💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Fundamental Rights,DPSP

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

  • [16th May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Does Article 21 include right to digital access?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2022] The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment.

    Linkage: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States and the performance of these schemes; mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.

     

    Mentor’s Comment: On 30 April, 2025, the Supreme Court’s directive to revise digital KYC norms to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs), recognizing digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. It highlights legal safeguards like the RPwD Act 2016, challenges faced by PwDs in current KYC processes, and the Court’s emphasis on inclusive, accessible digital infrastructure for marginalized groups.

    Today’s editorial discusses the Supreme Court’s order to update digital KYC rules to make them accessible for persons with disabilities (PwDs). This topic is useful for GS Paper II (covering governance, the Supreme Court’s role, and issues related to vulnerable groups like PwDs).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, ​​the Supreme Court of India directed the revision of digital Know Your Customer (KYC) norms to ensure they are accessible to persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially the visually impaired.

    What KYC changes did the Supreme Court direct for PwDs?

    • Mandated Accessible Digital KYC Processes: KYC procedures must include accessible design features like screen-reader compatibility, audio cues, and simplified verification steps.
    • Alternative Identity Verification Methods: KYC systems must allow thumb impressions, signatures in accessible formats, and alternative ways to verify identity without facial recognition or selfies. Eg: An acid attack survivor unable to use facial recognition can verify their identity using thumb impression linked with Aadhaar and OTP verification.
    • Uniform Accessibility Standards Across Institutions: All regulated entities (banks, telecom, SEBI, etc.) must follow a standardized, inclusive KYC frameworkrather than creating their own tests Eg: Every bank and mobile provider must adopt unified, accessible KYC apps that meet 2021 and 2022 ICT Accessibility Standards, ensuring consistency and inclusion.

    Which laws protect the rights of PwDs in India?

    • Constitution provision: Guarantees equality, dignity, and non-discrimination through the Preamble, Fundamental Rights(Articles 14, 15, 21), and Directive Principles (Article 38). Eg: Under Article 21, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the right to life to include digital access for PwDs.
    • Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016: Adopts a social-barrier model of disability and mandates measures for accessibility, inclusion, and equal opportunity. Eg: Section 42 requires the government to ensure accessible electronic media, including sign-language, audio descriptions, and captions.
    • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD): India is a signatory and is obligated to promote, protect, and ensure full human rights and freedoms of PwDs. Eg: The RPwD Act, 2016 was enacted to give domestic effect to the UNCRPD’s principles like accessibility, dignity, and non-discrimination.
    • Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards (2021, 2022): Prescribe technical standards for websites, apps, and digital services to be screen-reader friendly, with audio/video guidance. Eg: Despite these standards, most KYC platforms lack audio prompts or camera alignment assistance, which the SC directed to be rectified.

    Why do banks and other financial and government institutions mandate collecting KYC details?

    • Ensures Security: KYC helps identify and verify customers, reducing risks of money laundering, fraud, and terrorism financing. Eg: Under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, banks are required to verify identities and report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit.
    • Availing Financial and Telecom Services: KYC is a regulatory requirement to access services like bank accounts, SIM cards, demat accounts, insurance, and pension schemes. Eg: A person must complete KYC to open a bank account or activate a mobile number.
    • Enables Access to welfare schemes:  Digital KYC links individuals to Aadhaar-based Direct Benefit Transfers (DBTs), ensuring targeted delivery of welfare schemes. Eg: Students must complete e-KYC to receive national scholarshcips or access Aadhaar-linked subsidieslike LPG or pensions.

    How do current KYC methods exclude PwDs?

    • Visual Verification Disadvantage: Steps like reading flashing codes, aligning for selfies, or signing on paper are inaccessible to those with visual impairments or disfigurements. Eg: A blind user cannot complete video-KYC if the app lacks screen-reader prompts or audio guidance for camera positioning.
    • Lack of Alternative Biometric Methods: Common alternatives like thumb impressions are not accepted as valid signatures, and PAN cards aren’t issued with them. Eg: A visually impaired person using thumbprint verification may be denied KYC approval due to lack of signature or photo verification.
    • Non-Compliant Digital Infrastructure: Most KYC apps and portals violate ICT Accessibility Standards by lacking features like text-to-speech, audio cues, or accessible form inputs. Eg: A KYC website without voice feedback or keyboard navigation makes it impossible for a person using assistive tech to complete the process independently.

    Why did the SC link digital access to Article 21?

