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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • [23rd February 2026] The Hindu OpED: Parliament’s historic law; an extended wait for women

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] The reservation of seats for women in the institutions of local self-government has had a limited impact on the patriarchal character of the Indian Political Process.” Comment.Linkage: It provides an analytical foundation to evaluate whether the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 for Parliamentary reservation will ensure substantive gender justice or replicate proxy representation seen in Panchayati Raj institutions.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam (Women’s Reservation Act, 2023) was projected as a landmark reform in India’s constitutional history. However, its implementation has been tied to the post-Census delimitation process, effectively postponing operationalisation until at least 2034. The debate raises critical questions of constitutional design, political incentives, federal balance, and institutional accountability. This issue is central to GS Paper II (Polity & Governance) and also intersects with representation, federalism, and social justice.

    Why in the News?

    Parliament passed the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 in September 2023, guaranteeing 33% reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies for the first time in independent India’s constitutional history. The earlier Women’s Reservation Bills (1996 onwards) repeatedly lapsed despite Rajya Sabha passage in 2010. The 2023 Act was hailed as a historic correction to India’s low female representation (about 15% in Lok Sabha). However, the Act mandates implementation only after the first Census conducted post-2026 and subsequent delimitation. Given that delimitation may conclude around 2032-33, reservation may operate only from the 2034 general election. The reform therefore represents a constitutional milestone accompanied by an operational deferment.

    What are the key provisions of the Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023?

    1. Reservation Mechanism: One-third (33%) of seats are reserved for women in the Lok Sabha, State Assemblies, and the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
    2. SC/ST Inclusion: The reservation includes a sub-quota for women from Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) within their respective reserved seat categories.
    3. Effective Date: The quota will take effect after the first census conducted following the Act’s commencement is published and the subsequent delimitation exercise is completed.
    4. Rotation of Seats: Seats reserved for women will be rotated after each delimitation exercise.
    5. Duration: The provision is valid for 15 years from its implementation, with potential for extension by Parliament.

    Constitutional Articles:

    1. Article 330A: Adds reservation for women in the Lok Sabha.
    2. Article 332A: Adds reservation for women in State Assemblies.
    3. Article 334A: Sets the timeline for commencement and expiry (sunset clause). It provides that reservation shall come into effect after delimitation and remain for 15 years (subject to extension).

    Why Has Implementation Been Linked to Census and Delimitation?

    1. Article 82 Requirement: Mandates delimitation after each Census.
    2. Sequential Process: Census to Publication to Delimitation Commission to Redrawing constituencies.
    3. Census Schedule: Next Census to be conducted after 2026 (likely 2027).
    4. Time Lag: Data verification and delimitation historically take 4-6 years.
    5. Outcome: Reservation operational only after delimitation, possibly 2034.

    Does the Delimitation Linkage Reflect Political Incentive Structuring?

    1. Seat Conversion Impact: One-third of 543 Lok Sabha seats (~181 seats) would become women-only if implemented immediately.
    2. Incumbent Displacement: Large-scale replacement of sitting male legislators.
    3. Expansion Strategy: Delimitation may increase total seats to around 800-888, absorbing reservation without eliminating incumbents.
    4. Political Risk Mitigation: Expansion diffuses electoral shock.

    How Does Delimitation Intersect with Federal Balance and Population Politics?

    1. 1976 Freeze: Seat redistribution frozen to protect States that controlled population growth.
    2. Post-2026 Redistribution: High-growth States gain proportional representation.
    3. North-South Tension: Southern States risk relative seat reduction.
    4. Gender Justice Entanglement: Women’s representation linked to unresolved inter-state distribution debate.

    What Design and Implementation Gaps Persist in the Amendment?

    1. Absence of OBC Sub-Quota: No reservation for OBC women despite OBC women forming significant demographic share.
    2. Rotation Mechanism Ambiguity: No clarity on frequency or methodology of constituency rotation.
    3. Upper House Exclusion: No application to Rajya Sabha or Legislative Councils.
    4. Operational Rules Pending: Absence of procedural clarity increases scope for litigation and administrative uncertainty.

