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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements

    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?

  • Consider the following pairs

    Consider the following pairs:
    Provision in the Constitution of India: Stated under
    I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State The Directive Principles of the State Policy
    II. Valuing and preserving of the rich heritage of our composite culture The Fundamental Duties
    III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factories The Fundamental Rights
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    I. The Constitution of India explicitly mentions that in certain spheres the Governor of a State acts in his/her own discretion.

    II. The President of India can, of his/her own, reserve a bill passed by a State Legislature for his/her consideration without it being forwarded by the Governor of the State concerned.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following statements

    Consider the following statements:

    With reference to the Constitution of India, if an area in a State is declared as Scheduled Area under the Fifth Schedule:

    I. The State Government loses its executive power in such areas and a local body assumes total administration.
    II. The Union Government can take over the total administration of such areas under certain circumstances on the recommendations of the Governor.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  • Consider the following pairs

    Consider the following pairs:

    State Description
    I. Arunachal Pradesh The capital is named after a fort, and the State has two National Parks
    II. Nagaland The State came into existence on the basis of a Constitutional Amendment Act
    III. Tripura Initially a Part ‘C’ State, it became a centrally administered territory with the reorganization of States in 1956 and later attained the status of a full-fledged State.

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

  • With reference to the Government of India, consider the following information

    With reference to the Government of India, consider the following information:
    Organization: Some of its functions: It works under
    I. Directorate of Enforcement Enforcement of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 Internal Security Division–I, Ministry of Home Affairs
    II. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Enforces the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
    III. Directorate General of Systems and Data Management Carrying out big data analytics to assist tax officers for better policy and nabbing tax evaders Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance
    In how many of the above rows is the information correctly matched?

  • Right of way

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to walk safely on demarcated footpaths is part of Article 21 and therefore a fundamental right. The judgment highlights the gap between constitutional recognition of pedestrian rights and the absence of adequate pedestrian infrastructure.

    What has the Supreme Court held on the right to walk?

    1. Article 21 Protection: The Court held that safe access to footpaths forms part of the right to life and personal liberty.
    2. Pedestrian Dignity: Walking is not merely a mode of transport. It is a constitutional entitlement linked to safety and dignity.
    3. State Responsibility: Governments must ensure safe pedestrian infrastructure and cannot treat pedestrians as secondary road users.
    4. Compensation Jurisprudence: The ruling emerged from a case involving the death of a five-year-old child who was hit by a tanker lorry in Karnataka.

    Why Does India Lack Functional Pedestrian Infrastructure?

    1. No central law: No national law governs pedestrian rights or safety.
    2. Vehicle-Centric Planning: Urban transport systems prioritise road expansion and vehicle movement.
    3. Fragmented responsibility: Responsibility for pedestrian safety is split across municipal laws, town-planning statutes, and street design guidelines, with no single accountable authority.
    4. Minimal safety standard: Current practice treats pedestrians as safe if they face no immediate physical harm, not if they have usable, continuous infrastructure.
    5. Physical encroachment: Existing footpaths are frequently encroached by parking, vendors, utilities, and construction debris.
    6. Competing infrastructure priorities: Road-widening projects compete with footpath space, with roads typically winning.

    Why is recognition of a right insufficient by itself?

    1. Rights Need Infrastructure: A right becomes ineffective when the supporting public infrastructure is absent.
    2. Implementation Deficit: India often struggles with execution rather than legal recognition.
    3. Administrative Neglect: Urban local bodies frequently delay or abandon pedestrian projects.
    4. Funding Priorities: Public expenditure remains concentrated on road widening and motorised transport.
    5. Behavioural Norms: Motorists often view pedestrians as obstacles rather than legitimate road users.

    What Tension Does the Ruling Expose Between Rights Recognition and State Capacity?

    1. Right without infrastructure is hollow: If the state does not build footpaths, the citizen’s right to walk on them carries no practical content.
    2. Compensation is not prevention: A right enforced only through post-tragedy compensation does not change the conditions that caused the harm.
    3. Conflict with the Street Vendors Act: The new judgment is likely to generate disputes with the 2014 Act, since reclaiming footpaths for pedestrians can mean removing vendors the 2014 Act protects.
    4. Risk of gentrification: A state acting on this ruling could use it to clear footpaths of informal commercial activity, criminalising the survival strategies of the urban poor under the cover of a pedestrian-rights judgment.

