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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Parliament

  • Women’s political participation in India

    Why in the News?

    There is new data highlighting the widening gap between women voters and women representatives in India’s political system. Over the past six decades, women’s participation in elections has grown dramatically. In the 1967 Lok Sabha elections, female turnout was only 55.5% compared to 66.7% for men, a gap of 11.2 percentage points. This gap steadily narrowed and by 2019 and 2024 elections, women voted at nearly the same rate as men. In several State Assembly elections since the 1980s, women voters have even surpassed men, indicating a profound transformation in India’s electoral landscape.

    Why has women’s voter participation increased significantly in India?

    1. Electoral Inclusion: Women voters now participate at rates comparable to men due to universal franchise and electoral awareness. The gender turnout gap narrowed from 11.2 percentage points in 1967 to near parity by 2019-2024.
    2. Political Mobilisation: Political parties increasingly target women voters through welfare schemes and campaign strategies, encouraging greater turnout.
    3. Improved Literacy and Awareness: Rising female literacy and social awareness have strengthened participation in democratic processes.
    4. State Election Trends: Women’s turnout has exceeded men’s in several State Assembly elections since the 1980s, indicating sustained growth.

    Why does women’s political representation remain low despite high voter participation?

    1. Candidate Nomination Gap: Political parties nominate fewer women candidates despite growing voter participation. Women remain a small minority among total election contestants.
    2. Low Parliamentary Representation: Women constituted only 22 MPs in 1952 and even today remain below 15% in the Lok Sabha.
    3. Nomination Bottleneck: Parties often justify fewer nominations by claiming women candidates are less “electable,” despite evidence showing comparable success rates.
    4. Success Rate Reality: Data shows women candidates often have equal or slightly higher success rates than men, indicating structural barriers rather than electoral disadvantage.

    How do structural and social barriers limit women’s political engagement?

    1. Patriarchal Structures: 22% of surveyed women identified patriarchy as the primary obstacle preventing entry into politics.
    2. Household Responsibilities: 13% cited domestic responsibilities as limiting participation in political activities.
    3. Individual Barriers: 12% reported lack of confidence, awareness, or political exposure as obstacles.
    4. Cultural Norms: 7% identified restrictive social norms as barriers.
    5. Financial Constraints: 6% cited financial barriers, highlighting the cost-intensive nature of electoral politics.
    6. Negative Image of Politics: 3% reported concerns about the perceived negative nature of politics.

    Why do women face constraints in participating in political campaigns?

    1. Permission Requirement:
      1. 64% of women require permission to attend political rallies
      2. 62% require permission to attend candidate meetings
      3. 63% require permission to join protests
      4. 61% require permission to campaign for a candidate
    2. Limited Public Participation: Although women vote in large numbers, their visible engagement in campaigning, mobilization, and political activism remains limited.
    3. Family Influence: 58% believe women with political family backgrounds find it easier to enter politics.

    How do political parties contribute to the gender gap in representation?

    1. Party Bias: 44% believe parties routinely favour men over women candidates, regardless of merit.
    2. Resource Allocation: Male candidates receive greater financial and organizational support.
    3. Political Networking: Male-dominated party structures limit women’s access to political networks and leadership roles.
    4. Candidate Pipeline: Women often lack opportunities to build political careers through party hierarchies.

    What does the data reveal about women MPs and candidate trends?

    1. Gradual Growth: The number of women MPs increased from 22 in 1952 to 78 in 2019, but declined slightly to 74 in 2024.
    2. Candidate Numbers:
      1. 2014: 726 women candidates
      2. 2019: 800 women candidates
      3. 2024: 806 women candidates
    3. Small Share: Despite growth, women candidates remain a small fraction of total contestants.

    Way Forward

    1. Implementation of Women’s Reservation Act: Ensures 33% reservation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, expanding women’s legislative representation.
    2. Political Party Reforms: Introduces mandatory quotas for women candidates in party nominations.
    3. Leadership and Capacity Building: Strengthens training, mentorship, and political leadership programmes for women aspirants.
    4. Financial Support: Provides campaign finance assistance and reduced electoral costs for women candidates.
    5. Leveraging Local Governance: Utilises Panchayati Raj institutions as leadership pipelines for higher political roles.
    6. Social Norm Transformation: Promotes gender-sensitive awareness and education campaigns to address patriarchal barriers.