    What Are the Governance and Institutional Implications?

    1. Delayed Representation: Constitutional right deferred.
    2. Symbolic vs Substantive Reform: Law passed without immediate enforceability.
    3. Institutional Accountability: Parliament controls amendment pathway for decoupling reservation from delimitation.
    4. Democratic Legitimacy: Extended delay risks weakening reform credibility.

    Conclusion

    The Constitution (106th Amendment) Act, 2023 institutionalises gender parity within legislative representation. However, by linking implementation to future delimitation, it defers substantive equality. Timely operationalisation is essential to align constitutional promise with democratic practice.

  • Protecting the Freedom of speech of MPs

    Why in the News?

    Recent parliamentary sessions witnessed large-scale expunction of remarks made by Opposition leaders, raising concerns over misuse of procedural rules. The issue centres on whether the Speaker (Lok Sabha)/Chairman’s (Rajya Sabha) powers are being used to regulate decorum or to restrict the constitutional freedom of speech of Menmbers of Parliament (MPs) under Article 105.

    Which Parliamentary Privileges Specifically Protect Freedom of Speech of MPs?

    Article 105 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech to Members of Parliament (MPs) within the Houses. This privilege enables fearless debate, executive accountability, and institutional balance. 

    1. Freedom of Speech in the House (Article 105(1)): Ensures members speak without fear while Parliament is in session and business is being transacted. This freedom is essential for effective discharge of legislative duties and is distinct from Article 19(1)(a).
    2. Immunity from Court Proceedings (Article 105(2)): Grants complete protection from civil or criminal liability for anything said or any vote given in Parliament or its committees. The term “anything” carries the widest amplitude and covers every statement made during parliamentary business.
    3. Absolute Judicial Non-Interference: Courts lack jurisdiction to question speech made inside the House, even if statements are malicious, false, or amount to contempt of court. Once speech is made during parliamentary proceedings, it is immune from judicial scrutiny.
    4. Protection Against External Investigation: Any investigation outside Parliament into a member’s speech or vote amounts to serious interference with parliamentary privilege. Threatening legal action for statements made in the House constitutes breach of privilege.
    5. Distinct from Article 19(2) Restrictions: Reasonable restrictions applicable to citizens under Article 19(2) do not circumscribe speech inside Parliament. Parliamentary speech enjoys higher constitutional insulation.
    6. Comprehensive Constitutional Code: Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 105 form a complete code regarding speech and immunity. Matters outside this scope, such as defamatory publication of expunged questions, remain subject to ordinary law.
    7. Extension to Non-Members with Speaking Rights: Immunity under Article 105(2) applies to persons constitutionally entitled to speak in Parliament (e.g., Attorney General), ensuring functional continuity of debate.
    8. Internal Regulation by Rules of Procedure: While constitutionally protected, speech remains subject to House rules and presiding officer’s authority. The Chair may act against defamatory, incriminatory, or indecorous statements.
    9. Committee of Privileges Oversight: Emphasises that privilege is not an unrestricted licence. Misuse may cause disproportionate harm, particularly as individuals defamed in Parliament have no right of reply or judicial remedy.
    10. Moral Obligation of Restraint: Members, as public representatives, bear heightened responsibility. Abuse of immunity can undermine citizens’ rights who otherwise rely on courts for protection.

    What Is the Constitutional Philosophy Behind Freedom of Speech in Parliament?

    1. Parliamentary Privilege: Recognised as essential for smooth functioning of Legislature.
    2. Erskine May Doctrine: Identifies freedom of speech as the principal privilege of Parliament.
    3. Functional Necessity: Enables free, frank, and fearless debate.
    4. Executive Accountability: Question Hour and debates ensure government transparency.
    5. Democratic Legitimacy: Parliamentary criticism strengthens governance rather than weakens it.

    Does Expunction of Parliamentary Speeches Undermine Article 105?

