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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • On the implications of euthanasia

    Why in the News?

    The recent judgment in Harish Rana v. Union of India marks a significant evolution in India’s euthanasia jurisprudence by operationalising the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. For the first time, the Supreme Court has explicitly permitted withdrawal of Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH), going beyond earlier precedents like Common Cause v. Union of India and Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India. This is a major shift from a highly restrictive regime to a more autonomy-centric approach, reducing procedural hurdles (such as multiple medical boards) and emphasizing patient dignity. However, it simultaneously raises critical concerns of misuse, coercion, and socio-economic inequality.

    What constitutional transformation does the judgment signify?

    1. Right to Dignity: Expands Article 21 to include dignified death; integrates life and death within the same constitutional continuum.
    2. Autonomy Recognition: Recognizes individual decision-making in end-of-life care; validates living wills and refusal of treatment.
    3. Judicial Evolution: Moves beyond Aruna Shanbaug (2011) and Common Cause (2018) by simplifying execution mechanisms.
    4. State Obligation: Ensures access to palliative care as part of the right to life; links dignity with healthcare delivery.

    How does the judgment simplify procedural mechanisms?

    1. Procedural Rationalisation: Reduces requirement from multiple medical boards to fewer layers; ensures faster decision-making.
    2. Administrative Feasibility: Removes district collector oversight; reduces bureaucratic delays.
    3. Advance Directives: Strengthens legal validity of living wills; facilitates implementation without excessive verification.
    4. Medical Oversight: Retains safeguards through medical opinion; ensures balance between autonomy and ethics.

    What are the ethical principles governing euthanasia decisions?

    1. Autonomy: Ensures patient’s right to choose treatment withdrawal; extends to next of kin in incapacitated cases.
    2. Beneficence: Prioritizes patient welfare; ensures decisions aim to relieve suffering.
    3. Non-Maleficence: Prevents harm; prohibits actions that actively cause death.
    4. Justice: Ensures fairness; raises concerns of unequal access to dignified death due to socio-economic disparities.
    5. Doctrine of Double Effect: Permits actions with dual outcomes (pain relief + possible death); justified if intent is relief, not death.

    What social risks and inequalities does euthanasia raise?

    1. Vulnerability Risk: Elderly, disabled, and poor may face coercion; financial pressures may influence consent.
    2. Economic Burden: High cost of prolonged treatment may push families toward withdrawal decisions.
    3. Social Neglect: Weak family support structures may lead to disguised abandonment.
    4. Cultural Conflict: Traditional belief in preserving life at all costs vs emerging autonomy-based ethics.
    5. Healthcare Inequality: Limited access to palliative care skews decision-making toward euthanasia.

    What is the economic and healthcare dimension of the debate?

    1. Resource Allocation: Prolonged life-support strains healthcare resources; raises efficiency concerns.
    2. Cost of Care: Long-term ICU treatment imposes financial stress; especially on middle and lower-income groups.
    3. Palliative Care Gap: India’s limited palliative infrastructure restricts genuine “choice.”
    4. Policy Implication: Need for integrated end-of-life care systems alongside euthanasia regulation.

    Does the judgment clarify or complicate the legal position?

    1. Terminological Shift: Discourages use of “passive euthanasia”; avoids confusion between acts and omissions.
    2. Legal Clarity: Establishes withdrawal of treatment as legally permissible; aligns with constitutional morality.
    3. Continuity of Care: Mandates ongoing palliative care even after withdrawal decisions.
    4. Interpretational Scope: Leaves grey areas regarding coercion and consent verification. 

    Conclusion

    The judgment marks a shift toward autonomy and dignity but must be complemented by strong safeguards, palliative care expansion, and ethical oversight to prevent misuse and ensure equitable application.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Is conscience a more reliable guide when compared to laws, rules and regulations in the context of ethical decision making? Discuss.

    Linkage: The PYQ tests ethical decision-making where legal frameworks may be insufficient or rigid. In euthanasia, even with legal sanction, final decisions rely on conscience, balancing dignity, suffering, and moral responsibility beyond written law.