    Conclusion

    Women’s political participation in India reflects a dual reality of democratic progress and structural exclusion. Electoral participation has reached near gender parity, demonstrating the success of universal franchise and increased political awareness among women. However, this progress has not translated into proportional representation in legislatures or decision-making structures, revealing deep institutional and socio-cultural constraints within the political system.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Discuss the contribution of civil society groups for women’s effective and meaningful participation and representation in state legislatures in India.

    Linkage: The question examines women’s political representation and participation in democratic institutions. The article highlights the paradox of rising women voter turnout but low representation in legislatures, and the need for institutional and societal support mechanisms to enhance women’s participation in politics.

  • Speaker Says MPs Can Speak Only as Per Parliamentary Rules

    Why in the News

    Om Birla stated that every Member of Parliament has the right to speak in the Lok Sabha, but only according to the Constitution, Rules of Procedure, and Standing Orders.
    His remarks came a day after a motion seeking his removal was defeated in the House.

    Constitutional Basis

    • Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Under Article 105 of the Constitution of India:  MPs have freedom of speech in Parliament. However, this freedom is subject to parliamentary rules and procedures.

    Key Parliamentary Rules Governing Speeches

    • Recognition by the Chair: An MP can speak only when recognized by the Speaker. Members cannot stand and speak without permission.
    • Time is allocated based on: Party strength, Business of the House and Decision of the Speaker.
    • Agenda-Based Discussions
      • Members can speak mainly during: Question Hour, Zero Hour, Debates on Bills, Motions and Resolutions, Budget discussions

    Rules of Conduct: 

    • Members must:
      • Address the Chair (Speaker) and not other members directly.
      • Avoid unparliamentary language.
      • Speak only on the subject under discussion.

    Special Procedures

    Certain issues can be raised through specific procedures such as:

    • Adjournment Motion
    • Calling Attention Motion
    • Short Duration Discussion
    • Points of Order

    Role of the Speaker

    The Speaker:

    • Maintains order and discipline in the House.
    • Decides who speaks and for how long.
    • Can expunge remarks or suspend members for disorderly conduct.
    [2025] With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements: I. The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office. II. No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office. III. Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III

  • Lok Sabha Debates Motion to Remove Speaker

    Why in the News

    The Lok Sabha has taken up a resolution moved by Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Om Birla, leading to intense debate between the Treasury and Opposition benches.

    Key Developments

    • The motion was initiated by Congress leaders including Gaurav Gogoi, Mohammad Jawed, K. Suresh, and Mallu Ravi.
    • The Opposition alleged partisan behaviour and lack of neutrality by the Speaker.
    • The government defended the Speaker, with Kiren Rijiju calling the motion an “attack on democracy.”
    • The debate has been allotted 10 hours, after which the House will vote on the motion.
    • Amit Shah is expected to intervene in the debate.

    Procedure for Removal of Lok Sabha Speaker

    The removal of the Speaker is governed by Article 94 of the Constitution of India.

    • Notice of Motion: A written notice must be given at least 14 days in advance.
    • Support for Admission: At least 50 members must support the motion for it to be admitted in the House.
    • Presiding Officer
      • During the discussion, the Speaker does not preside over the House.
      • A member from the Panel of Chairpersons presides instead.
    • Debate and Voting: The motion is debated in the House.
      • It must be passed by a majority of the members present and voting.
    • Outcome: If the motion is passed, the Speaker ceases to hold office immediately.

    Constitutional Significance

    • The Speaker is expected to maintain neutrality and impartiality while conducting proceedings.
    • Removal motions are rare and politically sensitive, as they question the neutrality of the Chair and the functioning of parliamentary democracy.
    [2025] Consider the following statements: I. On the dissolution of the House of the People, the Speaker shall not vacate his/ her office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution. II. According to the provisions of the Constitution of India, a Member of the House of the People on being elected as Speaker shall resign from his/her political party immediately. III. The Speaker of the House of the People may be removed from his/her office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the (then) Members of the House, provided that no resolution shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III

  • [9th March 2026] The Hindu OpED: One Nation, One Election – remedy worse than disease

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2017] ‘Simultaneous election to the Lok Sabha and the State Assemblies will limit the amount of time and money spent in electioneering but it will reduce the government’s accountability to the people’ Discuss.Linkage: This PYQ tests understanding of electoral reforms, parliamentary accountability, and the role of elections in ensuring democratic responsiveness within India’s parliamentary system. It directly relates to the One Nation, One Election debate, where synchronised elections may reduce costs and administrative burden but could weaken continuous democratic accountability and federal political cycles.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on One Nation, One Election (ONOE) has intensified following the introduction of a constitutional amendment proposal based on the High-Level Committee report (2023-24) chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. The proposal suggests synchronising the election cycles of the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies through amendments to Articles 83, 172, and a new Article 82A. The issue has become significant because it proposes a fundamental restructuring of India’s electoral calendar and constitutional functioning.

