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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • RS passes Bill to criminalise disrespect to Vande Mataram

    Why in the News

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 on 29 July 2026, in the absence of most Opposition members who staged a walkout. The Bill extends criminal punishment for disrespecting national symbols to the National Song, Vande Mataram, placing it on the same legal footing as the National Anthem for the first time since the original 1971 law.

    What does the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 change?

    1. Original law: The Bill amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises insults to the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem.
    2. New provision: The amendment extends criminal punishment to acts of obstruction or disturbance during the singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram.
    3. Penalty: Intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly singing it, will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both.
    4. Legislative path: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai and will now go to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passage.

    What is the historical background to Vande Mataram’s status?

    1. Origin: Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875, but only two stanzas were adopted as the National Song.
    2. Adoption decision: Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru limited the National Song to two stanzas in 1937, years before he became independent India’s first Prime Minister.
    3. Constituent Assembly reference: On 24 January 1950, Rajendra Prasad told the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram should be honoured on par with Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem.

    What was the political dispute around the Bill’s passage?

    1. Government framing: Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said the Bill represents “India’s soul, national awareness, and cultural heritage” and accused the Congress of engaging in appeasement politics by opposing it.
    2. Opposition’s walkout reason: Nearly all Opposition members walked out demanding Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the police action against students protesting paper leaks at Jantar Mantar, rather than opposing the Bill’s substance.
    3. Cross-party support noted: The Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh said his party supports the Bill while also demanding a law against insulting the National Anthem and the Tricolour.

    Conclusion

    The Rajya Sabha has passed the Bill giving Vande Mataram the same criminal protection as the National Anthem, with the Lok Sabha’s consideration as the next legislative step. The Opposition’s walkout centred on demanding accountability for the police action against student protesters rather than opposing the Bill on its merits.

    Back2Basics:

    Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    1. Enactment: The original Act was passed in 1971 to penalise insults to the National Flag, the Constitution of India, and the National Anthem.
    2. Scope: It covers acts such as burning, mutilating or defacing the National Flag, and preventing or disturbing the singing of the National Anthem.
    3. Amendment history: The Act has been amended before, including through the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2005, to add flag code violations.

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in News?

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, extending legal protection to Vande Mataram by making its intentional disruption or prevention a punishable offence.

    Key Highlights

    • Amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
    • Makes intentional disruption or prevention of the singing of Vande Mataram punishable.
    • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
    • Seeks to accord the National Song legal protection similar to the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana).
    • Passed by the Rajya Sabha through a voice vote.

    About the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    • The Act penalises insults to: National Flag, Constitution of India, and National Anthem
    • The 2026 amendment adds protection for the National Song (Vande Mataram).

    Vande Mataram

    • Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • Originally appeared in the novel Anandamath (1882).
    • Adopted as the National Song on 24 January 1950.
    • Only the first two stanzas are accorded official status.

    Prelims Facts

    • National Anthem: Jana Gana Mana by Rabindranath Tagore.
    • National Song: Vande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • 24 January 1950: Constituent Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem while according Vande Mataram equal honour as the National Song.

    [2025] Consider the following pairs:
    Provision in the Constitution of India State under
    I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the Public services of the StateThe Directive principles of the State policy
    II. Valuing and preserving of the rich Heritage of our composite cultureThe Fundamental Duties
    III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factoriesThe Fundamental Rights
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] All the three

    [D] None

  • Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling offers a better path on copyright and AI than a training licensing regime

    Why in the News?

    The Delhi High Court’s ruling in ANI v OpenAI, addressing technological neutrality and the research exemption, offers a framework for copyright and AI. At the same time, there is a growing criticism about the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) committee’s proposed AI training licensing regime as potentially harmful to innovation.

    What did the Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling establish?

    1. Technological neutrality: The ruling applies existing copyright principles to AI training without creating a separate, more restrictive legal category just because the technology involved is new.
    2. Research exemption: The ruling recognises a research exemption relevant to how AI systems process copyrighted content during training, rather than treating every instance of AI training on copyrighted material as infringement by default.

    How is the DPIIT new hybrid licensing system (One Nation – One License – One Payment) different from the Delhi High Court (ANI v OpenAI) judgment?