  • [28th March 2026] The Hindu OpED: Beyond the rhetoric of the north-south divide

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to build trust and strengthen federalism.Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of evolving Centre-State dynamics, fiscal federalism, and institutional trust, core to GS-II governance and polity. The article’s North-South divide reflects the same tension; economic contribution vs political representation, making federal balance and trust-building central to India’s unity.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India’s development trajectory reflects a growing divergence between the Peninsular (Southern) States and the Hindi heartland (Northern States). This divergence is no longer limited to economic indicators but extends to political representation, social development, and institutional capacity, raising concerns about long-term national integration.

    How has India’s North-South divide structurally evolved?

    1. Economic divergence: Southern States exhibit per capita incomes nearly double those of northern counterparts; e.g., Tamil Nadu vs Bihar.
    2. Human development gap: Indicators like literacy, life expectancy, maternal health align with upper-middle-income countries in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, while northern States resemble sub-Saharan benchmarks.
    3. Demographic asymmetry: Northern States dominate population growth, while the South leads in fertility transition and stabilization.
    4. Spatial inequality: Wealth in States like Karnataka and Telangana is concentrated in 3-4 urban districts, indicating uneven intra-state development.

    Why is delimitation intensifying the crisis?

    1. Population-based representation: Delimitation reallocates seats based on population, increasing northern political dominance.
    2. Voice-wealth mismatch: Southern States generating higher GDP face reduced parliamentary influence.
    3. Institutional imbalance: Larger States gain more seats but fewer per capita representation; smaller States gain greater representation per person.
    4. Potential conflict: Creates a perception of “productive minority subsidising political majority”, increasing regional friction.

    Does the South face an internal developmental crisis?

    1. Middle-income trap: Southern economies show high per capita income but structural inequality.
    2. Unequal distribution: Growth benefits are captured by a narrow elite, leaving large populations behind.
    3. Labour income disparity: In Tamil Nadu, per capita income is triple that of Bihar, but agricultural wages remain stagnant.
    4. Social inequalities: Persistent casteism, patriarchy, and governance deficits (e.g., urban law violations in Bengaluru/Chennai).
    5. Failure of transformation: Economic gains have not fully translated into social mobility and equity.

    Why is convergence between North and South unlikely in the near future?

    1. Income differential persistence: A 300% per capita income gap requires generations to bridge.
    2. Migration paradox: Migration from North to South creates “internal outsiders”, not integration.
    3. Weak institutional capacity: Northern States struggle with governance deficits, limiting catch-up growth.
    4. Demographic burden: High population growth in the North slows per capita income gains.
    5. Asymmetric growth model: Southern growth does not automatically pull the rest of India upward.

    How does this divide threaten India’s federal structure?

    1. Fiscal stress: Southern States divert resources to compensate for national imbalance.
    2. Political alienation: Reduced representation risks weakening cooperative federalism.
    3. Regionalism risk: Rising rhetoric may deepen identity-based politics.
    4. Historical parallels: Similar patterns seen in USSR and Yugoslavia, where economic minorities subsidised political majorities.
    5. Unity challenge: The divide evolves into a structural fault line, not a temporary disparity.

    What kind of policy response is required?

    1. Balanced representation: Ensures equitable parliamentary voice beyond pure population metrics.
    2. Human capital investment: Strengthens education, health, and skill systems in lagging regions.
    3. Institutional reforms: Improves governance capacity and rule of law in northern States.
    4. Inclusive growth model: Shifts focus from GDP to distribution and social outcomes.
    5. National social contract: Promotes shared prosperity and cooperative federalism.

    Conclusion

    India’s North-South divide reflects a deeper contradiction between economic efficiency and democratic representation. Addressing it requires moving beyond regional rhetoric toward institutional reform, inclusive growth, and a renewed federal compact, ensuring that prosperity and political voice remain aligned.

  • Supreme Court Highlight Lapses in Safeguarding Sexual Assault Survivors’ Identity

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court of India flagged serious lapses by trial courts and police in protecting the identity of sexual assault survivors and warned about general indifference towards statutory safeguards.

    What Did the Supreme Court Observe?

    • General indifference by trial courts and police
    • Disclosure of survivors’ identity in court records and affidavits
    • Violation of legal safeguards protecting survivors
    • Court intervened twice in one week
    • Directed redaction of names and identity details

    What Were the Recent Cases Highlighted?