    1. Article 105 Protection: Guarantees freedom of speech in Parliament subject only to constitutional limitations, not arbitrary procedural curtailment.
    2. Expunction Power: Rules permit presiding officers to remove unparliamentary, defamatory, indecent, or undignified words, not entire arguments.
    3. Constitutional Supremacy: Rules of procedure cannot override constitutional rights.
    4. Risk of Mindless Application: Excessive deletions may distort legislative record and infringe MPs’ privileges.
    5. Institutional Record: Parliamentary debates are preserved for posterity; arbitrary removal affects historical and legal accountability.

    How Do Parliamentary Rules Balance Decorum and Democratic Debate?

    1. Procedural Regulation: Rules regulate sub judice matters, personal allegations, and defamatory statements.
    2. Legislative Dignity: Ensures debate does not degrade into personal attacks.
    3. Proportionality Principle: Regulation must target specific offensive words, not suppress substantive criticism.
    4. Presiding Officer’s Duty: Ensures decorum while safeguarding members’ constitutional privilege.

    Can Procedural Rules Be Weaponised Against the Opposition?

    1. Political Neutrality Requirement: Presiding officers must function impartially to maintain institutional credibility.
    2. Selective Enforcement Risk: Unequal application of expunction powers erodes trust.
    3. Opposition’s Constitutional Role: Essential for scrutiny of executive actions.
    4. Attempted Disqualification: Parliament lacks power to disqualify members outside the constitutional framework (Articles 102 and 103).
    5. Democratic Breakdown Indicator: Curtailing opposition speech signals weakening of deliberative culture.

    How Does the Government-Opposition Relationship Shape Democratic Stability?

    1. Constructive Opposition: Criticism provides corrective feedback.
    2. Institutional Forbearance: Democratic survival depends on mutual restraint.
    3. Majority-Minority Balance: Majority governs; minority critiques.
    4. Historical Practice: Prime Minister Nehru regularly attended Question Hour and listened to opposition speeches, reinforcing institutional respect.
    5. Erosion Risk: Breakdown of dialogue weakens parliamentary culture.

    What Are the Institutional and Governance Implications?

    1. Accountability Deficit: Restricting debate reduces executive scrutiny.
    2. Transparency Impact: Incomplete records distort public understanding.
    3. Legitimacy Concerns: Perception of bias weakens institutional credibility.
    4. Democratic Norms: Healthy dissent is integral to constitutional morality.
    5. Long-Term Precedent: Expansive interpretation of expunction powers may institutionalise executive dominance.

    Conclusion

    Freedom of speech in Parliament is not merely a privilege of MPs but a safeguard for democracy. Procedural rules must regulate debate without diminishing constitutional guarantees. Sustaining institutional neutrality and respecting dissent are essential to preserving the credibility of India’s parliamentary democracy.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?

    Linkage: Parliament ensures executive accountability through debates, Question Hour, motions, and parliamentary privileges under Article 105. Recent expunction controversies raise concerns about whether this constitutional freedom is being effectively exercised to hold the executive accountable.

  • Vibrant Villages Programme Phase II launched to strengthen border areas 

    Why in the News?

    Union Home Minister Amit Shah launched Phase II of the Vibrant Villages Programme from Assam, aiming to develop border villages and curb migration and infiltration.

    Vibrant Villages Programme I

    Approval

    • Approved on 15 February 2023.
    • Centrally Sponsored Scheme.

    Coverage

    • 662 villages.
    • 46 blocks.
    • 19 districts.
    • States: Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Uttarakhand.
    • UT: Ladakh.
    • Focused on northern border areas.

    Objectives

    • Livelihood generation through:
      • Tourism and cultural heritage.
      • Skill development and entrepreneurship.
      • Agriculture, horticulture, medicinal plants.
    • Infrastructure:
      • Road connectivity.
      • Housing and village infrastructure.
      • Renewable energy.
      • Telecom and TV connectivity.
    • Incentivise population to remain in border villages.

    Vibrant Villages Programme II

    Approval

    • Approved on 2 April 2025.
    • Central Sector Scheme.
    • Outlay: ₹6,839 crore till FY 2028-29.

    Coverage

    • Blocks abutting international land borders other than northern border.
    • Implemented in strategic villages across:
      • Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat.
      • J and K UT, Ladakh UT.
      • Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland.
      • Punjab, Rajasthan, Sikkim.
      • Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal.

