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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Clean electoral rolls are a necessary condition, and their selective use is the risk

    Why in the News

    The United States President’s appreciation of India’s election mechanism, and his social media post citing India’s Chief Election Commissioner on how the United States conducts elections without a valid photo identity, has put election integrity in both democracies under simultaneous scrutiny. Both political systems agree that rolls should be clean and voting should be verified, and disagree completely on who the requirement is meant to exclude.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Definition: Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a comprehensive, time bound house to house verification drive involving fresh enumeration forms for all voters, door to door verification by Booth Level Officers, document verification of citizenship, deletion of ineligible entries and inclusion of omitted voters.
    2. How it differs from the routine exercise: Summary Revision is the routine annual update of additions, deletions and corrections carried out before general, Assembly and bye elections, with a qualifying date typically of 1 January.
    3. When it is triggered: SIR is exceptional and is triggered only when rolls have remained largely unchanged for years or when large scale irregularities are suspected.
    4. Statutory basis: Electoral rolls are prepared and maintained by the Election Commission of India under Article 324 of the Constitution and Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, with intensive revision mandated under Sections 22 and 23 of that Act.

    What is the current status of electoral roll revision in India?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Frequency in history: Intensive revisions have been carried out only 13 times in India’s history, in 1952, 1957, 1961, 1965, 1966, 1983-84, 1987-89, 1992, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2003 and 2004.
    2. The current exercise: The Election Commission launched a nationwide SIR 2.0 from 4 November 2025, the first in 21 years, covering 9 States and 3 Union Territories and targeting approximately 51 crore voter records.
    3. Method used: The exercise uses artificial intelligence driven duplicate detection and facial and identity match algorithms alongside field verification.
    4. The officer chain: The Chief Electoral Officer at State level, the District Election Officer at district level, the Electoral Registration Officer at constituency level and Booth Level Officers at polling booth level carry out the work.
    5. The immediately preceding exercise: The January 2025 Special Summary Revision was completed with no issues raised before the Bihar SIR was announced.
    6. The presumption cutoff: The exercise uses 2003 as the citizenship presumption cutoff, which effectively re verifies every voter added between 2003 and 2025.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Elections and Electoral Rolls

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Article 324: Establishes the Election Commission of India and vests in it the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President.
    2. Article 325: Guarantees that no person shall be ineligible for inclusion in, or claim to be included in, a special electoral roll on grounds of religion, race, caste or sex.
    3. Article 326: Provides that elections to the House of the People and State Legislative Assemblies shall be on the basis of adult suffrage, so every citizen not disqualified by a specific legal exception may vote.
    4. Articles 327 and 328: Authorise Parliament and State Legislatures respectively to make laws on all election related matters, including electoral rolls and delimitation of constituencies.
    5. Article 329: Bars courts from questioning laws relating to delimitation of constituencies, making Delimitation Commission orders final and non justiciable.
    6. Part XV: Articles 324 to 329 together constitute the electoral provisions of the Constitution, and they are the source of the Election Commission’s status as a constitutional body.

    Why has election integrity become contested in both democracies at the same time?

    1. Partisan mistrust as the common driver: Partisan politics in both countries has fostered political mistrust, which leads election losers to repeatedly question electoral integrity.
    2. Both sides want purification, in opposite directions: The liberal and progressive strands and the conservative and nativist strands in both countries want to purify and streamline electoral rolls and processes, in different and often contradictory ways.
    3. The ruling side’s claim: Ruling dispensations in both countries hold that the election process is too permissive and allows foreigners to obtain voting rights.
    4. The opposition’s claim: Their opponents point to systematic and premeditated efforts to target social groups in the name of election integrity.
    5. The point of agreement is narrow: No one disagrees that the process should be fair and transparent, and the agreement ends there.
    6. The shared opportunity: India and the United States could lead a shared democratic agenda on election rules, but only after restoring trust and integrity in their own electoral processes.

    How do the American and Indian election administration systems differ?

    1. United States, a decentralised and federalised process: The American electoral process is highly federalised and governed by fragmented rules and politics that resist the idea of a nationwide SIR type exercise.
    2. United States, the constitutional allocation: The Constitution grants each State its own methods, subject to the qualification that Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.
    3. United States, the pending federal law: The expanded Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act was passed in February and is pending in the Senate, and would require proof of citizenship for voter registration and photo identity for voting.
    4. United States, the gap identified: The decentralised system leaves too many loopholes in the process of enrolment and voting, and could benefit from a more robust national framework of the kind the Election Commission of India provides.
    5. India, a constitutional election authority: The Indian Constitution establishes the Election Commission as a constitutional body, unlike the American arrangement of State by State methods.
    6. India, a nationalised administration under strain: India’s nationalised election administration system has largely worked well and now faces a crisis of legitimacy.
    7. The common legal position: There is no ambiguity in existing law in either country that only citizens may register and vote, and the controversy is entirely about the process of ensuring this.

    Why can a legitimate requirement of clean rolls still damage trust?

    1. The requirement itself is elementary: Clean electoral rolls of citizens, and voting with photo identity, are elementary requirements of a fair process, and neither is objectionable in principle.
    2. The manner of introduction is the objection: In India the SIR is introducing the citizenship proof requirement without transparency, adequate consultation or sufficient time.
    3. Frequency argues for care, not speed: SIR is meant to be conducted only once in 20 years, which is precisely why it should be carried out carefully and inclusively.
    4. The same rule can serve two purposes: A requirement designed to exclude non citizens can equally be used to exclude citizens who lack the documents, and the two outcomes are indistinguishable in the roll.
    5. The standard both countries must meet: In both countries the state must not selectively weaponise these requirements against those not in power.

    Major debates surrounding electoral roll revision in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Bihar, the scale of deletion: A 47 lakh net reduction in the final roll, with 3.66 lakh removed in the last phase after draft publication, and allegations of large scale deletions in four border districts ahead of State elections.
    2. Bihar, the process failure: Booth Level Officers collected forms without acknowledgement slips, and contradictory deadlines of 25 July and 31 August caused mass confusion.
    3. West Bengal, the notice requirement: Large scale deletions were alleged, with Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which requires individual notice before deletion, alleged to have been violated, and petitions filed in the Calcutta High Court against a contesting Commission affidavit.
    4. Uttar Pradesh, the quality of verification: Concerns were raised over disproportionate deletions in minority heavy constituencies, with field verification by Booth Level Officers reported as cursory and forms collected in bulk.
    5. Migrant voters: Multiple States including Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Assam reported that migrant workers away from their registered constituencies were deleted without notice.
    6. Timing without a stated trigger: The SIR was announced within six months of a clean January 2025 summary revision with no new justification offered.
    7. Feasibility of the timeline: The Commission’s own Assam National Register of Citizens experience shows that verification of this kind cannot be completed within the 90 days allotted.

    Challenges to a credible electoral roll revision

    1. Burden of proof falls on the voter: An intensive revision requires the voter to establish eligibility rather than requiring the state to establish ineligibility. e.g. the 2003 presumption cutoff placing the documentary burden on everyone enrolled between 2003 and 2025.
    2. Migrant and mobile populations are structurally exposed: Voters absent from their registered address during door to door verification are recorded as untraceable and deleted. e.g. migrant workers in Jharkhand, Rajasthan and Assam reported as deleted without notice.
    3. Notice requirements are unevenly observed: Deletion without individual notice removes the only opportunity to contest an error before publication. e.g. the alleged violation of Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 in West Bengal.
    4. Field capacity does not match the timeline: Booth Level Officers carry the entire verification load within a compressed window, and shortcuts follow. e.g. forms collected in bulk without acknowledgement slips in Bihar and cursory verification reported in Uttar Pradesh.
    5. Algorithmic deduplication carries error: Facial and identity match algorithms produce false positives that are removed before any human confirms the match. e.g. SIR 2.0 applying artificial intelligence driven duplicate detection across approximately 51 crore records.
    6. Contradictory administrative communication: Multiple deadlines and changing instructions destroy the voter’s ability to comply. e.g. the 25 July and 31 August deadlines issued in Bihar.
    7. Verification errors survive to the draft roll: Voters who submitted forms still appear in the deleted category, which shifts the burden to a post publication correction process. e.g. voters in Telangana finding their names listed under permanently shifted or dead in the recently released draft roll despite having filed forms.

    Conclusion

    Clean electoral rolls of citizens and voting with photo identity are elementary requirements of a fair process, and the disagreement in both India and the United States is about who the requirement is applied to and how. India’s nationalised system offers the national framework the American process lacks, and it is that system that now faces a crisis of legitimacy. An exercise conducted once in 20 years, over approximately 51 crore records, has to be carried out carefully and inclusively or it converts a legitimate purification into a selective exclusion. The obligation on the state in both countries is the same, not to weaponise these requirements against those not in power.

    What is Election Integrity?

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. About: Election integrity is the condition in which every stage of an election, from enrolment to the declaration of results, is conducted according to law and is accepted as such by winners and losers alike.
    2. Rationale: Democratic legitimacy rests on the losing side accepting the result, so integrity is measured by trust in the process rather than by the accuracy of the count alone.
    3. Pre poll phase: Covers electoral roll preparation and revision, delimitation and representation, candidate scrutiny and disqualification, and the registration and recognition of political parties.
    4. During poll phase: Covers the Model Code of Conduct, the voting mechanism including electronic voting machines and the Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail, and corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
    5. Post poll phase: Covers exit and opinion poll regulation under Sections 126A and 126(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and election disputes through election petitions before High Courts.
    6. The statutory division: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs the preparatory side including rolls and delimitation, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 governs the conduct of elections including candidates, offences and disputes.

    Laws and Rules Governing Electoral Rolls and Elections

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx, supplemented

    1. Representation of the People Act, 1950: Provides for allocation of seats in Parliament and State Legislatures, delimitation of constituencies, and the preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls, and defines the machinery of electoral officers.
    2. Section 21: The provision under which electoral rolls are prepared and maintained.
    3. Sections 22 and 23: The provisions mandating correction, deletion and inclusion of entries, under which intensive revision is conducted.
    4. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Governs the conduct of elections, qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, nomination and scrutiny, corrupt practices, election offences, expenditure limits and election petitions.
    5. Section 8: Provides for disqualification on conviction, with immediate disqualification of a sitting legislator convicted and sentenced to two years or more, continuing for six years after release.
    6. Section 29A: Provides for registration of political parties with the Election Commission.
    7. Section 29C: Requires parties to disclose all donations above twenty thousand rupees annually to the Commission.
    8. Section 100: Sets out the grounds on which an election may be declared void.
    9. Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Prescribe the procedure for preparation and revision of rolls, with Rule 18 requiring individual notice before deletion of an entry.
    10. Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968: Governs recognition of parties as State or National parties and the allotment of reserved and free symbols.
    11. Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Service Conditions) Act, 2023: Governs the appointment and service conditions of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commissioners.
    12. Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (supplemented, not drawn from the Backgrounder): Prescribe the detailed procedure for nomination, polling, counting and declaration of results under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

    Election Commission Initiatives to Strengthen the Electoral Process

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Electronic Voting Machines: Deployed across India since 2004, replacing the ballot box system used from 1952.
    2. Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail: Deployed at all polling stations from the 2019 elections, printing a slip visible to the voter for seven seconds before it falls into a sealed compartment.
    3. National Voters Services Portal: Allows voters to register, modify and confirm their electoral details online.
    4. cVIGIL mobile application: Introduced for the 2019 elections, enabling over 20,000 complaints of electoral malpractice to be reported directly to the Commission, with complaints attended within 100 minutes in Bihar.
    5. Systematic Voters Education and Electoral Participation: Targeted voter education campaigns that contributed to a turnout of approximately 67 percent in 2019, among the highest in Indian electoral history.
    6. Photo electoral rolls: All voter lists carried photographs by the 2019 elections, reducing impersonation risk.
    7. Election Seizure Management System: Provides real time reporting of interceptions of cash, liquor and other inducements, alongside 824 flying squads deployed in Bihar and static surveillance teams.
    8. Biometric identification: Piloted in select constituencies during State elections to verify voter identity more accurately.

    Key Facts about Elections and Electoral Rolls in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Voter access commitments: No polling station is to have more than 1,200 voters, and polling stations are to be located within 2 km of voters’ residences.
    2. Urban apathy measures: Polling stations are set up inside high rise buildings and residential colonies, with basic amenities guaranteed at every polling station.
    3. Seat freeze: The Lok Sabha seat count has been frozen at 543 on the basis of 1971 Census figures, and average voters per constituency has grown from roughly 10 lakh in 1971 to 18 lakh today.
    4. Delimitation Commissions: Four have been constituted so far, in 1952, 1963, 1973 and 2002.
    5. Expenditure ceiling: The official Lok Sabha election expenditure limit is now 95 lakh rupees, up from 25,000 rupees in 1951-52.
    6. Verification record of the machines: Over 4 crore Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail slips have been tallied with the electronic counts of their control units without a single mismatch recorded.

