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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Supreme Court Declines Plea to Make NAT Tests Mandatory in Blood Banks

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India refused to direct the government to mandate Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT) in blood banks for screening donated blood before transfusions.

    Court’s Decision

    • A bench headed by Surya Kant declined to issue a judicial order making NAT tests compulsory.
    • The Court said judges lack specialised expertise in medical science and cost assessment required for such policy decisions.
    • States also have financial constraints, which must be considered before mandating expensive tests.

    Direction Given

    • The petitioner NGO was allowed to submit representations to State Health Secretaries.
    • State governments may decide on NAT adoption with the advice of medical experts.

    What is Nucleic Acid Testing (NAT)?

    NAT (Nucleic Acid Test) is a molecular diagnostic test that detects the genetic material (DNA/RNA) of viruses in blood.

    Detects infections such as:

    • Human Immunodeficiency Virus
    • Hepatitis B virus
    • Hepatitis C virus

    Advantages

    • Detects infections earlier during the “window period” before antibodies appear.
    • More accurate and sensitive than traditional screening tests.

    Limitation

    • Much more expensive, making universal adoption difficult for many public hospitals.

    Current Standard Test

    Most blood banks in India currently use the Enzyme‑Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), which detects antibodies against viruses.

    Context of the Petition

    • Filed by an NGO to protect thalassemia patients, who require frequent blood transfusions.
    • The plea gained attention after several children in Madhya Pradesh reportedly contracted HIV from contaminated blood transfusions in 2025.

    Constitutional Argument

    • The petitioner argued that safe blood transfusion is part of the Right to Life under Article 21, but the Court held that policy decisions involving cost and technology should be taken by governments with expert input.
    [2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following? (a) The decisions taken by the Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law. (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by laws made by the Parliament. (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet. (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

  • Women’s political participation in India

    Why in the News?

    There is new data highlighting the widening gap between women voters and women representatives in India’s political system. Over the past six decades, women’s participation in elections has grown dramatically. In the 1967 Lok Sabha elections, female turnout was only 55.5% compared to 66.7% for men, a gap of 11.2 percentage points. This gap steadily narrowed and by 2019 and 2024 elections, women voted at nearly the same rate as men. In several State Assembly elections since the 1980s, women voters have even surpassed men, indicating a profound transformation in India’s electoral landscape.

    Why has women’s voter participation increased significantly in India?

    1. Electoral Inclusion: Women voters now participate at rates comparable to men due to universal franchise and electoral awareness. The gender turnout gap narrowed from 11.2 percentage points in 1967 to near parity by 2019-2024.
    2. Political Mobilisation: Political parties increasingly target women voters through welfare schemes and campaign strategies, encouraging greater turnout.
    3. Improved Literacy and Awareness: Rising female literacy and social awareness have strengthened participation in democratic processes.
    4. State Election Trends: Women’s turnout has exceeded men’s in several State Assembly elections since the 1980s, indicating sustained growth.

    Why does women’s political representation remain low despite high voter participation?

    1. Candidate Nomination Gap: Political parties nominate fewer women candidates despite growing voter participation. Women remain a small minority among total election contestants.
    2. Low Parliamentary Representation: Women constituted only 22 MPs in 1952 and even today remain below 15% in the Lok Sabha.
    3. Nomination Bottleneck: Parties often justify fewer nominations by claiming women candidates are less “electable,” despite evidence showing comparable success rates.
    4. Success Rate Reality: Data shows women candidates often have equal or slightly higher success rates than men, indicating structural barriers rather than electoral disadvantage.

    How do structural and social barriers limit women’s political engagement?

    1. Patriarchal Structures: 22% of surveyed women identified patriarchy as the primary obstacle preventing entry into politics.
    2. Household Responsibilities: 13% cited domestic responsibilities as limiting participation in political activities.
    3. Individual Barriers: 12% reported lack of confidence, awareness, or political exposure as obstacles.
    4. Cultural Norms: 7% identified restrictive social norms as barriers.
    5. Financial Constraints: 6% cited financial barriers, highlighting the cost-intensive nature of electoral politics.
    6. Negative Image of Politics: 3% reported concerns about the perceived negative nature of politics.

    Why do women face constraints in participating in political campaigns?

