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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US constitution.

    Secularism implies the separation of religion from the State and equal treatment of all faiths.

    While the Indian Constitution follows the Principled Distance Model, the US Constitution establishes a strict wall of separation between religion and the State.

    India as a Secular State

    Constitutional Basis: Secularism is enshrined in the Preamble (added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976) and Articles 25-28 ensuring freedom of religion.

    Objective: To promote religious harmony and inclusive coexistence in a multi-faith society.

    Core Features:

    Freedom of conscience and religion (Art. 25).

    Right to manage religious affairs (Art. 26).

    Freedom from religious instruction in State institutions (Art. 28).

    State neutrality and equal respect for all religions.

    Positive Secularism: The State can intervene in religion to uphold social reform and equality-e.g., Abolition of untouchability (Art. 17), Temple Entry Acts, S.R. Bommai (1994) upheld secularism as a basic feature.

    Similarities with US secularism

    Constitutional Guarantee: India – Articles 25-28, US – First Amendment (1791).

    No State Religion: Neither India nor the US recognizes any official State religion.

    Religious Freedom: Citizens enjoy freedom of conscience, belief, and worship in both countries.

    Equality Before Law: Both uphold non-discrimination on religious grounds and equal protection under law (India – Art. 14; US – 14th Amendment).

    Judicial Enforcement: The Supreme Courts in both countries act as guardians of secular principles (S.R. Bommai, Everson v. Board).

    Protection from Religious Domination: Both prevent majoritarian religious influence over State policy.

    Democratic Pluralism: Both promote tolerance, coexistence, and religious pluralism as part of democratic ethos.

    Differences

    Both India and the US uphold freedom of religion, but their approaches differ-India’s secularism is inclusive and reformative, suited to its plural society, while the US model is exclusionary and separationist, reflecting its individualist liberal tradition.

  • Explain the reasons for the growth of public interest litigation in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

    Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a judicial mechanism that allows any public-spirited individual or organization to approach the court on behalf of others for the enforcement of fundamental or legal rights. It evolved in India as a tool of “social action litigation”, expanding the reach of justice under Article 32 and 226.

    Objectives PIL

    Accessibility of Justice

    Government Accountability

    Judicial Oversight

    Rule of Law and Balance

    Reasons for the Growth of PIL in India

    Historical Reasons- Postcolonial India witnessed deep social inequality and poverty. PIL emerged as a tool for social transformation and distributive justice.

    Liberalization of Locus Standi- Shift from “personally aggrieved” to “any public-spirited citizen” can file a case.

    Judicial Activism- Post-Emergency judiciary reasserted itself as the guardian of rights and liberties. Eg- Justice Krishna Iyer first introduced the idea of public interest litigation in India in Mumbai Kamagar Sabha v. Abdul Thai in 1976.

    Decline of Parliament- Legislative inefficiency and lack of responsiveness to social issues. Eg- Visaka Guidelines

    Rise of Civil Society Activism- Growth of NGOs, media, and human rights groups. Began using PILs to advance environmental, social, and human rights causes. Eg- Right to livelihood under Article 32 in Bandhua Mukti Morcha judgment

    Executive Overreach and Inaction- Bureaucratic corruption, maladministration, and policy failures prompted the judiciary to step in as a corrective mechanism. Eg- Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997) – CBI accountability case.

    Global Factors- Comparative judicial trends (e.g., U.S. public interest litigation) inspired Indian legal activism.

    Constitutional Powers and Design- Directive Principles of State Policy (Part IV) provided moral backing for socio-economic justice through judicial intervention.

    Expansion of Fundamental Rights- Courts interpreted Article 21 broadly – including right to livelihood, education, health, and clean environment (Olga Tellis, 1985; M.C. Mehta, 1986).

    Indian Supreme Court as the world’s most powerful judiciary

    Arguments in Favour

    Widest Judicial Review Powers- Can strike down laws, executive actions, and even constitutional amendments under Articles 13, 32, and 226. Eg- NJAC verdict

    Suo Motu Jurisdiction- Eg- SC took suo motu cognizance of COVID-19 Migrant Crisis (2020).

    Epistolary Jurisdiction- Allows letters/postcards as petitions, widening access to justice. Eg- Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) – Letter treated as habeas corpus.

    Expansion of Fundamental Rights- Eg- Puttaswamy (2017) – Right to Privacy recognized as a Fundamental Right.

    Judicial Oversight on Policy- Eg- Vishaka Guidelines (1997) – Workplace sexual harassment norms framed by the SC.