    Challenges in India’s Electoral System

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Criminalisation of politics: A record 251 of the 543 members elected to the 18th Lok Sabha in 2024, or 46 percent, have criminal cases registered against them, and the proportion with serious charges rose from 24 percent in 2004. e.g. the conviction rate for politicians involved in crimes standing at only 6 percent, so most accused legislators complete full terms.
    2. Money power and unaccounted funding: Over 60 percent of party income often comes from unknown sources, and registered political parties now exceed 2,800. e.g. cash, liquor and drugs worth over 100 crore rupees seized in Bihar in 2025 and 733.43 crore rupees in Karnataka in 2023.
    3. Seizures that do not convert into convictions: The burden of proving that seized cash was meant to influence votes defeats most cases. e.g. 303.86 crore rupees seized in the 2014 Lok Sabha election released after income assessment, with criminal cases filed in only three of hundreds of instances.
    4. Frozen representation: Seats fixed on 1971 population data leave voters in high growth States under represented, and any correction risks penalising States that reduced fertility. e.g. five southern States together standing to lose approximately 24 seats under a straight redistribution of the existing 543.
    5. Women’s under representation: Women form 49 percent of the population and held approximately 11 percent of Lok Sabha seats as of 2021. e.g. the Women’s Reservation Bill, first introduced in 1996, having failed multiple times, and state laws eroding the grassroots gains secured by the 73rd and 74th Amendments through retrograde eligibility criteria.
    6. Model Code of Conduct without statutory backing: The Code lacks statutory force and is enforced indirectly through existing law. e.g. the Supreme Court in Union of India versus Harbans Singh Jalal (2001) holding that the Code comes into force on the day the election date is announced, and opining that legalising the Code may not be suitable.
    7. Trust deficit in the Commission: Repeated controversies over electronic voting machines, SIR and turnout data have eroded the Commission’s moral authority. e.g. the demand that the Commission release detailed verification data and establish mechanisms for public scrutiny.
    8. Exit and opinion poll regulation gaps: Parliament limited only exit poll publication until the final phase, leaving opinion polls comparatively unrestricted. e.g. exit polls after the 2024 general elections significantly missing the actual result.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India (ECI)

    Source: Backgrounder, Elections Lifecycle Approach.docx

    1. Constitutional status: A constitutional body established on 25 January 1950 under Article 324, governed by Articles 324 to 329 in Part XV of the Constitution.
    2. Jurisdiction: Conducts and supervises elections to Parliament, State Legislatures and the offices of President and Vice President.
    3. Composition: A multi member body comprising one Chief Election Commissioner and up to two Election Commissioners.
    4. Status of the Chief Election Commissioner: Holds the same status, salary and perquisites as a judge of the Supreme Court, and can be removed only by a parliamentary address in the manner of a Supreme Court judge.
    5. Removal of Election Commissioners: An Election Commissioner can be removed by the President only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.
    6. Appointment: Governed by the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Service Conditions) Act, 2023, under which a Selection Committee comprising the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha recommends candidates.
    7. The appointment dispute: The Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal versus Union of India (2023) had directed that the selection panel include the Chief Justice of India until Parliament enacted a law, and the 2023 Act omitted the Chief Justice, which is under challenge.
    8. Administrative functions: Preparation and revision of electoral rolls, notification of election dates, scrutiny of nomination papers, recognition of political parties and allotment of symbols.
    9. Advisory and quasi judicial functions: Advises the President on disqualification of members of Parliament and Governors on State legislature disqualifications, cancels and reschedules polls for rigging or violence, and acts as a court for disputes on party recognition and symbols.

    Way Forward

    1. Publish the verification trail: Release booth level data on forms received, entries deleted and the reason recorded for each deletion, so that a claimed clean up is auditable rather than asserted.
    2. Enforce the individual notice requirement: Make compliance with Rule 18 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 a precondition for deletion, with a recorded acknowledgement for every form collected.
    3. Match the timeline to the task: Set the revision period from the verification workload of the largest States rather than a uniform 90 day window, given the Assam experience.
    4. Provide a portable enrolment route for migrants: Enable remote or transferable enrolment so that absence from the registered address during verification does not by itself trigger deletion.
    5. Require human confirmation of algorithmic matches: Treat artificial intelligence generated duplicate and identity matches as flags for field verification rather than as grounds for deletion.
    6. Publish a single calendar: Issue one set of deadlines for each State at the outset, so that contradictory dates of the kind issued in Bihar do not recur.
    7. Restore the appointment safeguard: Settle the composition of the Selection Committee for Election Commissioners, since the Commission’s perceived independence is the foundation of any acceptance of its roll revision.
    8. Build a bilateral democratic agenda on rules, not on claims: Convert the shared interest of India and the United States in citizen only rolls and verified voting into a technical exchange on enrolment standards, after each restores trust in its own process.

    “[2018, GS2, 10 marks] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?”

  • Punjab’s decade-long journey towards a formal sacrilege law

    Why in the News

    Punjab brought a stringent sacrilege law into force in April 2026 by amending an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, avoiding the Presidential assent that had defeated three earlier attempts. The route exposes a conflict between a State's determination to legislate on religious sentiment and the constitutional limits set by secularism, equality, proportionality and the division of legislative competence. A challenge to the Act is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    What does Punjab's 2026 sacrilege law do?

    1. What it penalises: It punishes sacrilege committed against the Guru Granth Sahib, and covers no other religious scripture.
    2. The sentence it carries: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, leaving no room for a judge to calibrate punishment to the facts of a case.
    3. The statute it amends: It amends a pre existing State law concerned specifically with the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, rather than the central penal code.
    4. How it was brought into force: Because the State argued the amendment falls within its own legislative competence, it claimed no Presidential assent was needed, and the Governor's signature brought it into force in April 2026.

    What is the current status of sacrilege law in India?

    1. The central provision: Insulting religion or religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intent is an offence under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the successor to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    2. The settled constitutional position: Section 295A was upheld in Ramji Lal Modi, and the Supreme Court has not revisited that ruling in almost sixty years.
    3. The intent requirement on paper: Conviction requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a threshold the court reads into the provision.
    4. Where the practical harm falls: Indian criminal procedure allows a First Information Report to be lodged and an accused arrested well before any court examines whether that intent was present, so the chilling effect operates at the point of complaint, not at the point of conviction.
    5. No standalone national sacrilege statute: There is no separate central law on sacrilege beyond the religious offence provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is why Punjab has repeatedly attempted a State law.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Sacrilege, Speech and Secularism

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law, and permits classification only where an intelligible differentia bears a rational nexus to the law's stated purpose.
    2. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
    3. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom in the interests of public order, decency or morality, among other grounds.
    4. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has read as requiring a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform even where this cuts against religious custom.
    6. Entry 1, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places criminal law within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.
    7. Article 254: Provides that a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same Concurrent List subject is void to that extent.
    8. Article 254(2): Saves such a State law only where it has been reserved for and has received the assent of the President.

    How did Punjab arrive at this law across a decade?

    1. 2016, the first attempt: The then Akali Dal and Bharatiya Janata Party government passed a bill imposing life imprisonment for sacrilege committed specifically against the Guru Granth Sahib. The Centre returned it, objecting that a law protecting only one religion's scripture could not sit easily with India's secular Constitution.
    2. 2018, the second attempt: The succeeding Congress government extended the same life sentence to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Bible, through a new Section 295AA of the penal code. That Bill was also returned without Presidential assent.
    3. July 2025, the third attempt: The Aam Aadmi Party government introduced the Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, again covering all four texts, with sentences ranging from ten years to life. It was sent to a select committee and has since been effectively shelved.
    4. April 2026, the successful route: The State abandoned the amendment of the central penal code and instead amended an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, bringing the law into force on the Governor's signature alone.
    5. The pattern the sequence shows: A State legislature has persistently tried, by one route or another, to entrench a sacrilege code of ever increasing severity, undeterred by repeated constitutional rebuffs.

    Why does a religion specific penal law run into the equality guarantee?

    1. The classification test it must pass: A provision drawing a line between one community's sacred text and every other's needs an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to its stated purpose, the test the Supreme Court set out in State of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar.
    2. Why the classification fails on its own terms: The Act's stated purpose is communal harmony, framed in terms of all communities, and singling out one faith's scripture does not serve a purpose framed in terms of all of them.
    3. The objection is not new: By protecting only the Guru Granth Sahib, the 2026 Act revives precisely the objection that sank the 2016 attempt.
    4. The pending litigation: In May 2026, the Anglican Church of India, through its Amritsar bishop, petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court arguing that the Act creates a religion specific penal regime violating equality before law, and sought both the quashing of the Act and a stay on its implementation.
    5. The standing wrinkle: The Bench reportedly questioned how a church whose own scripture the Act does not touch could claim to be aggrieved by it, a question that demonstrates the very defect alleged, since a law can discriminate in structure while leaving those it excludes without the conventional standing to challenge it. The petition remains pending.

    Why does the mandatory life sentence raise a proportionality problem?

    1. What the Act does: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, removing all sentencing discretion from the trial judge.
    2. The controlling precedent: In Mithu versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court struck down a different mandatory sentencing provision precisely because it stripped courts of discretion.
    3. The standard applied: Mithu applied the requirement of a just, fair and reasonable procedure that Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India had read into Article 21.
    4. The parallel is close: The earlier case also arose out of Punjab, which makes the comparison with the 2026 Act direct rather than analogical.
    5. Why proportionality matters here: Sacrilege covers conduct ranging from a deliberate desecration to an inadvertent act, and a single fixed maximum sentence prevents a court from distinguishing between them.

    Does the State have the legislative competence to enact this law?

    1. Where the subject sits: Criminal law sits on the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and the State legislature may legislate on it.
    2. The repugnancy rule: Article 254 makes a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same subject void to that extent, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries its own provisions on sacrilege and on outraging religious feeling.
    3. The only saving route: Article 254(2) saves such a State law only where it has received Presidential assent, which is the requirement that defeated the 2016 and 2018 Bills.
    4. How Punjab avoided it: The State amended a pre existing, ostensibly ceremonial statute rather than the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita directly, and argued that no assent was therefore needed.
    5. The challenge to that route: A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court argues that a life sentence is a matter of criminal law and cannot dodge central scrutiny merely by changing which statute book it sits in.

    Why does the free speech objection survive despite Ramji Lal Modi?

    1. The vagueness of the operative terms: Section 295A and its successor in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 rest on terms such as outrage, insult and religious feelings, policed after the fact by whichever officer receives the complaint.
    2. The precedent that should apply: In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India in 2015, the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety, holding that criminalising online messages using undefined terms such as offensive and menacing left the provision impermissibly vague, invited arbitrary enforcement and chilled protected speech in violation of Article 19(1)(a).
    3. The terms are no more precise: The words on which the religious offence provisions rest are as undefined as the words the court found fatal in Shreya Singhal.
    4. What the court has not done: It has never brought the Shreya Singhal reasoning to bear on Section 295A, whose constitutionality it settled in Ramji Lal Modi almost sixty years earlier and has not revisited since.
    5. The reason for the gap: The inconsistency reads as reluctance rather than principle, since it is easier to strike down a recent statute governing an unfamiliar medium than to unsettle an eighty year old precedent with a long and emotionally fraught history behind it.
    6. What the vagueness enables: A cartoon, a novel, a documentary or a stray remark on social media can all be made to fit the language of insult without any accompanying threat of actual disorder.

    Major debates surrounding sacrilege law

    1. Secularism as an unamendable limit: Secularism was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, precisely so that the State could neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, and a sacrilege law does the second.
    2. Religious freedom against religious reform: Article 25 protects the practice of religion and at the same time preserves the space for social reformers, sceptics and atheists to challenge religious practice, since the right is subject to public order, morality and health and the State may legislate for reform.
    3. Public order as a threshold or a label: One position requires an actual threat of disorder before speech may be punished, the other treats the giving of offence as itself a disturbance of public order.
    4. Ramji Lal Modi against Shreya Singhal: Two lines of authority now sit in tension, one upholding a vague religious offence provision and the other striking down a vague online speech provision on the same reasoning.
    5. Federal competence against local sentiment: A State legislature responding to local religious sentiment collides with a national criminal code and the Article 254 assent requirement designed to keep criminal law uniform.
    6. Deterrence against chilling effect: Severe sentences are defended as deterrence against desecration, and are opposed on the ground that the harm is inflicted at the stage of arrest, long before any court weighs intent.

    Challenges to enforcing a sacrilege law

    1. Undefined operative terms: Insult and outrage are not statutorily defined, so the same conduct produces prosecution in one district and none in another. e.g. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal in 2015 for exactly this defect.
    2. Arrest precedes adjudication of intent: A First Information Report can be registered and an accused arrested before any court tests the deliberate and malicious intent the offence requires. e.g. the 2026 Punjab Act's life sentence attaches to a charge that a magistrate never has to evaluate before custody begins.
    3. Selective protection invites litigation: Protecting one scripture and not others invites an equality challenge that can stall the law for years. e.g. the Anglican Church of India's May 2026 petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, still pending.
    4. No sentencing discretion: A mandatory minimum forces the same punishment on a deliberate desecration and an inadvertent act. e.g. Mithu versus State of Punjab struck down a mandatory sentencing provision for removing exactly this discretion.
    5. Repugnancy risk to the whole statute: A State criminal law that overlaps a central enactment is void to the extent of repugnancy unless it carries Presidential assent, so the entire Act can fall on a procedural ground. e.g. the 2016 and 2018 Punjab Bills were both returned without assent.
    6. Incentive for mob complaint: A severe penalty attached to a subjective standard makes the police complaint itself a weapon against critics, writers and artists. e.g. the returned 2018 Bill would have extended a life sentence to insult of four separate scriptures, multiplying the categories of complainant.
    7. Standing gap for excluded groups: A community whose scripture the law does not cover may be told it is not aggrieved, so the discrimination cannot be tested. e.g. the Punjab and Haryana High Court's question to the Amritsar bishop in the pending petition.

    Conclusion

    Punjab's 2026 Act carries three distinct constitutional infirmities at once: an equality defect under the Anwar Ali Sarkar test, a proportionality defect under Mithu, and a legislative competence defect under Article 254. Each of these is separate from the broader secularism objection that a State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one. The petitions challenging the Act remain pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the next milestone is that court's decision on the quashing and stay applications.

    What is Secularism as a Constitutional Doctrine?

    1. About: Indian secularism requires the State to maintain equal distance from all religions, neither establishing nor favouring one, while retaining the power to regulate the secular aspects of religious practice.
    2. Rationale: It exists to secure equal citizenship in a society of multiple faiths, so that a citizen's legal standing does not vary with religious affiliation.
    3. Its constitutional status: It was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, and was written into the Preamble by the Forty second Amendment in 1976.
    4. Its distinguishing feature: Unlike a strict wall of separation, the Indian model allows positive State intervention in religion for social welfare and reform, which Article 25(2) expressly authorises.
    5. Where it is enforced: Articles 25 to 28 supply the operative provisions, and Article 15 and Article 16 bar religious discrimination by the State.

