessive taxation, particularly following England’s loss at the Battle of Bouvines (1214).
Initial Setback: Though annulled by Pope Innocent III, it was reissued multiple times, especially under King Henry III, and became part of English statutory law.
How it dealt with the masses: Magna Carta was initially meant to protect free men—mainly land-owning nobles and barons, excluding women, serfs, and commoners.
Radical Impact: Despite its narrow scope, historians regard it as Europe’s most radical early check on monarchical authority.
Legal Influence: The charter influenced future legal systems, including the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and principles like habeas corpus.
Modern Relevance: Clauses 39 and 40 remain part of UK law today.
Significance: It is considered one of the earliest documents to limit royal power and lay the foundation for the rule of law and constitutional governance.

Magna Carta of the Indian Constitution: Part III (Fundamental Rights)

Part III (Articles 12 to 35) of the Indian Constitution is often called the “Magna Carta of India”.
It guarantees justiciable Fundamental Rights, protecting citizens against arbitrary state action and forming the core of Indian democracy.
Why it’s called India’s Magna Carta?
- Historical Parallel: Like the 1215 charter, Part III limits government power and guarantees individual freedoms.
- Inspired by the U.S. Bill of Rights, it offers one of the most comprehensive rights charters in the world.
- Legal enforceability empowers courts to uphold citizens’ rights and strike down unconstitutional laws.
Six Categories of Fundamental Rights:

1. Right to Equality (Articles 14–18): Equality before law and prohibition of discrimination.
2. Right to Freedom (Articles 19–22): Freedom of speech, movement, assembly, etc.
3. Right against Exploitation (Articles 23–24): Ban on forced labour and child labour.
4. Right to Freedom of Religion (Articles 25–28): Freedom to practice and propagate religion.
5. Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29–30): Rights of minorities to preserve culture and run institutions.
6. Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32): Right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of rights.

[UPSC 2010] The ‘Instrument of Instructions’ contained in the Government of India Act 1935 have been incorporated in the Constitution of India in the year 1950 as:

Options: (a) Fundamental rights (b) Directive Principles of State Policy* (c) Extent of executive power of State (d) Conduct of business of the Government of India

June 18, 2025

The importance of the Deputy Speaker

Why in the News?

For the first time in India’s parliamentary history, the Deputy Speaker’s position stayed empty for the whole Lok Sabha term from 2019 to 2024, and now there is a chance it won’t be filled in the 18th Lok Sabha either.

Why is the Deputy Speaker’s vacancy a constitutional concern?

Violation of Constitutional Provisions: Articles 93 and 94 require the Deputy Speaker to be elected “as soon as may be” and to hold office until resignation, removal, or disqualification. The prolonged vacancy violates this mandate, creating a constitutional vacuum. Eg: In the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), no Deputy Speaker was appointed despite the constitutional requirement.
Undermines Parliamentary Democracy and Power Sharing: The Deputy Speaker’s post is traditionally given to an Opposition member to maintain checks and balances. Leaving it vacant concentrates power in the ruling party, weakening democratic resilience and the principle of shared authority. Eg: The refusal of the ruling party to offer the Deputy Speaker position to the Opposition breaks this longstanding convention.
Risk of Constitutional Crisis and Legislative Disruption: The Deputy Speaker ensures the continuity of parliamentary proceedings if the Speaker resigns or is incapacitated. Without a Deputy Speaker, a constitutional crisis could arise, disrupting governance and legislative business. Eg: If the Speaker’s chair becomes vacant, the Deputy Speaker normally assumes duties; without one, the functioning of Parliament could be paralyzed.

What is the significance of Deputy speaker in Parliament?