    Legislative powers under Article 141 and Executive powers under Article 142. Eg- SC judgment on government’s veto power

    Moral and Institutional Legitimacy- Eg- Navtej Johar (2018) – Decriminalized homosexuality on grounds of dignity and liberty.

    Arguments Against

    Judicial Overreach- Encroachment into executive and legislative domains. Eg- SC ban on firecrackers was criticized for overreach.

    Weak Enforcement Capacity- Eg- Prakash Singh Police Reforms (2006) – Non-compliance by most states.

    Frivolous or Politically Motivated PILs increase pendency (more than 5Cr cases pending) Eg- Misuse in Election-related PILs delaying legitimate processes.

    Lack of Judicial Accountability- Eg- In-House Inquiry (Justice Ramaswamy case) exposed inadequacies in judicial discipline.

    Opaque Collegium System- criticised for lack of transparency and nepotism. Eg- uncle judge syndrome (law commission)

    Inconsistency and Selective Intervention- Uneven judicial response to similar issues affects credibility. Eg- Contrasting stances in Bail cases.

    Frequent judicial intrusion weakens separation of powers.

    Way Forward

    Institutional Restraint- Judiciary must uphold separation of powers

    Enforce strict scrutiny of PILs to prevent misuse for personal, political, or publicity motives.

    Develop a judgment-monitoring mechanism to ensure effective execution of court orders

    Promote constitutional literacy and encourage responsible use of judicial remedies by citizens.

    Dedicated PIL Cells in High Courts

    As Justice J.S. Verma cautioned, “Judicial activism must not become judicial adventurism.” Thus, judicial activism must be balanced with Judicial Restraint.

  • Explain and distinguish between Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals. Whether they entertain civil as well as criminal cases ?

    Both Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals are alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms aimed at ensuring speedy, cost-effective, and accessible justice, reducing the burden on regular courts.

    Objectives of Lok Adalats and Arbitration Tribunals

    Speedy Justice Delivery

    Reduction in Judicial Burden

    Cost-Effective Dispute Resolution

    Encourage conciliation, compromise, and mutual agreement between disputing parties.

    Access to Justice (Article 39A)

    Procedural Flexibility

    Difference between Lok Adalats And Arbitration Tribunals

    Jurisdiction Over Civil and Criminal Cases

    Lok Adalats

    Can hear civil cases such as family disputes, land or property matters.

    Non-compoundable offences (e.g., murder, rape, theft) are outside its jurisdiction.

    Arbitration Tribunals

    Civil Jurisdiction – Deal with contractual, commercial, and property disputes arising from an agreement between parties.

    Have no jurisdiction over criminal cases since criminal liability is non-contractual and involves offences against the State.

    Both Lok Adalats and Administrative Tribunals ensure access to speedy justice under Article 39A. Their effective functioning is essential to ensure justice is neither delayed nor denied.

  • “The duty of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not merely to ensure the legality of expenditure but also its propriety.” Comment.

    The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), established under Article 148 of the Constitution, is the guardian of the public purse.
    While legality focuses on whether expenditure is made according to law, propriety examines whether such expenditure is justified, prudent, and in the public interest.

    Ensuring Legality of Expenditure

    Ensures all expenditures are authorized by Parliament or State Legislature through Appropriation Acts.

    Verifies that funds are drawn from the Consolidated Fund only under proper sanction.

    Checks compliance with financial rules, codes, and delegated authorities.

    Prevents unauthorized re-appropriation or excess expenditure beyond approved limits.

    Eg- CAG’s audit of defence expenditure.

    Ensuring Propriety of Expenditure

    Examines whether expenditure is necessary, justifiable, and in the public interest – Ensures Responsible Use of Public Funds

    Prevents Misuse – Evaluates waste, extravagance, or favouritism even if legally permissible.

    Strengthens spirit of financial responsibility – Questions whether spending ensures value for money and meets ethical standards of governance.

    Promotes a culture of fiscal morality and prudence in the use of public funds.

    Strengthens Parliamentary Control and oversight with insights on ethical and prudent financial management

    Examples of Propriety Concerns Highlighted by CAG

    2G Spectrum Allocation (2010)

    Commonwealth Games (2010)

    Coal Block Allocations (2012)- Identified procedural irregularities and favoritism

    “The CAG is the conscience-keeper of public finance, ensuring not only lawful but also wise spending.” – 2nd ARC

  • What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.

    As per Granville Austin, India is a “cooperative federalism” model, where Centre and States are bound in a “seamless web” to achieve socio-economic revolution. The recent changes highlight the spirit of ‘competitive-cooperative federalism’.