    • Digital Access is Integral to the Right to Life and Dignity: The Court held that in today’s digital era, access to essential services through digital means is part of living with dignity and autonomy. Eg: Denying blind users the ability to complete KYC digitally affects their right to life under Article 21 by limiting access to banking or welfare services.
    • Ensures Substantive Equality:  The Court emphasized substantive equality, noting that equality is not just about treating everyone the same, but removing barriers for the disadvantaged. Eg: People with visual impairments face unique hurdles with video-KYC, which violates their equal access to services guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.
    • Bridges the Digital Divide:  The judgment recognized that digital exclusion impacts not just PwDs, but also rural citizens, elderly people, and linguistic minorities, deepening socio-economic inequality. Eg: During COVID-19, the Court earlier ruled that digital vaccine portals must be accessible, reinforcing the idea that public digital infrastructure must be inclusive.

    Way forward: 

    • Adopt Inclusive Digital Design Standards: Ensure all KYC platforms follow universal design principles with features like screen-readers, voice prompts, and alternative authentication methods.
    • Mandate Regulatory Oversight and ComplianceRBI, SEBI, and DoT must monitor and enforce accessibility standards across all regulated entities to guarantee equal digital access for PwDs.

  • Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    The Tamil Nadu CM has criticised the Presidential Reference under Article 143 as a “desperate attempt” to weaken State powers, following a Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.

    Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

    Recent Invocation:

    • The Presidential Reference asked whether the Supreme Court could impose timelines on:
      • Governors under Article 200 (assent to State Bills)
      • The President under Article 201 (Bills reserved for Presidential assent)

    What is Article 143 of the Indian Constitution?

    • Article 143 empowers the President of India to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact that is-
      • of public importance
      • Likely to arise or has already arisen
    • This provision defines the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction, exclusive to the President.
    • Sub-clauses and Legal Operation:
      • 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.
    • Nature of the Reference: The Supreme Court’s opinion is advisory and NOT legally binding since it is NOT a judicial pronouncement.
    • President’s Response: It is NOT binding on the President; he/she may follow or may not follow the opinion. However, it facilitates the government to have an authoritative legal opinion.
    • Types of Questions Referred: Article 143(1) allows the President to refer questions of law or fact.
      1. Legal questions: Constitutional interpretation, rights, and executive powers.
      2. Factual questions: The 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid reference asked whether a temple existed at the disputed site.
    • Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 143 is broad in scope and not limited to questions that have arisen; potential or likely questions can also be referred.

    Executive’s Control of Presidential Reference: 

    • Although Article 143 vests the power in the President, the real decision to refer is taken by the Union Council of Ministers under Article 74(1). 
    • Article 74(2) bars the Court from inquiring whether such advice was given.

     

    [UPSC 2010] Consider the following statements:

    The Supreme Court of India tenders’ advice to the President of India on matters of law or fact

    1. on its own initiative (on any matter of larger public interest).

    2. if he seeks such an advice.

    3. only if the matters relate to the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • Right to Know: On the Wikimedia case, key rights

    Why in the News?

    On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India canceled the Delhi High Court’s order that had asked the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a page from its Wikipedia website. This decision is important for several reasons.

    What was the Supreme Court’s reason for overturning the High Court’s order on Wikipedia?

    • Protection of Free Speech and Public Debate: The Supreme Court emphasized that important legal and public issues must be open to public discussion, even if they are under judicial consideration (sub judice). Eg: Wikipedia users commenting critically on a judge’s order were exercising free speech, not committing contempt — the Court said the High Court “overreacted” by viewing it as contempt.
    • Right to Know is a Fundamental Right: The Court reaffirmed that the right to know is part of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Eg: Wikipedia entries serve public interest by disseminating information — taking down pages affects people’s access to knowledge.
    • Wikimedia is a Neutral Intermediary: The Foundation does not create or control content but provides the platform, which is maintained by users under community guidelines.Eg: Since Wikimedia only hosts content and does not produce it, the responsibility lies with users — the High Court erred by targeting the platform instead of applying proper intermediary liability norms under the IT Act.

    Why is the right to know protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?

    • Linked to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): Freedom of speech includes both the right to express and the right to receive information. Without access to information, freedom of expression is incomplete. Eg: Journalists rely on access to court documents, government records, or public statements to report news and foster transparency.
    • Essential for a Life with Dignity (Article 21): The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which requires access to truthful and relevant information that affects one’s wellbeing and rights. Eg: A patient has the right to know about the risks of a medical procedure; a citizen has the right to know about environmental hazards in their locality.

    How does Wikimedia qualify as an intermediary under IT law?

    • Provides Platform Without Editing User Content: Wikimedia only offers the technical infrastructure for Wikipedia — it does not create or edit the content published by users. Eg: If a Wikipedia page contains inaccurate information, it is user-generated. Wikimedia itself does not write or verify the content.
    • Acts Within Safe Harbour Protections (Section 79, IT Act): As an intermediary, Wikimedia is protected from liability for third-party content as long as it doesn’t initiate or modify the transmission and follows due diligence. Eg: If defamatory content appears on Wikipedia, Wikimedia is not legally responsible unless it fails to act on legitimate removal requests.
    • Operates Under Community Guidelines, Not Control: Wikipedia’s content is governed by community-led guidelines and editors, not by Wikimedia itself. This decentralized structure supports its status as a neutral intermediary. Eg: Disputes over article edits are resolved through user discussion forums, not by Wikimedia’s direct intervention.