Ensures Continuity of Parliamentary Proceedings: The Deputy Speaker presides over the Lok Sabha when the Speaker is absent, ensuring that legislative businesscontinues smoothly without interruption. Eg: When the Speaker is unavailable due to illness or travel, the Deputy Speaker takes charge of the session.
Acts as a Neutral and Impartial Arbiter: The Deputy Speaker plays a crucial role in maintaining fairness during debates and sensitive discussions, acting independently of the ruling party’s influence. Eg: The Deputy Speaker oversees debates on private member bills and ensures that all voices, including the Opposition, are heard.
Maintains Democratic Balance and Power Sharing: By convention, the Deputy Speaker is usually from the Opposition, which helps uphold the spirit of power-sharing and checks and balances essential to parliamentary democracy. Eg: Offering the Deputy Speaker post to an Opposition member fosters cooperation and harmony between the ruling party and Opposition.

What are the key duties of the Deputy Speaker?

Presides over Lok Sabha sessions in the Speaker’s absence: The Deputy Speaker conducts and manages the proceedings of the House with the same powers as the Speaker during such times. Eg: When the Speaker is unavailable, the Deputy Speaker presides over debates and voting sessions.
Oversees important parliamentary committees: The Deputy Speaker chairs key committees like the Private Member’s Bill Committee and the House Budget Committee, facilitating legislative scrutiny. Eg: The Deputy Speaker leads discussions on private members’ bills ensuring smooth consideration and debate.
Maintains impartiality and ensures fair conduct: The Deputy Speaker acts as a neutral arbitrator, ensuring orderly debates and protecting the rights of all members, including the Opposition. Eg: During sensitive or contentious discussions, the Deputy Speaker ensures that rules are followed and all sides get a fair hearing.

When should the Deputy Speaker be elected as per Article 93?

Article 93 states that the Deputy Speaker must be elected “as soon as may be” after the House of Lok Sabha is constituted.
The phrase implies a sense of urgency and necessity, not discretionary or indefinite delay. This means the election should happen immediately or without unreasonable delay following the formation of the new Lok Sabha.
The Deputy Speaker continues in office until resignation, removal, or disqualification as per Article 94, ensuring continuity.

Way forward:

Timely Election of Deputy Speaker to Uphold Constitutional Mandate: The government and all parliamentary parties should prioritize the election of the Deputy Speaker “as soon as may be” as mandated by Articles 93 and 94 to avoid constitutional vacuum, ensure smooth functioning of the Lok Sabha, and maintain democratic resilience.
Respecting the Convention of Power Sharing with the Opposition: To strengthen parliamentary democracy, the ruling party should adhere to the established convention of offering the Deputy Speaker post to an Opposition member. This would foster bipartisan cooperation, reinforce checks and balances, and promote harmonious functioning of the House.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2024] Discuss the role of Presiding Officers of state legislatures in maintaining order and impartiality in conducting legislative work and in facilitating best democratic practices.

Linkage: The role of presiding officers in legislative bodies (at the state level, analogous to the Deputy Speaker in Lok Sabha). This article emphasizes that the Deputy Speaker oversees debates and serves as a neutral arbiter.

May 29, 2025

Supreme Court Collegium recommends transfer of HC CJs

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court Collegium has recommended the transfer of 4 Chief Justices from the High Courts of Madras, Rajasthan, Tripura, and Jharkhand.

About the Collegium System:

Definition: It is used in India for the appointment and transfer of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
Non-Constitutional Origin: It is not mentioned in the Constitution or any law passed by Parliament. It developed through Supreme Court judgments to protect judicial independence.
Judicial Primacy: The system ensures that senior judges, not the government, have the main say in judicial appointments.
Evolution: It arose in response to executive interference during the 1970s, when the government tried to influence and supersede senior judges:

First Judges Case (1981) – S.P. Gupta v. Union of India:
- Held that the Chief Justice’s opinion was only consultative.
- Gave the executive primary control over appointments and transfers.
Second Judges Case (1993) – Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India:
- Overruled the First Judges Case.
- Declared that “consultation” with the CJI means “concurrence”, making the CJI’s view binding.
- Introduced the Collegium system, involving the CJI and two senior-most judges.
- Affirmed that judicial independence requires judicial primacy in appointments.
Third Judges Case (1998) – Re: Presidential Reference:
- Expanded the Collegium to include the CJI and four senior-most Supreme Court judges.
- Emphasised institutional decision-making, not personal preferences of individual judges.