    1. Permission Requirement:
      1. 64% of women require permission to attend political rallies
      2. 62% require permission to attend candidate meetings
      3. 63% require permission to join protests
      4. 61% require permission to campaign for a candidate
    2. Limited Public Participation: Although women vote in large numbers, their visible engagement in campaigning, mobilization, and political activism remains limited.
    3. Family Influence: 58% believe women with political family backgrounds find it easier to enter politics.

    How do political parties contribute to the gender gap in representation?

    1. Party Bias: 44% believe parties routinely favour men over women candidates, regardless of merit.
    2. Resource Allocation: Male candidates receive greater financial and organizational support.
    3. Political Networking: Male-dominated party structures limit women’s access to political networks and leadership roles.
    4. Candidate Pipeline: Women often lack opportunities to build political careers through party hierarchies.

    What does the data reveal about women MPs and candidate trends?

    1. Gradual Growth: The number of women MPs increased from 22 in 1952 to 78 in 2019, but declined slightly to 74 in 2024.
    2. Candidate Numbers:
      1. 2014: 726 women candidates
      2. 2019: 800 women candidates
      3. 2024: 806 women candidates
    3. Small Share: Despite growth, women candidates remain a small fraction of total contestants.

    Way Forward

    1. Implementation of Women’s Reservation Act: Ensures 33% reservation in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, expanding women’s legislative representation.
    2. Political Party Reforms: Introduces mandatory quotas for women candidates in party nominations.
    3. Leadership and Capacity Building: Strengthens training, mentorship, and political leadership programmes for women aspirants.
    4. Financial Support: Provides campaign finance assistance and reduced electoral costs for women candidates.
    5. Leveraging Local Governance: Utilises Panchayati Raj institutions as leadership pipelines for higher political roles.
    6. Social Norm Transformation: Promotes gender-sensitive awareness and education campaigns to address patriarchal barriers.

    Conclusion

    Women’s political participation in India reflects a dual reality of democratic progress and structural exclusion. Electoral participation has reached near gender parity, demonstrating the success of universal franchise and increased political awareness among women. However, this progress has not translated into proportional representation in legislatures or decision-making structures, revealing deep institutional and socio-cultural constraints within the political system.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Discuss the contribution of civil society groups for women’s effective and meaningful participation and representation in state legislatures in India.

    Linkage: The question examines women’s political representation and participation in democratic institutions. The article highlights the paradox of rising women voter turnout but low representation in legislatures, and the need for institutional and societal support mechanisms to enhance women’s participation in politics.

  • Speaker Says MPs Can Speak Only as Per Parliamentary Rules

    Why in the News

    Om Birla stated that every Member of Parliament has the right to speak in the Lok Sabha, but only according to the Constitution, Rules of Procedure, and Standing Orders.
    His remarks came a day after a motion seeking his removal was defeated in the House.

    Constitutional Basis

    • Freedom of Speech in Parliament: Under Article 105 of the Constitution of India:  MPs have freedom of speech in Parliament. However, this freedom is subject to parliamentary rules and procedures.

    Key Parliamentary Rules Governing Speeches

    • Recognition by the Chair: An MP can speak only when recognized by the Speaker. Members cannot stand and speak without permission.
    • Time is allocated based on: Party strength, Business of the House and Decision of the Speaker.
    • Agenda-Based Discussions
      • Members can speak mainly during: Question Hour, Zero Hour, Debates on Bills, Motions and Resolutions, Budget discussions

    Rules of Conduct: 

    • Members must:
      • Address the Chair (Speaker) and not other members directly.
      • Avoid unparliamentary language.
      • Speak only on the subject under discussion.

    Special Procedures

    Certain issues can be raised through specific procedures such as:

    • Adjournment Motion
    • Calling Attention Motion
    • Short Duration Discussion
    • Points of Order

    Role of the Speaker

    The Speaker:

    • Maintains order and discipline in the House.
    • Decides who speaks and for how long.
    • Can expunge remarks or suspend members for disorderly conduct.
    [2025] With reference to the Indian polity, consider the following statements: I. The Governor of a State is not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his/her office. II. No criminal proceedings shall be instituted or continued against the Governor during his/her term of office. III. Members of a State Legislature are not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said within the House. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III

  • Supreme Court Verdict on OBC Creamy Layer Criterion

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India ruled that income alone cannot determine the “creamy layer” among OBCs, and clarified how children of private sector and PSU employees should be treated in comparison with those of government servants. The judgment was delivered by Justices P. S. Narasimha and R. Mahadevan.