    Objectives

    • Better living conditions and livelihood opportunities.
    • Safe and secure borders.
    • Control trans border crimes.
    • Integrate border population as “eyes and ears” of border guarding forces.

    Thematic Saturation Areas

    1. All weather road connectivity.
    2. Telecom connectivity.
    3. Television connectivity.
    4. Electrification through convergence.
    [2015] The provisions in 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

  • Bela Gram becomes Maharashtra’s first net zero village  

    Why in the News?

    At Mumbai Climate Week 2026, Bela Gram in Bhandara district of Maharashtra was highlighted as the State’s first net zero panchayat, showcasing grassroots climate leadership.

    Location

    • Bela Gram, Bhandara district
    • Vidarbha region, Maharashtra

    What is Net Zero?

    • Achieving balance between:
      • Greenhouse gas emissions produced
      • Emissions removed or offset
    • Often achieved through renewable energy, afforestation, waste management and energy efficiency.

    Key Initiatives in Bela Gram

    • Plantation of over 90,000 trees during weddings and festivals.
    • Transition from traditional chulhas to LPG.
    • Installation of rooftop solar panels in homes, anganwadis and Panchayat offices.
    • Doorstep waste segregation.
    • Elimination of single use plastics.
    • Recipient of Rashtriya Panchayat Puraskar 2024.

    Broader Context

    • Role of Panchayati Raj Institutions in local climate action.
    • Discussion linked to future global climate negotiations and India’s long term net zero targets.
    • Emphasis on decentralised, community driven climate solutions.

    Related Examples

    • Perinjanam in Kerala as Solar Gramam with rooftop prosumers.
    • Use of District Mineral Foundation funds in Jharkhand for water revival and solar irrigation.
    • Community afforestation and water conservation efforts in Odisha, Bihar and Karnataka.
    [2015] The fundamental object of Panchayati Raj system is to ensure which among the following? 

    1. People’s participation in development 

    2. Political accountability 

    3. Democratic decentralization 

    4. Financial mobilization 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below. 

    (a) 1, 2 and 3 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

  • [20th February 2026] The Hindu OpED: Privacy and transparency: On the RTI Act amendment, petitions

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: It tests GS-2 (Transparency & Accountability) by examining how RTI amendments can weaken institutional independence and oversight. It directly links to the DPDP-RTI amendment debate, where removal of the public interest override raises concerns about reduced transparency and stronger executive control.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act through the DPDP Act, 2023 has triggered a constitutional debate on the balance between privacy and transparency. The issue tests the durability of India’s accountability framework in the digital governance era.

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 introduced through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023, to a Constitution Bench, citing its constitutional sensitivity.

    What is Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005?

    Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 exempts from disclosure personal information that has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless the Public Information Officer (PIO) is satisfied that a larger public interest justifies it. It balances privacy against transparency, though recent amendments have narrowed its application.

    Key Aspects of Section 8(1)(j):

    1. Exemption Scope: Covers information relating to personal details, privacy, and data that, if disclosed, would not benefit public activity.
    2. Public Interest Override: Even if information is personal, it can be disclosed if the CPIO, SPIO, or appellate authority is satisfied that a “larger public interest” outweighs the harm to the individual’s privacy.
    3. Applicability: Applies to “third-party” information and generally refers to individuals rather than institutions or corporate bodies.
    4. Examples of Denied Info: Examples include third-party personal details, such as an employee’s ID or specific confidential files.
    5. Amendment via DPDP Act 2023: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPPA), 2023 substituted this clause, broadly removing the “public interest override” and strengthening the prohibition against disclosing personal data.

    How has the DPDP Act, 2023 amended Section 8(1)(j)?

    1. Deletion of Override Clause: Removes the phrase allowing disclosure in larger public interest.
    2. Expanded Exemption Scope: Prohibits disclosure of “any information which relates to personal information.”
    3. Blanket Restriction: Eliminates proportionality assessment previously embedded in RTI framework.
    4. Structural Shift: Converts a conditional exemption into near-absolute protection.
    5. Integration with DPDP Framework: Aligns RTI disclosure norms with data protection regime prioritizing consent and privacy safeguards.