    Key Concerns Regarding Constitutional Secularism

    1. State regulation shading into State preference: The power to reform religious practice can be exercised unevenly across communities, converting regulation into favour.
    2. Religious offence provisions in a secular code: Criminal provisions protecting religious feelings require the State to adjudicate what counts as an insult to faith, a task secularism was meant to keep it out of.
    3. Uneven codification of personal law: Some communities' family law is codified and reviewable while others' is not, producing different legal protection for identically placed citizens.
    4. The essential religious practices test: Courts must decide what is essential to a religion before they may regulate it, drawing judges into theological determination.
    5. Local majoritarian legislation: State legislatures respond to locally dominant religious sentiment, so a nationally uniform standard fragments at the State level.
    6. Enforcement discretion at the police station: Where the offence turns on a subjective standard, the identity of the complainant rather than the conduct determines whether the law is invoked.

    Laws and Rules Governing Speech Restrictions in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Limits on Speech.docx

    1. Constitutional provision: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech and Article 19(2) permits enumerated reasonable restrictions.
    2. Constitutional anchors for hate speech regulation: Article 14 on equality, Article 15 on non discrimination, Article 21 on dignity, Article 51A on the fundamental duty of harmony, and the Preambular value of fraternity.
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 196 on promoting enmity between groups, Section 197 on imputations prejudicial to national integration, Section 299 on outraging religious feelings, and Section 356 on defamation.
    4. Section 152, effective from 1 July 2024, replaced Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminalises acts exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist feelings or endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity, with punishment extending to life imprisonment.
    5. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 123(4) prohibits false statements about candidates during elections, and the Act carries the electoral speech restrictions.
    6. Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Govern online content, intermediary due diligence and takedown obligations.
    7. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Prohibits misleading and prohibited broadcast content under its Programme Code.
    8. Cinematograph Act, 1952: Governs film certification and censorship.
    9. Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Restricts indecent depiction of women in publications and advertisements.
    10. Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962): Sedition requires both a tendency to create disorder and incitement to violence, and vigorous criticism of government measures is protected.
    11. Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015): Distinguishes discussion, advocacy and incitement, protects discussion and advocacy even where unpopular, and holds that vague terms such as annoyance or inconvenience cannot be the basis for restricting speech.
    12. Amish Devgan versus Union of India (2020): Applies a three part contextual test of content, intent of the speaker and harm caused or likely to be caused, with public figures held to a higher standard.
    13. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India (29 April 2026): The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions seeking new hate speech laws, holding that creating criminal offences belongs exclusively to the legislature and that the existing framework is adequate, the real problem being an enforcement deficit.

    Back2Basics: S.R. Bommai versus Union of India

    1. What it is: A Supreme Court ruling of 1994 delivered by a nine judge bench, arising out of the dismissal of State governments and the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356.
    2. Its holding on federalism: It made the exercise of Article 356 justiciable, requiring the proclamation to rest on relevant material and permitting courts to restore a dismissed government.
    3. Its holding on secularism: It declared secularism a part of the Constitution's basic structure, and therefore beyond the amending power under Article 368.
    4. The consequence for State action: A State government acting against secularism can itself be a ground for action under Article 356.
    5. Why it governs this item: It is the authority for the proposition that the State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, which is the core objection to a scripture specific penal law.
    6. Its broader effect: It sharply reduced the routine use of President's Rule, which had been invoked over a hundred times before the ruling.

    Way Forward

    1. Legislate through the correct route: A State that wishes to create a criminal offence on a Concurrent List subject should reserve the Bill for Presidential assent under Article 254(2) rather than route it through a ceremonial statute.
    2. Protect all scriptures equally or none: A provision framed around communal harmony must apply uniformly across faiths to satisfy the intelligible differentia and rational nexus test.
    3. Restore sentencing discretion: Replacing the mandatory minimum with a graded range lets courts distinguish deliberate desecration from an inadvertent act, meeting the Mithu standard.
    4. Define the operative terms: Statutory definitions of insult and religious feelings, and an express requirement of proximate incitement, would reduce the vagueness Shreya Singhal identified as fatal.
    5. Insert a pre registration safeguard: Requiring a preliminary inquiry or prior sanction before a First Information Report is registered addresses the chilling effect that operates at the point of complaint.
    6. Refer Ramji Lal Modi for reconsideration: A larger bench revisiting the 1957 ruling in the light of Shreya Singhal would settle the doctrinal inconsistency that now runs through religious offence law.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] 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?”

  • Why is the Supreme Court examining polygamy again?

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition challenging the constitutional status of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law. The court additionally asked the Centre to consider legislative steps to abolish the practice for all citizens, irrespective of religion. The dispute sets a religion specific statutory exemption against the equality guarantees the Constitution extends to every citizen.

    What is the legal basis of polygamy in India?

    1. The practice: Polygamy is the contracting of a further marriage by a person whose earlier marriage is still subsisting.
    2. The permitting provision: Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 applies Shariat rules to matters of marriage and dissolution for Muslims, and it is under this provision that polygamy is permitted.
    3. The prohibiting provision: Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes marrying another person during the subsistence of an existing marriage with imprisonment up to seven years, and it applies to non Muslims.
    4. The asymmetry at issue: The same act is a criminal offence for one set of citizens and a protected personal law entitlement for another.

    What is the current status of polygamy law in India?

    1. Permitted for Muslim men alone: Polygamy remains lawful for Muslim men under the 1937 Act, with the scriptural ceiling being four wives.
    2. A criminal offence for everyone else: Bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, carrying up to seven years, and applies to Hindus, Christians, Parsis and citizens married under civil law.
    3. No compulsory registration: Muslim marriages and divorces are not universally required to be registered with State authorities, so a subsisting marriage is often not on any official record.
    4. Related practices already struck down: Instant triple talaq was invalidated by the Supreme Court in August 2017, and the Centre followed by framing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, making the practice a punishable offence.
    5. Polygamy and nikah halala left open: The 2017 bench refrained from ruling on polygamy and nikah halala even though both had been sought, which is why the question returns to the court now.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Personal Law and Gender Equality

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person within India.
    2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    3. Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
    4. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read by the Supreme Court to include dignity and autonomy within marriage.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and expressly permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform.
    6. Article 44: Directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India, as a Directive Principle.
    7. Entry 5, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places marriage, divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.

    What are the petitioners seeking?

    1. Criminalisation of polygamy: The five petitioners want polygamy treated as a criminal offence under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for all citizens.
    2. Striking down the enabling provision: They have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 16.
    3. Annulment of the exemptions: They have sought annulment of the exemptions granted to polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.
    4. Compulsory registration: They want compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces with State authorities, so that a second or subsequent marriage by a man with a subsisting marriage can be prevented.
    5. Protection of the first family: Where registration is flouted, they want the first wife and her children to have the first and lasting right to the matrimonial home.
    6. Codification of Muslim Personal Law: They want the court to direct the Law Commission of India or the Union government to prepare a draft codifying Muslim Personal Law so that marriage, divorce and succession align with constitutional principles of gender equality.

    How has the Supreme Court ruled on plural marriage before?

    1. Sarla Mudgal (1995): The Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after converting to Islam, without dissolving the first marriage, is void, prohibiting conversion undertaken purely to marry again.
    2. Lily Thomas versus Union of India (2000): The court reiterated the Sarla Mudgal position, holding that a second marriage contracted after a feigned conversion to Islam was illegal and punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    3. Shayara Bano (2017): The court invalidated instant triple talaq on the argument that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women, on a petition in which two of the present activists were also involved.
    4. The gap the rulings leave: All three rulings addressed the abuse of conversion or the mode of divorce, none tested the validity of polygamy itself under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

    Does Islamic scripture itself sanction polygamy?

    1. The scriptural position: The Quran encourages monogamy and does not encourage polygamy, contrary to the common contention.
    2. The narrow permission: It permits a man up to four wives in special circumstances, such as marrying a widow or an orphan.
    3. The condition attached: It makes complete equality between wives incumbent on the man, and because that is a practical impossibility, it asks men to desist from multiple marriages.
    4. The text relied on: Verse 3 of Surah Nisa states that if a man fears he will fail to maintain justice, he should content himself with one wife, a verse revealed when many men had multiple spouses running into three figures.

    Major debates surrounding polygamy and personal law reform

    1. Equality against religious freedom: One position reads Articles 14, 15 and 16 as overriding a religion specific exemption, the other reads Article 25 as protecting a practice integral to a community's personal law.
    2. Judicial invalidation against legislative codification: The court can strike down Section 2 of the 1937 Act, but a durable settlement requires Parliament to codify Muslim Personal Law, which is what the petitioners are actually asking for.
    3. The essential religious practices test: The dispute turns on whether polygamy is an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 or a permitted social custom open to reform, and the two characterisations produce opposite outcomes.
    4. Uniform Civil Code against pluralism: The court's suggestion that the Centre abolish the practice for all citizens irrespective of religion moves the question toward Article 44, which reopens the standing dispute over a Uniform Civil Code.
    5. The evidence gap: There is no reliable national dataset on the current prevalence of polygamy, so both sides argue from contested estimates rather than measured incidence.
    6. Gender justice inside communities: The debate over whether reform of a minority's personal law is best driven by the courts, by Parliament or by the community itself remains unsettled.

    Challenges to abolishing polygamy through law

    1. Absence of marriage registration: Without compulsory registration, a subsisting marriage cannot be proved, so a bigamy prosecution collapses at the evidence stage. e.g. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has historically produced very few convictions because the prosecution must first prove a valid first marriage and then a valid second one.
    2. The essential practices doctrine: Courts must first decide whether the practice is essential to the religion before they can regulate it, which is a theological inquiry judges are poorly placed to conduct. e.g. the Sabarimala reference of 2019 sent exactly this question to a larger bench, where it remains pending.
    3. Standing and enforcement: A first wife who depends on her husband economically has little incentive to complain, so a criminal provision goes unused. e.g. the low prosecution rate for dowry related matrimonial offences despite a wide statutory framework.
    4. Community resistance to codification: Attempts to codify a minority's personal law are read as an intrusion on identity rather than a gender reform. e.g. the reversal of the Shah Bano ruling through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
    5. Displacement rather than abolition: Criminalisation can push plural unions outside the legal record, leaving second wives and their children without maintenance or inheritance rights. e.g. Hindu bigamy has continued through unregistered customary unions despite being an offence since 1955.
    6. Federal complexity: Marriage and divorce sit on the Concurrent List, so State level marriage registration laws vary and a national standard needs Parliamentary action.

    Conclusion

    The dispute before the court is not about the scriptural permissibility of polygamy but about whether a statutory exemption can hold when the same conduct is a criminal offence for other citizens. A judicial strike down of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 would remove the permission without supplying the registration and maintenance machinery that makes a prohibition workable. The Centre's response to the notice, and whether it accepts the court's invitation to legislate for all citizens, is the next milestone in the case.

    What is Personal Law in India?

    1. About: Personal law is the body of rules governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, succession and inheritance, applied to a person according to their religious community rather than their territory.
    2. Rationale: It survived as a distinct legal category because the colonial state declined to legislate on the family affairs of religious communities, and the Constitution retained it while placing the subject on the Concurrent List.
    3. The four principal systems:
    4. Hindu law: Codified through four statutes in 1955 and 1956, covering Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
    5. Muslim law: Largely uncodified, applied through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, with limited statutory intervention on divorce and maintenance.
    6. Christian law: Governed by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
    7. Parsi law: Governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
    8. The secular alternative: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 offers any two citizens a civil marriage independent of religion, along with a uniform succession regime.

    Key Concerns Regarding Personal Law

    1. Unequal entitlements between citizens: Rights on divorce, maintenance and inheritance differ by religion, so two women in identical situations receive different legal protection.
    2. Gender asymmetry within systems: Several personal law systems give men wider rights over the dissolution of marriage and over property than they give women.
    3. Uncodified rules resist reform: Where the law is not written into a statute, amending it requires either judicial intervention or community consensus, both of which are slow.
    4. Weak registration infrastructure: Absent compulsory registration across all communities, the State has no record against which to enforce even the rules it has enacted.
    5. Article 44 remains unimplemented: The Directive Principle on a Uniform Civil Code has produced State level initiatives rather than a national framework, leaving the constitutional aspiration unfulfilled.

    Laws and Rules Governing Marriage and Personal Status in India

    1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869: Governs the dissolution of marriage among Christians.
    2. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Governs the solemnisation of Christian marriages.
    3. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Applies Shariat rules to Muslims in matters including marriage, dissolution, maintenance and succession.
    4. Section 2 is the provision under challenge, since it is the route through which polygamy is permitted.
    5. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Governs marriage and divorce among Parsis.
    6. Special Marriage Act, 1954: Provides a civil marriage available to any two citizens irrespective of religion, with its own divorce and succession rules.
    7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Codified Hindu marriage law and made bigamy void and punishable.
    8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Codified intestate succession for Hindus, amended in 2005 to make daughters coparceners by birth.
    9. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Enacted after the Shah Bano ruling to govern maintenance for divorced Muslim women.
    10. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Sets the minimum age of marriage and makes child marriage voidable at the option of the minor party.
    11. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Made the pronouncement of instant triple talaq void and a punishable offence.
    12. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 82 punishes bigamy with up to seven years, replacing Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

    Back2Basics: Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

    1. What it is: A short central statute that directs courts to apply Muslim personal law to Muslims in the matters it lists.
    2. Enacted: 1937, by the Central Legislative Assembly in British India.
    3. Subjects covered: Intestate succession, special property of females, marriage, dissolution of marriage including talaq, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and wakfs.
    4. Effect of Section 2: It displaces custom and usage in these matters and substitutes Shariat as the rule of decision.
    5. What it does not do: It does not codify Muslim personal law, it only directs which body of rules applies, which is why the substantive rules remain uncodified.
    6. Present relevance: It is the statute whose Section 2 is under constitutional challenge in the polygamy petition before the Supreme Court.