    What is the “Creamy Layer”?

    • The concept emerged from the landmark Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992).
    • It excludes the economically and socially advanced members of the OBC category from reservation benefits.
    • Currently, the income ceiling for creamy layer is â‚č8 lakh per year.

    What the Supreme Court Said

    1. Income Cannot Be the Sole Criterion

    • The Court held that salary income alone cannot determine creamy layer status.
    • The social position and post of the parents must also be considered.

    2. Equality Between Government and Private Sector Employees

    • The Court addressed discrimination created by a 2004 government clarification:
    • Earlier:
      • Salary of private sector and PSU employees was counted in income.
      • Salary of government employees was not counted.
    • The Court ruled this creates “hostile discrimination” between similarly placed OBC candidates.

    This violates equality principles under:

    • Article 14 of the Constitution of India
    • Article 15 of the Constitution of India
    • Article 16 of the Constitution of India

    What Changes After the Verdict

    • Equal Treatment
      • Children of PSU and private sector employees will now be assessed similar to government employees, considering the status of the post, not only income.

    Benefits for Affected Candidates

    • Candidates previously denied OBC status in exams (like the Civil Services Examination) may now receive benefits.
    • The Court allowed the government to create supernumerary posts if necessary to accommodate them.

    Background of the Issue

    • 1993 DoPT guidelines excluded salary and agricultural income while determining creamy layer.
    • A 2004 clarification included salary income for private/PSU employees, causing the dispute.
    [2023] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: The Supreme Court of India has held in some judgements that the reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of administration. Statement-II : Article 335 of the Constitution of India defines the term ‘efficiency of administration’. 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 is the correct explanation for Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

  • Supreme Court to Examine Definition of “Personal Data” under DPDP Law

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India has agreed to examine what constitutes “personal data” and “public data” under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, amid concerns that the law may restrict access to information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

    Background of the Case

    • The petition was filed by journalist Geeta Seshu and the Software Freedom Law Center India.
    • It was argued by senior advocate Indira Jaising.

    The petition claims the DPDP law may:

    • Restrict journalists’ access to information in the public interest
    • Allow excessive state surveillance
    • Weaken transparency provisions under RTI.

    Issues Raised in the Petition

    1. Restriction on RTI Access

    • Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act allegedly blocks disclosure of personal information through RTI requests.
    • The term “public interest” has reportedly been removed, making access to information harder.

    2. Lack of Clear Definitions

    • The petition argues the law does not clearly define: Personal data, Public data, and Information. This ambiguity may allow authorities to deny access to important information.

    3. Compensation Concerns

    • Penalties for data breaches go to the Consolidated Fund of India.
    • Individuals whose data is violated do not receive direct compensation.

    Court’s Observations

    The Bench headed by Surya Kant said:

    • A balance must be maintained between privacy and transparency.
    • Data privacy should not undermine the public’s right to information.
    • The Court also noted that data has become a major economic and strategic resource, requiring careful regulation.

    What Happens Next

    • The petitioners have been asked to frame specific legal questions.
    • The case will be heard further on March 23, 2026.

    Significance

    • The case could shape how privacy laws interact with RTI in India.
    • It may clarify the scope of personal data in governance and journalism.
    • The judgment could influence the future of digital rights and transparency in India.
    [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

  • Supreme Court Upholds Right to Die with Dignity

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court of India allowed withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment for Harish Rana, reaffirming the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment was delivered by Justices J. B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan.

    Key Features of the Judgment

    1. Withdrawal of Life Support Allowed

    • The Court permitted withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH) for a patient in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS).
    • This allows the natural process of death rather than artificially prolonging life.

    2. Replacement of the Term “Passive Euthanasia”

    • The Court clarified terminology: Active euthanasia remains illegal in India.
      • The earlier term passive euthanasia will now be called “withholding or withdrawal of medical treatment.”

    3. Structured Medical Process Required

    Withdrawal of life support must not be a single act. It must involve:

    • A structured palliative care plan
    • Medical assessment of whether treatment is futile or non-beneficial
    • Ensuring the patient does not suffer unnecessary pain.

    4. Medical Board Review

    • Primary and secondary medical boards must examine such cases.
    • If both boards approve withdrawal, hospitals must inform the Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

    5. Focus on Patient’s Best Interest

    The Court clarified the test:

    • Not whether it is better for the patient to die
    • But whether it is better not to artificially prolong life through futile treatment.