    Where did the High Court overstep in interpreting adverse comments as contempt?

    • Misconstrued Online Criticism as Judicial Contempt: The High Court treated user discussions and critical comments on Wikipedia as contempt of court, despite them being expressions of public opinion. Eg: A user forum questioning the logic of the High Court’s interim order was taken as contempt, even though it reflected public debate — a protected form of speech.
    • Failed to Recognize the Role of Open Debate in Democracy: By ordering content removal based on adverse comments, the Court ignored the constitutional protection of open criticism, especially on matters of public interest. Eg: The take-down order was based on perceived insult to the judiciary, but the Supreme Court clarified that public discussion, even when a case is sub judice, is vital to democratic accountability.

    When should courts uphold free speech in online platform cases?

    • When Public Debate Involves Matters of Legal or Democratic Importance: Courts should protect speech that contributes to informed public discourse, even if the topic is sub judice, as long as it doesn’t obstruct justice. Eg: In the Wikipedia case, users debated a High Court order — the Supreme Court ruled this was legitimate discussion, not contempt.
    • When the Platform Functions as a Neutral Intermediary: If an online platform merely provides infrastructure without controlling content, courts should focus on protecting users’ freedom of expression rather than penalizing the platform. Eg: Wikimedia does not write or edit articles but hosts user content — thus, courts should defend user rights unless unlawful content is proven.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Intermediary Guidelines: Clearer regulations are needed to distinguish between platforms acting as neutral hosts and those responsible for content, ensuring they are not unduly penalized for user-generated content.
    • Promote Balanced Public Discourse: Courts should encourage open debate on matters of public interest, ensuring that free speech is upheld while preventing actions that could obstruct justice or harm reputations.

    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: Article 21, one of the fundamental rights the Supreme Court linked to the “right to know” in the Wikimedia case. It discusses the expanding scope of rights under Article 21, similar to how the right to know is being interpreted.

  • Detaining Non-Citizens and the Rule of Law

    Why in the News?

    Assam’s immigration detention system not only harms the freedom and well-being of the people held there, but also raises serious questions about whether it follows the basic rules and values of the Constitution.

    What laws are used to detain non-citizens in India?

    • Foreigners Act, 1946: Allows the government to detain and deport individuals deemed as foreigners without valid documents. Eg: In Assam, many people declared as “foreigners” by Foreigners Tribunals were detained under this Act.
    • National Security Act (NSA), 1980: Permits preventive detention of individuals if they pose a threat to national security or public order. Eg: Non-citizens suspected of disturbing public order can be detained for up to 12 months without trial.
    • Passports Act, 1967: Penalizes entry or stay in India without valid passport or travel documents; used in conjunction with the above laws. Eg: A person found without a passport may be prosecuted and detained before deportation proceedings begin.

    How do they impact detainees?

    • Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention: Many non-citizens are detained for years without trial or clear deportation prospects. Eg: In Assam, over 1.5 lakh people declared foreigners, but only a few dozen have actually been deported.
    • Lack of Legal Safeguards and Due Process: Detainees are often denied proper legal representation, and decisions are based on minor discrepancies in documents. Eg: Variations in spelling or lack of pre-1971 documentation have led to detention, despite lifelong residence in India.
    • Harsh Living Conditions and Psychological Distress: Detention camps have been criticised for overcrowding, poor facilities, and causing mental trauma. Eg: Many families are separated and live in uncertainty for years in Assam’s detention centres.

    Why have many people in Assam been stripped of citizenship through the NRC process?

    • Stringent Documentation Requirements: Applicants had to prove ancestry from before March 24, 1971, using official documents. Eg: Many rural residents could not furnish land or birth records from that period due to illiteracy or displacement.
    • Loss or Inaccessibility of Records: Natural disasters, especially floods, led to the destruction or loss of vital documents. Eg: In flood-prone areas of Assam, many families lost old records multiple times over decades.
    • Minor Discrepancies Rejected: Minor differences in names or spelling between documents led to rejection. Eg: A person listed as “Rafiqul” in one document and “Rafiqul Islam” in another was flagged as suspicious.
    • Exclusion of Marginalised Communities: The verification process disproportionately affected Bengali Muslims, women, and tribal groups who lacked formal documentation. Eg: Women often lacked independent proof of lineage due to patriarchal registration systems.
    • Unfair and Opaque Procedures: Many claims were rejected by Foreigners Tribunals without transparent reasoning or opportunity for appeal. Eg: Individuals were declared foreigners without being adequately notified or heard by the tribunal.

    How does the detention of non-citizens in Assam violate constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and 22?

    • Violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): Detention without fair reason or legal justification breaches the fundamental right to life and liberty. Eg: People who have committed no crime are detained for years without any realistic prospect of deportation.
    • Absence of Procedural Safeguards (Article 22): Article 22 requires clear legal procedures and rights during preventive detention, such as being informed of grounds and access to legal counsel. Eg: Many detainees in Assam are not told why they’re detained or given timely legal aid.
    • Detention Without Conviction or Trial: Under Indian law, liberty can be curtailed mostly through judicial sanction, such as after conviction or during trial — not arbitrarily. Eg: People declared “foreigners” by tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies) are detained despite not being criminals or facing trial.
    • Detention Without Legitimate Preventive Purpose: Preventive detention must be for a specific, imminent threat — not indefinite holding due to lack of documents. Eg: Detainees are held even when deportation is not possible, making the detention purposeless.
    • Executive Overreach Undermines Judicial Role: Detention decisions are taken by the executive or tribunals without proper judicial oversight, undermining separation of powers. Eg: Tribunals and officials act without court direction, limiting detainees’ access to judicial remedy.

    Way forward: 

    • Ensure due process and legal aid: Establish transparent procedures with timely legal representation for those declared non-citizens, ensuring compliance with Articles 21 and 22.
    • Pursue humane alternatives to detention: Introduce community release programs or supervised residency for non-deportable individuals instead of indefinite detention.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2017] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.

    Linkage: The scope of fundamental rights, including Article 21, which is central to the discussion on the legality of detention in the article.

  • Reviving a far-sighted but forgotten Bill mechanism

    Why in the News?

    Private Member’s Bills (PMBs) allow Members of Parliament (MPs) who are not ministers to suggest their own laws. In India, most laws are brought by the government and are prepared by different ministries.

    What are Private Member’s Bills (PMBs)?

    • PMBs are legislative proposals introduced by Members of Parliament who are not Ministers (i.e., private members). These bills reflect the individual MP’s views or address constituency needs rather than the government’s official stance.
    • In 2019, Supriya Sule (NCP) introduced the Right to Disconnect Bill in the Lok Sabha, which aimed to give employees the legal right to not engage in work-related communication after office hours. Though not passed, it sparked national debate on work-life balance and mental health.

    How do they differ from government bills in the Indian parliamentary system?

    Feature Private Member’s Bill (PMB) Government Bill
    Introduced by Any MP who is not a minister Introduced by a Minister
    Drafted by Individual MP or external inputs Concerned Ministry
    Schedule Usually taken up on Fridays Prioritized in regular business hours
    Chances of passing Very low; often symbolic High; backed by ruling party
    Party mandate MPs have greater freedom Ministers follow cabinet decisions

    Why has the significance of Private Member’s Bills declined in recent Lok Sabha sessions?

    • Frequent Disruptions and Adjournments: Parliamentary proceedings are often disrupted, especially on Fridays (earmarked for PMBs), reducing the time available for meaningful discussion. Eg: In the winter session, two Fridays were lost to disruptions.
    • Government Business Prioritised: The government frequently uses Fridays for its own legislative agenda, sidelining private members’ time. Eg: In the Budget Session, the first Friday was used for discussion on the Union Budget instead of PMBs.
    • Low Discussion Rate: Despite hundreds of PMBs being introduced, only a handful are ever discussed or debated in the House. Eg: Of the 729 PMBs introduced in the 17th Lok Sabha, only two were discussed.
    • Symbolic Rather than Substantive: PMBs are increasingly viewed as symbolic acts with little legislative impact, deterring MPs from actively pursuing them.
    • Lack of Institutional Support: No dedicated mechanism exists to screen, prioritise, or fast-track relevant PMBs, unlike government bills which have bureaucratic and legal backing. Eg: The ‘Right to Disconnect’ Bill by Supriya Sule sparked debate but saw no legislative progress due to lack of structured support.

    How can reforms strengthen the PMB process?

    • Protect Time for PMBs as Sacrosanct: Amend rules to ensure that Fridays (or designated hours) reserved for PMBs cannot be overridden, except during national emergencies. Eg: Ensuring uninterrupted PMB discussion time would prevent situations like the Budget Session, where government business took over private members’ time.
    • Introduce a Review and Prioritisation Mechanism: Create a dedicated committee to screen PMBs for quality, relevance, and constitutionality, and prioritise those with cross-party or public support. Eg: A fast-track mechanism could have helped advance Tiruchi Siva’s ‘Rights of Transgender Persons’ Bill, which ultimately influenced the 2019 law.
    • Adopt the UK’s Ten-Minute Rule Model: Allow MPs to introduce and explain PMBs in brief speeches, increasing visibility and legislative input without demanding long debate time. Eg: This could help bring forward more unconventional yet important ideas like the ‘Right to Disconnect’ Bill by Supriya Sule.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalise Support Mechanisms: Establish a dedicated PMB committee and research support system to assist MPs in drafting robust, impactful bills.
    • Ensure Legislative Space and Time: Legally safeguard specific hours or days for PMB discussions to encourage meaningful debate and democratic participation.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2014] The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention?