How does the Collegium System works?

For Supreme Court Judges:
- The Collegium includes the CJI and four senior-most SC judges.
- It recommends names for appointments to the SC and appointments/transfers of High Court judges and Chief Justices.
- The Law Ministry processes these names and sends them to the Prime Minister, who advises the President for final approval.
For Appointing the Chief Justice of India:
- The sitting CJI recommends the senior-most SC judge.
- This practice has been followed since the 1970s supersession controversy.
For High Court Judges:
- Recommendations start from the Chief Justice of the High Court, who consults two senior colleagues.
- The proposal goes to the state government, then to the Supreme Court Collegium (CJI and two senior-most SC judges), and finally to the President.
For Transfers of Judges:
- Article 222 of the Constitution allows transfer of High Court judges.
- The Collegium recommends transfers, often for administrative needs or public interest.
- Consent is not needed, but the CJI must consult the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court and other senior judges.
- No High Court can have an Acting Chief Justice for more than a month, so transfers and new appointments are usually done together.

Tap to know more about the Appointment and Removal of HC Judges.

[UPSC 2012] What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?

1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India. 2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only. 3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote. 4. All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Options: (a) 1 and 3 only * (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

May 29, 2025

What is the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case?

Why in the News?

The Golaknath case (IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab, 1967) is one of the most important judgments in India’s constitutional history. It was the first time the Supreme Court said that Parliament cannot amend fundamental rights.

About the Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) Case:

Case Name: IC Golaknath v. State of Punjab (1967) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional history.
Background: The Golaknath family from Punjab challenged the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which declared their land surplus under land ceiling laws.
Claim of Violation: They argued the law violated their Fundamental Right to property, protected under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31.
Ninth Schedule Issue: The Act was placed under the Ninth Schedule by the 17th Constitutional Amendment, making it immune to judicial review.
Main Legal Question: Could Parliament amend Fundamental Rights under Article 368, or are such amendments invalid under Article 13(2)?
Arguments: The petitioners claimed Fundamental Rights are sacrosanct, while the government asserted Parliament’s full power to amend the Constitution.
Supreme Court Verdict: On February 27, 1967, in a 6:5 majority, the Court held that:
- Parliament cannot amend Fundamental Rights.
- Amendments are “law” and subject to Article 13(2).
- The ruling would apply only prospectively, not to past amendments.
Overruled Judgments: The decision overturned earlier rulings in Sankari Prasad (1951) and Sajjan Singh (1964) that allowed unrestricted amendments.

Article 13 of the Constitution of India

Article 13 is a key provision under Part III (Fundamental Rights) of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that any law violating Fundamental Rights can be declared void. It is the constitutional basis of judicial review in India.

Main Provisions of Article 13

Article 13(1)

All pre-Constitution laws inconsistent with Fundamental Rights become void to the extent of inconsistency.

Article 13(2)

The State cannot make any law that takes away or abridges Fundamental Rights. Any such law is void to the extent of violation.

Article 13(3)

Defines “law” broadly. It includes:

Ordinances
Rules
Regulations
Notifications
Customs and usages having force of law

Article 13(4): Constitutional amendments under Article 368 are excluded from Article 13. This clause was added through the 24th Constitutional Amendment, 1971.

Legacy of the Golaknath Case:

Judicial Restraint on Parliament: This was the first case to restrict Parliament’s power to amend Fundamental Rights.
Judiciary’s Role Strengthened: It reinforced the Supreme Court’s duty to protect civil liberties and limit legislative overreach.
Prospective Overruling: Introduced the concept to ensure legal stability without undoing past amendments.
Constitutional Values Upheld: Affirmed that the Constitution has core values that must be protected, especially Fundamental Rights.