    Legal Background

    • The ruling implements guidelines laid down in the landmark case: Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
    • That case recognised:
      • Right to die with dignity
      • Living wills or advance medical directives

    Court’s Recommendations

    The Court urged the Government of India to enact a specific law governing withdrawal of life support and end-of-life care.

    Significance

    • Strengthens the interpretation of Article 21 to include dignified death.
    • Clarifies procedures for end-of-life medical decisions.
    • Balances medical ethics, patient autonomy, and constitutional rights.
    [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

  • Impeaching the CEC: The law and the process

    Why in the News?

    The Opposition has initiated efforts to move an impeachment motion against Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar, alleging biased conduct during the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls in West Bengal. The issue also arises shortly after the implementation of the 2023 Election Commissioners Act, which reshaped the appointment and service framework of election commissioners.

    What constitutional safeguards protect the independence of the Chief Election Commissioner?

    1. Article 324 of the Constitution: Establishes the Election Commission of India and vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Commission.
    2. Security of Tenure: Protects the CEC from arbitrary removal by requiring a removal process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge.
    3. Institutional Autonomy: Ensures independence from executive interference in electoral management.
    4. Parity with Supreme Court Judges: Removal requires proof of misbehaviour or incapacity, the same standard applied to judges.
    5. Protection of Election Commissioners: Other Election Commissioners can only be removed on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

    How is the Chief Election Commissioner removed under the Constitution?

    1. Article 324(5): Specifies that the Chief Election Commissioner cannot be removed except in the same manner and on the same grounds as a Supreme Court judge.
    2. Grounds for Removal: Includes proved misbehaviour or incapacity, identical to judicial impeachment standards.
    3. Judicial Parity: Aligns the institutional protection of the Election Commission with the judiciary to ensure independence from political pressure.

    What is the parliamentary process involved in the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner?

    Procedure follows the framework used for removal of Supreme Court judges under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968.

    1. Initiation of Motion: At least 100 members in the Lok Sabha or 50 members in the Rajya Sabha submit a signed removal motion against the Chief Election Commissioner to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the Chairman of Rajya Sabha under the framework used for removal of a Supreme Court judge.
    2. Admission of Motion: The Speaker/Chairman decides whether the motion should be admitted or rejected.
    3. Inquiry Committee: If admitted, a three-member inquiry committee is constituted consisting of
      1. A Judge of the Supreme Court,
      2. A Chief Justice of a High Court, and
      3. A Distinguished jurist

    The committee investigates allegations of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

    1. Parliamentary Voting: If the committee finds the charges proven, both Houses of Parliament must pass the removal motion with
      1. Majority of the total membership of the House, and
      2. Two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
    2. Final Removal Authority: After both Houses pass the motion, the President of India issues the order removing the Chief Election Commissioner.

    How does the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023 affect the removal process?

    1. Statutory Framework: Provides legislative clarity regarding appointment, service conditions, and tenure of Election Commissioners.
    2. Section 11 of the Act: Reaffirms the constitutional removal procedure, maintaining parity with Supreme Court judges.
    3. Institutional Continuity: Ensures that statutory provisions do not dilute constitutional safeguards.
    4. Administrative Clarity: Defines resignation and removal procedures within the broader constitutional structure.

    Why is the allegation of “biased conduct” politically and institutionally significant?

    1. Electoral Credibility: Allegations of bias challenge the perceived neutrality of the Election Commission, a cornerstone of democratic legitimacy.
    2. Federal Sensitivity: The controversy relates to electoral roll revision in West Bengal, raising concerns about regional political neutrality.
    3. Institutional Precedent: An impeachment attempt against a CEC would be extremely rare and could reshape norms governing independent institutions.
    4. Political Contestation: Demonstrates increasing political scrutiny over constitutional authorities involved in election management.

    Conclusion

    The constitutional design surrounding the removal of the Chief Election Commissioner reflects a careful balance between independence and accountability. By equating the removal process with that of a Supreme Court judge, the Constitution ensures that electoral authorities remain insulated from political pressure while still being subject to parliamentary oversight. Current developments highlight the continuing importance of safeguarding the neutrality of institutions that underpin democratic elections.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the role of the Election Commission of India in the light of the evolution of the Model Code of Conduct.