    Linkage: This explicitly states that Private Member’s Bills are one of the few remaining avenues for individual MPs to suggest constructive policy alternatives, and that the effectiveness of such mechanisms for independent legislative action by MPs has been curtailed, partly due to the unintended effects of the Anti-Defection Law.

  • Digital Access a FR under Right to Life and Liberty: Supreme Court

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has ruled that inclusive and meaningful Digital Access to e-governance and welfare systems is a part of the Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

    Key Highlights of the Judgment:

    • Inclusive Digital Access: The Court ruled on April 30, 2025, that access to e-governance and welfare systems is a fundamental right under Article 21, requiring inclusive digital ecosystems, especially for marginalised groups.
    • Focus on KYC Processes: It issued 20 directions to make digital KYC processes more accessible for acid attack survivors and the visually impaired.
    • Digital Divide: It recognised the digital divide as a constitutional issue, emphasising the need for equal access to digital platforms for essential services and opportunities.

    About Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and its Scope:

    • Article 21 reads: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
    • Initially focused on protecting life from arbitrary state action, it has been expanded to include living with dignity.
    • Key Judicial Expansions:
      • Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978): Right to live with dignity, requiring a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
      • Sunil Batra vs. Delhi Administration (1978): Right to live a healthy life and preserve cultural heritage.
      • Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs. Union of India (1984): Linking Article 21 with the Directive Principles of State Policy, ensuring abolition of forced labour.
      • Subramaniam Swamy vs. Union of India (2016): Recognized right to reputation as part of Article 21.
      • Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985): Recognized right to livelihood as part of Article 21.
      • Aruna Shanbaug case (2011): Recognized the right to die with dignity as part of Article 21.
      • K.S. Puttaswamy vs. Union of India (2017): Right to privacy recognized as an essential part of Article 21.

    Other Judgments Related to Digital Empowerment

    • Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Laid the foundation for inclusive digital rights, stating that procedures restricting fundamental rights must be fair, just, and reasonable.
    • Faheema Shirin RK v. State of Kerala (2019): Recognized right to access the internet as part of Article 21 and Article 21A (Right to Education). Denying students internet access in hostels was held unconstitutional.
    • Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): SC held that Article 19(1)(a) protects the freedom of speech and expression via the internet, and Article 19(1)(g) safeguards the right to trade online. Restrictions on these rights must meet the tests of reasonableness and proportionality.

     

    [UPSC 2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?

    Options: (a) Article 15 (b) Article 16 (c) Article 19 (d) Article 21*

     

  • The post of Deputy Speaker is not symbolic or optional

    Why in the News?

    The Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha is not just a symbolic position but an important role required by the Constitution.

    What is the role of the Deputy Speaker under Article 93?

    • Presiding Over the Lok Sabha in the Speaker’s Absence: The Deputy Speaker steps in to chair the sessions of the Lok Sabha when the Speaker is unavailable, ensuring that legislative proceedings continue smoothly. Eg: If the Speaker is unwell or on an official visit abroad, the Deputy Speaker takes over the chair to maintain the functioning of the House, as happened during various occasions when the Speaker had to travel.
    • Ensuring Impartiality in Debates and Proceedings: The Deputy Speaker, like the Speaker, must remain impartial and ensure that debates are conducted fairly, without any bias towards any party or individual. Eg: During debates on sensitive issues such as the passing of a crucial bill, the Deputy Speaker ensures that all parties have an opportunity to speak and that the debate remains orderly, as seen in past sessions when contentious issues were discussed.
    • Chairing Parliamentary Committees: The Deputy Speaker presides over important parliamentary committees, which play a crucial role in managing legislative work and business. Eg: The Deputy Speaker has chaired committees such as the Business Advisory Committee, where decisions are made regarding the scheduling of bills and other parliamentary matters, helping to streamline the legislative process.

    Why is the continued vacancy of the post a constitutional concern?

    • Violation of Constitutional Mandate (Article 93): The Constitution directs that the House shall elect a Deputy Speaker “as soon as may be”, implying urgency, not discretion. Eg: The 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024) functioned its entire term without appointing a Deputy Speaker, disregarding this mandate.
    • Absence of Institutional Safeguard in Emergencies: The Deputy Speaker acts as a constitutional backup in case the Speaker resigns, is removed, or is incapacitated. Eg: In 1956, when Speaker G.V. Mavalankar died, Deputy Speaker M.A. Ayyangar stepped in immediately to prevent disruption.
    • Undermining Legislative Continuity and Stability: Without a Deputy Speaker, the House lacks redundancy in leadership, risking procedural breakdown during key sessions. Eg: If a crisis arises during budget discussions and the Speaker is absent, proceedings could face delays or legal challenges.
    • Erosion of Democratic Norms and Bipartisanship: Traditionally, the post is offered to the Opposition to maintain balance, promote inclusivity, and uphold impartiality. Eg: Earlier Lok Sabhas saw the Deputy Speaker from the Opposition, fostering cooperative legislative functioning.
    • Centralisation of Power and Partisan Control: Leaving the post vacant gives unchecked control to the ruling party through the Speaker alone, weakening internal checks. Eg: In the absence of a Deputy Speaker, all procedural authority remains concentrated in one office, reducing scope for dissent or moderation.

