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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Hate speech stems from an ‘us versus them’ mindset

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court recently held that hate speech comes from an “us vs them” mindset. It weakens fraternity and social harmony. The Court refused to ask for new laws. It stressed poor enforcement of existing laws as the real problem. This is important because public debate often demands stricter laws. The Court says laws already exist but are not applied well. Petitions showed hate speech continues despite past judgments. This points to a system failure, not a legal gap.

    What is the constitutional and philosophical basis of the Court’s observation?

    1. Fraternity as a constitutional value: Ensures social cohesion and unity in diversity as part of the Preamble.
    2. Moral fabric of society: Strengthens dignity and mutual respect among citizens.
    3. Civilizational ethos: Reflects Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, emphasizing universal brotherhood.
    4. Antithesis of hate speech: Undermines inclusiveness by promoting exclusion and hostility.

    Why did the Court refuse to mandate new laws on hate speech?

    1. Judicial restraint: Preserves separation of powers by avoiding legislative functions.
    2. Existing legal framework: Includes provisions under IPC/BNS addressing public order and incitement.
    3. Institutional role clarity: Limits judiciary to interpretation and application of law.
    4. Avoidance of overreach: Prevents creation of parallel regulatory regimes.

    What are the existing hate speech laws in India?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Ensures freedom of speech.
    2. Article 19(2): Allows restrictions for public order and morality.
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS):
      1. Section on promoting enmity: Penalizes speech causing hatred between groups.
      2. Public mischief provisions: Punish rumours leading to fear or violence
    4. Representation of People Act, 1951:
      1. Electoral hate speech: Bars appeals based on religion, caste, etc.
    5. IT Rules and IT Act:
      1. Online regulation: Targets fake news and harmful content.

    What explains the persistence of hate speech despite legal provisions?

    1. Enforcement deficit: Weak implementation by law enforcement agencies.
    2. Administrative failure: Inconsistent application of laws across regions.
    3. Delayed justice delivery: Reduces deterrence effect of existing laws.
    4. Societal normalization: Continued tolerance of divisive narratives.

    How does hate speech threaten constitutional order and public harmony?

    1. Erosion of fraternity: Weakens unity in a diverse society.
    2. Public order disruption: Leads to inter-group hostility and violence.
    3. Institutional strain: Challenges governance and law enforcement credibility.
    4. Democratic decline: Undermines inclusive participation and trust.

    What role should institutions play in addressing hate speech?

    1. Law enforcement agencies: Ensure consistent and unbiased application of laws.
    2. Judiciary: Uphold constitutional values through interpretation.
    3. Legislature: Maintain clarity and adequacy of legal provisions.
    4. Civil society: Promote awareness and counter divisive narratives.

    What broader societal transformation is required?

    1. Mindset shift: Moves from identity-based exclusion to inclusive citizenship.
    2. Ethical reinforcement: Promotes empathy and respect in public discourse.
    3. Educational reforms: Integrates constitutional values into curricula.
    4. Media responsibility: Reduces sensationalism and misinformation.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court reframes hate speech as a societal and enforcement issue rather than a legislative gap. Addressing it requires strengthening institutional accountability and nurturing constitutional values of fraternity and inclusiveness.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: This question reflects the idea that Fundamental Rights are subject to reasonable restrictions, similar to Article 19(2) limits on hate speech. The Supreme Court judgment reinforces that free speech is not absolute and must align with public order, dignity, and fraternity.

  • Sabarimala Review and Religious Reform 

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India, while hearing the Sabarimala review case, observed that courts cannot reform religion, even as debates continue on balancing religious freedom and constitutional rights.