    Way Forward

    1. Enact compulsory marriage registration: A uniform registration requirement for all marriages and divorces, irrespective of religion, creates the record without which any bigamy prohibition is unenforceable.
    2. Codify Muslim Personal Law: A codified statute drafted with the community, as the petitioners seek from the Law Commission of India, converts contested custom into reviewable law.
    3. Secure the first family's rights first: Statutory protection of the first wife's and children's right to the matrimonial home and to maintenance addresses the harm even where the marriage itself is not annulled.
    4. Use the Special Marriage Act, 1954 route: Simplifying and publicising civil marriage gives couples an existing exit from personal law without waiting for its reform.
    5. Build the evidentiary base: A national survey of the prevalence of plural marriage would replace contested estimates with measured data on which any legislation must rest.
    6. Sequence reform through Parliament: A legislative framework, rather than a bare judicial strike down, supplies the transitional provisions, penalties and remedies that a court order cannot create.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one's right to marry the person of one's choice? (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29 Answer: (b)”

  • District Collectors in six border States, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh empowered to grant citizenship

    Why in the News

    The Union Home Ministry has notified the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, authorising District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories to grant registration or naturalisation to applicants found fit and proper. The power now sits with a single district officer in place of the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously exercised it, in exactly the regions where citizenship determination is most contested.

    What do the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 provide?

    1. Delegation of power: The Rules authorise District Collectors in the specified States and Union Territories to process applications seeking citizenship by registration or naturalisation.
    2. The operative provision: The Collector, on being satisfied with the suitability of the applicant, that he is a fit and proper person to be registered or naturalised, shall grant him the citizenship of India.
    3. Full processing authority: The gazette notification authorises Collectors to receive, scrutinise and dispose of such applications in accordance with the laid down parameters.
    4. Replacement of earlier authorities: Collectors in these States replace the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously held these powers, and all pending applications with those committees are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    What is the difference between registration and naturalisation?

    1. Registration: Acquisition of citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by persons with a defined connection to India, such as persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens and minor children of Indian citizens, on shorter residence conditions.
    2. Naturalisation: Acquisition under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by a foreigner with no such prior connection, on satisfying the longer residence and other conditions set out in the Third Schedule.

    What is the current status of citizenship acquisition in India?

    1. Single citizenship: India provides for a single citizenship of the Union with no separate State citizenship, and there is a single domicile for the whole territory.
    2. Five modes of acquisition: The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for acquisition by birth under Section 3, descent under Section 4, registration under Section 5, naturalisation under Section 6, and incorporation of territory under Section 7.
    3. Naturalisation threshold: The Third Schedule requires residence in India for twelve months immediately preceding the application, and residence or government service for eleven years in the aggregate in the fourteen years preceding those twelve months.
    4. Reduced threshold under the 2019 amendment: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduces the aggregate residence requirement to five years for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    5. Birth rule as it now stands: A person born in India on or after 3 December 2004 is a citizen by birth only if both parents are citizens, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of birth.
    6. Loss of citizenship: Citizenship may be lost by renunciation under Section 8, termination on voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship under Section 9, and deprivation by the Union government under Section 10 on specified grounds including fraud and disloyalty.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Citizenship

    1. Article 5: Confers citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution on persons domiciled in India who were born in India, or either of whose parents was born in India, or who had been ordinarily resident in India for at least five years.
    2. Article 6: Confers citizenship on persons who migrated to India from Pakistan, subject to conditions of date of migration and registration.
    3. Article 7: Deals with persons who migrated to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and later returned to India under a permit for resettlement.
    4. Article 8: Confers citizenship on persons of Indian origin residing outside India who register with an Indian diplomatic or consular mission.
    5. Article 9: Bars a person from being a citizen of India if that person has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State.
    6. Article 10: Provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen continues to be so, subject to any law made by Parliament.
    7. Article 11: Empowers Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law, which is the source of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and every amendment to it.
    8. Seventh Schedule, Union List Entry 17: Places citizenship, naturalisation and aliens exclusively within Parliament's legislative competence, which is why the Rules are made by the Union Home Ministry and not by States.

    Which regions and authorities does the new delegation cover?

    1. Six States: Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam and Tripura.
    2. Two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
    3. A carve out for tribal areas: In Assam and Tripura, the Rules specifically exclude tribal areas, which remain outside the Collector's new authority.
    4. Common characteristic of the list: Every State and Union Territory in the list shares an international land border, which is what links the eight jurisdictions.
    5. Transfer of pending cases: All applications pending with the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers in the specified regions are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    Why does routing this power through the District Collector matter?

    1. From a collegial body to a single officer: An Empowered Committee decides collectively while a Collector decides individually, which changes both the speed and the internal check on a citizenship grant.
    2. The standard is discretionary: The Rules turn on the Collector's satisfaction that the applicant is a fit and proper person, a formulation that leaves the assessment to the officer.
    3. Proximity to the applicant: The district is where residence, documents and antecedents can actually be verified, which is the administrative case for the delegation.
    4. Border districts are where determination is contested: The delegation applies precisely in the jurisdictions where migration histories, documentary gaps and citizenship disputes are most concentrated.
    5. A rules level change to a statutory power: The delegation is effected through subordinate legislation under the Citizenship Act, 1955 rather than through an amendment to the Act itself.

    Major debates surrounding citizenship determination in India

    1. Documentary burden versus lived residence: Determination rests on documents that the poorest and most mobile populations are least able to produce, which converts an evidentiary problem into an exclusion outcome.
    2. Executive determination versus judicial safeguard: Citizenship in India is decided in the first instance by executive authorities, with judicial review available only afterwards and at the individual's cost.
    3. The 2019 amendment and Article 14: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 uses religion and country of origin as criteria for a reduced naturalisation threshold, and its consistency with the equality guarantee is before the Supreme Court.
    4. National register proposals: The relationship between the National Population Register, a National Register of Indian Citizens and the Citizenship Rules is contested, particularly on whether enumeration becomes verification.
    5. The Assam experience: The Assam National Register of Citizens exercise, with its cut off of 24 March 1971 under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, remains the reference case for the administrative and human cost of large scale determination.
    6. Statelessness risk: A person excluded from citizenship without any other State recognising them has no status at all, and India is not a party to the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions.
    7. Uniformity across deciding authorities: Where dozens of district officers apply a fit and proper standard independently, the same facts can produce different outcomes in adjacent districts.

    Challenges to the Collector led citizenship grant framework

    1. Discretion without a stated test: The fit and proper standard is not defined in the Rules, so its content depends on the individual officer. e.g. two applicants with identical residence records in adjacent districts of Rajasthan can receive different outcomes.
    2. Workload of the office: A District Collector already carries revenue, magisterial, election, disaster and development functions, and citizenship scrutiny is added to that list. e.g. Collectors in border districts of West Bengal simultaneously handle electoral roll administration and law and order duties.
    3. Loss of collegial scrutiny: Replacing an Empowered Committee with a single officer removes the internal deliberation that a multi member body provided. e.g. pending applications before those committees now move to a single decision maker without any recorded transition of standards.
    4. No stated appeal route in the notification: The Rules set out the grant power without specifying an appellate forum against refusal at the district level. e.g. an applicant refused by a Collector is left to writ jurisdiction of the High Court rather than a departmental appeal.
    5. Tribal area exclusion creates a two track system: Applicants in the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura continue under the earlier authorities, producing different processes within the same State. e.g. two applicants in Tripura face different deciding authorities depending on whether their residence falls inside a tribal area.
    6. Verification capacity in border districts: Establishing residence and antecedents requires police and revenue verification chains that are already stretched in border districts. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens exercise showed how documentary verification at scale outruns administrative capacity.

    Conclusion

    The Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 have been notified in the Gazette and are in force, replacing Empowered Committees and Designated Officers with District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories, with tribal areas of Assam and Tripura excluded. The immediate next step named in the notification is the transfer of all pending applications to the relevant Collector, and the source states no further date or milestone beyond that. The change is administrative in form and consequential in effect, because it places a sovereign determination in the hands of a single district officer applying an undefined fit and proper standard. Whether the delegation speeds up disposal or widens variation depends on the guidance and appeal architecture that follows.

    What is Citizenship?

    1. About: Citizenship is the legal relationship between an individual and a State that carries full civil and political membership, including the right to vote, to hold public office and to hold an Indian passport.
    2. Rationale: It defines who belongs to the political community, and therefore who may claim the rights the Constitution reserves for citizens rather than for all persons.
    3. Rights reserved for citizens: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution are available only to citizens. Articles 14 and 21 extend to every person.
    4. Jus soli, the territorial principle: Citizenship by place of birth, which India applied without qualification until 1987.
    5. Jus sanguinis, the descent principle: Citizenship by parentage, which India progressively adopted through the 1986, 2003 and 2004 changes to the birth rule.
    6. Naturalisation, the acquired principle: Citizenship granted by the State to a foreigner on satisfying residence, conduct and language conditions, which is the mode the new Rules deal with.

    Laws and Rules Governing Citizenship in India

    1. Citizenship Act, 1955: The principal statute, enacted under Article 11, providing for acquisition, determination and termination of Indian citizenship.
    2. 1986 amendment: Ended unqualified citizenship by birth, requiring at least one parent to be an Indian citizen for those born on or after 1 July 1987.
    3. 2003 amendment: Introduced the concept of the illegal migrant, barred illegal migrants from citizenship, and provided for a National Register of Indian Citizens and compulsory registration of all citizens.
    4. 2005 amendment: Expanded the categories eligible for the Overseas Citizen of India status.
    5. 2015 amendment: Merged the Person of Indian Origin card with the Overseas Citizen of India card, creating the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder category.
    6. 2019 amendment: Reduced the naturalisation residence requirement to five years for six specified minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    7. Section 6A: Provides the Assam specific framework with the 24 March 1971 cut off, upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 2024.
    8. Citizenship Rules, 2009: The principal subordinate legislation prescribing forms, procedures and authorities for applications under the Act.
    9. Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024: Prescribed the application procedure and the district and empowered committee structure for grants under the 2019 amendment.
    10. Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026: Transfers the grant power in the specified border States and Union Territories to District Collectors.
    11. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: Consolidates the law on entry, stay and exit of foreigners, replacing the earlier Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000.
    12. Passports Act, 1967: Governs the issue of Indian passports and travel documents, for which proof of citizenship is a precondition.

    Government Initiatives Related to Citizenship

    1. Indian Citizenship Online portal: The Ministry of Home Affairs portal through which applications for citizenship by registration and naturalisation are filed and tracked.
    2. Dedicated portal and mobile application under the 2019 amendment: Launched in 2024 to receive applications from eligible applicants of the six specified communities.
    3. National Population Register: Maintained under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2003 as a register of usual residents, updated alongside the census housing phase.
    4. Long Term Visa scheme: Provides extended stay, employment and property rights to minority community migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan pending decision on their citizenship applications.
    5. Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder scheme: Provides lifelong visa free travel and parity with non resident Indians in specified economic and educational fields, without conferring citizenship or voting rights.

    Key Facts about Citizenship in India

    1. Constitutional location: Citizenship is dealt with in Part II of the Constitution, comprising Articles 5 to 11.
    2. Single citizenship: India follows single citizenship on the pattern of the United Kingdom, unlike the dual citizenship model of the United States.
    3. No dual citizenship: India does not permit dual citizenship, and voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship terminates Indian citizenship under Section 9.
    4. Overseas Citizen of India status is not citizenship: An Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder cannot vote, hold constitutional office or purchase agricultural land.
    5. The 2004 birth rule cut off: Persons born in India on or after 3 December 2004 must have at least one citizen parent and no illegal migrant parent.
    6. Union subject: Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens is Entry 17 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.

    Challenges in Citizenship Determination in India

    1. Documentary proof in a low documentation society: Establishing descent and residence over decades requires records many households never held. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens process excluded over 19 lakh persons from the final list published in 2019.
    2. Gendered documentation gap: Married women who moved at marriage often lack independent linkage documents to a parent's record. e.g. panchayat residence certificates for married women became a contested category of proof during the Assam exercise.
    3. Adjudication capacity: Determination bodies handle far more cases than their sanctioned strength can process fairly. e.g. Foreigners Tribunals in Assam handling large pendency with limited members.
    4. Detention and post declaration limbo: A person declared a foreigner with no country willing to receive them remains in indefinite administrative limbo. e.g. the Supreme Court's directions on conditional release of long term detainees from Assam detention centres.
    5. Legal challenge to the 2019 framework: The reduced naturalisation threshold for specified religious communities is under constitutional challenge, leaving the framework unsettled. e.g. petitions against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 pending before the Supreme Court.
    6. Variation across deciding authorities: Multiple district level authorities applying an undefined standard produce inconsistent outcomes. e.g. the fit and proper test in the 2026 Rules carrying no statutory definition.
    7. Absence of a statelessness framework: India has no domestic law on statelessness and is not party to the 1954 and 1961 conventions on the subject. e.g. persons excluded from a citizenship register having no recognised alternative legal status.