    When and how did the Deputy Speaker’s position originate? 

    • Origin in Colonial Legislative Framework: The post of Deputy Speaker evolved from the position of Deputy President in the Central Legislative Assembly during British rule. Eg: Sachidanand Sinha became the first Deputy President (equivalent to Deputy Speaker) in 1921 under colonial administration.
    • Continuity Through the Constituent Assembly (Legislative): Even before the Constitution was adopted in 1950, the Constituent Assembly retained the role of Deputy Speaker to maintain legislative function. Eg: The Assembly recognized the practical need for a second presiding officer during debates and discussions on the Constitution.
    • Institutionalisation in Post-Independence India: The office was formally incorporated under Article 93 of the Constitution, emphasising its necessity in democratic governance. Eg: M.A. Ayyangar became the first elected Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha in 1952 and later served as acting Speaker after G.V. Mavalankar’s death.

    How can reforms ensure timely appointment of the Deputy Speaker? (Way forward)

    • Introducing a Fixed Timeline in the Constitution: Amend Article 93 to mandate election of the Deputy Speaker within a specific period (e.g., 60 days) after the first sitting of a new Lok Sabha. Eg: Similar to the time-bound requirement for forming a government after elections, a clear deadline would prevent indefinite delays.
    • Statutory Mechanism Empowering the President: Create a law allowing the President to direct the House to elect a Deputy Speaker if the position remains vacant beyond the stipulated time. Eg: On the advice of the Prime Minister or Speaker, the President could initiate proceedings to avoid constitutional anomalies.
    • Strengthening Parliamentary Conventions: Reinforce the long-standing practice of offering the Deputy Speaker’s post to the Opposition through formal House resolutions. Eg: Restoring this tradition would ensure bipartisan respect and encourage prompt consensus in electing the Deputy Speaker.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2020] ‘Once a Speaker, Always a Speaker’! Do you think this practice should be adopted to impart objectivity to the office of the Speaker of Lok Sabha? What could be its implications for the robust functioning of parliamentary business in India?

    Linkage: While focusing on the Speaker, the question is relevant because the Deputy Speaker’s role is intrinsically linked to the robust functioning of parliamentary business and the need for impartiality or objectivity within the presiding officers’ roles.

  • A move that endangers the right to vote

    Why in the News?

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) is again trying to link Aadhaar with voter ID, claiming it will help remove fake voters, clean up the voter list, and make elections more fair. However, this move could put people’s right to vote at risk.

    Why is Aadhaar-Voter ID linkage seen as a threat to voting rights?

    • Risk of Mass Disenfranchisement: Linking Aadhaar with voter ID can lead to the wrongful deletion of genuine voters from electoral rolls due to data mismatches or errors in the Aadhaar database. Eg: In 2015, during the National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme, over 55 lakh voters were arbitrarily removed in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, causing many to discover their names missing only on election day.
    • Violation of the Right to Privacy and Autonomy: The linkage forces citizens to part with their Aadhaar information, effectively making a voluntary scheme coercive. It exposes citizens to data misuse and profiling by political actors. Eg: Form 6B requires Aadhaar submission or a declaration of non-possession, with no real opt-out, pressuring citizens to comply.
    • Disproportionate Impact on Vulnerable Groups: Groups like the elderly, disabled, migrant workers, and rural residents face practical challenges in appearing before Electoral Officers to justify not having Aadhaar, putting their right to vote at risk. Eg: The proposed requirement for in-person appearance imposes an unreasonable burden, especially for people in remote or underserved areas.

    How does the linkage affect vulnerable groups?

    • Imposes Unreasonable Physical Burden: The requirement for in-person appearances before Electoral Registration Officers disproportionately affects individuals who may not be able to travel easily. Eg: Elderly citizens or persons with disabilities may find it extremely difficult to justify their non-submission of Aadhaar physically, leading to potential exclusion from the voter list.
    • Excludes Migrants and Remote Populations: Migrant workers and people living in remote or underdeveloped regions may not have updated documents or easy access to Aadhaar centers, making compliance difficult. Eg: Migrant laborers, often on the move, may not have consistent records, leading to their disenfranchisement due to Aadhaar mismatches or absence.
    • Leads to Arbitrary Deletions from Electoral Rolls: Errors in Aadhaar data or failure to link properly can result in the deletion of legitimate voters, especially those lacking digital literacy or assistance. Eg: During the 2015 Aadhaar-linking exercise, many daily wage workers and marginalized citizens in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana found their names deleted without prior notice.