    Background of the Case

    • Concerns entry of women aged 10 to 50 years into the Sabarimala Temple
    • 2018 judgment allowed entry, upholding right to worship
    • Review petitions challenge this verdict

    Key Observations by the Court

    • Courts cannot initiate religious reform
    • Reform must come from within religion or society
    • Need to balance:
      • Religious practices
      • Constitutional values

    Arguments Presented

    For Reform (Indira Jaising’s View)

    • Religion must evolve to remain relevant
    • Equality (Article 14) and dignity (Article 21) cannot be subordinate to religion
    • Religious practices must align with constitutional morality

    Concerns Raised by Judges

    • Reforms should not destroy core religious identity
    • Need to avoid excessive interference in doctrinal matters

    Key Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 14: Right to equality before law
    • Article 21: Right to life and dignity
    • Article 25: Freedom of religion and worship

    Important Legal Concepts

    • Essential Religious Practices Test
      • Determines which practices are essential to a religion
      • Only essential practices get constitutional protection
    • Constitutional Morality: Principles like equality, dignity, and justice guide interpretation of laws
    [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

  • Supreme Court on Hate Speech 

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India, in an April 2026 judgment, highlighted that hate speech and rumour mongering threaten the constitutional value of fraternity, but declined to direct enactment of new laws, emphasizing effective enforcement of existing legal provisions.

    Key Observations of the Court

    • Hate speech arises from an “us versus them” mindset
    • It promotes exclusion and discrimination
    • Undermines fraternity and unity in a diverse society
    • Considered against constitutional morality and civilisational ethos
    • Linked to the idea of “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (world is one family)

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    • Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression
    • Article 19(2): Allows reasonable restrictions on grounds like:
      • Public order
      • Decency
      • Morality
      • Sovereignty and integrity
    • Fraternity (Preamble): Ensures unity and sense of brotherhood among citizens

    Legal Position on Hate Speech

    • No single comprehensive law exclusively defining hate speech
    • Covered under various provisions:
      • Indian Penal Code sections related to
        • Promoting enmity
        • Public mischief
      • IT laws for online content

    Court’s Stand

    • Court cannot legislate new laws
    • Responsibility lies with: Legislature and Executive
    • Focus should be on better implementation of existing laws

    Key Concepts

    • Hate Speech: Speech that incites hatred, discrimination, or violence against groups
    • Fraternity: A constitutional value promoting unity, dignity, and brotherhood
    [2017] The mind of the makers of the Constitution of India is reflected in which of the following? 
    (a) The Preamble 
    (b) The Fundamental Rights 
    (c) The Directive Principles of State Policy 
    (d) The Fundamental Duties

  • A recusal test the Delhi High Court failed

    Why in the News?

    A judge of the Delhi High Court refused to recuse herself from hearing the Delhi excise policy case, officially titled Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) v. Kuldeep Singh and Ors. involving prominent political figures. This is despite allegations of bias raised by the litigant. This marks a departure from established judicial conventions, where even a reasonable apprehension of bias often leads to recusal to preserve institutional trust. The episode is significant because it highlights a tension between the “duty to sit” and the need to ensure fairness, especially in politically sensitive litigation. 

    Note: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the premier domestic crime-investigating agency of India. Operating under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

    What is judicial recusal in India?

    1. In India, judicial recusal is the act of a judge stepping away from a case to prevent any real or perceived conflict of interest or bias.
    2. It is rooted in the principles of Natural Justice, specifically the maxim Nemo judex in causa sua, no person should be a judge in their own cause.

    How Recusal Works in India

    1. Uncodified Practice: Unlike some other countries, India has no codified law or statute governing recusal. Instead, it is guided by judicial precedents, ethical norms, and the judge’s oath of office.
    2. Voluntary Process: Recusal is generally a voluntary action taken by the judge based on their own conscience and discretion.
    3. Request by Parties: While a litigant or lawyer can request a recusal, they cannot compel a judge to withdraw; the final decision rests solely with the judge concerned.
    4. Reassignment: If a judge recuses, the case is referred to the Chief Justice (the “Master of the Roster”) to be assigned to a different bench.

    What constitutes judicial recusal and why is it critical to justice delivery?

    1. Judicial Impartiality: Ensures fairness in adjudication by eliminating bias; rooted in natural justice principle nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be judge in their own cause).
    2. Public Confidence: Strengthens legitimacy of courts; justice must not only be done but also seen to be done (R v Sussex Justices, 1923).
    3. Ethical Standards: Aligns with Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct emphasizing integrity, propriety, and independence.
    4. Global Practice: Reflects best practices across jurisdictions, including rejection of Victorian-era “duty to sit” doctrine.