    Way Forward

    1. Issue binding guidance on the fit and proper test: Publish parameters, documentary standards and a reasoned order requirement so that Collector level discretion is structured rather than open ended.
    2. Provide a departmental appeal: Create an appellate authority above the Collector for refusals, so that recourse does not begin at the High Court.
    3. Mandate speaking orders and time limits: Require every grant and refusal to record reasons and to be disposed of within a stated period, with the position published in aggregate.
    4. Publish disposal data: Release district wise data on applications received, granted and refused, so that variation between Collectors becomes visible and correctable.
    5. Train and support district staff: Provide dedicated staff and training on citizenship law to Collectorates in the eight jurisdictions, given the additional workload placed on an already loaded office.
    6. Enact a statelessness framework: Provide in domestic law for the status, rights and documentation of persons who are found to be citizens of no country, so that exclusion does not produce legal invisibility.
    7. Harmonise the tribal area carve out: Specify which authority decides applications from the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura, so that no applicant falls between two regimes.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements: 1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile. 2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State. 3. A foreigner, once granted citizenship, cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 2 and 3 Answer: (a)”

  • Telangana’s 94 Lakh Electors Face SIR Scrutiny

    Why in the News

    The Telangana Chief Electoral Officer’s office records that only 78.3 percent of enumeration forms in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls have been digitised, with the remaining 21.7 percent classified as uncollectable. Together with nearly 20 lakh technically inconsistent or unmapped entries, close to 94 lakh electors now face scrutiny, exposing a conflict between the Election Commission’s duty to purify the roll and the elector’s burden of proving continued existence at a particular address.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?

    1. Nature of the exercise: SIR is a house to house re-verification of the entire electoral roll ordered by the Election Commission of India, distinct from the routine annual summary revision that only adds and deletes at the margin.
    2. Core method: Every existing elector is served an enumeration form and must return it with supporting particulars, so continued enrolment depends on a fresh positive response rather than on the presumption of an existing entry.
    3. Statutory anchor: The revision is conducted under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, which govern preparation and revision of rolls.
    4. Output of the exercise: The Commission publishes a draft roll, invites claims and objections, disposes of them, and then publishes the final roll that governs the next election.
    5. Stated purpose: The exercise removes deceased, shifted, duplicate and ineligible entries and is intended to produce a roll free of multiple enrolment across constituencies.

    What is a Booth Level Officer (BLO)?

    1. Who they are: A Booth Level Officer is a local government functionary, usually a schoolteacher, anganwadi worker or panchayat employee, appointed by the Electoral Registration Officer for one polling station area.
    2. Core duty: The BLO conducts door to door verification, distributes and collects enumeration forms and reports additions, deletions and corrections for that booth.

    What is a Booth Level Agent (BLA)?

    1. Who they are: A Booth Level Agent is a party appointed representative attached to a polling station, authorised to submit claims and objections in bulk on behalf of a recognised political party.
    2. Function in a revision: The BLA is the party’s only institutional means of tracking who is being added to or removed from the roll while the revision is still under way.

    What is the claims and objections phase?

    1. What it is: After the draft roll is published, any person may file a claim for inclusion or correction, and any elector may file an objection to another person’s entry, within a notified window.
    2. Why it matters here: An elector whose form is missing, uncollected or found to contain discrepancies must use this window to restore the entry, which shifts the burden of proof onto the individual.

    What is the current status of the right to vote in India?

    1. Who holds the right: Every citizen of India not less than 18 years of age on the qualifying date, ordinarily resident in a constituency and not otherwise disqualified, is entitled to be registered as an elector.
    2. Nature of the right: The right to vote is a statutory right conferred by the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, not a fundamental right, though the Supreme Court has treated the act of voting as an expression of choice touching Article 19(1)(a).
    3. Age threshold: The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 years by the Sixty first Constitutional Amendment Act, 1988.
    4. Bar on discrimination: No person may be excluded from a roll on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex, and separate electorates stand abolished.
    5. Grounds of disqualification: Non citizenship, unsoundness of mind declared by a competent court, and corrupt practices or electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualify a person from registration.
    6. Practical precondition: Enrolment requires ordinary residence in the constituency, which is the exact test that a migration heavy electorate such as Telangana’s strains.

    Which constitutional provisions govern electoral rolls and the franchise?

    1. Article 324: Vests superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls and the conduct of all elections to Parliament, State legislatures, the office of President and the office of Vice President in the Election Commission of India.
    2. Article 325: Provides for a single general electoral roll for every territorial constituency and bars exclusion on grounds only of religion, race, caste or sex.
    3. Article 326: Establishes adult suffrage as the basis of elections to the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, with non residence, unsoundness of mind, crime, corrupt practice or illegal practice as the only permitted disqualifications.
    4. Article 327: Empowers Parliament to make law on all matters relating to elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls.
    5. Article 328: Empowers a State legislature to legislate on election matters for that State where Parliament has not occupied the field.
    6. Article 329: Bars courts from questioning the delimitation of constituencies and confines challenges to an election to an election petition filed under law.

    What does the Telangana revision’s own arithmetic show?

    1. Total electorate: The Chief Electoral Officer’s office records a total electorate of 3,38,26,448 in Telangana.
    2. Forms digitised: 2,64,86,214 enumeration forms have been digitised, a completion rate of 78.3 percent.
    3. Forms uncollectable: The remaining 21.7 percent stand classified as uncollectable, the category at the centre of the dispute.
    4. Additional problem entries: Nearly 20 lakh entries have been identified as technically inconsistent or unmapped, which is separate from the uncollectable set.
    5. Aggregate exposure: The two categories together account for nearly 94 lakh electors who may face scrutiny during the revision.
    6. Political reading of the figure: The State’s Chief Minister has warned party colleagues that a potential reduction of 21 percent in voter numbers would carry serious consequences.

    What exactly does the uncollectable category contain?

    1. Deceased: 9,22,230 electors are recorded as deceased.
    2. Absent or untraceable: 11,25,546 electors are marked absent or untraceable.
    3. Permanently shifted: 45,18,961 electors are listed as permanently shifted, the single largest component of the set.
    4. Enrolled elsewhere: 6,70,203 electors are shown as enrolled elsewhere.
    5. Other categories: 1,02,294 electors fall under residual other categories.

    Why has the uncollectable count risen so far?

    1. Verification substituted, not performed: Overburdened Booth Level Officers allegedly skipped mandatory door to door verification in several areas and worked instead from centralised collection points.
    2. Consequence of that substitution: Persons who could not travel to those collection centres were marked unavailable, so an administrative shortcut is recorded as an elector’s absence.
    3. Geographic concentration: The problem is concentrated in districts around Hyderabad, specifically the erstwhile districts of Ranga Reddy, Medak, Mahabubnagar and Nalgonda, which have seen substantial migration to the capital region.
    4. The dual voter imbalance: People who moved to Hyderabad retained their votes in their native places, producing low local enrolment across the 28 Assembly segments falling under the Hyderabad, Secunderabad, Chevella and Malkajgiri Lok Sabha constituencies.
    5. Interstate migration: Migrant workers from Bihar, Chhattisgarh and other States also vote in their home States rather than registering locally, which leaves them unavailable at the Telangana address on record.
    6. Absence of party level checks: The ruling party did not deploy adequate Booth Level Agents during field verification, so lapses in the revision went unchallenged while opposition parties monitored enrolment patterns closely.

    Why does a roll cleaning exercise carry a disenfranchisement risk?

    1. Both claims are legitimate: A roll carrying deceased and duplicate entries is a genuine integrity problem, and a revision that deletes a living elector is a genuine rights problem, and the same exercise produces both outcomes.
    2. The burden inverts: Once an entry is classed uncollectable, the elector must affirmatively reclaim it during claims and objections, so the cost of an official’s failure falls on the individual.
    3. Incidence is not neutral: Deletions concentrate among minorities, low income households and socio economically weaker groups, precisely the electors least able to navigate a documentary appeal.
    4. Loss extends beyond the vote: Losing an entry can also affect access to welfare linked identity systems and government benefits, since the roll functions as a residence proof in practice.
    5. Scale defeats remedy: A claims window designed for marginal correction cannot realistically process nearly 94 lakh contested entries within a normal revision calendar.
    6. Comparative anxiety: The concern is framed against roll controversies in other States where large scale deletions are alleged to have altered electoral outcomes.

    What are the major debates surrounding electoral roll revision?

    1. Purity versus inclusion: One position treats a bloated roll as the primary threat to a fair election, the other treats wrongful deletion as the graver harm, and the Commission has no settled test for choosing between them.
    2. Ordinary residence versus migration: The ordinary residence requirement of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 assumes a settled population, which sits badly with an economy built on circular and long distance internal migration.
    3. Burden of proof: Whether the State must prove ineligibility before deletion, or the elector must prove eligibility to retain an entry, remains the central unresolved question of every intensive revision.
    4. Documentary thresholds: Any documentary requirement beyond the existing roll risks excluding electors who lack birth records, which raises a question of proportionality under Article 14.
    5. Aadhaar linkage: The voluntary linking of Aadhaar with the elector photo identity card, permitted after 2021, is contested on the ground that a residence and identity database is being used to test citizenship linked entitlement.
    6. Data and audit gap: No independent audit of deletion accuracy is published, so the actual error rate of any revision is unknown to both parties in the dispute.
    7. Migrant voting rights: The absence of a working remote voting mechanism means an internal migrant must choose between a vote at origin and residence at destination.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. Field capacity deficit: A single Booth Level Officer handling more than a thousand electors alongside a regular government job cannot complete genuine door to door verification within a compressed calendar, e.g. Telangana’s revision saw officers operating from centralised collection points instead of visiting households.
    2. Migration blindness of the roll: The roll’s design assumes a fixed address, so circular migrants appear as absent rather than as electors resident elsewhere, e.g. 45,18,961 Telangana entries classed as permanently shifted with no corresponding transfer of registration.
    3. Asymmetric political capacity: Parties with dense booth level networks can protect their electors during verification while weaker parties cannot, e.g. Telangana’s ruling party admitted it failed to deploy adequate Booth Level Agents during field verification.
    4. Documentary exclusion of the poorest: Reclaiming a deleted entry requires paperwork that landless, informal and displaced households frequently lack, e.g. the 46 lakh distinct caste strings thrown up by the 2011 Socio Economic and Caste Census illustrate how weakly self reported records map onto official categories.
    5. Compressed appeal window: The claims and objections period is calibrated for marginal correction, not for mass restoration, e.g. nearly 94 lakh Telangana entries now require individual disposal inside a single revision cycle.
    6. Absence of a deletion audit: No independent verification of deletion accuracy is published before the final roll, e.g. neither the 11,25,546 absent or untraceable entries nor the nearly 20 lakh unmapped entries in Telangana have been sample audited.
    7. Federal friction over process: State governments read a centrally ordered intensive revision as an intrusion into a politically sensitive process, e.g. the Telangana Cabinet was alerted that a 21 percent reduction in voter numbers would carry serious consequences.

    Conclusion

    The Telangana revision has converted an administrative failure of verification into a question of individual entitlement, because an elector missed at the doorstep is recorded as an elector who does not exist. Nearly 94 lakh entries now stand exposed at the claims and objections phase, and the burden of correcting an officer’s shortcut has passed to the elector. The revision will only be defensible if field verification is genuinely completed and deletions are audited before the final roll is published.

  • A secular republic’s sacrilege problem and the legal price of criticising holy writ

    Why in the News

    Punjab’s Governor assented in April 2026 to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, which provides punishment up to life imprisonment for sacrilege. The Act also covers words, signs, visible representations and electronic means, raising debate over the boundary between sacrilege and blasphemy.

    What is the Act?

    • Applies to wilful and deliberate desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib.
    • Covers physical acts such as damage, defacement, burning, tearing and theft of Saroop.
    • Also covers certain spoken/written words, signs, visual representations and electronic acts.
    • Emerged against the backdrop of the 2015 Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala incidents.

    Key Legal Provisions

    Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

    • Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from July 2024.
    • Section 298: Offences involving injury/defilement of places of worship.
    • Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, including through electronic means.
    • Section 299 carries forward the substance of former Section 295A, IPC.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions, including for public order.
    • Article 25: Freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
    • Article 14: Equality before law.
    • Article 51A(e): Promotes harmony and common brotherhood.
    • Article 51A(h): Promotes scientific temper, inquiry and reform.
    • Secularism: Part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

    Sacrilege vs Blasphemy

    • Sacrilege: Physical or conduct-based desecration of something sacred.
    • Blasphemy: Expressive acts showing contempt or irreverence towards religious beliefs.
    • Concern: Punjab’s law potentially merges the two by treating certain expressive acts as sacrilege.

    Historical Background of Section 295A

    • Rangila Rasul pamphlet triggered controversy in Lahore in 1924.
    • Section 295A IPC was enacted in 1927 to criminalise deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
    • The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) under the Article 19(2) public order exception.

    Key Concerns

    • Chilling effect on speech, scholarship and satire.
    • Subjective interpretation of religious hurt.
    • Potential misuse by organised complainants.
    • Risk of vigilante violence despite criminalisation.
    • Digital communication expands the potential reach of the offence.
    • Different States may prescribe different levels of punishment.

  • Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 creates National Tribunals Commission after a decade-long tussle with the Supreme Court

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which creates a National Tribunals Commission, fixes member tenure at five years and repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021. The measure ends a decade in which the Centre re-enacted provisions the Supreme Court had struck down, most recently in November 2025 when a Bench called the 2021 re-enactment an impermissible legislative override. It concedes the institution the Court had demanded while retaining the appointment, funding and rule making levers that produced the dispute.

    What is the National Tribunals Commission?

    1. An independent oversight body for tribunals: The National Tribunals Commission is created to sever the dependence of tribunals on their parent government ministries for administrative and financial needs.
    2. Composition: It will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court, with two judicial members and two technical members.
    3. Qualification for technical members: Technical members must have at least 25 years of experience in fields such as public administration, finance or law.
    4. Core functions: The Commission will conduct the selection process for vacancies, review the performance of tribunals and oversee inquiries into complaints against members.
    5. Data function: It will maintain a National Tribunals Data Grid.
    6. Executive appointment retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members, with the chairperson and judicial members appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

    What is the National Tribunals Data Grid?