    What Does the One Nation, One Election Proposal Entail?

    1. Simultaneous electoral cycle: Aligns elections for Lok Sabha and State Assemblies to a single schedule.
    2. Article 82A (Proposed): Enables the President to notify an “appointed date” aligning Assembly terms with the Lok Sabha cycle.
    3. Truncation of legislative tenure: Requires some Assemblies to end their tenure earlier to achieve synchronisation.
    4. Residual tenure rule: If a legislature dissolves early, the newly elected Assembly serves only the remaining term rather than a full five-year term.
    5. Election Commission authority: Grants the Election Commission of India (ECI) power to defer State elections if simultaneous elections are impractical.

    Does Comparative Constitutional Practice Support Simultaneous Elections?

    1. Canada: Conducts separate federal and provincial elections, maintaining independent political cycles.
    2. Australia: State legislatures have fixed four-year terms, while the House of Representatives has a maximum three-year tenure, making synchronisation structurally difficult.
    3. Germany: Stability arises from the Constructive Vote of No Confidence, not from simultaneous elections.
    4. South Africa and Indonesia: Use proportional representation systems, which distribute political power across parties and protect minority voices.
    5. United States analogy: Fixed election cycles function because the executive is insulated from legislative confidence, unlike parliamentary systems.

    How Could Simultaneous Elections Affect Parliamentary Accountability?

    1. Continuous accountability mechanism: Staggered elections maintain ongoing voter oversight of governments.
    2. Feedback loop: Elections across different states allow voters to periodically signal approval or disapproval.
    3. Democratic responsiveness: Frequent elections maintain governments’ dependence on public sentiment, a principle highlighted by James Madison in Federalist No. 52.
    4. Campaign cycles: ONOE may reduce the frequency of elections but risks weakening institutional responsiveness.

    What Problems Arise From the Concept of “Unexpired Term Elections”?

    1. Residual mandate: Newly elected legislatures serve only the remaining tenure rather than a full five-year term.
    2. Reduced electoral legitimacy: Governments formed mid-cycle may lack a fresh democratic mandate.
    3. Policy distortions: Short-term governments may prioritise populist measures rather than structural reforms.
    4. Administrative constraints: The Model Code of Conduct (MCC) and truncated tenure may weaken governance capacity.

    Does the Proposal Threaten India’s Federal Structure?

    1. Basic structure doctrine: The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v. The Union of India affirmed that federalism forms part of the Constitution’s basic structure.
    2. Independent constitutional identity of states: States possess autonomous political cycles and democratic rhythms.
    3. Mandate truncation risk: Aligning electoral cycles may prematurely terminate state mandates.
    4. Central discretion: Proposed Article 82A(5) enables the ECI to defer State elections without clear criteria.

    Could the Proposal Enable Constitutional Misuse?

    1. Presidential Rule extension risk: If a State government falls mid-term, elections could be deferred to maintain synchronisation.
    2. Article 356 safeguards: Currently restrict President’s Rule to one year (extendable only during emergencies with ECI certification).
    3. Governance by Governor: Deferred elections could result in prolonged governance through central authority.
    4. Judicial precedent: In NJAC Case, the Court held that constitutional validity depends on institutional design, not on assumptions of benign use.

    Is the Fiscal Argument Strong Enough to Justify the Reform?

    1. Election expenditure scale: Combined Lok Sabha and Assembly elections cost about ₹4,500 crore (0.25% of Union Budget).
    2. GDP proportion: Electoral spending accounts for roughly 0.03% of GDP.
    3. Historical data: Lok Sabha election expenditure historically ranged between 0.02-0.05% of GDP (1957-2014).
    4. Administrative flexibility: Elections conducted in phases allow the ECI to rotate EVMs, VVPATs, and security forces.
    5. Resource burden: Simultaneous elections could require significantly greater logistical capacity.