    What were the grounds for seeking recusal in the present case?

    1. Prior Adverse Findings: Judge had earlier ruled on related matters, raising concerns of predisposition.
    2. Ideological Association: Attendance at events linked to a particular ideological group (ABAP).
    3. Familial Professional Links: Judge’s children working as panel lawyers for the government.
    4. Political Context: Statement by a Union Minister predicting case outcome heightened apprehension.
    5. Reasonable Apprehension: Litigant argued that these factors cumulatively undermine impartial adjudication.

    How has the Supreme Court defined the legal threshold for recusal?

    1. Reasonable Apprehension Test: Establishes whether a fair-minded observer would suspect bias (P.K. Ghosh case, 1995).
    2. Litigant’s Perception: Recognizes that perception of bias matters, not just actual bias (Ranjit Thakur case, 1987).
    3. Appearance vs Reality: Accepts that even appearance of bias can vitiate proceedings (State of Punjab v Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, 2011).
    4. Judicial Discretion: Leaves decision to judge’s conscience; no statutory compulsion exists.
    5. Rejection of Duty to Sit: Moves away from obligation to hear all cases (Indore Development Authority case, 2019).
    6. Prevention of “Bench Hunting”: Courts often warn against frivolous recusal pleas used by litigants as a strategy for “forum shopping “, attempting to avoid a specific judge in hopes of getting a more favourable one.

    Why is the present decision considered a deviation from established norms?

    1. Denial of Recusal: Refusal despite multiple grounds contradicts trend favoring caution.
    2. Self-Adjudication: Judge decided on her own alleged bias, raising procedural concerns.
    3. Shift to Actual Bias: Judgment emphasized need to prove actual bias rather than reasonable apprehension.
    4. Dismissal of Concerns: Characterized allegations as unfounded, limiting scope of litigant perception.
    5. Institutional Risk: Weakens the principle that perception of fairness is central to justice.

    What are the broader implications for judicial accountability and fairness?

    1. Erosion of Trust: Reduces confidence in neutrality of judiciary in politically sensitive cases.
    2. Lack of Codification: Absence of clear rules leads to inconsistent application.
    3. Procedural Gaps: No independent mechanism to decide recusal requests.
    4. Politicization Risk: Heightens perception of the judiciary being influenced by external factors.
    5. Legal Vulnerability: Judgments may face challenges due to procedural impropriety.

    What reforms are required to strengthen recusal jurisprudence in India?

    1. Codified Framework: Establishes clear statutory guidelines for recusal standards.
    2. Independent Review: Introduces mechanism where recusal pleas are decided by another bench.
    3. Objective Criteria: Defines conflict of interest, prior involvement, and relational bias thresholds.
    4. Transparency Measures: Ensures reasoned orders in recusal decisions.
    5. Judicial Training: Strengthens ethical awareness regarding perceived bias.

    Conclusion

    The episode underscores the need to reconcile judicial discretion with institutional accountability. Strengthening recusal norms through codification and procedural safeguards is essential to preserve judicial credibility and constitutional morality.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment.

    Linkage: Judicial recusal directly operationalizes judicial independence by preventing bias and ensuring impartial adjudication. The Delhi High Court episode highlights how weak recusal standards can undermine public trust, thereby affecting the democratic legitimacy of the judiciary.

  • [28th April 2026] The Hindu OpED: Electoral roll purges raise constitutional questions

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2020] Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.
    Linkage: The question examines the scope and limits of ECI’s powers in ensuring free and fair elections. The article highlights concerns of constitutional overreach by ECI in voter roll purges, directly questioning its mandate and procedural fairness.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The issue of electoral roll purges has emerged as a major constitutional concern following the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in states like Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Puducherry. What makes this significant is the scale and nature of voter deletion. There are reports of lakhs of genuine voters being removed, including 91 lakh in West Bengal and 64 lakh in Bihar, many categorized under the vague term “logical discrepancy.” This marks a sharp deviation from past practices where revisions were limited, transparent, and conducted well before elections.