Influence on Future Cases:

Indira Gandhi Election Case (1975): Built upon the idea that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution.
Minerva Mills Case (1980): Reaffirmed limits on Parliament’s amending power and emphasised judicial review.
Foundational Impact: Although later rulings allowed some flexibility, the Golaknath case laid the foundation for the Basic Structure Doctrine.
Lasting Message: It ensured that Fundamental Rights remain untouchable, securing the heart of Indian democracy against future misuse.

[UPSC 2018] Consider the following statements:

1.The Parliament of India can place a particular law in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India.

2.The validity of a law placed in the Ninth Schedule cannot be examined by any court, and no judgment can be made on it.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Options: (a) 1 only *(b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

May 26, 2025

Getting the ‘micropicture’ at the panchayat level

Why in the News?

The release of the Panchayat Advancement Index (PAI) Baseline Report 2022–23 in April 2025 marks a major milestone in India’s grassroots governance and data-driven policymaking.

Why does it mark a major milestone?

Empowers Local Decision-Making: PAI presents complex data in an understandable way for Gram Panchayat leaders, enabling them to identify gaps and take targeted actions. Eg: A sarpanch can use PAI scores to improve health or education outcomes in their village.
Links Data to Outcomes: It moves beyond raw data by connecting indicators to actual development results, helping stakeholders focus on measurable progress. Eg: PAI scores reveal if a Panchayat is truly “healthy,” guiding specific interventions to improve wellbeing.

What is the Panchayat Advancement Index (PAI)?

PAI is a composite index using 435 local indicators (331 mandatory, 104 optional) and 566 data points across nine themes of Localized SDGs (LSDGs).

Why is it significant?

Scale: Covers over 2.16 lakh gram panchayats; data from 11,000+ GPs excluded for non-validation.
Participatory & Understandable: Designed for grassroots actors—sarpanchs, ward members—enabling self-assessment and goal-setting.
States’ Response: While 25 States/UTs provided almost complete data, Uttar Pradesh reported only 40% GPs, raising concerns about governance bottlenecks.
Outcome-Oriented: Data is now tied directly to outcomes—e.g., identifying gaps in a GP’s health indicators helps drive targeted intervention.

What are the main limitations in evidence-based decision-making?

Delayed and Inaccessible Data: Lack of timely and accessible data hinders informed planning and policy formulation. Eg: The delay in conducting the Census and not releasing its data restricts effective resource allocation in sectors like health, education, and welfare schemes.
Poor Data Usability and Visualization: Data made available is often in complex formats, making it difficult for citizens and policymakers to interpret and act upon. Eg: On data.gov.in, datasets are vast but lack adequate visualization tools, overwhelming even trained researchers.
Top-Down Data Flow: Data is often generated at the grassroots but is primarily used by officials at the state or national level, not by local decision-makers. Eg: Gram Panchayat data is collected but rarely used by local elected representatives due to lack of access or interpretation tools.

Who are the stakeholders expected to benefit from the PAI?

Gram Panchayat Representatives: Sarpanches and ward members can understand their Panchayat’s performance and take action to improve local governance.
State and District Level Officials: Block Development Officers and District Collectors can use PAI data to plan and monitor development programs more effectively.
Elected Legislators: Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) can identify local gaps and use funds from MPLADS/MLALADS accordingly.
Line Departments and Frontline Workers: Departments like health, education, and rural development can coordinate efforts better using specific PAI indicators.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Academia: NGOs and Unnat Bharat Abhiyan institutions can support Panchayats by interpreting data and suggesting local interventions.
Citizens and Local Communities: Residents can be made aware of their Panchayat’s status and engage in participatory planning and accountability.

How can they contribute to achieving the LSDGs (Localisation of Sustainable Development Goals)?