    What constitutional and governance issues arise from this amendment?

    1. Article 19(1)(a) Impact: Curtails right to information derived from freedom of speech and expression.
    2. Article 21 Protection: Strengthens privacy rights recognized in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017).
    3. Doctrine of Proportionality Concern: Removes balancing test between competing fundamental rights.
    4. State-Citizen Asymmetry: Section 7 of DPDP permits state processing of personal data without consent for official functions.
    5. Accountability Deficit: Restricts citizen scrutiny of public officials’ conduct and financial dealings.

    How does the amendment affect journalism and civil society oversight?

    1. Data Fiduciary Classification: Journalists collecting personal data may fall under DPDP compliance obligations.
    2. Financial Penalty Risk: Non-compliance may attract penalties up to ₹250 crore.
    3. Chilling Effect: Limits investigative reporting involving public officials.
    4. Reduced Transparency: Constrains access to procurement, audit, and expenditure records involving personal identifiers.
    5. Institutional Constraint: Weakens RTI as a tool for civil society accountability campaigns.

    How does the Indian framework compare with global data protection standards?

    1. EU GDPR Model: Balances privacy with transparency and journalistic exemptions.
    2. Public Interest Safeguards: Allows processing for public interest and accountability purposes.
    3. Indian Divergence: DPDP amendment lacks explicit balancing mechanism within RTI framework.
    4. Regulatory Integration Challenge: Requires harmonization between transparency law and data protection law.

    Conclusion

    The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) marks a decisive shift in India’s transparency regime. While privacy is a fundamental right, its protection cannot come at the cost of democratic accountability. A constitutionally balanced approach, grounded in proportionality and public interest, is essential to ensure that data protection strengthens, rather than weakens, the foundations of transparent governance.

  • Supreme Court flags fiscal impact of unchecked freebies 

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India criticised indiscriminate distribution of “freebies” by States while hearing a petition by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation Limited challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity Amendment Act, 2024.

    Core Issue

    • Petition challenges Rule 23, which limits the gap between:
      • Approved Annual Revenue Requirement
      • Estimated Annual Revenue from tariff
         to 3%.
    • Revenue gap, including late payment surcharge carrying cost, must be cleared in three yearly instalments.
    • TNPDCL argues this may cause tariff shock and strain State finances.
    • Tamil Nadu reportedly faces an annual power sector gap of about ₹50,000 crore.

    Court’s Key Observations

    • States running revenue deficits continue announcing election time largesse.
    • Welfare must distinguish between needy and affluent.
    • Public money should prioritise: Infrastructure, Roads, Hospitals, Schools and Medical colleges
    • Court stressed fiscal prudence, especially during elections.
    • Clarified that design of welfare schemes falls within the domain of elected governments.

    Key Concepts for Prelims

    • Revenue Deficit: Revenue expenditure exceeds revenue receipts.
    • Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR): Total projected cost of providing electricity services.
    • Tariff Shock: Sudden sharp rise in consumer electricity tariffs.
    • Fiscal Prudence: Sustainable and responsible management of public finances.
    [2018] If a commodity is provided free to the public by the Government, then (a) the opportunity cost is zero. 

    (b) the opportunity cost is ignored. 

    (c) the opportunity cost is transferred from the consumers of the product to the tax-paying public. 

    (d) the opportunity cost is transferred from the consumers of the product to the Government.

  • The need for diversity in the judiciary

    Why in the News?

    A private member Bill has been introduced in Parliament proposing greater diversity in judicial appointments and the creation of regional benches of the Supreme Court. The issue has gained attention because the collegium system is being questioned for lack of representation of women and marginalised groups, and because access to the Supreme Court remains difficult for people outside Delhi. The debate revives discussions on judicial reform, transparency, and equal access to justice.

    How does the Constitution structure judicial appointments and institutional balance?