    Does the ECI have the constitutional authority to determine citizenship?

    1. Article 324 Limitation: Empowers ECI to conduct elections, not determine citizenship; this power lies with the Union government.
    2. Home Ministry Mandate: Citizenship laws are administered by the Union Home Ministry, which must notify valid documents.
    3. Jurisdictional Overreach: ECI prescribing documents for citizenship proof exceeds its constitutional scope.
    4. Judicial Gap: Supreme Court did not decisively address this separation of powers issue.

    Why is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) being criticised?

    1. Procedural Deviation: Conducted in election-bound states, violating norms of pre-election summary revisions.
    2. Intensive Nature: SIR requires fresh enumeration instead of updating existing rolls, making it disruptive.
    3. Time Constraints: Conducted within months before elections, compromising thorough verification.
    4. Past Practice Contrast: Earlier revisions were gradual and inclusive; SIR appears abrupt and exclusionary.

    How does the documentation requirement affect voter inclusion?

    1. Document Exclusion: Aadhaar, ration card, voter ID not accepted as proof of citizenship.
    2. Access Barriers: Rural and poor populations lack archival documents; creates systemic exclusion.
    3. Mass Deletions: Example: 91 lakh voters removed in West Bengal due to inability to produce documents.
    4. Administrative Burden: Citizens forced into repeated verification cycles.

    Does the categorisation of “logical discrepancy” violate legal norms?

    1. Undefined Term: No legal basis under Representation of the People Act or Registration of Electors Rules.
    2. Arbitrary Classification: Allows subjective deletion without clear criteria.
    3. Transparency Deficit: Lack of publicly defined parameters reduces accountability.
    4. Impact on Rights: Leads to disenfranchisement without due process.

    Are principles of natural justice being violated?

    1. Denial of Hearing: Deletions reportedly carried out without prior notice or opportunity to respond.
    2. Statutory Violation: Contravenes provisions ensuring verification and objections.
    3. Electoral Fairness: Free and fair elections compromised when voters are excluded arbitrarily.
    4. Judicial Concern: Courts expected to safeguard procedural fairness.

    How does this impact democratic representation?

    1. Mass Exclusion: Large-scale deletions distort electoral outcomes.
    2. Voter Suppression Risk: Marginalized groups disproportionately affected.
    3. Trust Deficit: Reduces confidence in electoral institutions.
    4. Systemic Bias Potential: Selective deletion may influence political outcomes.

    Conclusion

    The electoral roll revision controversy highlights the tension between administrative efficiency and constitutional safeguards. Ensuring inclusion, transparency, and legal compliance remains essential to uphold democratic legitimacy.

  • Right to Safe Roads as a Part of Right to Life: Supreme Court Judgment

    Why in the News?

    In a significant expansion of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court of India ruled in August 2025 that access to safe, motorable, and well-maintained roads is an integral part of the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.

    Key Legal Pronouncements

    The Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, linked the quality of infrastructure to constitutional guarantees:

    • Article 21 (Right to Life): The Court held that “life” is not merely physical existence but includes the right to live with dignity, which is hindered by poor and unsafe road conditions.
    • Article 19(1)(d): The right to move freely throughout the territory of India is a basic right. The Court noted that this right becomes “illusory” if the state fails to provide motorable roads.
    • State Responsibility: The judgment explicitly stated that it is the mandatory responsibility of the State to develop and maintain roads under its control.

    Case Background

    The ruling emerged from a dispute between Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Private Limited and the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited (MPRDC).

    • The Project: A ‘Build, Operate, and Transfer’ (BOT) agreement for a 43.7-km road project in Madhya Pradesh worth ₹73.68 crore.
    • The Shift: While the case was a commercial dispute over a concession agreement, the Court used the platform to emphasize the public interest aspect of infrastructure.
    [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

  • Resumption of Centre-Ladakh Talks (May 2026)

    Why in the News?