    Recent Changes in Centre-State Relations

    Legislative

    Farm Acts, 2020 – Parliament legislated in agriculture (State subject) under Concurrent List.

    GNCTD (Amendment) Act, 2021 – Enhanced LG’s powers in Delhi.

    All India Services rules amendment – Greater Centre control over deputation/discipline.

    Executive / Institutional

    Governor-State tensions – Delayed assent to bills (TN, Kerala, WB).

    Pandemic handling – Centralised lockdown and restrictions.

    Revival of Inter-State Council

    NITI Aayog – Replaced Planning Commission

    Financial

    15th Finance Commission – New devolution formula using 2011 census and performance criteria.

    GST Council – Extended GST compensation cess.

    Rise in cess & surcharges – increased from 10.4% in 2011-12 to 20% in 2021-22.

    Conditional borrowing – Linked to reforms under FRBM/Art. 293.

    Issues in Centre-State Relations

    Financial Issues

    Cesses & surcharges not shared with States.

    Special category status demand – Bihar, Andhra Pradesh.

    Finance Commission TOR – (e.g., use of 2011 Census penalising southern States).

    GST regime – Delayed compensation, reduced fiscal autonomy.

    Administrative Issues

    Governor’s appointment & dismissal (Art. 156) – Often politically motivated

    Control over All India Services

    Central agencies’ overreach – CBI, ED, NIA operating in States without consent.

    Legislative Issues

    Encroachment on State List – use of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and Disaster Management Act, 2005 in public health (a State subject).

    Measures to Build Trust & Strengthen Federalism

    Sarkaria Commission (1983-88)

    Inter-State Council (Art. 263) to be activated as a permanent forum for consultation.

    Governor’s role – should be impartial; appointment in consultation with CM.

    Centre’s use of Art. 356 – to be a measure of last resort.

    All India Services – joint consultation in rules of recruitment, posting, and deputation.

    Punchhi Commission (2007-10)

    Clear guidelines for Governor’s office – fixed tenure, limited discretion, no arbitrary withholding of assent to bills.

    Concurrent List – reduce overlap by greater consultation before Union laws are enacted.

    National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2000)

    Decentralisation – strengthen local bodies and fiscal devolution.

    Inter-Governmental Forums – regular meetings between PM and CMs to resolve disputes.

    Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC, 2005-09)

    Neutral federal institutions – e.g., CBI under Lokpal for credibility, not political misuse.

    Fiscal federalism – ensure predictability in devolution; reduce tied grants in Centrally Sponsored Schemes.

    Finance Commission Recommendations

    Suggested GST Council as a true federal forum for resolving fiscal disputes.

    “Federalism is not a monolith; it is a dialogue between self-rule and shared rule.” Thus, such Acts must be exercised with consultation and cooperation.

  • 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.

    “Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity.” – Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

    The Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) declared that Right to Privacy is intrinsic to Right to Life and Personal Liberty under Article 21.

    Scope of Right to Privacy (post-Puttaswamy)

    Informational Privacy – Protection of personal data, Aadhaar details, medical records, online footprints.

    Decisional Autonomy – Eg- Navtej Singh Johar (2018) decriminalised same-sex relations.

    Bodily Integrity – Eg- Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) recognised reproductive choice.

    Family, Marriage & Relationships – Eg- Shafin Jahan v. Asokan (2018, Hadiya case) upheld interfaith marriage choice.

    Reproductive Rights – Eg- in X v. Principal Secretary, Health case (2022), SC allowed abortion for unmarried women under MTP Act.

    Digital Privacy – Protection against surveillance, right to internet access, and data protection in cyberspace. Eg- Aadhar Judgment

    However, Privacy is not absolute and subject to Reasonable Restrictions

    Test of Proportionality – Puttaswamy (2017) –

    Legality – sanctioned by law, with a just, fair, and reasonable procedure.

    Legitimate Aim – e.g., national security, public health.

    Proportionality – The nature, method, and extent of interference must be proportionate to the purpose sought.

    Arguments in Favour of DNA Testing

    Truth and Justice – Ensures scientific accuracy in resolving paternity disputes. Eg – Goutam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) allowed DNA in exceptional cases.

    Child’s Right to Identity – Establishing paternity secures child’s dignity and identity under Article 21.

    Preventing Fraud – Avoids false claims in inheritance, custody, or maintenance disputes.

    Criminal Justice Support – DNA helps in rape and assault cases, strengthening convictions.

    International Standards – Aligns with UNCRC’s recognition of a child’s right to know parents.