    Gurugram Case

    • 3.8 year old survivor case
    • Police affidavits disclosed identity details
    • School records attached with personal details
    • Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant
    • Supreme Court Registry ordered to redact identity

    Himachal Pradesh Case

    • Nine year old survivor
    • Identity disclosed in court documents
    • Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Karol
    • Court termed disclosure disturbing

    Which Law Protects Survivor Identity?

    Section 228A IPC Now Section 72 BNS

    • Section 228A IPC now Section 72 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)
    • Prohibits disclosure of sexual assault survivor identity
    • Applies to Police, Courts, Media, Public
    • Violation is a Criminal Offence

    [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: Vande Mataram Advisory Not Mandatory or Threat to Conform

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court stated that the Union Home Ministry advisory on Vande Mataram is not mandatory and does not violate constitutional freedoms.

    Background

    • Union Home Ministry issued January 28 advisory
    • Suggested:
      • Playing Vande Mataram in full
      • At public and ceremonial events
    • Petition filed challenging advisory

    Supreme Court Observations

    Advisory Not Mandatory

    • Court clarified:
      • Advisory is not binding
      • No penalty for non compliance
      • No legal consequences

    Court stated

    • Advisory only prescribes protocol
    • No threat to constitutional freedoms
    • Petition based on vague apprehensions

    Petitioner’s Arguments

    Petitioner argued

    • Advisory makes singing socially mandatory
    • Creates pressure to conform
    • May burden those refusing to sing
    • Playing Vande Mataram before National Anthem reduces anthem’s importance

    Court’s Response

    • No legal burden exists
    • No notice or punishment mentioned
    • Advisory uses non mandatory language

    Example

    • Schools may begin day with Vande Mataram
    • “May” means optional

    Government’s Position

    Solicitor General argued

    • Respect for national symbols should be organic
    • Cited Article 51A Fundamental Duties
    • Citizens must respect:
      • National Flag
      • National Anthem

    National Anthem vs National Song

    Historical Context

    • January 24, 1950 decision
    • Jana Gana Mana adopted as National Anthem
    • Vande Mataram adopted as National Song

    Important

    • Article 51A mentions National Anthem
    • Does not explicitly mention National Song

    Supreme Court Decision

    • Petition termed premature
    • Court refused to intervene
    • Petitioners may approach court if: Discrimination occurs and Coercion happens
    [2011] Under the Constitution of India, which one of the following is not a Fundamental Duty? 
    (a) To vote in public elections 
    (b) To develop the scientific temper 
    (c) To safeguard public property 
    (d) To abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals

  • When the Chief Justice steps away

    Why in the News?

    The recusal of Justice Surya Kant from the Chief Election Commissioner appointment case is significant because it raises conflict of interest concerns at the highest judicial level, especially in a Constitution Bench matter. The case exposes a systemic gap, India has no codified law on judicial recusal, despite repeated controversies, making this a critical moment for institutional reform.

    What is judicial recusal?

    1. To recuse in court means for a judge, magistrate, or juror to voluntarily remove themselves from a case due to a conflict of interest, bias, or the appearance of impropriety. 
    2. This action ensures impartiality and maintains the integrity of the judicial process, preventing a judge from deciding a case where they have a personal stake. 

    Why is judicial recusal central to natural justice?

    1. Natural Justice Principle: Ensures nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), preserving fairness and legitimacy.
    2. Bias Prevention: Prevents both actual bias and reasonable apprehension of bias, as seen in evolving jurisprudence.
    3. Public Confidence: Strengthens trust in judicial outcomes by ensuring neutrality.
    4. Case Reference: Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand (1957) shifted focus from actual bias to likelihood of bias. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) the court refined it further stating that, a reasonable apprehension of bias and not merely a remote possibility, justifies withdrawal.

    How has judicial recusal evolved in India?