    Following a prolonged stalemate and violent unrest in 2025, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is set to resume formal talks with Ladakh’s civil society groups on May 22, 2026. This coincides with Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s visit to the region for the Buddha Purnima holy relics exposition.

    Core Demands of Ladakh (UPSC Focus)

    The dialogue involves two major socio-political groupings: the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA). Their “Four-Point Agenda” includes:

    1. Statehood for Ladakh: Transition from a Union Territory (UT) to a full-fledged State.
    2. Sixth Schedule Inclusion: Granting constitutional safeguards under Article 244 to protect land, employment, and cultural identity.
    3. Exclusive Public Service Commission (PSC): A dedicated recruitment body for Ladakh to ensure local preference in government jobs.
    4. Enhanced Parliamentary Representation: Increasing the number of Lok Sabha seats from one to two (one each for Leh and Kargil).

    Significance of the Sixth Schedule

    The Sixth Schedule provides for the administration of tribal areas through Autonomous District Councils (ADCs).

    • Powers: ADCs have legislative, judicial, and administrative autonomy to make laws on land, forests, water, and social customs.
    • Current Status: Currently applies to tribal areas in four Northeastern states: Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram (AMTM).
    • Ladakh’s Argument: Over 90% of Ladakh’s population is tribal, making it a fit candidate for these safeguards to prevent demographic changes and environmental degradation.
    [2015] The provisions in the Fifth Schedule and Sixth Schedule in the Constitution of India are made in order to: 
    (a) protect the interests of Scheduled Tribes 
    (b) determine the boundaries between States 
    (c) determine the powers, authority and responsibilities of Panchayats 
    (d) protect the interests of all border States

  • [25th April 2026] The Hindu OpED: The crisis of urban electoral disenfranchisement

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to ‘one nation-one election’ principleLinkage: This question directly links to electoral roll integrity, voter inclusion, and institutional reforms, which are central to the issue of urban disenfranchisement. The article provides contemporary evidence (mass deletions, SIR flaws) that strengthens answers on why electoral reforms are urgently needed in India’s democracy

    Mentor’s Comment

    There is a deepening crisis of urban electoral disenfranchisement in India. This has been triggered by the recent Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, where mass deletions of voters, especially urban poor, migrants, and informal workers, have come to light. This is significant because it marks a shift from inclusion (universal adult franchise) to exclusion through bureaucratic processes, The scale is alarming, Patna saw 16.5 lakh deletions, Ghaziabad ~36.67%, Lucknow ~30.88%, and Mumbai ~14 lakh deletions with 50% from informal housing, indicating a systemic pattern rather than isolated errors.

    Why is universal adult franchise weakening in urban India?

    1. Systematic disenfranchisement: Urban voters increasingly excluded through SIR processes; reflects erosion of the constitutional promise of “one person, one vote.”
    2. Urban marginalisation: Poor, migrants, minorities face structural exclusion; example, large-scale deletions in cities like Patna, Lucknow, Ghaziabad.
    3. Demographic mismatch: Rapid urban population growth not matched by electoral inclusion; table shows low voter ratios despite rising population.

    How does the SIR process contribute to exclusion?

    1. Bureaucratic enumeration: Relies on documentation and verification; excludes those lacking stable residence proof.
    2. Limited outreach: Focuses on verification over registration; discourages new voter inclusion.
    3. Data evidence: Patna (16.5 lakh deletions), Ghaziabad (36.67%), Mumbai (14 lakh deletions) indicate systemic filtering.

    Why are migrants and the urban poor disproportionately affected?

    1. High mobility: Migrants frequently change residences; fail documentation requirements.
    2. Informal settlements: ~40% of urban population lives in slums; lack formal address proof.
    3. Dual burden: Unable to register + higher probability of deletion; example, Kolkata (25.62% deletions in unorganised workers).

    Does electoral secrecy face new challenges in urban settings?

    1. Booth-level disclosure risk: Small booth sizes enable inference of voting patterns.
    2. Technological vulnerability: Electronic voting systems may reveal demographic voting trends.
    3. Urban concentration: Tight clusters make secrecy harder compared to dispersed rural booths.