    Arguments Against DNA Testing

    Privacy of Parents – Supreme Court in 2025 held that DNA cannot be used for “roving inquiries into paternity.”

    Right to Dignity – Privacy includes the right to be left alone; forceful DNA tests intrude into intimate decisions

    Genetic information = core privacy – DNA reveals “a person’s very essence” and is part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.

    Potential Misuse – DNA demands in marital disputes may be used to harass women and allege infidelity.

    Mother’s dignity – Forced DNA tests also harm the reputation and dignity of mothers, by casting aspersions on fidelity.

    Presumption of Legitimacy – Section 112, Indian Evidence Act presumes legitimacy of child born in wedlock.

    Child’s dignity – Children cannot be treated as material objects in divorce battles; they have a right not to have their legitimacy frivolously questioned.

    UN Convention on Rights of the Child – Recognises privacy, autonomy and identity as core entitlements of children.

    Thus, the doctrine of ‘Eminent Need’ and ‘Last resort’ (Family courts should order DNA tests only in rare, expedient cases) is essential to balance a child’s right to identity with parents’ dignity and privacy.

  • Analyse the role of local bodies in providing good governance at local level and bring out the pros and cons merging the rural local bodies with the urban local bodies.

    73rd and 74th CAA are the embodiment of grass-root democracy and democratic decentralization in India. They are inspired by Gandhiji’s concept of “Oceanic Circles of Power” and “Swaraj”.

    Role of Local Bodies in Ensuring Good Governance

    Citizen Participation in planning and decision-making through Gram Sabhas and Ward Committees. Eg- Kerala’s people plan campaign

    Transparency- Eg- Social audits under MGNREGA enhance transparency in fund utilization.

    Accountability- Elected representatives are directly answerable to citizens.

    Effectiveness and Efficiency- Proximity to citizens allows timely service delivery in areas like sanitation, water supply, and waste management.

    Equity and Inclusion through reservation for SCs, STs, OBCs, and women. Eg- Women’s Representation at 46.44%

    Responsiveness during Disasters. Eg- COVID-19 management and disaster relief in Kerala.

    Rule of Law- Local bodies function under constitutional and legal mandates of the 73rd and 74th Amendments, ensuring lawful governance.

    Consensus-Oriented Governance- Gram Sabhas and District Planning Committees promote coordination and collective decision-making.

    Sustainability- service delivery in waste recycling and water conservation. Eg- Hiware Bazar Model of watershed development.

    Challenges

    “PRIs exist as over-structured but underpowered organisations.” (2nd ARC)

    No decentralisation of power, rather decentralisation of corruption – Mani Shankar Iyer Committee

    Limited own-source revenue- Poor tax collection efficiency (>1% own tax).

    Incomplete devolution- less than 20% of States have transferred all 29 subjects under 11th Schedule (MoPR, 2022). (​​overall Panchayat Devolution Index is only 43.89% (2021-22))

    Weak Gram Sabhas- Low participation, elite domination, and token meetings.

    Gender and social barriers leading to proxy control. (Sarpanch Pati)

    Pros of Merging Rural and Urban Local Bodies

    Integrated Regional Planning – Addresses rurban challenges and ensures seamless infrastructure and service delivery.

    Uniform Standards of Governance – Streamlines policies, taxation, and land-use planning.

    Efficient Resource Utilization – Shared funding and manpower reduce duplication.

    Better Management of Peri-Urban Areas – Urban expansion can be better planned and regulated.

    Cons of Merging Rural and Urban Local Bodies

    Dilution of Constitutional Intent under 73rd and 74th Amendments.

    Political Resistance – Power redistribution may face bureaucratic and political opposition.

    Administrative Complexity due to different laws, tax systems, and governance mechanisms.

    Urban areas may dominate resource allocation and decision-making.

    Local bodies are the cornerstones of participatory democracy and good governance. A functional convergence, not structural merger, aligns better with India’s constitutional vision of decentralization.

  • “The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy.” Elucidate.

    The Cabinet system, a legacy of the British parliamentary model, is based on the principle of collective responsibility of the executive to the Legislature. However, the growth of the Cabinet system has concentrated power in the hands of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers.

    Cabinet System Marginalising Parliamentary Supremacy

    Party Whip curtails independence of MPs, limiting free deliberation.

    Ordinance Power (Articles 123 & 213) bypasses legislative scrutiny.

    Prime Ministerial Supremacy due to centralisation of authority in PMO.

    Decline of Private Members’ Bills – The last such Bill was passed in 1970.