    1. DPIIT Proposal: AI seeks to bring in a statutory licensing mechanism that requires companies to pay compensation (royalties) to content creators through a centralized government system.
    2. Delhi High Court verdict: The court in its latest order refused to impose any strict or prior licensing norms, stating that AI training can be considered ‘fair dealing’ (under research purposes).

    Why does the proposed licensing regime as a step backward?

    1. Compliance burden: A mandatory AI training licensing regime would require AI developers to negotiate and pay for licenses before training on copyrighted content, raising the cost of building AI systems in India.
    2. Innovation chilling effect: Smaller AI developers and startups, unable to absorb licensing costs at the scale large technology companies can, would face a higher barrier to entry than the court’s technological neutrality approach imposes.
    3. Inconsistency with the ruling: A DPIIT-driven licensing regime would move policy in a more restrictive direction than the judiciary’s own reading of technological neutrality and the research exemption, creating a mismatch between executive rule making and judicial precedent.

    Conclusion

    The Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling offers a workable copyright and AI framework built on existing legal principles rather than new restrictions. DPIIT’s proposed licensing regime would discard that workable framework in favour of a compliance heavy structure that risks innovation without a clear corresponding gain for rights holders.

    Back2Basics

    The Proposed Licensing system by DPIIT:

    The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) proposed a new hybrid licensing systemin December 2025 called “One Nation – One License – One Payment”. Its main purpose is to strike a balance between creators’ rights and technological innovation on the use of copyrighted content for artificial intelligence (AI) training.

    The important aspects and provisions of this proposed policy are as follows:

    Mandatory Blanket License

    1. Data usage rights: AI developers can use any copyrighted content that is legally accessible (for example, freely available online) to train their models without seeking separate permission. [1, 2]
    2. No Opt-Out: Content creators or organizations do not have the right to opt-out of having their content used for AI training.

    Royalty Structure

    1. Payment after commercialization: AI developers do not have to pay any fees upfront. Royalties apply only after the AI ​​tool or product starts generating revenue commercially.
    2. Centralized Body: The government will set up a non-profit centralized nodal agency called “Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training” (CRCAT) to collect royalties and distribute them to copyright holders .
    3. Pricing: Royalty rates are determined independently by a special expert committee appointed by the government

    Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)

    1. It is a Union government department under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    2. It is responsible for industrial policy, including the committee that proposed the AI training licensing regime referenced here.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What is the present world scenario of intellectual property rights with respect to life materials? Although India is second in the world to file patents, still only a few have been commercialized. Explain the reasons behind this less commercialization.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s intellectual property rights framework and the balance between protection of intellectual property and innovation. The article discusses whether India’s copyright framework should promote AI innovation through existing legal principles or impose a mandatory licensing regime. It highlights the broader challenge of designing an IPR regime that protects creators without discouraging technological innovation.

  • Political executive control over Delhi Police under Article 239AA comes under fresh scrutiny

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court is hearing petitions on the police crackdown during the NEET protest. The case has brought attention to the political control over the Delhi Police under Article 239AA and renewed debate on police independence in light of the Ramlila Maidan and Prakash Singh judgments.

    What does Article 239AA provide for policing in Delhi?

    1. Definition: Article 239AA, inserted by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991, gives Delhi a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers but excludes police, public order and land from the elected government’s jurisdiction, keeping them with the Union government.
    2. Effect: Delhi Police answers to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs rather than the elected Delhi government, unlike police forces in full states.
    3. Ramlila Maidan precedent: The Supreme Court’s Ramlila Maidan ruling addressed the limits of police force against a peaceful assembly, a precedent invoked whenever Delhi Police’s crowd control conduct is questioned.
    4. Prakash Singh precedent: The Prakash Singh v Union of India ruling laid down police reform directions aimed at insulating police from political direction, directions Delhi Police’s Union government control tests differently than in the states.

    Why does this arrangement resurface during the NEET protest crackdown hearing?

    1. Command versus accountability: Delhi Police’s actions during the NEET protest crackdown are being scrutinised even though the elected Delhi government has no command authority over the force to answer for its conduct.
    2. Union political exposure: Because Delhi Police reports to the Union Home Ministry, its conduct during politically sensitive protests places the central government, not the local elected government, in direct line of accountability.