    Conclusion

    The proposal for simultaneous elections attempts to streamline electoral administration but risks distorting constitutional balance. India’s parliamentary democracy is built on continuous accountability, federal autonomy, and flexible electoral cycles. A reform that truncates mandates, centralises electoral timing, and alters democratic rhythms may weaken rather than strengthen democratic governance.

  • Cabinet’s nod to rename Kerala as Keralam

    Why in the News?

    The Union Cabinet approved the proposal to alter the name of Kerala to “Keralam” under Article 3 of the Constitution. The proposal follows unanimous resolutions passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly in 2023 and 2024. The Centre will now refer the Bill to the State Legislature for views before Parliamentary approval. The change aligns the English name with its Malayalam usage and corrects what the state considers a historical anomaly in the First Schedule of the Constitution.

    The development also contrasts with stalled demands such as West Bengal’s proposal to rename itself as Bangla. This raised questions about uniformity and political considerations in Centre-State relations.

    How does Article 3 of the Constitution regulate alteration of state names, and what does it reveal about federal balance?

    1. Article 3 Provision: Empowers Parliament to form new states, alter boundaries, or change names of existing states.
    2. Presidential Reference: Requires the President to refer the Bill to the concerned State Legislature for its views. The President must refer the bill to the state legislature within a specified period.
    3. Non-Binding Opinion: State Legislature’s views are not binding on Parliament. Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon the views of the state legislature.
    4. Parliamentary Supremacy: Final decision rests with Parliament through simple majority.
    5. Constitutional Amendment Not Required: Change of name does not require Article 368 amendment; modification of First Schedule suffices.

    Article 3 demonstrates that India is an “indestructible Union of destructible states”. It highlights a unitary bias within the federal structure. This is because the Parliament can unilaterally reorganize the territory of a state without its consent, prioritizing national administrative and political considerations over state autonomy

    What historical and linguistic factors underpin the demand to rename Kerala as ‘Keralam’?

    1. Linguistic Identity: “Keralam” is the Malayalam name of the state.
    2. State Reorganisation (1956): Formed on 1 November 1956 under the States Reorganisation Act on linguistic basis.
    3. First Schedule Anomaly: English name “Kerala” differs from Malayalam usage.
    4. Assembly Resolutions (2023 & 2024): Unanimously passed resolutions requesting amendment under Article 3.
    5. Kerala Piravi Day: Observed on 1 November marking linguistic reorganisation.

    What governance and administrative implications arise from renaming a state?

    1. Statutory Changes: Requires amendments in central and state laws referencing the state name.
    2. Administrative Revisions: Updating official records, seals, stationery, digital platforms.
    3. Financial Implications: Expenditure on branding, documentation, and communication.
    4. Diplomatic Communication: Change to be reflected in official communications and treaties.
    5. Public Identity Alignment: Harmonises constitutional name with linguistic usage.

    How does this development fit within India’s broader history of renaming and identity politics?

    1. Bombay to Maharashtra (1960): Linguistic reorganisation.
    2. Madras to Tamil Nadu (1969): Cultural assertion.
    3. Orissa to Odisha (2011): Corrected anglicised spelling via constitutional amendment.
    4. Uttaranchal to Uttarakhand (2007): Regional identity assertion.
    5. West Bengal-Bangla Demand: Illustrates pending identity-based renaming request.

    Conclusion

    The proposal to rename Kerala as “Keralam” reflects the dynamic character of Indian federalism, where linguistic identity operates within a clearly defined constitutional framework. Article 3 balances parliamentary supremacy with consultative federalism, ensuring that state aspirations are processed through institutional mechanisms rather than political discretion alone. The development underscores the continuing relevance of linguistic reorganisation in post-independence India and highlights the need for consistency, transparency, and procedural integrity in handling similar demands. Ultimately, the episode reaffirms that constitutional flexibility remains central to accommodating identity-based aspirations within the unity of the Indian Union

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How far do you think cooperation, competition and confrontation have shaped the nature of federation in India? Cite some recent examples to validate your answer.

    Linkage: It tests the dynamic nature of Indian federalism under GS II (Centre-State Relations), focusing on cooperative and competitive dimensions within constitutional design. It links directly to developments like the Article 3 process for renaming Kerala as “Keralam,” GST negotiations, and Centre-State disputes over governors and fiscal devolution.