    Linkage: The removal procedure of the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 324(5) reflects the constitutional safeguards ensuring the independence of the Election Commission. Questions on ECI autonomy, electoral integrity, and constitutional protections for constitutional bodies are frequently asked in GS-2, linking directly to debates on the CEC’s removal process.

  • 41% illusion: a quiet re-engineering of India’s fiscal landscape

    Why in the News?

    The Union government accepted the Sixteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation to retain States’ share in the divisible pool at 41%. However, the effective share of States has declined because the divisible pool itself has shrunk relative to gross tax revenues. Simultaneously, the Union has increased reliance on cesses and surcharges that are not shareable with States, while discontinuing several revenue deficits and state-specific grants. The result is a structural shift toward greater fiscal centralisation, even though the headline devolution figure remains unchanged.

    Why is the “41% devolution” being called an illusion?

    1. Headline Continuity vs Real Decline: Retention of 41% vertical devolution creates an impression of continuity. However, the divisible pool is not the same as gross tax revenue, reducing the effective share transferred to States.
    2. Rise of Cesses and Surcharges: Cesses and surcharges are retained entirely by the Union and excluded from the divisible pool. Their growing share reduces the amount available for distribution to States.
    3. Shrinking Shareable Pool: The divisible pool averaged 89.2% of gross tax revenue during FC-XIII, declined to 82.1% during FC-XIV, and further to 78.3% during FC-XV.
    4. Effective Devolution: When calculated as a share of total Union tax revenue, the States effectively receive about 41% of a shrinking pool, lowering the real transfer.

    How has the divisible pool evolved over time?

    1. FC-XIII Period (2010-15): Divisible pool averaged around 89.2% of gross tax revenue, ensuring larger transfers to States.
    2. FC-XIV Period (2015-20): States’ share increased to 42%, but the divisible pool reduced to 82.1% of gross tax revenue.
    3. FC-XV Period (2020-25): States’ share reduced to 41%, while the divisible pool further declined to 78.3%.
    4. Trend: Declining shareable revenue base despite stable devolution percentage.

    Why are cesses and surcharges central to the fiscal federal debate?

    1. Exclusion from Divisible Pool: Cesses and surcharges are not shared with States under Article 270.
    2. Growing Fiscal Instrument: The Union increasingly uses cesses and surcharges to finance schemes, bypassing revenue sharing.
    3. Impact on State Finances: Rising non-shareable revenues reduce States’ fiscal autonomy.
    4. Example: Education cess, infrastructure cess, and other targeted levies contribute to Union revenues but do not increase States’ transfers.

    What structural changes in Finance Commission transfers affect States?

    1. Discontinuation of Revenue Deficit Grants: FC-XVI proposes removal of revenue deficit grants, previously used to support fiscally weaker States.
    2. End of State-specific Grants: Instruments providing targeted relief for State fiscal stress have been discontinued.
    3. Shift toward Conditional Grants: Transfers increasingly depend on States’ compliance with Central monitoring requirements.
    4. Change in Devolution Formula: Criteria such as tax and fiscal effort have been removed, while contribution to GDP has been introduced.

    How does the new horizontal devolution formula affect States?

    1. Income Distance (42.5% weight): Continues to prioritise poorer States with lower per-capita income.
    2. Population (17.5% weight): Based on 2011 Census, increasing weight relative to earlier formulas.
    3. Demographic Performance (10% weight): Rewards States with better population control outcomes.
    4. Area (10%) and Forest Cover (10%): Recognises geographical and ecological constraints.
    5. Contribution to GDP (10% new criterion): Rewards States contributing more to national output.

    What fiscal stresses among States shaped the Commission’s approach?

    1. Punjab: Debt-to-GSDP ratio around 42.9% in 2023-24; revenue deficit estimated at 3.7% of GSDP.
    2. Rajasthan: Outstanding liabilities around 37.9% of GSDP.
    3. Andhra Pradesh: Debt levels approximately 34.6% of GSDP.
    4. Observation: States increasingly borrow to finance salaries and service existing debt rather than build capital assets.

    Why is the shift toward conditional transfers significant?

    1. Performance-linked Transfers: Local body grants divided into basic and performance components.
    2. Conditionality: Access to funds linked to timely audits, compliance with Central databases, and performance benchmarks.
    3. Governance Impact: States with weaker administrative capacity may receive lower actual transfers despite formal entitlement.

    What broader implications does this have for fiscal federalism?