    Does India’s Experience with Rights-Based Legislation Suggest that Legal Recognition Alone Is Insufficient?

    1. Street Vendors Act, 2014: The Act protects vendors’ right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). Implementation has lagged because surveys, Town Vending Committees, and vending zones remain incomplete. Municipalities continue eviction drives despite legal protection.
    2. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003: Public smoking declined through sustained enforcement, social messaging, and small immediate penalties. Behaviour changed because legal recognition was backed by continuous implementation.
    3. Swachh Bharat and Waste Segregation Laws: Citizens are required to segregate waste. Municipal systems often fail to collect segregated waste. The absence of supporting infrastructure weakens compliance.
    4. Implementation Gap: Rights and duties succeed only when governments create the institutions, incentives, and enforcement mechanisms needed to support them.
    5. Lesson for the Right to Walk: Pedestrian rights will remain symbolic unless cities build continuous, unobstructed footpaths and protect them from encroachment.

    What Precondition Determines Whether the Right Produces Real Change?

    1. Pedestrian Infrastructure as the Missing Link: Constitutional recognition cannot improve pedestrian safety unless cities build continuous and unobstructed footpaths.
    2. Funding Redirection as the Binding Constraint: The ruling’s success depends on shifting public expenditure towards pedestrian infrastructure rather than treating the judgment as a compensation mechanism.
    3. Risk of Legal Tokenism: If the right remains usable only for post-tragedy compensation claims, it produces no change in pedestrian mobility or safety.
    4. Cultural Internalisation of Right of Way: Pavements must be socially recognised as pedestrian space. Judicial declaration alone cannot alter road-use behaviour.

    What must change for the right to walk to become meaningful?

    1. Dedicated Pedestrian Infrastructure: Cities must invest in continuous and obstruction-free footpaths.
    2. Pedestrian-First Urban Design: Walking must become the foundation of street planning.
    3. Clear Space Allocation: Urban authorities must balance pedestrian access and vendor livelihoods.
    4. Municipal Accountability: Local bodies must be assessed on pedestrian safety outcomes.
    5. Stable Funding: Budget allocations must shift towards non-motorised transport infrastructure.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has expanded constitutional protection for pedestrians, but rights alone cannot create safe streets. India’s challenge is not recognising the right to walk but building the footpaths, governance mechanisms and urban priorities that make that right real. The success of the judgment depends on shifting public investment and administrative attention towards pedestrian infrastructure rather than merely providing legal remedies after accidents.

  • Right to Walk on Footpaths Declared a Fundamental Right

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment authored by Justice P. S. Narasimha, held that the right to walk safely on demarcated and well-maintained footpaths is a Fundamental Right, which takes precedence over the privilege of motorized vehicles.

    Right to Walk as a Fundamental Right

    • Derived from Article 19(1)(d): Right to move freely throughout the territory of India.
    • Also linked with:
      • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty.
      • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of expression.
      • Article 19(1)(b): Right to assemble peacefully.
      • Article 19(1)(c): Right to form associations.

    Court’s Observations

    • Walking is the most basic form of human movement and is intrinsically connected to life and dignity.
    • Public spaces cannot become monopolies of motorized vehicles.
    • If a road exists, authorities have an enforceable duty to provide and maintain footpaths.
    • Pedestrian rights must override the convenience of motorized traffic.

    Directions to Government

    • Create a statutory framework recognizing the right to walk.
    • Establish a dedicated regulatory body for:
      • Planning pedestrian infrastructure.
      • Enforcement and monitoring.
      • Providing remedies for violations.
    • Judgment sent to Ministries of:
      • Housing & Urban Affairs
      • Rural Development
      • Road Transport & Highways

    Case Background

    • The ruling arose from the death of a five-year-old child who was run over by a truck while walking to school with his father.
    • The Court awarded compensation exceeding ₹11 lakh.

    [2018] Right to Privacy is protected as an intrinsic part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Which of the following in the Constitution of India correctly and appropriately imply the above statement?

    (a) Article 14 and the provisions under the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution.

    (b) Article 17 and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV.

    (c) Article 21 and the freedoms guaranteed in Part III.

    (d) Article 24 and the provisions under the 44th Amendment to the Constitution.

  • [16th June 2026] The Hindu OpED: Peace with peace: On preventive detentions

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Chander Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh has revived debate on the misuse of preventive detention and preventive proceedings in India. The judgment is significant because it directly questions the routine use of extraordinary executive powers against citizens without substantive criminal charges.