    1. From Automatic Disqualification to Reasonable Apprehension: Earlier strict disqualification (pecuniary interest) expanded to perceived bias standards.
    2. National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Case Context: In Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India (2015), recusal debates arose due to judges’ institutional stakes in judicial appointments.
    3. Justice Chelameswar’s View: Emphasized necessity doctrine, when no alternative forum exists, judges must hear the case despite conflicts.
      1. Doctrine of Necessity:  The Doctrine of Necessity is a legal principle ensuring that, if the only available authority faces a disqualifying conflict, the duty to act takes precedence over recusal. When all members of a body are involved or no alternative forum exists, they must decide the case to avoid a legal impasse
    4. Shift in Approach: Increasing reliance on judicial conscience rather than objective standards.

    What triggered the recent controversy?

    1. Chief Election Commissioner Appointment Law Challenge: Concerns over executive dominance replacing earlier judicial inclusion
    2. Conflict of Interest Concern: Justice Surya Kant cited possible perception of bias due to institutional linkage.
    3. Bench Direction Issue: Oral direction reportedly excluded judges likely to become CJI, raising questions of pre-emptive disqualification.
    4. Repetition of Recusal: Same judge had recused earlier in a related matter, reinforcing concerns about systemic ambiguity.

    What are the risks of discretionary recusal?

    1. Lack of Transparency: No obligation to disclose reasons consistently; creates opacity.
    2. Bench Composition Manipulation: Strategic recusals may influence outcomes indirectly.
    3. Institutional Instability: Frequent recusals in Constitution Bench cases disrupt continuity.
    4. Unequal Standards: Different judges follow different thresholds, leading to inconsistency.

    Does the doctrine of necessity justify non-recusal?

    1. Doctrine of Necessity: Allows judges to hear cases despite conflict if no alternative forum exists.
    2. Application in India: Used in NJAC case where the entire judiciary had a stake.
    3. Limitation: Overuse may dilute impartiality standards.
    4. Balancing Act: Necessity must be exceptional, not routine.

    Why is codification of recusal urgently needed?

    1. Absence of Statute: India lacks binding rules governing judicial conduct in recusal.
    2. Comparative Insight (US): Statutory framework (28 U.S. Code §455) mandates disqualification based on objective criteria.
    3. Self-Enforcement Problem: The Indian system relies on judges themselves to decide, without a review mechanism.
    4. Rising Frequency of Controversies: Repeated recusals in high-stakes cases highlight urgency.

    What institutional reforms can address the issue?

    1. Codified Guidelines: Defines objective thresholds for recusal (financial, personal, institutional bias).
    2. Reason Disclosure Norm: Ensures recorded justification for recusal decisions.
    3. Review Mechanism: Allows limited institutional oversight without undermining judicial independence.
    4. Roster Transparency: Strengthens trust in bench allocation process. 

    Conclusion

    Judicial recusal in India currently operates within a grey zone of personal discretion, creating risks of inconsistency and institutional mistrust. A calibrated framework, balancing independence with accountability, is essential to ensure transparency, predictability, and credibility in constitutional adjudication.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ examines judicial independence as essential for democracy, including impartiality and institutional integrity. Judicial recusal ensures impartiality, but lack of codified rules creates gaps in transparency, affecting real judicial independence.

  • Supreme Court: Only Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs Eligible for Scheduled Caste Status

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court ruled that only persons professing Hinduism, Buddhism, or Sikhism can claim Scheduled Caste status, and conversion to any other religion results in immediate loss of SC benefits.

    Key Supreme Court Ruling

    • Conversion to Christianity or Islam leads to:
      • Immediate loss of Scheduled Caste status
      • Loss of reservation benefits
      • Loss of legal protections under SC laws
    • The ruling invoked Clause 3 of the Constitution Scheduled Castes Order 1950

    Constitutional Basis

    Constitution Scheduled Castes Order 1950

    Clause 3 states:

    • Only persons professing:
      • Hinduism
      • Sikhism added in 1956
      • Buddhism added in 1990
    • are eligible for Scheduled Caste status.

    Meaning of “Profess” Explained by Court

    The Court clarified:

    • “Profess” means:
      • Publicly declaring religion
      • Practicing religion openly
    • Private belief alone is not sufficient
    • Public religious practice determines eligibility
    [2024] Consider the following statements: 1 It is the Governor of the State who recognizes and declares any community of that State as a Scheduled Tribe. 2 A community declared as a Scheduled Tribe in a State need not be so in another State. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • On the independence of EC

    Why in the News?