    Weak Legislative Scrutiny – Increasing absenteeism, fewer sittings, and guillotining of Demands for Grants.

    Decline of parliamentary Committees have weakened executive accountability.

    Coalition Politics results in bargaining politics instead of genuine legislative oversight.

    However, parliamentary control over executive can also be seen

    Executive Accountability – collective responsibility to Parliament under Article 75(3).

    Financial Oversight – Finance committees scrutinise government expenditure. Eg- PAC review of GST framework

    Budgetary Control (Art. 112) through Demands for Grants, and Appropriation Acts.

    Opposition’s Role – Eg- Farm Laws withdrawal.

    Role in Foreign Policy – Eg- debate on Civil Nuclear Deal with the US.

    Way Forward

    Publish Annual Parliamentary Calendar (NCRWC)

    Adopt Shadow Cabinet Model of UK, to institutionalise constructive opposition oversight.

    Allocate fixed time for Private Members’ Bills and Questions.

    Mandatory referral of Bill to Committees (UK system)

    “Parliament is the keystone of the democratic arch.” – Harold Laski

    For a resilient democracy, Parliament must function as the centre of deliberation and control, not as a department of the executive.

  • Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?

    Fiscal federalism refers to the financial relations between centre and states, covering the division of taxation powers, expenditure responsibilities, and transfer mechanisms. Article 268 – 293 deal with Fiscal Federalism in India.

    Evolving Pattern of Centre-State Financial Relations in Planned Development

    1950-1990- Centralised Planning Era

    The Planning Commission controlled transfers through discretionary plan grants.

    The Finance Commission played a limited role in fiscal transfers.

    The Centre shaped State priorities through proliferation of CSS.

    1991-2014- Reform & Decentralisation Phase

    Economic liberalisation gave States more fiscal autonomy in revenue and expenditure.

    Introduction of VAT (2005) boosted State revenues through a buoyant tax base.

    CSS were rationalised but tied funds still constrained State flexibility.

    2015 onwards- New Federalism Phase

    The 14th Finance Commission raised devolution to 42%, enhancing fiscal space for States.

    NITI Aayog replaced the Planning Commission and adopted a consultative approach.

    GST (2017) introduced pooled sovereignty and created a shared tax regime.

    The 15th Finance Commission continued 41% devolution but increased performance-linked grants.

    Impact of Recent Reforms on Fiscal Federalism

    Positive Impacts

    Institutionalised Cooperative Federalism – GST Council as joint decision-making forum.

    Economic Efficiency – GST reduced cascading taxes, transport time cut by 33%, tax base expanded from 66 lakh (2017) to 1.5 crore+ (2024), collections near .

    Strengthened Development Role – States’ developmental expenditure rose from 8.8% of GDP (2004-05) to 12.5% (2021-22).

    Negative Impacts

    The Centre retains major taxation powers (income tax, CGST, natural resources), while States restricted to SGST.

    Cesses & surcharges grew, shrinking States’ effective share from 35% (2015-20) to ~31% (2020-24).

    Delayed GST compensation, especially during COVID, undermined States’ trust.

    Borrowing capped at 3% of GSDP, with enhanced limits tied to reform conditions (e.g., power sector).

    The 15th FC’s 45% income distance weight penalised better-performing States (TN, Kerala, Karnataka).

    Grants-in-aid declined from to , reducing States’ fiscal flexibility.

    CSS burden increased as States finance a larger share but have little role in design.

    Way Forward

    Equity in devolution – Use HDI as a parameter in horizontal tax distribution.

    Off-budget borrowings – Scrutinise and report to ensure transparency and accountability.

    Horizontal imbalance – Guarantee minimum share for rich States and set a ceiling for poorer States.

    Increase Devolution to 50% under 16th FC.

    Include Cess/Surcharge in divisible pool

    Restructure CSS – Consolidate into fewer umbrella schemes

    For India’s fiscal federalism to be effective, it must rest on the principles of autonomy, adequacy, and elasticity.

  • Compare and contrast the President’s power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are ‘preemptive pardons’?

    The power to pardon is an essential sovereign function, allowing the Head of State to grant clemency and show mercy, in the interest of justice, humanity, or public welfare.

    Difference

    However, there are a few similarities

    Preemptive Pardons

    Pardons granted before conviction or even before formal charges are filed, protecting from future prosecution.

    Eg- President Gerald Ford’s 1974 pardon of Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal.

    While the power to pardon is vital as a safety valve of justice, it must be exercised with restraint, transparency, and caution.