    Conclusion

    Article 239AA’s exclusion of police from Delhi’s elected government means every controversial policing decision in the capital, including the NEET protest crackdown, becomes a Union government accountability question by constitutional design. The Supreme Court’s hearing will test whether the Ramlila Maidan and Prakash Singh standards can be enforced within this centralised command structure

    Back2Basics

    Article 239AA:

    1. It was inserted by the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991.
    2. It grants Delhi a special Union Territory status with an elected Assembly, while reserving police, public order and land for the Union Government.

    Prakash Singh v. Union of India:

    It is a landmark 2006 Supreme Court of India public interest litigation judgment that issued seven binding directives to reform police forces, ensure fixed tenures for top officials, and insulate law enforcement from political control.

    Key Directives of the Judgment

    1. State Security Commission: Set up a body to check that state governments do not exercise unwarranted influence over the police.
    2. Fixed Tenure for DGP: Give the Director General of Police a minimum stable tenure of two years regardless of their retirement date.
    3. Fixed Tenure for Officers: Ensure field-level police officers (like SPs and SHOs) have a minimum two-year tenure on their postings.
    4. Separation of Functions: Separate the investigation of crime from day-to-day law and order duties.
    5. Police Establishment Board: Create a board to handle transfers, postings, and promotions for junior officers.
    6. Police Complaints Authority: Establish independent state and district bodies to handle public complaints against police misconduct.
    7. National Security Commission: Form a federal panel to pick and manage top-tier police standards at the national level.

  • The urban nightmare: a fire with no escape 

    Why in the News?

    Repeated urban fire tragedies, in Lucknow and Delhi, are rooted in illegal construction, weak enforcement, and fragmented urban local governance. There is a growing need of empowering local bodies as the structural fix.

    Why do fire tragedies keep recurring despite each one prompting an inquiry?

    1. Illegal construction persists: Buildings that violate fire safety norms continue to be built and occupied because enforcement action rarely follows a violation before a tragedy occurs.
    2. Fragmented authority: Fire safety clearance, building plan approval, and municipal enforcement are split across different agencies, none of which holds end to end accountability for a building’s safety compliance.
    3. Post-tragedy pattern: Each fire triggers an inquiry and short term crackdown, but enforcement lapses again once public attention moves on, indicating the response is reactive rather than preventive.
    4. Weak local body capacity: Urban local bodies, the level of government closest to individual buildings, lack the staffing and financial autonomy to conduct sustained enforcement.

    How does fragmented urban governance weaken accountability?

    1. Multiple agencies: Urban functions are divided among municipal corporations, development authorities, water boards, PWDs and transport agencies.
    2. No single authority: Responsibility is dispersed, making accountability difficult after disasters.
    3. Weak Urban Local Bodies: Municipal corporations have responsibilities but limited administrative and financial powers.
    4. State dominance: Major urban decisions remain under State governments rather than elected city governments.
    5. Governance vacuum: Citizens face one government, but responsibility is split among several agencies.

    Why is empowering Urban Local Bodies more important than launching new schemes?

    1. Constitutional basis: The 74th Constitutional Amendment, 1992 envisages democratic and empowered urban governance.
    2. Authority mismatch: Local bodies have functions but lack adequate powers and resources.
    3. Professional management: Cities require specialised urban planning and enforcement capacity.
    4. Clear accountability: One authority must be responsible for urban safety and regulation.
    5. Fearless enforcement: Building and fire safety laws must be insulated from political influence.

    Conclusion

    Illegal construction and weak enforcement are the proximate causes, but fragmented urban local governance is the structural one, since no single empowered local authority is accountable for preventing violations before they turn fatal. Empowering urban local bodies with real enforcement authority and resources is the fix the piece argues has been avoided.

    Back2Basics

    International fire safety and urban risk management rely on universally recognized frameworks and codes established by global organizations. These function as the benchmark for local building laws worldwide.

    Global Core Frameworks

    1. IFSS-CP (International Fire Safety Standards – Common Principles): Developed by a global coalition and published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), this framework provides a benchmark for life safety. It sets 5 Universal Pillars for building design and management:
      1. Prevention: Minimizing ignition risks.
      2. Detection and Communication: Fast warning systems.
      3. Occupant Protection: Safe, unhindered evacuation routes.
      4. Containment: Sectioning buildings with fire-resistant barriers to stop spread.
      5. Extinguishment: Active suppression systems (sprinklers/suppression).
    2. ISO Fire Safety Standards: The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) sets global rules for equipment and risk management. This includes ISO 7240 (fire detection/alarm systems) and ISO 31000 (integrating systemic risk management directly into urban planning).