    The independence of Election Commission of India as an issue has resurfaced following allegations of large-scale irregularities in electoral rolls, particularly during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, where nearly 65 lakh voters were reportedly deleted. The Opposition has moved a resolution seeking removal of the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), marking a rare and politically significant development. The controversy also follows the enactment of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which altered the appointment process after the Supreme Court’s intervention in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023).

    Does Article 324 Provide Adequate Constitutional Safeguards for Electoral Autonomy?

    1. Constitutional Mandate: The Election Commission of India derives authority from Article 324 of the Constitution, which vests in it the superintendence, direction, and control of elections to Parliament, State Legislatures, and the offices of President and Vice-President. Ensures centralized electoral authority insulated from executive interference.
    2. Security of Tenure: CEC removal follows procedure identical to Supreme Court judges under Article 124(4). Ensures high threshold for removal.
    3. Protection of Conditions of Service: Service conditions cannot be varied to disadvantage after appointment. Prevents executive pressure.
    4. Institutional Permanence: Establishes ECI as a constitutional body, not a statutory authority. Strengthens structural autonomy.

    How Has the 2023 Appointment Law Altered the Balance Between Executive and Institutional Independence?

    1. Legislative Intervention: The Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, replaced earlier executive practice. Regulates appointment and removal.
    2. Selection Committee Composition: Includes Prime Minister, Union Minister, and Leader of Opposition. Excludes Chief Justice of India (as mandated temporarily in Anoop Baranwal judgment).
    3. Judicial Background: Supreme Court in Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) directed inclusion of CJI until Parliament enacted a law. Strengthened interim institutional balance.
    4. Subsequent Change: Parliament removed CJI from the selection panel. Raises concerns regarding executive dominance.
    5. Institutional Impact: Alters equilibrium between executive participation and perceived neutrality.

    Do Allegations Regarding Electoral Roll Revisions Indicate Structural Weaknesses in Electoral Administration?

    1. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): Conducted to update voter rolls. Ensures accuracy and elimination of duplication.
    2. Reported Deletions: Approximately 65 lakh voters allegedly deleted in Bihar during SIR exercise. Raises questions regarding procedural safeguards.
    3. Democratic Significance: Article 326 guarantees universal adult franchise. Voter deletion directly affects representational legitimacy.
    4. Administrative Transparency: Requires verification, notice, and opportunity to respond. Ensures natural justice.
    5. Institutional Credibility: Large-scale deletion without adequate communication undermines public trust.

    What Is the Constitutional Procedure for Removal of the CEC and Other Commissioners?

    1. CEC Removal: Follows impeachment-like process under Article 324(5) read with Article 124(4). Requires special majority in Parliament.
    2. Other Commissioners: Removable on recommendation of CEC. Ensures hierarchical internal protection.
    3. Judges Inquiry Act, 1968 Framework: Provides investigative procedure in cases of misbehaviour or incapacity.
    4. Parliamentary Safeguard: High voting threshold prevents arbitrary removal.
    5. Accountability Mechanism: Balances independence with constitutional responsibility.

    Does Political Contestation Around the ECI Undermine Democratic Legitimacy?

    1. Bipartisan Respect: Constitutional bodies require cross-party legitimacy. Strengthens democratic culture.
    2. Opposition’s Motion: Indicates political dissatisfaction. Signals institutional strain.
    3. Majoritarian Context: Removal unlikely without sufficient parliamentary majority. Demonstrates structural protection.
    4. Rule of Law Principle: Ensures allegations are examined within a constitutional framework.
    5. Public Confidence: Perceived politicisation reduces electoral credibility.

    How Does the Doctrine of Basic Structure Protect the Election Commission?

    1. Basic Structure Doctrine: Free and fair elections form part of the basic structure (Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
    2. Judicial Review: Courts can intervene if legislative action undermines electoral fairness.
    3. Constitutional Morality: Requires institutions to operate beyond partisan interests.
    4. Separation of Powers: Prevents concentration of electoral authority under executive control.