    1. A central case data repository: The National Tribunals Data Grid is the consolidated database of tribunal case and disposal data to be maintained by the Commission.
    2. Purpose: It supplies the performance data on which the Commission’s review of tribunal functioning will rest, mirroring the role the National Judicial Data Grid performs for courts.

    What is an impermissible legislative override?

    1. Re-enacting a struck down provision: A legislative override is impermissible when a legislature re-enacts the same provision a court has declared unconstitutional, without removing the defect the court identified.
    2. The settled distinction: A legislature may cure the basis of a judgment by changing the underlying law, but it cannot simply nullify the judgment by restoring the identical text.

    Why did the Centre and the Supreme Court end up in a decade long confrontation?

    1. Finance Act, 2017: The statute empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals, transferring service conditions and qualifications to executive rule making.
    2. Constitution Bench ruling, 2019: A Constitution Bench struck down those rules for undermining judicial independence.
    3. New rules and a judicial recommendation, 2020: The Centre notified fresh rules, and the Court recommended several modifications, including a five year tenure for members.
    4. Ordinance, April 2021: Instead of incorporating those suggestions, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance fixing tenure at four years, setting a minimum appointment age of 50, and requiring selection committees to recommend a panel of two names.
    5. Provisions struck down as arbitrary: The Court struck down those provisions.
    6. Tribunals Reforms Act, August 2021: Parliament then passed an Act re-enacting the exact provisions the Court had just declared unconstitutional.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in November 2025?

    1. Re-enactment condemned: A two judge Bench struck down provisions of the 2021 Act, calling the re-enactment an impermissible legislative override of earlier judgments.
    2. Criticism of persistent non compliance: The Court criticised the government for its persistent refusal to adhere to its pronouncements.
    3. Four year tenure held anti merit: The Court ruled that a short four year tenure is anti-merit and increases interference by the executive, jeopardising the independence of the judiciary.
    4. Panel of two names rejected: It held that the government could not demand a panel of two names, since this gave the executive undue discretion in appointments.
    5. Direction to create the Commission: It reiterated the need for a National Tribunals Commission and directed the Centre to establish one within four months.
    6. Transitional protection: It protected certain existing appointments and selections while the new framework was being put in place.

    What are the other major changes proposed?

    1. Repeal of the 2021 Act (change to an existing provision): The 2026 Bill repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021 in its entirety.
    2. Tenure fixed at five years (change to an existing provision): Chairpersons and members will hold office for a term of five years, replacing the contested four year tenure.
    3. Age ceilings specified (change to an existing provision): The maximum age limit is set at 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members.
    4. Reappointment permitted (new provision): Chairpersons and members can be considered for reappointment.
    5. Search cum selection committee restructured (new provision): The committee for members will be headed by a judicial member of the Commission and will include a retired High Court judge, a government secretary, a technical member and experts.
    6. One name per vacancy (change to an existing provision): The committee will recommend one suitable candidate for each vacancy, with one additional name kept on a waiting list, replacing the panel of two.
    7. Appointment deadline imposed (new provision): The government must make the appointment within three months of receiving the recommendation.
    8. Stated legislative intent: The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Bill is introduced in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court, to improve efficiency and ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in the functioning of tribunals.

    Why does the Bill not fully sever executive control?

    1. Appointment power retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members of the Commission itself, so the body meant to insulate tribunals is constituted by the executive.
    2. Consultation is not concurrence: The chairperson and judicial members are appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India, a formulation that does not bind the government to the advice.
    3. Secretariat under the Centre: The Centre appoints the Commission’s secretary, which places the administrative machinery of the oversight body within executive reach.
    4. Financial dependence continues: The Centre provides grants to the Commission, reproducing at one remove the funding dependence the Court objected to.
    5. Rule making powers preserved: The Centre retains rule making powers over several aspects of tribunal members’ qualifications and service conditions.
    6. Reappointment as a pressure point: Permitting reappointment gives the appointing authority a continuing hold over a serving member’s prospects.

    Challenges to the National Tribunals Commission

    1. Vacancies outlast reform statutes: Tribunal benches sit without presiding officers for long periods, e.g. the National Green Tribunal has functioned with single member or non functional zonal benches for extended stretches.
    2. Parent ministry conflict of interest persists in adjudication: A tribunal often decides cases against the very ministry that shapes its service rules, e.g. the Armed Forces Tribunal adjudicates disputes against the Ministry of Defence.
    3. Appeal architecture keeps burdening the Supreme Court: Several statutes provide a direct appeal from a tribunal to the Supreme Court, e.g. appeals from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal go straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.
    4. Technical member dominance dilutes judicial character: Benches weighted toward administrative expertise weaken the adjudicatory function, e.g. the Court in the Madras Bar Association line of cases repeatedly objected to bench composition tilted against judicial members.
    5. Uneven infrastructure and geographic access: Litigants travel long distances because benches are concentrated in a few cities, e.g. the abolition of appellate bodies in the 2021 rationalisation pushed those appeals to High Courts already carrying large backlogs.
    6. Rationalisation without capacity transfer: Abolishing a tribunal shifts its docket to courts without a matching increase in judicial strength, e.g. the 2021 rationalisation abolished nine appellate tribunals including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and moved their work to High Courts.
    7. Non compliance with judicial directions: The record of the last decade shows directions being met with re-enactment rather than implementation, e.g. the 2021 Act reproduced the very four year tenure the Court had struck down months earlier.

    Conclusion

    A decade of contest between the legislature and the Court has ended with the Centre conceding the institution, since the Bill creates the National Tribunals Commission the Court had demanded and restores the five year tenure the Court recommended in 2020. The concession stops short of independence, because the Centre still appoints the Commission’s chairperson, members and secretary, funds it through grants and retains rule making powers over qualifications and service conditions. The measure has reached the stage of passage by both Houses of Parliament as the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, and awaits Presidential assent and notification before it can take effect. The next milestone named in the record is the constitution of the National Tribunals Commission, which the Supreme Court’s November 2025 judgment directed the Centre to complete within four months.

  • Supreme Court invokes Article 142 to quash FIRs against student protesters, sets up panel on use of force

    Why in the News

    A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court agreed to use its Article 142 power to quash first information reports (FIRs) naming students who joined the nationwide protests against the NEET-UG paper leak. The move separates two categories the State had merged, peaceful student protesters and 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, and forces a question the criminal process itself had avoided, who decides where lawful dissent ends. The Court simultaneously moved from case specific relief toward standing rules, proposing a high powered committee to lay down guidelines and protocol for the police use of force.

    What is Article 142 of the Constitution?

    1. Plenary power to do complete justice: Article 142(1) empowers the Supreme Court to pass any decree or order necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
    2. Enforceable across India: Such a decree or order is enforceable throughout the territory of India in the manner prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament.
    3. Ancillary powers under Article 142(2): The Court may secure the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of documents, and the investigation or punishment of contempt of itself.
    4. Not bound by ordinary statutory limits: Prohibitions in ordinary law do not operate as limitations on the Article 142 power, which is why the Court can quash an FIR that a statutory route would not permit it to touch.
    5. Discretionary and case specific: The power is exercised on the facts of the particular case and does not by itself create a general rule for later cases.

    What is a Facial Recognition System (FRS)?

    1. Biometric matching technology: A Facial Recognition System (FRS) captures a facial image and compares its measurable features against a stored database to return a probable identity match.
    2. Deployment at the protest site: The police affidavit stated that FRS is not deployed for indiscriminate surveillance and does not automatically capture, create or maintain profiles of every individual present.
    3. Database composition claimed: The police stated that the record covers faces of persons accused in serious offences, not those in petty matters such as traffic challans.

    What is the proportionality test?

    1. A four part judicial standard: The proportionality test asks whether a State measure pursues a legitimate aim, is rationally connected to that aim, is the least restrictive alternative, and strikes a fair balance between the aim and the rights burdened.
    2. Distinct from a privacy claim: The Bench stated it will examine the FRS deployment on proportionality and not on Article 21, which narrows the enquiry to whether the means matched the stated policing purpose.

    What is the current status of the right to protest in India?

    1. Derived from two Fundamental Rights: The right to protest flows from Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression, read with Article 19(1)(b), the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    2. Available only to peaceful assembly: The protection attaches to assembly that is peaceable and unarmed, and falls away where an assembly turns violent.
    3. Subject to reasonable restrictions: Restrictions are permitted under Article 19(2) on grounds including public order, and under Article 19(3) in the interests of sovereignty, integrity and public order.
    4. No right to an indefinite occupation of public space: The settled position is that a designated protest site may be used, but a public road or thoroughfare cannot be occupied indefinitely.
    5. The Court’s operative position in this case: The Bench stated it would protect students so long as they intended to hold a peaceful and lawful protest and raise demands they expected the authorities to hear.

    Which constitutional provisions govern protest, policing and this jurisdiction?

    1. Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b): Guarantee freedom of speech and expression and the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    2. Article 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions on those two rights, including on the ground of public order.
    3. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, the route through which privacy and bodily integrity claims against surveillance and force are usually raised.
    4. Article 32: Gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to enforce Fundamental Rights, the gateway through which these petitions reached it.
    5. Article 142: Confers the plenary power to pass any order necessary for complete justice, the power the Bench invoked to quash the FIRs.
    6. Article 144: Requires all civil and judicial authorities in India to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
    7. Seventh Schedule, State List Entries 1 and 2: Place public order and police with the States, which is why the Delhi Police answered through the Union in the national capital.

    What exactly did the Court direct on the FIRs?

    1. Quashing confined to student only FIRs: The Bench sought a list of FIRs in which only students were named, and stated it would quash those by invoking Article 142.
    2. Serious antecedents carved out: FIRs involving elements with serious criminal antecedents were left to be decided subject to discussion in court.
    3. Investigation narrowed to a named number: The Solicitor General stated the police would confine investigation to 2,873 persons identified at the protest site with serious criminal backgrounds.
    4. Charges specified for that set: The affidavit named murder, attempt to murder, dacoity, rape and POCSO offences among the charges against those 2,873 persons.
    5. Non disclosure of FIR details flagged: Counsel for the students stated the police had not shared even the FIR numbers despite promising no action against peaceful protesters.
    6. Generic labels rejected: The Bench held that the State cannot refer to undesirable elements in generic terms and must at least identify them.

    Why is the Court routing the inquiry through a high powered committee?

    1. Proposed composition: The committee would comprise a former Supreme Court judge, a former High Court Chief Justice and a retired police officer of Director General of Police rank.
    2. Consent already secured: The Bench stated it had obtained the consent of a former Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and a retired Director General of Police of an unconnected State.
    3. Two names kept open deliberately: Both options were retained so that no allegation could later be raised against the presence of the CBI officer on the panel.
    4. Mandate beyond this protest: The Bench identified laying down guidelines and protocol for the use of force as a task for the committee, alongside issues needing immediate attention.
    5. Urgent items identified: Allegations of police personnel sexually molesting women protesters, and online harassment and victimisation of vulnerable persons, were listed for urgent examination.
    6. Evidence to be transferred: The Court stated it would direct the authorities to hand over all digital and other materials to the committee.

    What does the police affidavit claim about the use of force at Jantar Mantar?

    1. Force described as graded: The affidavit stated the force employed was proportionate, reasonable, graded and in accordance with law, and used only after protesters resorted to violence.
    2. Tear smoke shells as last resort: The police stated that tear smoke shells were used only as a last resort and that the lathi charge was limited and controlled.
    3. Specific denials recorded: The affidavit denied the use of nail lathis and denied that officers manhandled women protesters.
    4. Plainclothes personnel admitted: The police admitted deploying plainclothes personnel as spotters, describing this as a globally followed crowd control arrangement at large gatherings.
    5. Hindsight objection raised: The police argued that instantaneous operational decisions cannot be misjudged later by selectively relying on isolated video clips or media reports.
    6. Counter on accountability: Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the affidavit records no internal or administrative action against the personnel concerned.

    Why has the Court framed the surveillance question as proportionality rather than privacy?

    1. A narrower and faster enquiry: Testing proportionality asks whether FRS deployment matched its stated purpose, which the Bench can decide on the record without reopening the settled privacy jurisprudence.
    2. Sequencing stated by the Bench: The primary question was identified as whether excessive force was used, with the FRS aspect to be examined after that.
    3. The petitioners’ wider claim left untested: Counsel argued that FRS cannot be used at all and that data on persons other than the accused are also retained.
    4. The storage objection: Counsel for a Rajya Sabha member submitted that the data were stored with private entities, a custody question a proportionality enquiry does not automatically reach.
    5. The data the police disclosed: FRS returned 2,873 persons with serious criminal antecedents, of whom 92 were involved in over 10 cases each and 47 of those 92 were history sheeters.
    6. The unresolved consequence: A proportionality finding settles whether this deployment was excessive, not whether a permanent facial database of protest sites is constitutionally permissible.

    What are the major debates surrounding Article 142 and the policing of protest?

    1. Complete justice against statutory command: One position treats Article 142 as a residual equity power to fill gaps, the other holds that it cannot be used to supplant express statutory provisions.
    2. Precedent versus one off relief: Counsel opposing the quashing asked whether this would be a one off order or a precedent, since a mass quashing of FIRs invites replication in every future agitation.
    3. Remorse as a condition for relief: The objection that the students had not expressed a shred of remorse or regret raises whether contrition is a legitimate precondition for constitutional relief.
    4. Lawfulness of the march itself: It was submitted that the 20 July march towards Parliament was unlawful, which reframes the dispute from excessive force to the legality of the assembly.
    5. Individual accountability against institutional inquiry: Petitioners pressed for immediate action against identified officers, while the Bench held that giving directions now would curtail the committee’s own role.
    6. Surveillance as ordinary policing: The police characterised FRS as a legitimate, bona fide and proportionate policing measure, which if accepted normalises biometric identification at every large gathering.