    Which past events highlight the risks of this linkage?

    • 2015 Deletions under National Electoral Roll Purification and Authentication Programme (NERPAP): The Election Commission attempted Aadhaar-voter ID linkage in 2015, leading to large-scale deletion of genuine voters due to data mismatches. Eg: In Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, over 55 lakh voters were removed from rolls. Many citizens discovered this only on polling day, causing mass disenfranchisement.
    • Supreme Court Stay in August 2015: Following the backlash from the 2015 deletions, the Supreme Court stayed the Aadhaar-voter ID linkage to prevent further voter exclusion. Eg: The Court’s order halted the programme, citing privacy concerns and lack of legal backing, highlighting the constitutional risks involved.
    • CAG Report on Aadhaar Database Flaws (2021): The Comptroller and Auditor General found serious flaws in the Aadhaar system, including duplications and unverifiable residency, raising concerns about its suitability for electoral verification. Eg: The CAG audit revealed that 4.75 lakh Aadhaar numbers were cancelled due to errors and duplication, showing how flawed data could wrongly affect voter rolls.

    Way forward: 

    • Traditional Voter Verification Methods: Instead of relying on Aadhaar, the ECI should strengthen manual verification systems. Eg: Door-to-door verification by Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and in-person checks help maintain accuracy and uphold voter rights without risking exclusions.
    • Independent Audits and Social Oversight: Introducing social audits and independent reviews of electoral rolls can enhance transparency and trust in the system. Eg: Public grievance redressal mechanisms and independent monitoring can prevent politically motivated manipulation and ensure fairness.

    Mains PYQ:

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

    Linakege: “one nation-one election,” it falls under the broader theme of electoral reforms. The article  discusses a specific electoral reform, the Aadhaar-voter ID linkage, and argues that it has negative consequences for the right to vote. Therefore, this PYQ, concerning the need for and nature of electoral reforms, is relevant as the Aadhaar linking initiative can be seen as a debated electoral reform with potential risks to the franchise.

  • Article 355 of the Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    A recent petition in the Supreme Court has sought the invocation of Article 355 in West Bengal by deploying central armed forces, citing violence in Murshidabad.

    Recent Case:

    • Following violent protests in Murshidabad district against the Waqf (Amendment) Act, a petition was filed to invoke Article 355 in West Bengal.
    • The petitioner argued that the state was experiencing internal disturbances warranting Union intervention.​
    • The Court declined to pass immediate directions but allowed the petitioner to file a detailed application for further consideration. ​

    What is Article 355?

    • Article 355 mandates that the Union Government has the duty to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbances and ensure that the state governments function in accordance with the Constitution.
    • It places responsibilities on the Union Government to maintain constitutional governance in all states.
    • It is often used alongside Article 356 to declare President’s Rule in a state.
    • It does NOT grant separate powers; instead, it operates in conjunction with Article 356 and Article 357.
    • Initially introduced as Article 277A in the Draft Constitution (1949), it clarified the Union’s role in intervening in state matters during exceptional circumstances.
    • Dr. B.R. Ambedkar emphasised that such intervention should not be arbitrary but based on constitutional obligations.
    • Judicial Interpretations:
      1. H.S. Jain v. Union of India (1996): The Supreme Court held that the Union is obligated under Article 355 to ensure state governments operate in line with the Constitution, quashing a state emergency declared under Article 356.
      2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Court ruled that President’s Rule under Article 356 should be used sparingly and only when Union intervention is justified.
      3. Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005): The Court upheld Union intervention under Article 355 due to illegal migration but cautioned against its use without substantial evidence.
    Note: Article 355 does NOT grant separate powers; instead, it operates in conjunction with Articles 356 and 357.

    • Article 356 allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if the governance in that state is not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
    • Article 357 authorizes the President to extend the powers of the Union government to a state under President’s Rule and allows the Union government to exercise executive authority in the state.

     

    [UPSC 2003] Which one of the following Articles of the Indian Constitution provides that ‘It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance’?

    Options: (a) Article 215 (b) Article 275 (c) Article 325 (d) Article 355*

     

  • A welcome move: On Wikipedia and Supreme Court order

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court’s order, which had asked Wikimedia to remove a Wikipedia page due to a defamation case filed by the news agency Asian News International (ANI). The Supreme Court corrected a mistake made by the High Court.

    What was the Supreme Court’s main reason for quashing the Delhi High Court’s order against Wikimedia?