    Conclusion

    The constitutional architecture provides significant safeguards for the Election Commission’s independence. However, institutional credibility depends not only on legal protections but also on transparent processes, bipartisan trust, and adherence to constitutional morality. Ensuring free and fair elections remains foundational to India’s democratic order.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In the light of recent controversy regarding the use of Electronic Voting Machine (EVM), what are the challenges before the Election Commission of India to ensure the trustworthiness of elections in India?

    Linkage: It tests institutional accountability and public trust in elections, aligning with concerns over electoral roll revision and legitimacy.

  • Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS)

    Why in the News

    Recently, the Prime Minister of India chaired a Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) meeting to review the global situation amid the West Asia conflict and assess mitigation measures across sectors.

    About the Cabinet Committee on Security

    • Highest decision making body on national security (Executive Body) 
    • Headed by Prime Minister of India
    • Deals with:
      • Defence policy
      • National security
      • Strategic affairs
      • Intelligence matters

    History

    • First formed in 1947 after Independence
    • Created due to emerging national security challenges
    • Initial members included:
      • Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru
      • Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel
      • Defence Minister Baldev Singh
    • After 1999 Kargil War
      • CCS evolved into formal high powered structure
      • Became apex national security decision body
    [2014] Which of the following is/are the function/functions of the Cabinet Secretariat? 1 Preparation of agenda for Cabinet Meetings. 2 Secretariat assistance to Cabinet Committees. 3 Allocation of financial resources to the Ministries. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Corporate Laws Amendment Bill 2026 Sent to Joint Parliamentary Committee

    Why in News

    The Lok Sabha introduced the Corporate Laws Amendment Bill 2026 and referred it to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.

    Key Objectives of the Bill

    • Promote ease of doing business
    • Improve ease of living for corporates
    • Decriminalise minor offences
    • Rationalise penalties
    • Streamline regulatory procedures

    Laws Proposed to be Amended

    • Companies Act, 2013
    • Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008

    Major Proposed Changes

    • Shift minor procedural violations from criminal offences to monetary penalties
    • Simplify compliance requirements
    • Address gaps identified by Company Law Committee (2022)

    CSR Controversy

    • Opposition raised concerns about dilution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) norms
    • Current rule: Companies must spend 2% of net profits on CSR
    • Government clarification:
      • Only net profit calculation criteria being amended
      • CSR requirement remains unchanged

    Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC)

    • The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) is not a constitutional body. 
    • It is an ad-hoc (temporary) body established by Parliament through a motion passed in both houses, or by the Speaker/Chairman of both houses, to examine specific bills or investigate urgent matters, not established directly by the Constitution.
    [2024] With reference to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) rules in India, consider the following statements: 
    1 CSR rules specify that expenditures that benefit the company directly or its employees will not be considered as CSR activities. 
    2 CSR rules do not specify minimum spending on CSR activities. 
    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 
    (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Centre Considers 2011 Census-Based Delimitation to Implement Women’s Quota

    Why in the News

    The Union Government is considering a delimitation exercise based on the 2011 Census to implement the Women’s Reservation Act, 2023 before the 2029 Lok Sabha elections.

    Key Proposals

    • Lok Sabha seats likely to increase from 543 to 816
    • 273 seats proposed to be reserved for women
    • State Assembly seats may also be expanded
    • Amendment Bill may be introduced in:
      • Ongoing Budget Session, or
      • Special Session of Parliament

    Reason for the Move

    • Women’s Reservation Act, 2023 requires:
      • Census
      • Delimitation
      • Then implementation of 33% quota
    • 2021 Census delayed due to COVID-19
    • Without amendment, implementation could be delayed beyond 2030
    • Government aims to implement quota before 2029 elections

    Concerns of States

    • Southern States worried about loss of representation
    • Government proposal:
      • Maintain existing proportion of seats
      • Around 50% increase in seats across all States
      • Pro-rata distribution to avoid regional imbalance

    Constitutional Background

    • Article 82: Delimitation after first Census post-2026
    • Proposed amendment:
      • Use 2011 Census data
      • Avoid waiting for latest Census completion 
    [2024] Consider the following statements regarding ‘Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam’: 1 Provisions will come into effect from the 18th Lok Sabha. 2 This will be in force for 15 years after becoming an Act. 3 There are provisions for the reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes Women within the quota reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1 and 3 only