    Why has the Allahabad High Court judgment become a significant intervention in preventive detention jurisprudence?

    The Allahabad High Court, in Chander Pal Singh, criticized the routine misuse of preventive proceedings by police and executive magistrates in Uttar Pradesh. The Court observed that powers intended to prevent threats to public order were being employed to detain individuals without substantive criminal charges, resulting in unjustified deprivation of personal liberty. The judgment seeks to strengthen accountability mechanisms and reaffirm constitutional safeguards against arbitrary state action.

    1. Judicial Intervention: The Court simultaneously addressed an individual case and a broader systemic problem involving preventive proceedings.
    2. Liberty Concerns: The judgment described the situation as a “highly irresponsible” deprivation of personal liberty.
    3. Structural Reform: It proposed guidelines to regulate preventive powers and strengthen accountability.
    4. Constitutional Significance: It re-emphasized Article 21 protections against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
    5. First Major Pushback: The ruling attempts to impose personal accountability on officials responsible for unlawful detention, a relatively rare judicial approach.

    How are preventive powers intended to function and how are they allegedly being misused?

    1. Preventive Purpose: Preventive powers allow the State to intervene before a crime occurs when there is reasonable apprehension of threat to public order.
    2. Exceptional Nature: Such powers are intended for extraordinary situations involving potential disturbances.
    3. Routine Application: The Court observed that authorities increasingly employ these powers as routine administrative tools.
    4. Absence of Criminal Charges: Individuals are often detained without substantive criminal accusations.
    5. Minor Disputes: Authorities reportedly invoke preventive proceedings even in neighbourhood and property disputes.
    6. Executive Overreach: Police officers and executive magistrates allegedly use preventive provisions based on weak or speculative apprehensions.

    What constitutional principles are involved in the debate on preventive detention?

    1. Article 21: Ensures protection of life and personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
    2. Article 22: Provides safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention while permitting preventive detention under specific circumstances.
    3. Rule of Law: Requires legality, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in state action.
    4. Natural Justice: Supports fair hearing and procedural safeguards.
    5. Proportionality: Restricts excessive state action beyond legitimate objectives.
    6. Constitutional Morality: Balances public order with civil liberties and democratic dissent.

    What facts in the Chander Pal Singh case exposed systemic concerns?

    1. Petitioner: Chander Pal Singh, a physically challenged Dalit advocate.
    2. Immediate Cause: He was arrested following a petty dispute with a neighbour.
    3. Illustration of Misuse: The Court treated the case as representative of broader misuse of preventive powers.
    4. Administrative Pattern: The judgment highlighted recurring executive reliance on preventive incarceration rather than ordinary criminal procedures.

    How serious is the scale of preventive proceedings highlighted by the Court?

    1. Magnitude: Around 2,500 individuals were reportedly subjected to preventive detention proceedings in Ghaziabad between May 2025 and April 2026.
    2. Policy Failure: These actions occurred despite a 2021 State policy intended to guide and regulate such powers.
    3. Systemic Nature: The data indicates that misuse is not isolated but institutional in scale.
    4. Governance Challenge: The figures suggest preventive provisions may have become a substitute for regular legal processes.

    What reforms and safeguards did the Court seek to introduce?

    1. Executive Justification: Requires executive magistrates to justify preventive detention decisions.
    2. Constitutional Review: Encourages constitutional challenges against unlawful detention.
    3. Appellate Scrutiny: Promotes higher judicial review of compensation mechanisms.
    4. Compensation Framework: Strengthens remedies available to victims of unlawful detention.
    5. Administrative Accountability: Enables recovery of compensation from salaries of responsible magistrates and/or police officers after disciplinary proceedings.
    6. Deterrence Effect: Seeks to discourage arbitrary use of preventive powers.

    How could the ruling affect protest-related and dissent-related detentions?

    1. Communal Tension Claims: The Court criticized reliance on vague references to “communal tensions” to justify incarceration.
    2. Bond Requirements: It questioned the practice of imposing prohibitively expensive bonds for release.
    3. Protection of Dissent: The judgment rejects the notion that maintaining peace can justify silencing dissent.
    4. Sonam Wangchuk Context: Though not directly related to his detention under the NSA, the ruling implicitly critiques similar uses of preventive powers against activists.
    5. Recent Detentions: The principles may apply to persons detained under Sections 126 and 170 of the BNSS without valid grounds.
    6. Democratic Significance: Reinforces that public order cannot become a blanket justification for restricting civil liberties.