    Widely Adopted National/Model Codes

    Many countries explicitly adopt or adapt established model codes into their local municipal bylaws:

    1. NFPA Codes (USA): Developed by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), these are the most globally replicated fire codes.
      • NFPA 1 (Fire Code): Total oversight rules governing building safety, hazardous materials, and structural fire protection.
      • NFPA 101 (Life Safety Code): The absolute blueprint for building design, specifying safe egress, travel distances to exits, and minimum corridor widths based on occupancy types.
    2. International Building Code (IBC): Published by the International Code Council (ICC), the IBC integrates strict structural engineering rules with active fire protection. It mandates specific automatic sprinkler thresholds (NFPA 13 standards) depending on building height and density.
    3. British Standards (UK): BS 9999 is an international code of practice for fire safety in building design and management. It uses a flexible, risk-based approach that balances architectural design with automated safety measures.

    PYQ RELEVANCE

    [UPSC 2020] The strength and sustenance of local institutions in India has shifted from their formative phase of ‘Functions, Functionaries and Funds’ to the contemporary stage of ‘Functionality’. Highlight the critical challenges faced by local institutions in terms of their functionality in recent times.

    Linkage: The PYQ examines whether Urban Local Bodies have the functional capacity and accountability to deliver effective urban governance. The article argues that repeated urban fire disasters stem from fragmented governance, weak Urban Local Bodies, poor inter-agency coordination, and lack of accountability, showing that the real challenge is the functionality of urban institutions rather than the absence of laws.

  • Protecting protest: on mass protests

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is hearing petitions on alleged excessive police force during recent protests, while the CJI’s remarks on protests requiring due permission have sparked debate. The case has also revived the question of whether public inconvenience caused by peaceful protests should be conflated with violence, and the need for a national protocol on crowd-control measures.

    Why does conflating inconvenience with violence weaken the right to protest?

    1. Legal standard blurred: Treating traffic disruption or public inconvenience as equivalent to violence lowers the threshold at which force can be used against a peaceful gathering.
    2. Judicial remark’s weight: A “due permission” framing from the Chief Justice of India carries institutional weight that can shape how lower courts and police read the limits of Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably.
    3. Precedent tension: Existing case law distinguishes disruptive but peaceful assembly from violent assembly, and collapsing that distinction narrows the constitutional space for protest.

    What does the absence of a national crowd control protocol expose?

    1. No uniform threshold: Without a national protocol, the force threshold used against protestors varies by state and by individual police commander’s judgment.
    2. Accountability gap: No standard mechanism currently holds police accountable for disproportionate force used to disperse a protest deemed merely inconvenient.
    3. Comparative absence: Other democracies operationalise proportionality standards for crowd control through documented use of force continuums, a structure India’s policing framework lacks in codified form.

    Conclusion

    Peaceful protests that cause public inconvenience should not be treated the same as violent acts. A national crowd-control protocol with clear rules on the use of force and strong accountability can help protect both the right to protest and public order.

    Back2Basics

    The right to protest in India is an implied fundamental right derived from Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(b) (freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms) of the Constitution of India.

    Constitutional Basis and Rules

    1. No Absolute Right: Protests must remain completely peaceful and unarmed.
    2. Reasonable Restrictions: Under Articles 19(2) and 19(3), the state can limit protests to protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, and public order.
    3. No Blocking Roads: The Supreme Court has ruled that public ways and spaces cannot be permanently blocked or occupied, balancing protester rights with public movement.

    Legal Obligations and Permissions

    1. Prior Permission: Organizers must generally seek local police or municipal permissions to hold public gatherings or marches.
    2. Designated Spaces: Authorities often restrict demonstrations to specific assigned areas (like designated grounds or parks) to prevent traffic and safety hazards.
    3. Police Action Limits: Courts maintain that mere assembly or peaceful agitation does not justify excessive police force or lathi-charges.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. Comment.

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the scope of Fundamental Rights under Article 19 and reasonable restrictions. The editorial examines the limits of the right to peaceful protest under Article 19, and whether restrictions on protests satisfy the test of proportionality.

  • Cauvery Water Regulation Committee directs Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs a day to Tamil Nadu

    Why in the news?