    Is there evidence of selective filtration in electoral rolls?

    1. Selective exclusion: Groups perceived as politically inconvenient may be filtered out.
    2. Documentation bias: Rigid criteria disproportionately impact working-class populations.
    3. Case evidence: Lucknow (30.88%), Ghaziabad (36.67%) deletions linked to migrant workforce mobility.

    How does urbanisation intensify electoral challenges?

    1. Migration-driven growth: Continuous inflow disrupts stable voter registration systems.
    2. Administrative lag: Electoral systems based on static populations fail dynamic urban contexts.
    3. Comparative gap: Rural areas show relatively stable rolls vs volatile urban deletions.

    Conclusion

    Urban electoral disenfranchisement represents a structural contradiction between constitutional ideals and administrative practices. If left unaddressed, it risks weakening democratic legitimacy, particularly in rapidly urbanising India. Electoral reforms must shift from documentation-centric exclusion to inclusion-oriented governance, ensuring that mobility does not become a ground for loss of citizenship rights.

  • Mining Sector Reforms: Special Assistance to States 

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Mines has issued operational guidelines for a ₹5,000 crore incentive package under the Scheme for Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment (SASCI) for FY 2026-27. This initiative aims to accelerate mineral production and improve governance across India.

    What is the Scheme Component?

    A dedicated financial incentive mechanism designed to reward States and UTs (with legislatures) for implementing structural reforms in the mining sector.

    • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Mines.
    • Total Outlay: ₹5,000 crore.
    • Core Objective: Expedite mine operationalization, increase mineral production, and enhance state revenue through better governance.
    Reform AreaSpecific RequirementsPotential Incentive
    I. Implementation of Mining Reforms1. Integration with Unified Mining Portal.2. Setup Pre-Auction Committee (land issues).3. Setup State-level Coordination Committee.4. Issue annual auction calendar.5. Adopt tech to prevent grade misclassification.₹100 crore (if all 5 are met by Dec 15, 2026)
    II. Mine OperationalizationA. Pre-embedded Clearances: Auctioning blocks with forest/env clearances already in place.B. Production Kickstart: Operationalizing at least 10% of blocks auctioned prior to March 2026.A. ₹20 crore per block (Max ₹200cr/state).B. ₹250 crore per state.
    III. SMRI-based ReformsRewarding top performers in the State Mining Readiness Index (SMRI) 2026-27 across three categories (A, B, and C).1st: ₹100 crore2nd: ₹75 crore3rd: ₹50 crore
    [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

  • Defection of AAP Rajya Sabha MPs 

    Why in the News?

    In a major political shift, seven out of ten Aam Aadmi Party (Aam Aadmi Party) Rajya Sabha MPs have resigned from the party to merge with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), citing a departure from the party’s founding principles.

    What is the Event?

    • Seven Rajya Sabha MPs, led by Raghav Chadha, have exercised the “merger” provision of the anti-defection law to join the BJP without losing their seats in the Upper House.

    Constitutional & Legal Framework (UPSC Focus)

    The move hinges on the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution (Anti-Defection Law):

    • The Two-Thirds Rule: Under the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003), a split in a party is no longer recognized. However, a merger is valid if at least two-thirds of the members of the legislative party agree to it.
    • Status of AAP MPs: Since 7 out of 10 MPs (70%) have moved together, they meet the two-thirds threshold, potentially exempting them from disqualification.
    • Voluntary Membership Relinquishment: The remaining AAP leadership (Sanjay Singh) has argued for disqualification under Paragraph 2(1)(a) of the Tenth Schedule, claiming the MPs “voluntarily gave up” membership before a formal merger.
    [2025] Consider the following statements: 
    I. If any question arises as to whether a Member of the House of the People has become subject to disqualification under the 10th Schedule, the President’s decision in accordance with the opinion of the Council of Union Ministers shall be final. 
    II. There is no mention of the word ‘political party’ in the Constitution of India. 
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 
    [A] I only [B] II only [C] Both I and II [D] Neither I nor II