Targeted Planning and Implementation: Stakeholders can use PAI data to identify local gaps and implement focused interventions aligned with LSDGs. Eg: A Panchayat noticing low scores in sanitation can prioritize toilet construction and awareness drives under Swachh Bharat Abhiyan.
Resource Optimization and Fund Allocation: Elected representatives and officials can direct funds more effectively to areas needing urgent attention. Eg: An MLA can use MLALAD funds to improve access to clean drinking water in a low-scoring GP on the “Safe Drinking Water” indicator.
Community Mobilization and Accountability: Civil society and academic institutions can raise awareness and ensure community involvement in achieving development goals. Eg: An NGO working with local residents can organize meetings to explain their PAI score and co-develop action plans to improve education or health indicators.

Where does data submission fall short, and why is it concerning?

Incomplete data: Undermines the reliability of the Panchayat Advancement Index (PAI). Eg: Without full data from Uttar Pradesh, true development gaps remain hidden.
Policy gaps: Poor data coverage leads to misinformed decisions, leaving underperforming areas unaddressed. Eg: GPs excluded from PAI may not receive adequate funds or interventions.
Inequality: Skewed data causes unequal resource allocation and widens regional disparities. Eg: States with full data submissions benefit more from schemes aligned with LSDGs.

What are the steps taken by the Indian government?

National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP), 2012: The government made non-sensitive data publicly available in open, accessible formats to promote transparency. Eg: Data is shared through portals like https://data.gov.in.
Panchayat Advancement Index (PAI): A composite index was developed to analyze and present data from over 2.16 lakh Gram Panchayats to help local leaders understand and act on development goals. Eg: PAI links data to outcomes like health, enabling targeted interventions at the grassroots.
Use of Technology and Portals: The government created online platforms like the PAI portal (www.pai.gov.in) for easy access and report generation by officials and representatives. Eg: MPs and MLAs can generate constituency-wise reports to plan specific development actions.

Way forward:

Improve Data Accessibility and Visualization: Develop user-friendly dashboards and visualization tools to make data easily understandable for all stakeholders, including elected representatives and citizens.
Strengthen Data Validation and Coverage: Ensure complete and accurate data submission from all states and Gram Panchayats through rigorous validation and support mechanisms.

Mains PYQ:

[UPSC 2022] “To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots ?

Linkage: The governance landscape at the grassroots and the impact of decentralization. Evaluating this impact necessitates a detailed understanding of the local reality and changes brought about by devolving power – precisely what “getting the micropicture” seeks to achieve.

May 20, 2025

[19th May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: What is a Presidential reference?

PYQ Relevance:

[UPSC 2017] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

Linkage: NJAC Act was struck down (the Collegium system) had its detailed guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Third Judges case, which itself was a Presidential reference made under Article 143. Therefore, understanding the advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 and its outcome in the Third Judges case is essential background for critically examining the NJAC judgment.

Mentor’s Comment: The Supreme Court recently set time limits for Governors to decide on state bills, so they can’t delay action forever—a practice often called a “Pocket Veto.” The Court said Governors must act within one or three months, based on the case. This raised doubts about the Court’s powers under Article 142, so President Murmu asked for its advice under Article 143.

Today’s editorial talks about Article 143 of the Constitution, where the President has asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on the powers and responsibilities of the President and Governors. This topic is useful for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC Mains exam.

Let’s learn!

Why in the News?

President Droupadi Murmu has used Article 143 of the Constitution to ask the Supreme Court for its opinion on some important questions about the powers and duties of the President and Governors, especially related to how and when they should act on state bills.

What are the provisions?

Article 143(1): The President may refer any matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion. In the first case, the Supreme Court may tender or may refuse to tender its opinion to the president.
Article 143(2): Allows the President to refer disputes arising from pre-Constitution agreements, including state-related matters, for the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Supreme Court must tender its opinion to the President. The Supreme Court’s opinion is advisory—not binding or precedent-setting—but carries strong persuasive value.
Article 145: Such references must be heard by a bench of at least five judges.