  • SC Expands Judicial Team for West Bengal Special Intensive Revision

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India expanded the pool of judicial officers assisting the Election Commission of India in completing the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

    Background

    • Around 50 lakh claims and objections were pending.
    • Voters were excluded due to “logical discrepancies” or “unmapping” in draft rolls.
    • 294 district and additional district judges were initially deployed.
    • The Calcutta High Court Chief Justice flagged manpower shortage.
      • The Supreme Court earlier took the “extraordinary” step of involving the judiciary in the SIR process due to a perceived trust deficit between the State government and the EC.

    Key Directions by the Supreme Court

    1. Expansion of Judicial Officers

    • Permitted deployment of civil judges (senior and junior division) with at least three years’ experience.
    • Allowed the Calcutta High Court Chief Justice to request judges from:
      • Jharkhand High Court
      • Orissa High Court
    • Both neighbouring High Courts were asked to consider such requests sympathetically.

    2. Verification Process

    • Verification to follow EC’s October 27, 2025 SIR notification.
    • Accepted documents include:
      • Aadhaar
      • Class 10 admit card
      • Class 10 pass certificate

    3. Publication of Electoral Rolls

    • EC permitted to publish voter list on February 28, 2026.
    • Supplementary lists to be issued continuously till nomination filing.
    • Under Article 142, the Court declared that voters added in supplementary lists would be deemed part of the final roll.

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    • Article 324: Gives superintendence, direction and control of elections to the Election Commission.
    • Article 142: Empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing complete justice.
    [2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following? (a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law. 

    (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament. 

    (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet. 

    (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

  • On the independence of EC

    Why in the News?

    The independence of Election Commission of India as an issue has resurfaced following allegations of large-scale irregularities in electoral rolls, particularly during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, where nearly 65 lakh voters were reportedly deleted. The Opposition has moved a resolution seeking removal of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), marking a rare and politically significant development. The controversy also follows the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which altered the appointment process after the Supreme Court’s intervention in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).

    Does Article 324 Provide Adequate Constitutional Safeguards for Electoral Autonomy?

    1. Constitutional Mandate: The Election Commission of India derives authority from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Ensures centralized electoral authority insulated from executive interference.
    2. Security of Tenure: CEC removal follows procedure identical to Supreme Court judges under Article 124(4). Ensures high threshold for removal.
    3. Protection of Conditions of Service: Service conditions cannot be varied to disadvantage after appointment. Prevents executive pressure.
    4. Institutional Permanence: Establishes ECI as a constitutional body, not a statutory authority. Strengthens structural autonomy.

    How Has the 2023 Appointment Law Altered the Balance Between Executive and Institutional Independence?

    1. Legislative Intervention: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced earlier executive practice. Regulates appointment and removal.
    2. Selection Committee Composition: Includes Prime Minister, Union Minister, and Leader of Opposition. Excludes Chief Justice of India (as mandated temporarily in Anoop Baranwal judgment).
    3. Judicial Background: Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed inclusion of CJI until Parliament enacted a law. Strengthened interim institutional balance.
    4. Subsequent Change: Parliament removed CJI from the selection panel. Raises concerns regarding executive dominance.
    5. Institutional Impact: Alters equilibrium between executive participation and perceived neutrality.

    Do Allegations Regarding Electoral Roll Revisions Indicate Structural Weaknesses in Electoral Administration?

    1. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Conducted to update voter rolls. Ensures accuracy and elimination of duplication.
    2. Reported Deletions: Approximately 65 lakh voters allegedly deleted in Bihar during SIR exercise. Raises questions regarding procedural safeguards.
    3. Democratic Significance: Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise. Voter deletion directly affects representational legitimacy.
    4. Administrative Transparency: Requires verification, notice, and opportunity to respond. Ensures natural justice.
    5. Institutional Credibility: Large-scale deletion without adequate communication undermines public trust.

    What Is the Constitutional Procedure for Removal of the CEC and Other Commissioners?

    1. CEC Removal: Follows impeachment-like process under Article 324(5) read with Article 124(4). Requires special majority in Parliament.
    2. Other Commissioners: Removable on recommendation of CEC. Ensures hierarchical internal protection.
    3. Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 Framework: Provides investigative procedure in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity.
    4. Parliamentary Safeguard: High voting threshold prevents arbitrary removal.
    5. Accountability Mechanism: Balances independence with constitutional responsibility.

    Does Political Contestation Around the ECI Undermine Democratic Legitimacy?