    Challenges to the use of Article 142

    1. Absence of a stated limiting principle: No settled test governs when the power may be used, so its exercise turns on the composition of the Bench, e.g. the 2016 direction banning liquor vends within 500 metres of national and State highways was substantially diluted by the Court itself in 2017.
    2. Encroachment on the legislative domain: Orders made under Article 142 can create obligations Parliament never enacted, e.g. the 2016 direction making the National Anthem compulsory in cinema halls, which the Court made optional again in 2018.
    3. No appeal against the order: A direction issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 is not appealable, so an error of fact in the underlying record survives uncorrected, e.g. sealed cover material relied on in several public interest matters was never tested by the affected parties.
    4. Selective relief risk: Quashing an entire class of FIRs without a public list invites the charge that relief tracked the political salience of the protest, e.g. FIRs arising from other agitations of the same period, including the Siwan firing incident of 25 July, remain live.
    5. Executive resistance to enforcement: An Article 142 order still depends on the executive for compliance, e.g. the April 2025 order deeming Tamil Nadu bills assented led to a Presidential Reference rather than settled implementation.
    6. Displacement of ordinary remedies: Routine use encourages litigants to bypass High Court remedies under Article 226, e.g. FIR quashing petitions ordinarily lie under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before the High Court.

    Conclusion

    The Bench used an extraordinary constitutional power not to settle guilt but to draw a line the police investigation had not drawn, between a protest and the criminal record of individuals inside it. The unresolved question is institutional rather than factual, since a committee of retired judges and a retired police officer will now write the protocol for the use of force that no statute currently supplies. The proportionality enquiry into facial recognition, framed expressly outside Article 21, will decide whether biometric identification at a protest site is treated as a policing tool or as a rights question. The order framing the committee’s terms of reference was stated to be forthcoming the next day.

  • Parliament curbs States’ power to tax mineral rights through MMDR Amendment Bill, 2026

    Why in the News

    Parliament has passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026, which restricts the power of States to impose levies on mineral rights and mineral bearing lands. The change follows a Supreme Court ruling that had upheld exactly that State taxing power and permitted recovery of arrears going back to 1 April 2005. A legislative measure aimed at investor certainty now sits directly against a judicially affirmed source of State revenue.

    What is the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957?

    1. Governing statute: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) is the central law regulating the grant of mineral concessions and the development of mines in India. It is administered by the Ministry of Mines.
    2. Union declaration: Section 2 of the Act declares it expedient in the public interest that the Union take control of the regulation of mines and mineral development, which activates Parliament’s competence over the field.
    3. Concession regime: No person may undertake reconnaissance, prospecting or mining except under a licence or lease granted under the Act and the rules made under it.
    4. Auction based allocation: The 2015 amendment made auction the sole method for granting mineral concessions for major minerals, replacing discretionary allotment.
    5. Minor minerals carve out: Section 15 empowers State governments to frame rules for granting concessions in respect of minor minerals, while the power to notify a mineral as minor rests with the Central government.

    What is royalty in mining?

    1. Definition: Royalty is the payment a lessee makes to the State for the privilege of extracting and removing a mineral from the land, calculated per tonne or as a percentage of sale value.
    2. Statutory rates: Royalty rates for major minerals are fixed in the Second Schedule of the MMDR Act by the Central government, so a State cannot revise them on its own.

    What is a tax on mineral bearing land?

    1. Definition: A tax on mineral bearing land is a State levy imposed on the land itself, with the mineral yield of that land used as the measure of the tax.
    2. Distinct head: It is levied separately from royalty and from the auction premium a bidder pays to win a mine, and it is the head of levy the current amendment restricts.

    Current status of States’ power to tax mineral rights in India

    1. Judicially affirmed right: The Supreme Court upheld the right of States to impose taxes on mineral rights and mineral bearing lands, and separately permitted recovery of arrears going back to 1 April 2005.
    2. State levies already in force: Jharkhand imposed a mineral bearing land tax on iron ore at Rs 100 per tonne, subsequently hiked, and Tamil Nadu set a tax on limestone at Rs 160 per tonne.
    3. Scale of the levy structure: States impose 14 types of taxes, charges, fees and levies, including royalty and auction premium, and the rates of royalty and taxes vary across States.
    4. Statutory deductions already fixed centrally: Lessees additionally pay into the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) and the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET) at rates pegged to royalty, which the Centre sets.
    5. Position after the amendment: The new law restricts the State levies on mineral rights and mineral bearing lands, and a government fact sheet states that States will continue to receive the overwhelming share of mining revenue.

    Constitutional provisions related to the taxation of mineral rights

    1. Article 246 with the Seventh Schedule: Distributes legislative competence between Parliament and the State legislatures across the Union, State and Concurrent Lists.
    2. Entry 54, List I: Gives Parliament power over the regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent declared by law to be expedient in the public interest.
    3. Entry 23, List II: Gives States power over the regulation of mines and mineral development, expressly subject to Entry 54 of List I.
    4. Entry 50, List II: Gives States the power to levy taxes on mineral rights, expressly subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development.
    5. Entry 49, List II: Gives States the power to levy taxes on lands and buildings, the head under which mineral bearing land taxes are framed.
    6. Article 265: Bars the levy or collection of any tax except by authority of law.

    Why has Parliament moved to restrict State levies?

    1. Certainty and predictability: The stated rationale is to provide greater certainty and predictability in the mining sector for project developers.
    2. Investment flows: A stable levy structure is intended to facilitate investment flows into a sector the Union treats as vital to growth.
    3. Cost pass through: Higher State levies feed into the price of minerals and therefore into infrastructure costs downstream.
    4. Price uniformity: The change is also read as a bid to bring some degree of uniformity in the prices of major minerals, since royalty and tax rates currently differ from State to State.
    5. Critical minerals push: The Union government has launched a critical mineral mission, and a more predictable framework is meant to support that programme.

    Why do States read the amendment as an erosion of fiscal federalism?

    1. Loss of an affirmed revenue head: States moved to raise revenue from mining only after the Supreme Court affirmed that they could, and the amendment removes that opening.
    2. Concentration of dependence: For mineral rich States such as Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, revenue from this channel accounts for a significant share of non tax revenue.
    3. Narrow revenue base: State governments already have limited avenues to raise resources on their own, so each restriction on a taxing head weighs heavily.
    4. Arrears at stake: The right to recover arrears from 1 April 2005 represented a large one time accrual that the restriction places in doubt.
    5. Centre State friction: The apprehension is expressed as a concern about State revenues in particular and fiscal federalism in general, which needs to be addressed rather than assumed away.

    What does the tax burden on Indian mining actually look like?

    1. Effective tax rate: The effective tax rate in India is higher than 50 percent of revenues, according to a report on States’ Best Practices in Mining by FIMI-EY.
    2. Comparative burden: The same report places the effective rate in other countries at 35 to 40 percent of revenues.
    3. Cumulative structure: The Indian figure is the result of stacking royalty, auction premium, statutory contributions and State levies, and not of any single rate.
    4. Rationalisation as the fix: Rationalisation of taxes and royalties is presented as the step that would facilitate greater investor interest in the sector.

    What do cross country comparisons show, and how far does the evidence go?

    1. Limits of the source evidence: The comparison offered is a single aggregate figure of 35 to 40 percent, with no individual country named, so it establishes a gap rather than a model to copy.
    2. Australia: Mineral royalties are a State subject, and Western Australia levies ad valorem royalties on iron ore without a federal ceiling on State rates.
    3. Chile: The mining royalty law of 2023 combines an ad valorem component with a margin linked component on large copper producers, and caps the combined burden on a firm.
    4. South Africa: The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act, 2008 sets a formula based royalty that moves with the producer’s profitability and with whether the mineral is refined.
    5. Canada: Mining taxes are levied by provinces such as Ontario and Quebec on mine profits, layered above federal corporate income tax.

    Why does the amendment set investor certainty against a judicially affirmed State right?

    1. Reversal of an outcome, not of a principle: The Court affirmed the competence of States under the Constitution, and Parliament has used its own competence to restrict the exercise of that power.
    2. Two legitimate claims: A predictable national mining framework is a genuine requirement for large, long gestation projects. A stable taxing head is a genuine requirement for a State with few own revenue sources.
    3. Uniformity has a price: Uniform mineral prices across States are achieved by removing the very differentiation that reflected each State’s own fiscal need.
    4. Arrears create the sharpest edge: The recovery window from 1 April 2005 was the largest single revenue expectation created by the ruling, and it is the first casualty of the restriction.
    5. Assurance without a mechanism: The assurance that States will keep the overwhelming share of mining revenue rests on royalty and statutory contributions whose rates the Centre alone fixes.

    Major debates surrounding the taxation of mineral rights

    1. Is royalty a tax: A seven judge Bench in India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989) held royalty to be a tax, and a nine judge Bench in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) held by an 8 to 1 majority that royalty is a contractual consideration and not a tax, restoring the States’ Entry 50 power.
    2. Legislative override: The dispute is whether a statute that removes a taxing power after a ruling is a permissible change in the legal basis or an impermissible override of a binding judgment under Article 141.
    3. Retrospective recovery: Recovery of arrears from 1 April 2005 raises the question of whether long settled project economics can be reopened, against the States’ claim to revenue already lawfully due.
    4. Uniformity versus autonomy: National price uniformity for major minerals is set against the constitutional design that lets a State calibrate levies to its own resource endowment.
    5. Compensation gap: There is no settled empirical answer on what mineral rich States lose in absolute terms, since the 14 State levies are not reported on a common basis across States.

    Challenges to the mineral concession framework after the amendment

    1. Revenue substitution for mineral States: States losing a taxing head have no equivalent replacement within their own competence. e.g. Odisha, which draws a large part of its non tax revenue from mining, has no comparable own source levy to fall back on.
    2. Litigation risk: A statute narrowing a power the Court affirmed invites a fresh constitutional challenge, prolonging exactly the uncertainty the amendment targets. e.g. the India Cement to Mineral Area Development Authority sequence ran for 35 years before a settled answer emerged.
    3. Auction premium distortion: Aggressive premium bidding in auctions inflates costs regardless of tax rationalisation. e.g. several iron ore blocks in Odisha were won at premiums exceeding 100 percent of sale value, squeezing operating margins.
    4. Exploration deficit: Rationalising levies does not fix the shortage of drilled and proved resources that investors actually need. e.g. India has explored only a small fraction of its obvious geological potential area despite the National Mineral Exploration Trust being funded since 2015.
    5. Clearance and land bottlenecks: Forest, environment and land acquisition delays, not levy rates, hold up most mine starts. e.g. blocks in the Hasdeo Arand coalfield in Chhattisgarh have stalled for years over forest clearance and Gram Sabha consent.
    6. District Mineral Foundation utilisation: Funds meant for mining affected communities remain unspent or diverted, weakening the social licence for expansion. e.g. DMF collections have exceeded Rs 1 lakh crore cumulatively, with large unspent balances reported in mineral rich districts.
    7. Critical mineral import dependence: Domestic levy reform does not address dependence on imported processed minerals. e.g. India imports the bulk of its lithium and cobalt requirements for battery manufacturing.

    Conclusion

    Parliament has restricted the States’ power to tax mineral rights and mineral bearing lands, undoing in law the revenue consequence of a ruling that had affirmed that power and allowed arrears from 1 April 2005. Investor certainty has been purchased with the tax autonomy of the States that hold the minerals, and the assurance that States keep the overwhelming share of mining revenue rests on rates the Centre alone sets. The measure has been passed by both Houses of Parliament; the source states no further date or next step beyond that stage. Resolving the resulting Centre State friction, not the levy structure alone, is what will determine whether the new framework actually attracts investment.

    Foundational Context: Mining in India

    1. Scale of the sector: India produces 95 minerals, covering fuel, metallic, non metallic, atomic and minor minerals, and mining contributes roughly 2.5 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) including the associated quarrying activity.
    2. Global standing: India is among the world’s largest producers of coal, iron ore, bauxite, chromite and mica, and is the second largest coal producer globally.
    3. Ownership principle: Minerals vest in the State government where they occur, except in offshore areas and for atomic minerals, where they vest in the Union.
    4. Classification: Minerals are divided into major minerals and minor minerals, with minor minerals such as sand, ordinary clay and building stone regulated by State rules under Section 15 of the MMDR Act.
    5. Institutional set up: The Geological Survey of India (GSI) carries out regional exploration, the Indian Bureau of Mines (IBM) oversees conservation and scientific mining, and the Directorate General of Mines Safety (DGMS) regulates safety.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Mineral Taxation and Federal Finance

    1. Article 245: Sets the territorial extent of laws made by Parliament and by State legislatures.
    2. Article 246: Distributes legislative power across the three Lists of the Seventh Schedule.
    3. Entry 54, List I: Union control over the regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent declared by Parliament.
    4. Entry 23, List II: State power over regulation of mines and mineral development, subject to Entry 54 of List I.
    5. Entry 50, List II: State power to tax mineral rights, subject to limitations imposed by Parliament by a law relating to mineral development.
    6. Entry 49, List II: State power to tax lands and buildings.
    7. Article 141: Makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts within India.
    8. Article 265: Bars levy or collection of any tax except by authority of law.
    9. Article 280: Provides for the Finance Commission, which recommends the sharing of Union taxes with the States.

    Laws and Rules Governing Mining in India

    1. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The parent statute for mineral concessions and mineral development.
    2. Second Schedule: Fixes royalty rates for major minerals centrally.
    3. Section 15: Empowers States to make rules for minor mineral concessions.
    4. MMDR Amendment Act, 2015: Introduced auction as the sole route for granting major mineral concessions.
    5. Section 9B and Section 9C: Created the District Mineral Foundation for mining affected communities and the National Mineral Exploration Trust for exploration funding.
    6. MMDR Amendment Act, 2021: Removed the distinction between captive and merchant mines and eased the transfer of mineral concessions.
    7. MMDR Amendment Act, 2023: Created the exploration licence for deep seated minerals and empowered the Centre to exclusively auction 24 critical and strategic minerals.
    8. MMDR Amendment Act, 2025: Widened support for critical mineral recovery, including recovery from mine waste and tailings.
    9. Mines Act, 1952: Governs the health, safety and working conditions of persons employed in mines.
    10. Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002: Regulates mineral development in India’s territorial waters and exclusive economic zone.
    11. Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017: Prescribe scientific mining, conservation and mine closure obligations.
    12. Minerals (Evidence of Mineral Contents) Rules, 2015 and Mineral (Auction) Rules, 2015: Govern the exploration thresholds and the auction procedure for major minerals.