Note: The President makes these references based on the Cabinet’s advice.

What is the historical context?

The advisory jurisdiction of India’s Supreme Court under Article 143 originates from the Government of India Act, 1935, which gave the Governor-General the power to refer important legal questions to the federal court for opinion.

What were past instances?

Delhi Laws Act Case (1951): Clarified the scope of delegated legislation by the legislature to the executive.
Kerala Education Bill (1958): Interpreted the balance between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles, especially regarding minority education rights under Article 30.
Berubari Union Case (1960): Held that ceding Indian territory to another country requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368.
Special Courts Bill (1978): Stated that references must be specific and that the Court may decline to answer vague or political questions.
Third Judges Case (1998): Laid down detailed guidelines for the appointment of judges and established the collegium system.

What is the significance of Article 143 and its colonial legacy?

Provides Advisory Role to the Executive: Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on complex legal or constitutional issues, helping the executive navigate difficult questions. Eg: President referred the question on delegated legislation in the Delhi Laws Act case (1951).
Ensures Constitutional Clarity: Helps resolve ambiguities or uncertainties in law, thus guiding governance and preventing conflicts. Eg: The Berubari case (1960) clarified constitutional procedures for ceding Indian territory.
Maintains Separation of Powers: The advisory nature avoids direct judicial interference in executive functions while still providing legal guidance. Eg: The Supreme Court may decline vague or political questions, as in the Special Courts Bill reference (1978).

What key issues are raised in the latest Article 143 reference?

Judicial Review of Executive Discretion: The reference questions whether the judiciary can review the discretionary powers of the President and Governors, particularly regarding the assent to bills under Articles 200 and 201.
Imposition of Timelines on Constitutional Authorities: It seeks clarity on whether the Supreme Court can prescribe timelines for the President and Governors to act on bills, given that the Constitution does not specify such timeframes.
Concept of ‘Deemed Assent’: The reference challenges the Supreme Court’s introduction of the ‘deemed assent’ concept, questioning its compatibility with the constitutional framework.
Scope of Article 142 Powers: Article 142 gives the Supreme Court power to pass orders to do “complete justice”, but it must be within constitutional bounds. In the present reference questions whether this provision allows the Court to create new rules not found in the Constitution.
Justiciability of Executive Actions Pre-Legislation: The reference probes whether actions of the President and Governors concerning bills can be subjected to judicial review before the bills become law.
Impacts Federalism and Democratic Functioning: The Supreme Court’s opinion will influence the Centre-State power dynamics and safeguard democratic processes. Eg: The Cauvery dispute advisory opinion (1992) that reinforced limits on the Court’s advisory role to respect federalism.

How does India’s advisory jurisdiction compare globally?

	India	Canada	United States
Origin / Legacy	Inherited from Government of India Act, 1935	Similar colonial legacy	No advisory jurisdiction
Nature of Opinion	Non-binding but persuasive	Non-binding but persuasive	No advisory opinions given
Who Can Refer	President on Union Council of Ministers’ advice	Federal and provincial governments	Not applicable
Judicial Approach	Supreme Court may decline to give opinion	Supreme Court provides opinions on request	Strict separation of powers, no advisory role
Example (Eg)	Article 143 references (e.g., Berubari case)	Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998) – clarified constitutional secession rules	In Muskrat v. United States (1911), the Supreme Court rejected advisory jurisdiction

Way forward:

Clarify Constitutional Timelines: Amend or clarify constitutional provisions to explicitly define timelines for presidential and gubernatorial actions on bills, reducing ambiguities and potential conflicts.
Strengthen Centre-State Dialogue: Promote cooperative federalism through regular dialogue and dispute resolution mechanisms to prevent politicization of constitutional functions and ensure smooth governance.

May 19, 2025