    1. Bipartisan Respect: Constitutional bodies require cross-party legitimacy. Strengthens democratic culture.
    2. Opposition’s Motion: Indicates political dissatisfaction. Signals institutional strain.
    3. Majoritarian Context: Removal unlikely without sufficient parliamentary majority. Demonstrates structural protection.
    4. Rule of Law Principle: Ensures allegations are examined within a constitutional framework.
    5. Public Confidence: Perceived politicisation reduces electoral credibility.

    How Does the Doctrine of Basic Structure Protect the Election Commission?

    1. Basic Structure Doctrine: Free and fair elections form part of the basic structure (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
    2. Judicial Review: Courts can intervene if legislative action undermines electoral fairness.
    3. Constitutional Morality: Requires institutions to operate beyond partisan interests.
    4. Separation of Powers: Prevents concentration of electoral authority under executive control.

    Conclusion

    The constitutional architecture provides significant safeguards for the Election Commission’s independence. However, institutional credibility depends not only on legal protections but also on transparent processes, bipartisan trust, and adherence to constitutional morality. Ensuring free and fair elections remains foundational to India’s democratic order.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?

    Linkage: It tests institutional accountability and public trust in elections, aligning with concerns over electoral roll revision and legitimacy.

  • [23rd February 2026] The Hindu OpED: Parliament’s historic law; an extended wait for women

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] The reservation of seats for women in the institutions of local self-government has had a limited impact on the patriarchal character of the Indian Political Process.” Comment.Linkage: It provides an analytical foundation to evaluate whether the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 for Parliamentary reservation will ensure substantive gender justice or replicate proxy representation seen in Panchayati Raj institutions.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (Women’s Reservation Act, 2023) was projected as a landmark reform in India’s constitutional history. However, its implementation has been tied to the post-Census delimitation process, effectively postponing operationalisation until at least 2034. The debate raises critical questions of constitutional design, political incentives, federal balance, and institutional accountability. This issue is central to GS Paper II (Polity & Governance) and also intersects with representation, federalism, and social justice.

    Why in the News?

    Parliament passed the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 in September 2023, guaranteeing 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for the first time in independent India’s constitutional history. The earlier Women’s Reservation Bills (1996 onwards) repeatedly lapsed despite Rajya Sabha passage in 2010. The 2023 Act was hailed as a historic correction to India’s low female representation (about 15% in Lok Sabha). However, the Act mandates implementation only after the first Census conducted post-2026 and subsequent delimitation. Given that delimitation may conclude around 2032-33, reservation may operate only from the 2034 general election. The reform therefore represents a constitutional milestone accompanied by an operational deferment.

    What are the key provisions of the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023?

    1. Reservation Mechanism: One-third (33%) of seats are reserved for women in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
    2. SC/ST Inclusion: The reservation includes a sub-quota for women from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) within their respective reserved seat categories.
    3. Effective Date: The quota will take effect after the first census conducted following the Act’s commencement is published and the subsequent delimitation exercise is completed.
    4. Rotation of Seats: Seats reserved for women will be rotated after each delimitation exercise.
    5. Duration: The provision is valid for 15 years from its implementation, with potential for extension by Parliament.

    Constitutional Articles:

    1. Article 330A: Adds reservation for women in the Lok Sabha.
    2. Article 332A: Adds reservation for women in State Assemblies.
    3. Article 334A: Sets the timeline for commencement and expiry (sunset clause). It provides that reservation shall come into effect after delimitation and remain for 15 years (subject to extension).

    Why Has Implementation Been Linked to Census and Delimitation?

    1. Article 82 Requirement: Mandates delimitation after each Census.
    2. Sequential Process: Census to Publication to Delimitation Commission to Redrawing constituencies.
    3. Census Schedule: Next Census to be conducted after 2026 (likely 2027).
    4. Time Lag: Data verification and delimitation historically take 4-6 years.
    5. Outcome: Reservation operational only after delimitation, possibly 2034.

    Does the Delimitation Linkage Reflect Political Incentive Structuring?

    1. Seat Conversion Impact: One-third of 543 Lok Sabha seats (~181 seats) would become women-only if implemented immediately.
    2. Incumbent Displacement: Large-scale replacement of sitting male legislators.
    3. Expansion Strategy: Delimitation may increase total seats to around 800-888, absorbing reservation without eliminating incumbents.
    4. Political Risk Mitigation: Expansion diffuses electoral shock.

    How Does Delimitation Intersect with Federal Balance and Population Politics?