    The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) has directed Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water per day for 15 days to Tamil Nadu amid drought conditions. Meanwhile, the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister has urged the Prime Minister to review the Centre’s stand on the proposed Mekedatu Dam project, further intensifying the inter-state water dispute.

    Key Highlights

    • CWRC directive: Karnataka has been directed to release 3,500 cusecs per day for 15 days to Tamil Nadu.
    • Reason: The order was issued due to drought conditions and the need to ensure downstream water availability.
    • Parallel dispute: Tamil Nadu has sought a review of the Centre’s position on the Mekedatu Dam project proposed by Karnataka.
    • Possible appeal: Karnataka may challenge the CWRC’s direction before the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).

    About the Cauvery River

    • Originates at Talakaveri in the Brahmagiri Hills, Karnataka.
    • Flows through Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, with a small catchment in Kerala.
    • Empties into the Bay of Bengal.
    • Total length is about 805 km.
    • Left-bank: Harangi, Hemavathi, Shimsha, Arkavathi.
    • Right-bank: Kabini, Bhavani, Noyyal and Amaravathi.

    Cauvery Water Management Mechanism

    Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)

    • Constituted in 2018 under the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
    • Implements the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment on Cauvery water sharing.
    • Supervises reservoir operations and ensures implementation of water-sharing arrangements.

    Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC)

    • Functions under the CWMA.
    • Monitors reservoir levels, rainfall and inflows.
    • Recommends monthly water releases among basin States.

    What is the Mekedatu Project?

    • Proposed by Karnataka on the Cauvery River near Mekedatu.
    • Intended to provide drinking water to Bengaluru and generate hydroelectric power.
    • Tamil Nadu opposes the project, arguing that it could affect downstream water availability and violate the Supreme Court’s allocation.

    Constitutional and Legal Provisions

    • Article 262: Empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-State river water disputes.
    • Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides for adjudication of river water disputes through tribunals.
    • Supreme Court Judgment (2018): Modified the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award and directed the establishment of the CWMA.

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.”

    [2020] Which of the following Protected Areas are located in Cauvery basin?

    1.Nagarhole National Park
    2.Papikonda National Park
    3.Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve
    4.Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:
    a) 1 and 2 only
    b) 3 and 4 only
    c) 1, 3 and 4 only
    d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • West Bengal strips panchayat pradhans of registration and cheque signing powers, reopening the devolution debate

    Why in the News

    West Bengal Government has stripped elected panchayat pradhans of birth and death registration powers and cheque signing authority, transferring them to bureaucrats. The state cites the need to curb corruption after the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, but the move raises questions about devolution of powers to elected local bodies.

    Why does shifting these powers to bureaucrats raise a devolution question?

    1. Constitutional mandate: The 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 envisages panchayats as institutions of local self-government with functional autonomy, not merely implementing agencies for state bureaucrats.
    2. Elected versus appointed authority: Registration and cheque signing powers are everyday functions through which an elected pradhan exercises visible authority over local administration, and removing them shifts real power to an appointed official.
    3. Corruption justification: The stated reason, curbing corruption, does not explain why oversight rather than outright transfer of power was not chosen as the remedy.
    4. Precedent risk: A state government’s ability to strip elected local body powers by executive order, without a corresponding law reform process, sets a precedent other states could follow.

    Conclusion

    The central idea is that a corruption justification is being used to recentralise powers that the 73rd Amendment Act, 1992 assigned to elected local government. Whether West Bengal reverses this transfer, or other states adopt the same approach, will determine if devolution in India remains a one way commitment or a reversible administrative choice.

    Back2Basics

    Devolution of powers under the 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992: Functional Devolution (The 3 Fs [Functions, Funds, and Functionaries] and Eleventh Schedule)

    1. 29 Subjects: Article 243-G empowers state legislatures to devolve responsibilities to Panchayats for economic development and social justice across 29 areas listed in the Eleventh Schedule (such as agriculture, drinking water, health and sanitation, and primary education).
    2. The “3 Fs” Challenge: Real devolution relies on transferring Functions (the tasks), Funds (the money), and Functionaries (the administrative staff).
    3. State Discretion: Because local government is a state subject, actual transfer of these powers depends entirely on individual state laws rather than automatic constitutional enforcement.