    • Overbroad Takedown Order: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s direction to remove “all false, misleading, and defamatory content” to be too broad and vague. It emphasized that such general orders lack precision and could lead to over-censorship.Eg: Asking to remove an entire Wikipedia page without identifying specific defamatory lines is like banning an entire book over one disputed paragraph.
    • Safe Harbour Protection for Intermediaries: The Court reaffirmed that Wikipedia enjoys safe harbour under the IT Act as an internet intermediary, meaning it is not directly responsible for user-generated content unless a specific violation is pointed out. Eg: Just like social media platforms aren’t liable for every comment made by users, Wikipedia too cannot be penalized without clear proof of harmful content.
    • Need for Specific Pleas: The Bench advised that ANI should file a fresh, specific plea pointing out the exact portions of the content they consider defamatory. This would allow the Court to consider actual harm rather than act on general accusations. Eg: It’s more reasonable to ask a website to remove a sentence that says “X is a fraud” rather than demanding the removal of an entire article about X.

    Why did the Delhi High Court originally ask Wikipedia to take down the page related to ANI?

    • Defamation Claim: The Delhi High Court ruled that the statements on the Wikipedia page were defamatory towards the news agency, Asian News International (ANI). It concluded that the content harmed ANI’s reputation and was therefore damaging. Eg: If an article on Wikipedia falsely claims that ANI is involved in unethical practices, it could damage the agency’s credibility and reputation.
    • Non-Verbatim Reproduction of Sources: The Court stated that the Wikipedia page did not accurately reproduce the references it cited, but rather presented them in a distorted or selective manner, which misrepresented the original information. It emphasized that this misrepresentation contributed to the defamatory nature of the content. Eg: If the page quoted investigative reports but omitted important context, it could lead to a misleading understanding of ANI’s role in the events.
    • Higher Responsibility of Wikipedia: The Court held that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, carries a higher responsibility in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of its content, especially since it’s widely accessed and can influence public perception. It believed that as a trusted platform, Wikipedia should prevent the spread of defamatory or misleading content. Eg: Just like traditional encyclopaedias, Wikipedia should uphold higher standards of verification to avoid spreading misinformation.

    Who is responsible for creating and moderating content on Wikipedia?

    • Wikipedia Users and Volunteers: Users and volunteers create and edit content on Wikipedia by contributing articles and making revisions. Eg: A user with knowledge of climate change might write or update articles related to global warming.
    • Wikipedia Community: Content is moderated by the Wikipedia community through discussions, consensus, and resolving disputes. Eg: If two users disagree on an article, the community helps decide on the final content through discussion or voting.
    • Administrators (Admins): Admins, elected by the community, have special privileges to manage disputes, protect pages, and enforce Wikipedia’s guidelines. Eg: Admins might restrict editing on a page to prevent vandalism, allowing only trusted users to make changes.

    How does Wikipedia usually resolve disputes or “editing wars” over content?

    • Community Discussion and Consensus: Disputes are typically resolved through discussion on the article’s talk page, where editors reach a consensus on the correct content. Eg: If two users disagree on the phrasing of a sentence, they may discuss it on the talk page and come to an agreement.
    • Page Protection: If disputes persist, Wikipedia may protect the page, limiting edits to trusted editors or administrators to prevent further conflicts. Eg: A page on a controversial topic may be locked to prevent constant changes, with only experienced users allowed to make edits.

    What could be the potential consequence of allowing broad takedown orders against platforms like Wikipedia?

    • Censorship and Suppression of Information: Broad takedown orders could lead to censorship, stifling the free flow of information and limiting access to diverse perspectives. Eg: If a controversial topic is targeted, it could lead to entire pages being removed, denying users access to critical information.
    • Chilling Effect on Open Discussion: Such orders could create a chilling effect, discouraging people from contributing to platforms like Wikipedia for fear of legal consequences. Eg: Contributors might avoid writing about sensitive topics like politics or social issues to prevent being involved in legal disputes.
    • Undermining the Platform’s Model: Wikipedia’s model relies on user-generated content and community moderation; broad takedown orders could disrupt this and harm the platform’s collaborative nature. Eg: If Wikipedia faces constant takedown requests, it might have to impose strict content restrictions, altering its open editing structure and reducing the reliability of information.

    Way forward: 

    • Clearer Guidelines and Specificity in Takedown Requests: Courts and platforms should establish clear guidelines for takedown requests, ensuring that only specific defamatory content is targeted rather than broad or vague orders. Eg: Legal requests should identify exact defamatory statements rather than asking for the removal of entire pages.
    •  Strengthening Community Moderation and Accountability: Encourage community-based solutions to resolve disputes, with oversight from trusted administrators, while respecting Wikipedia’s open model. Eg: Wikipedia could enhance its dispute resolution processes and ensure content integrity by empowering its community to handle content concerns collaboratively.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023] What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.

    Linkage: Fundamental right of speech and expression, which is central to the discussion about taking down online content like Wikipedia pages. The Supreme Court’s order emphasizes the need to carefully consider the implications for the free flow of information, a key aspect of freedom of speech.