    What challenges may hinder implementation of the Court’s directions?

    1. Administrative Reluctance: Governments have historically been hesitant to penalize officials for misuse of authority.
    2. Institutional Incentives: Executive magistrates are part of the State administration and often operate within bureaucratic hierarchies.
    3. Career Pressures: Officials may prioritize maintaining “peace” as defined by the State.
    4. Weak Enforcement: Accountability provisions may remain ineffective without sustained judicial monitoring.
    5. Structural Dependence: The executive and law enforcement apparatus often function in close coordination, reducing internal checks.

    Value Addition

    How does the Constitution regulate preventive detention under Article 22?

    1. Constitutional Architecture: Balances state security concerns with minimum procedural safeguards for personal liberty.
    2. Constitutional Recognition: Article 22(3)-22(7) explicitly permits preventive detention while prescribing safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power.
    3. Exceptional Nature: Preventive detention operates outside ordinary criminal justice procedures because detention occurs based on anticipated threats rather than proven offences.

    Suspension of Standard Criminal Procedure Rights

    1. Exemption from Article 22(1) and 22(2): Preventive detainees do not enjoy certain protections available to ordinary arrestees.
    2. Grounds of Arrest: Authorities are not required to provide immediate disclosure in the same manner as ordinary criminal arrests.
    3. Legal Representation: Detainees do not possess an absolute right to consult a lawyer of their choice at the detention stage.
    4. Magisterial Production: Requirement of production before a magistrate within 24 hours does not apply to preventive detention cases.

    Procedural Safeguards Retained by Detainees

    1. Communication of Grounds: Article 22(5) requires authorities to communicate grounds of detention as soon as possible.
    2. Representation against Detention: Authorities must provide the earliest opportunity to challenge the detention order through representation.
    3. Natural Justice Principle: Ensures minimum procedural fairness despite the exceptional nature of detention.

    State Privilege of Non-Disclosure

    1. Public Interest Exception: Article 22(6) permits withholding information whose disclosure is considered against public interest.
    2. Security Consideration: Protects sensitive intelligence and security-related inputs underlying detention decisions.

    What is the significance of the Advisory Board mechanism under Article 22?

    Advisory Board Review: Provides independent scrutiny of executive detention orders.

    1. Three-Month Limit: Article 22(4) prohibits detention beyond three months unless reviewed by an Advisory Board.
    2. Independent Assessment: Board examines whether sufficient cause exists for continued detention.
    3. Check on Executive Power: Prevents indefinite detention solely on executive discretion.

    Composition of the Advisory Board

    1. Judicial Qualification: Members must be persons who are, have been, or are qualified to be appointed as High Court Judges.
    2. Institutional Safeguard: Introduces legal expertise into preventive detention review.

    Which legislature has the authority to enact preventive detention laws?

    1. Legislative Competence: Divides law-making powers between Parliament and State Legislatures under the Seventh Schedule.

    Exclusive Parliamentary Jurisdiction (Union List – Entry 9)

    1. Defence of India: Parliament alone can legislate on preventive detention related to national defence.
    2. Foreign Affairs: Parliament exclusively regulates detention linked to international relations.
    3. Security of India: National security-related detention laws fall solely within Union competence.

    Concurrent Jurisdiction (Concurrent List – Entry 3)

    1. Security of the State: Both Parliament and State Legislatures may enact laws.
    2. Public Order: Legislatures can provide preventive detention mechanisms to address threats to public order.
    3. Essential Supplies and Services: Laws may prevent activities disrupting critical community supplies and services.

    Which major preventive detention laws operate in India today?

    1. National Security Act (NSA), 1980
      1. National Security: Authorizes detention to prevent activities prejudicial to India’s security.
      2. Public Order: Permits detention for maintaining public order.
      3. Executive Authority: Empowers both Central and State Governments.
    2. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967
      1. Counter-Terrorism Framework: Addresses terrorism and unlawful activities.
      2. Stringent Bail Provisions: Restricts bail, resulting in prolonged incarceration during investigation.
      3. Preventive Effect: Functions similarly to preventive detention in certain cases.
    3. Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980
      1. Economic Security: Prevents activities affecting availability of essential commodities.
      2. Supply Chain Protection: Ensures uninterrupted access to essential goods.
    4. State-Specific Preventive Detention Laws
      1. Public Safety Act (PSA): Operates in Jammu & Kashmir for security-related concerns.
      2. Goonda Acts: Various states use these laws against habitual offenders and perceived threat actors.
      3. Localized Framework: Addresses region-specific law and order challenges.