    Back2Basics: National Critical Mineral Mission

    1. What it is: A central mission to build self reliance across the critical mineral value chain, from exploration and mining to processing, recycling and recovery from waste.
    2. Approved: By the Union Cabinet in January 2025.
    3. Administering ministry: The Ministry of Mines.
    4. Duration: Covers the period from 2024-25 to 2030-31.
    5. Outlay: An outlay of about Rs 16,300 crore, with a further expected investment of about Rs 18,000 crore by public sector undertakings and other agencies.
    6. Exploration target: A large programme of exploration projects by the Geological Survey of India within India, along with exploration in offshore areas.
    7. Overseas component: Acquisition of critical mineral assets abroad by Indian public and private entities, supported by trade and diplomatic engagement.
    8. Circularity component: Promotion of recycling of end of life products and recovery of critical minerals from mine tailings and overburden.
    9. Stockpiling: Creation of a stockpile of critical minerals to insulate domestic industry from supply disruption.
    10. Regulatory support: Fast tracking of regulatory approvals for critical mineral projects, alongside the exclusive Central auction of the notified critical and strategic minerals.

    Government Initiatives

    1. National Critical Mineral Mission: Secures the critical mineral supply chain through domestic exploration, overseas asset acquisition, recycling and stockpiling under the Ministry of Mines.
    2. National Mineral Policy, 2019: Sets the policy framework for sustainable mining, exploration incentives and a transparent auction regime.
    3. Star Rating of Mines: A self assessment and verification system run by the Indian Bureau of Mines rating mines on scientific mining and sustainability parameters.
    4. Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana (PMKKKY): Implemented through District Mineral Foundations to fund drinking water, health, education and livelihood works in mining affected districts.
    5. National Geoscience Data Repository and the exploration licence regime: Open access geoscience data and a dedicated licence to draw private explorers into deep seated mineral search.

    Key Facts about Indian Mining

    1. Ministry: The Ministry of Mines administers the MMDR Act, other than for coal, lignite, petroleum, natural gas and atomic minerals.
    2. Critical minerals list: India notified a list of 30 critical minerals in 2023, of which 24 are auctioned exclusively by the Centre.
    3. District Mineral Foundation contribution: Lessees contribute 10 percent of royalty for concessions granted after 12 January 2015 and 30 percent for earlier concessions.
    4. National Mineral Exploration Trust contribution: Set at 2 percent of royalty paid by the lessee.
    5. Geological Survey of India: Established in 1851, headquartered at Kolkata, and the principal agency for regional mineral exploration.

    Challenges in the Mining Sector

    1. Long clearance timelines: A block cleared at auction still waits years for forest, environment and consent approvals. e.g. bauxite mining in the Niyamgiri hills of Odisha was halted after Gram Sabhas exercised their veto under forest rights law.
    2. Illegal mining: Unregulated extraction of minor minerals erodes State revenue and damages river systems. e.g. sand mining in the Yamuna and Sone river beds has repeatedly drawn National Green Tribunal intervention.
    3. Rehabilitation deficit: Displacement from large mines is inadequately compensated and land losers rarely regain livelihoods. e.g. displacement in the Talcher and Ib Valley coalfields of Odisha has produced long running resettlement disputes.
    4. Mine safety: Accidents in underground and rat hole operations continue despite the Mines Act framework. e.g. the Ksan mine flooding in Meghalaya in December 2018 trapped and killed rat hole miners in an illegal coal pit.
    5. Low value addition: India exports raw and semi processed ore and imports finished products. e.g. iron ore fines are exported while high grade steel inputs are imported back.
    6. Exploration underinvestment: Private participation in greenfield exploration remains thin despite the exploration licence. e.g. only a small share of India’s obvious geological potential area has been explored in detail.
    7. Import dependence in critical minerals: Processing capacity, not deposits alone, is the binding constraint. e.g. India relies on imports for nearly all its rare earth magnet requirements.

    Way Forward

    1. Institutionalise Centre State consultation on levies: Route mineral levy changes through a standing Centre State forum so that revenue impacts are quantified before a restriction is legislated.
    2. Publish a common levy dashboard: Report the 14 State levies on a uniform basis so that the effective tax rate claim of over 50 percent of revenues can be verified block by block.
    3. Compensate the transition: Provide a time bound, formula based transfer to mineral rich States for the revenue head withdrawn, on the model used for other tax transitions.
    4. Rationalise auction premium: Cap or stagger premium payments so that the auction price, rather than the tax rate, stops inflating the delivered cost of minerals.
    5. Front load exploration: Expand National Mineral Exploration Trust funded drilling and release geoscience data before auction so that bids reflect proved resources.
    6. Ring fence District Mineral Foundation spending: Enforce end use audit of DMF funds on drinking water, health and education in mining affected districts to rebuild the social licence for expansion.

    “[2025] Consider the following statements:
    Statement I: In India, State Governments have no power for making rules for grant of concessions in respect of extraction of minor minerals even though such minerals are located in their territories.
    Statement II: In India, the Central Government has the power to notify minor minerals under the relevant law.
    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
    (a) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct and Statement II explains Statement I
    (b) Both Statement I and Statement II are correct but Statement II does not explain Statement I
    (c) Statement I is correct but Statement II is not correct
    (d) Statement I is not correct but Statement II is correct

  • ID cards issued to transgender persons remain valid: Centre

    Why in the News

    The Union government assured a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court that transgender identity cards issued before the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 came into force continue to remain valid. The assurance was given in a challenge arguing that the amendment, in force since 30 March, dismantles the right to self identification recognised in the National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014) line of cases. The dispute turns on whether gender identity is declared by the person or certified by the State.

    What is the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026?

    1. About: It amends the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, the statute that governs recognition of transgender identity and the certificate of identity issued to a transgender person.
    2. Commencement: It came into force on 30 March 2026.
    3. Core objection to it: Petitioners argue that it dismantles the right to self identification and gives the State unfettered authority to determine gender identity.
    4. Status of earlier cards: The Solicitor General assured the Court that identity cards issued before the amendment remain valid, and their validity is unaffected by the new law.
    5. Judicial position so far: The Court had already indicated in the previous hearing that the 2026 law should not operate retrospectively to invalidate cards issued under the earlier legislation.
    6. Forum: The challenge is before a three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India.

    What is self identification of gender?

    1. About: Self identification is the principle that a person’s gender is determined by that person’s own declaration of identity, without any requirement of medical examination or third party certification.
    2. Legal origin in India: The Supreme Court recognised it in National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (2014), holding that the right to determine one’s gender is integral to dignity under Article 21.

    What is a transgender identity card?

    1. About: A certificate of identity issued to a transgender person that provides official recognition of the person’s self identified gender.
    2. Practical use: It is used to support changes to name and gender across official records, and the government’s transgender portal expressly enables such changes.

    What is the current status of gender identity recognition in India?

    1. Statutory basis: Recognition runs through the certificate of identity issued under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 and the rules made under it.
    2. Application route: An application is made to the District Magistrate, who issues a certificate of identity as a transgender person and a revised certificate after gender affirming surgery.
    3. Third gender status: Transgender persons are recognised as a third gender for the purposes of state welfare and identity documents.
    4. Prohibition of discrimination: The 2019 Act bars discrimination in education, employment, healthcare, access to public goods and the right to residence.
    5. Reservation position: No reservation in education or public employment has been extended to transgender persons as a class, despite the direction in the 2014 judgment to treat them as socially and educationally backward.
    6. Position after the amendment: The 2026 Amendment Act is in force from 30 March 2026, and its validity is under challenge before a three judge Bench.
    7. Position of existing card holders: Cards issued before the amendment continue to remain valid on the government’s own assurance to the Court.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to gender identity

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to every person, not only to men and women.
    2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth, with sex read to include gender identity.
    3. Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment and permits reservation for backward classes.
    4. Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of expression, which includes expression of gender identity through dress, speech and behaviour.
    5. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, read to include dignity, personal autonomy and the right to determine one’s gender.
    6. Article 15(4) and Article 16(4): Permit special provisions and reservation for socially and educationally backward classes, the route directed in the 2014 judgment.
    7. Article 32: Provides the remedy through which the present challenge to the amendment has been brought.
    8. Article 23: Prohibits trafficking and forced labour, relevant to the exploitation the community faces in the absence of livelihood options.

    What did the National Legal Services Authority judgment establish?

    1. Recognition of a third gender: The Supreme Court held in April 2014 that transgender persons must be recognised as a third gender for the purposes of law.
    2. Right to self identification: It held that the gender to which a person belongs is to be determined by that person’s own identification and not by biological or medical criteria.
    3. Constitutional grounding: It located the right in Articles 14, 15, 16, 19(1)(a) and 21, treating gender identity as an aspect of dignity and personal autonomy.
    4. Backward class direction: It directed the Centre and the States to treat transgender persons as socially and educationally backward for the purposes of reservation.
    5. Positive obligations: It directed provision of separate public toilets, medical facilities, welfare schemes and measures to address social stigma.
    6. The wider line of cases: Puttaswamy v Union of India (2017) recognised privacy and decisional autonomy, Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same sex relations, and Arunkumar v Inspector General of Registration (2019) upheld the marriage rights of a transgender person.

    What do the petitioners argue against the 2026 amendment?

    1. Loss of self determination: The amendment allows the State unfettered authority to determine gender identity, displacing the person’s own declaration.
    2. Conflict with binding precedent: Self identification was recognised as a constitutional right in 2014, and a statute cannot narrow a right located in Article 21.
    3. Value of existing documents: The importance of transgender identity cards already issued cannot be trifled away, since name and gender across official records depend on them.
    4. Retrospective effect: Any reading that invalidates earlier cards would strip recognition already granted under a previous legislation.
    5. Who is before the Court: The petitioners include community members and activists, so the challenge is brought by the group the law regulates.

    Can the State certify gender identity without displacing the right to determine it?

    1. Two claims in tension: The State has an interest in a verifiable identity document, and the individual has a constitutional right to declare gender without external validation.
    2. Where certification becomes control: A certificate that records a declaration is administrative, and a certificate that decides the declaration is determinative of the right itself.
    3. Documentary dependence: Name and gender in every other official record follow from the certificate, so control over the certificate is control over legal personality.
    4. Precedent against statute: The right was recognised through Article 21 in 2014, and the amendment operates on the same subject through ordinary legislation.
    5. The retrospectivity carve out: Protecting existing cards resolves the immediate hardship of current holders and leaves the question of future applicants untouched.
    6. The unresolved core: The assurance settles who keeps a card already issued, not who will be entitled to one under the amended procedure.

    Major debates surrounding gender self identification

    1. Declaration against certification: Whether recognition should follow a self declaration or require screening by a district authority.
    2. Medicalisation of identity: Whether any surgical or medical requirement for a revised certificate is consistent with autonomy under Article 21.
    3. Appeal and remedy: Whether refusal of a certificate by a District Magistrate should carry a statutory appeal, which the 2019 Act was criticised for omitting.
    4. Reservation for transgender persons: Whether the 2014 direction to treat the community as socially and educationally backward requires a horizontal reservation across categories.
    5. Penalty asymmetry: Whether the lower punishment for sexual violence against transgender persons under the 2019 Act compared with the general criminal law is constitutionally sustainable.
    6. Family and residence: Whether the requirement to reside with the natal family or in a rehabilitation centre respects the autonomy of adults who leave hostile homes.
    7. Data and enumeration: Whether recognition can be operationalised at all without accurate population data, since the last enumeration of the community was in Census 2011.

    Challenges to the transgender rights framework

    1. Certification bottleneck: Recognition depends on a single district officer with no statutory appeal against refusal. e.g. applicants under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Rules, 2020 have reported long delays in issue of the certificate of identity.
    2. Absence of reservation: The 2014 direction on backward class status has not been operationalised at the national level. e.g. Karnataka became the first State to provide a one per cent reservation in public employment in 2021, and most States have not followed.
    3. Weak penalty structure: Offences against transgender persons carry lower punishment than equivalent offences in the general criminal law. e.g. the 2019 Act prescribes six months to two years for sexual abuse of a transgender person.
    4. Healthcare exclusion: Gender affirming care and mental health support are unevenly available and rarely insured. e.g. Ayushman Bharat TG Plus was created precisely because transgender persons were excluded from mainstream health coverage.
    5. Livelihood and employment: Discrimination pushes the community towards begging and sex work despite a statutory bar on discrimination. e.g. the SMILE scheme’s livelihood component was designed to move persons out of begging.
    6. Documentation mismatch: Records in education certificates, bank accounts and property documents do not update automatically after a change in gender. e.g. the government’s transgender portal exists specifically to enable name and gender changes across records.
    7. Data invisibility: Policy runs on a 2011 count with no subsequent enumeration. e.g. Census 2011 recorded 4.88 lakh transgender persons, a figure widely regarded as an undercount.

    Conclusion

    The assurance protects existing card holders and leaves the constitutional question untouched, since the dispute is about whether gender identity is declared or certified. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 remains in force from 30 March 2026, and its validity is pending before a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court on a challenge grounded in the 2014 line of cases. The Court has recorded that the law should not operate retrospectively and the government has accepted that position on the record. The source names no next date for the hearing, so the stage reached is the government’s undertaking and the pending challenge.

    [2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?
    (a) Article 15
    (b) Article 16
    (c) Article 19
    (d) Article 21