    1. Centralisation of Fiscal Power: Increasing Union control over tax revenue and grants.
    2. Reduced Fiscal Autonomy: States depend more on conditional transfers rather than formula-based devolution.
    3. Structural Imbalance: Growing gap between State expenditure responsibilities and fiscal resources.
    4. Long-term Concern: Persistent asymmetry may weaken cooperative federalism.

    Conclusion

    The retention of the 41% devolution figure conceals deeper structural changes in India’s fiscal architecture. The shrinking divisible pool, rising use of cesses and surcharges, and growing conditionality of grants indicate a gradual centralisation of fiscal authority. Sustaining cooperative federalism will require greater transparency in tax sharing and a stronger balance between Union and State fiscal powers.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the states to improve their fiscal position?

    Linkage: The PYQ Tests understanding of Finance Commission’s role in fiscal federalism and tax devolution between Centre and States. The issue of retaining 41% devolution while the divisible pool shrinks due to rising cesses and surcharges highlights emerging tensions in Centre-State fiscal relations and effective resource transfers.

  • Lok Sabha Debates Motion to Remove Speaker

    Why in the News

    The Lok Sabha has taken up a resolution moved by Opposition MPs seeking the removal of Om Birla, leading to intense debate between the Treasury and Opposition benches.

    Key Developments

    • The motion was initiated by Congress leaders including Gaurav Gogoi, Mohammad Jawed, K. Suresh, and Mallu Ravi.
    • The Opposition alleged partisan behaviour and lack of neutrality by the Speaker.
    • The government defended the Speaker, with Kiren Rijiju calling the motion an “attack on democracy.”
    • The debate has been allotted 10 hours, after which the House will vote on the motion.
    • Amit Shah is expected to intervene in the debate.

    Procedure for Removal of Lok Sabha Speaker

    The removal of the Speaker is governed by Article 94 of the Constitution of India.

    • Notice of Motion: A written notice must be given at least 14 days in advance.
    • Support for Admission: At least 50 members must support the motion for it to be admitted in the House.
    • Presiding Officer
      • During the discussion, the Speaker does not preside over the House.
      • A member from the Panel of Chairpersons presides instead.
    • Debate and Voting: The motion is debated in the House.
      • It must be passed by a majority of the members present and voting.
    • Outcome: If the motion is passed, the Speaker ceases to hold office immediately.

    Constitutional Significance

    • The Speaker is expected to maintain neutrality and impartiality while conducting proceedings.
    • Removal motions are rare and politically sensitive, as they question the neutrality of the Chair and the functioning of parliamentary democracy.
    [2025] Consider the following statements: I. On the dissolution of the House of the People, the Speaker shall not vacate his/ her office until immediately before the first meeting of the House of the People after the dissolution. II. According to the provisions of the Constitution of India, a Member of the House of the People on being elected as Speaker shall resign from his/her political party immediately. III. The Speaker of the House of the People may be removed from his/her office by a resolution of the House of the People passed by a majority of all the (then) Members of the House, provided that no resolution shall be moved unless at least fourteen days’ notice has been given of the intention to move the resolution. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III

  • Opposition Considers Impeachment Motion Against CEC Gyanesh Kumar

    Why in the News

    • Opposition parties, including the Indian National Congress and All India Trinamool Congress, are discussing the possibility of moving an impeachment motion against Gyanesh Kumar in Parliament.
    • Congress leader K C Venugopal stated that the entire Opposition will take a collective decision on the proposal.

    Impeachment Process of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC)

    • The removal procedure is provided under Article 324(5) of the Constitution of India.
    • Grounds for Removal: The Chief Election Commissioner can only be removed on grounds similar to those of a Supreme Court judge, mainly: Proved misbehaviour and Incapacity.

    Step-by-Step Process

    • Notice of Motion: A removal motion must be signed by:
      • At least 100 members of the Lok Sabha, or
      • At least 50 members of the Rajya Sabha.
    • Admission of Motion
      • The motion is submitted to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha.
      • They may accept or reject the motion.
    • Investigation: If admitted, an investigative committee is formed to examine the charges.
    • Parliamentary Voting: If the committee finds the charges valid, the motion is debated and voted upon in both Houses.
    • Special Majority Required: Removal requires:
      • Majority of total membership of the House, and
      • Two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
    • Final Removal: After both Houses pass the motion, the President of India issues the removal order.
    [2017] Consider the following statements: The Election Commission of India is a five-member body. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 3 only