    1. 1976 Freeze: Seat redistribution frozen to protect States that controlled population growth.
    2. Post-2026 Redistribution: High-growth States gain proportional representation.
    3. North-South Tension: Southern States risk relative seat reduction.
    4. Gender Justice Entanglement: Women’s representation linked to unresolved inter-state distribution debate.

    What Design and Implementation Gaps Persist in the Amendment?

    1. Absence of OBC Sub-Quota: No reservation for OBC women despite OBC women forming significant demographic share.
    2. Rotation Mechanism Ambiguity: No clarity on frequency or methodology of constituency rotation.
    3. Upper House Exclusion: No application to Rajya Sabha or Legislative Councils.
    4. Operational Rules Pending: Absence of procedural clarity increases scope for litigation and administrative uncertainty.

    What Are the Governance and Institutional Implications?

    1. Delayed Representation: Constitutional right deferred.
    2. Symbolic vs Substantive Reform: Law passed without immediate enforceability.
    3. Institutional Accountability: Parliament controls amendment pathway for decoupling reservation from delimitation.
    4. Democratic Legitimacy: Extended delay risks weakening reform credibility.

    Conclusion

    The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 institutionalises gender parity within legislative representation. However, by linking implementation to future delimitation, it defers substantive equality. Timely operationalisation is essential to align constitutional promise with democratic practice.

  • National Song Guidelines Issued by Government of India

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Home Affairs has reiterated guidelines regarding the playing and singing of the National Song, including procedural aspects such as drum roll before band performance and mass singing protocols.

    What are the Special Orders

    • The Government of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, has issued executive instructions regulating the manner in which the National Song Vande Mataram may be played and sung on official and significant occasions.
    • These are executive guidelines issued under Article 73 of the Constitution, not under any specific Act of Parliament.

    Key Provisions

    • Playing by Band: When played by a band, the National Song should be preceded by a roll of drums to alert the audience, unless another clear indication is given.
    • Official Version: Only the official version should be used. It should be accompanied by mass singing on occasions such as
      • Unfurling of the National Flag
      • Cultural or ceremonial functions other than parades
      • A trained choir may be arranged to coordinate with the band. Adequate public address systems should be ensured. Printed lyrics may be circulated where required.
    • Other Significant Occasions: It may be sung on occasions invested with significance due to the presence of Ministers or dignitaries. There is no exhaustive list of such occasions. Respect and proper decorum must always be maintained.
    • In Schools: The day may begin with community singing of the National Song. School authorities should promote respect for
      • National Song
      • National Anthem
      • National Flag

    Constitutional and Legal Position

    • The National Song is not mentioned in the Constitution of India.
    • There is no law mandating compulsory singing.
    • It does not have statutory protection similar to the National Anthem under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
    [2023] Consider the following statements in respect of the National Flag of India according to the Flag Code of India, 2002: Statement-I: One of the standard sizes of the National Flag of India is 600 mm × 400 mm. 

    Statement-II: The ratio of the length to the height (width) of the Flag shall be 3 : 2. 

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? 

    (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I 

    (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I 

    (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect 

    (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

  • Motion to Remove Lok Sabha Speaker: Constitutional & Procedural Aspects

    Why in the News?

    • Om Birla has decided not to preside over proceedings of the Lok Sabha until the Opposition’s notice seeking his removal is processed. The notice alleges partisan conduct during House proceedings.
    • Meanwhile, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju released footage alleging disorderly conduct by Opposition MPs near the Prime Minister’s seat.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 93: Provides for election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha.
    • Under Article 94 of the Constitution of India, a Speaker of the Lok Sabha can be removed by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the House (effective majority).
    • Article 95: When the office of the Speaker is vacant or the Speaker is absent, the Deputy Speaker performs the duties.

    Notice Requirement

    • A minimum of 14 days’ notice must be given.
    • The notice must be signed by at least 50 Members of Parliament.
      • This requirement comes from the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, not directly from the Constitution.

    Procedure for Removal

    1. Written notice signed by required number of MPs.
    2. Secretary General examines admissibility.
    3. After 14 days, motion may be taken up.
    4. Speaker does not preside during discussion of the motion.
    5. Requires effective majority of the House.
    [2024] With reference to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, consider the following statements: While any resolution for the removal of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is under consideration: 

    1. He/She shall not preside. 

    2. He/She shall not have the right to speak. 

    3. He/She shall not be entitled to vote on the resolution in the first instance. 

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

    (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3