    What powers does Parliament possess under Article 22(7)?

    Parliamentary Oversight: Determines the outer limits of preventive detention laws.

    1. Maximum Detention Period: Prescribes the maximum duration of detention under specific laws.
    2. Extended Detention Categories: Defines circumstances where detention beyond three months may occur without Advisory Board review.
    3. Advisory Board Procedure: Establishes procedural rules governing Board inquiries and review mechanisms.

    How has the judiciary evolved safeguards against misuse of preventive detention?

    1. Procedural Rigidity: Ensures strict compliance with constitutional safeguards
    2. Technical Compliance: Courts routinely invalidate detention orders for procedural violations.
    3. Delay in Representation: Unreasonable delay in considering detainee representations can render detention unconstitutional.
    4. Burden on State: Authorities must strictly adhere to statutory requirements.

    Subjective Satisfaction Doctrine

    1. Credible Material: Executive authorities must rely on relevant and credible evidence.
    2. Genuine Threat Assessment: Detention must be based on actual apprehension of future harm.
    3. Protection against Arbitrariness: Courts reject detention based on vague suspicions or unsupported allegations.

    Proximity Principle

    1. Live Link Requirement: Past conduct must have a direct and continuing connection with the present threat.
    2. Stale Incidents Insufficient: Old criminal records alone cannot justify fresh detention orders.
    3. Future-Oriented Assessment: Preventive detention must address imminent risks rather than punish past actions.

    Conclusion

    Preventive detention may be constitutionally permissible, but its legitimacy depends on strict procedural safeguards and judicial oversight. The Allahabad High Court’s intervention reiterates that public order cannot come at the cost of personal liberty, and that accountability is essential to preserving the rule of law.

  • Supreme Court Dismisses Meenakshi Natarajan’s Plea Against Rejection of Rajya Sabha Nomination

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court dismissed Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan’s plea challenging the rejection of her Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that courts should not ordinarily interfere in an ongoing electoral process.

    Background

    • Congress leader Meenakshi Natarajan was the party’s sole candidate for one of the three Rajya Sabha seats from Madhya Pradesh.
    • The Returning Officer (RO) rejected her nomination on 9 June 2026 for allegedly failing to disclose a pending criminal proceeding in Hyderabad in Form 26 (election affidavit).
    • Subsequently, BJP candidates Tarun Chugh, Rajneesh Agrawal, and Mahesh Kewat were elected unopposed.

    Key Constitutional Principle

    • Article 329(b) of the Constitution: Bars judicial interference in electoral matters during the election process.
    • Provides that elections to Parliament or State Legislatures can be challenged only through an election petition in the manner prescribed by law.

    Supreme Court’s Ruling

    • The Court held that it had no jurisdiction under Articles 32 or 226 to interfere with the RO’s decision during an ongoing election.
    • Recognising exceptions for “patent” or “glaring” errors would amount to adding principles not envisaged under Article 329(b).
    • The appropriate remedy available to Ms. Natarajan is to file an election petition before the competent High Court.

    Reliance on Precedent

    • N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer: Established the principle of non-interference during the electoral process.
    • Election-related disputes arising before completion of elections must ordinarily be resolved through election petitions.

    Arguments by Meenakshi Natarajan

    • Senior Advocate A.M. Singhvi argued that: The RO committed a “patent error”.
      • Under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disclosure is required only in cases where charges have been framed.
      • Allowing her candidature would facilitate, rather than obstruct, free and fair elections.

    Counter Arguments

    • Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that:
      • The right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.
      • Therefore, an Article 32 petition is not maintainable.
    • The Election Commission of India contended that:
      • All pending criminal proceedings must be disclosed, irrespective of the stage of the case.
      • The proper remedy is an election petition.

    Court’s Clarification

    • The dismissal of the writ petition will not prejudice any election petition that Ms. Natarajan may file before the concerned High Court.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Article 329(b): Election disputes can be challenged only through election petitions.
    • Article 32: Remedy for enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
    • Article 226: High Courts’ writ jurisdiction.
    • Section 33A, Representation of the People Act, 1951: Disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.
    • Form 26: Affidavit containing details relating to assets, liabilities, educational qualifications, and criminal cases.
    • Returning Officer (RO): Scrutinises nomination papers and conducts the election process.