    Institutional and Financial Framework

    1. Three-Tier System: Established a uniform structure of Panchayats at the village (Gram Panchayat), intermediate (Block/Taluk Panchayat), and district (Zilla Panchayat) levels.
    2. Gram Sabha: Positioned as the foundational base comprising all registered voters in a village area to ensure direct local oversight and social audit.
    3. State Finance Commission (SFC): Mandated the creation of an SFC every five years to recommend tax assignments, tolls, fees, and grants-in-aid to improve local fiscal autonomy.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] ‘The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially.’ Comment.”

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the extent of functional and financial devolution to local bodies. The article highlights the rollback of Panchayat powers, reflecting weak implementation of the 73rd Amendment.

  • The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 passed by both houses

    Why in News

    The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, having first been cleared by the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2026, followed by approval from the Rajya Sabha on July 30, 2026.

    Key Highlights

    • Stricter punishment: Maximum imprisonment for offences involving unfair means increased to 10 years, from the earlier 3 to 5 years.
    • Higher penalty: Maximum fine for individual offences enhanced to ₹50 lakh.
    • Organised examination fraud: Punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years and a fine up to ₹10 crore.
    • Procedural reforms: Provides for fast-track courts and mandates completion of investigations within two months.
    • Companion legislation: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was also introduced during the same session.

    Background

    • The amendment strengthens the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
    • The Act aims to prevent paper leaks, impersonation, organised cheating and other examination-related malpractices in public examinations conducted by designated authorities.

    Objectives

    • Ensure fairness, transparency and credibility in recruitment and entrance examinations.
    • Deter organised examination fraud through stringent penalties.
    • Protect the interests of genuine candidates.
    • Improve the speed of investigation and prosecution.

    Significance

    • Enhances the integrity of public recruitment and competitive examinations.
    • Acts as a deterrent against paper leak mafias and organised crime networks.
    • Strengthens public confidence in examination systems.
    • Supports merit-based selection and good governance.

    [2026] Mr. X, a senior officer, was overseeing a critical vaccination programme during a pandemic. He found that a private service provider responsible for vaccine distribution was compromising on quality to make profits. Despite immense pressure to manage the issue due to vested interests, he raised his voice based on the principles of public administration which he learnt during various training programmes attended across his career. He reported the issue to the appropriate vigilance authority and halted the contract to ensure citizen welfare.
    Which one among the following principles of public administration was most strongly demonstrated by Mr. X’s actions?

    [A] Esprit de corps

    [B] Equity

    [C] Accountability

    [D] Delegation

  • Anti-defection law: Supreme Court seeks Centre’s reply on Tenth Schedule merger interpretation

    Why in News

    The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by Kapil Sibal challenging the prevailing interpretation of the merger exception under the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law). The plea, linked to the 2022 Goa defection case, argues that the current interpretation undermines the purpose of the Anti-Defection Law by allowing legislators to avoid disqualification without a genuine party merger.

    What is the Merger Exception?

    • Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule provides an exception to disqualification in cases of a merger.
    • A merger is protected when not less than two-thirds of the legislators of a political party agree to merge with another party.
    • The present dispute is whether a legislative party alone can claim a merger, or whether the original political party must also merge.

    About the Tenth Schedule (Anti-Defection Law)

    • Added by the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985.
    • Strengthened by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003, which removed the earlier exemption for one-third splits.
    • Seeks to curb political defections, ensure government stability, and uphold party discipline.
    • The Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman) decides questions relating to disqualification.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Articles 102(2) and 191(2): Provide for disqualification of MPs and MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.
    • Tenth Schedule: Contains provisions relating to disqualification on grounds of defection.

    Landmark Judgments

    • Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992): Upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule and held that the Speaker’s decision is subject to judicial review.
    • Keisham Meghachandra Singh v. Speaker, Manipur (2020): Directed Speakers to decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, ordinarily three months.

    Issues with the Current Law

    • Delay in deciding disqualification petitions.
    • Allegations of partisan conduct by the Speaker.
    • Ambiguity regarding the merger exception.
    • Weakens representative democracy when mass defections alter electoral mandates.

    [2013, GS2, 10M] 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?”

    [2022] With reference to anti-defection law in India, consider the following statements:

    1. The law specifies that a nominated legislator cannot join any political party within six months of being appointed to the House.

    2. The law does not provide any time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2