    1. Article 124 Framework: Ensures appointment of Supreme Court judges by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice of India; establishes constitutional checks.
    2. Article 217 Mechanism: Regulates High Court appointments through consultation involving CJI, Governor and Chief Justice of High Court; supports federal participation.
    3. Article 130 Flexibility: Permits Supreme Court to sit outside Delhi with CJI approval; enables structural decentralisation though rarely utilised.
    4. Institutional Balance: Maintains equilibrium between executive authority and judicial independence in appointments.

    Why was the collegium system created and how has it evolved institutionally?

    1. First Judges Case (1981): Allowed executive primacy in appointments; raised concerns over judicial independence.
    2. Second Judges Case (1993): Created collegium system; ensured judicial primacy to safeguard independence.
    3. Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded collegium composition to include senior judges; strengthened internal consultation.
    4. Outcome: Ensures insulation from executive interference but generates criticism regarding opacity and accountability.

    Why was the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) struck down and what institutional concerns remain?

    1. 99th Constitutional Amendment (2014): Established NJAC including executive members and civil society representation.
    2. Supreme Court Judgment (2015): Struck down NJAC citing violation of basic structure doctrine and judicial independence.
    3. Institutional Impact: Restored collegium system; highlighted tension between transparency and independence.
    4. Accountability Gap: Continues debate over lack of clear selection criteria and public scrutiny.

    What does the proposed Bill indicate about diversity and representational deficits in the higher judiciary?

    1. Social Representation: Less than 20% representation of SC/ST/OBC judges in higher judiciary (as highlighted in article).
    2. Gender Gap: Women’s representation remains below 15%; indicates structural exclusion.
    3. Minority Presence: Religious minorities account for nearly 5% representation; raises equality concerns.
    4. Policy Proposal: Mandates representation proportional to population while making appointments.
    5. Timeline Reform: Suggests maximum 90-day timeline for notifying collegium recommendations; ensures procedural efficiency.

    How can regional benches of the Supreme Court strengthen access to justice and federal balance?

    1. Accessibility Challenge: Supreme Court located only in Delhi limits access for citizens from distant regions.
    2. Case Backlog: Around 90,000+ pending cases indicates pressure on institutional capacity.
    3. Regional Bench Proposal: Benches at Delhi, Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai; supports geographical equity.
    4. Jurisdiction Design: Constitutional matters remain with principal bench; regional benches handle regular appeals
    5. Outcome: Reduces travel costs, improves timely justice, strengthens federal inclusiveness.

    What governance reforms are suggested to balance independence, diversity, and accountability?

    1. Collegium Reform: Prioritises social diversity within existing framework; ensures constitutional compatibility.
    2. Broader Consultation: Includes representatives from legislature, bar councils, and academia for inclusive inputs.
    3. Comparative Models: UK and South Africa cited as examples of wider consultative appointment systems.
    4. Institutional Accountability: Strengthens legitimacy without undermining judicial autonomy.

    Conclusion

    Judicial diversity and accessibility are emerging as central concerns in debates on institutional reform. Any future framework must preserve judicial independence while ensuring representation, transparency, and equitable access to justice. Structural reforms within constitutional limits remain critical for strengthening public trust in the judiciary.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Discuss the desirability of greater representation to women in the higher judiciary to ensure diversity, equity and inclusiveness.

    Linkage: This question directly links to the debate on diversity in judicial appointments, highlighting representation as a constitutional and governance concern within the higher judiciary. It connects with current discussions on reforming the collegium system to ensure inclusiveness, institutional legitimacy, and equitable access to justice.

  • Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on DPDP Act Challenge

    Why in the News?

    The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Union Government on a petition challenging certain provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, alleging excessive executive control and violation of constitutional rights.

    About the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    Objective

    • To regulate processing of digital personal data.
    • To protect individual privacy while enabling lawful data use.

    Key Features

    • Applies to digital personal data processed in India.
    • Establishes a Data Protection Board of India.
    • Provides rights to Data Principals.
    • Imposes obligations on Data Fiduciaries.
    • Allows certain exemptions for government agencies.

    Grounds of Challenge in the Petition

    • The plea challenges Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 44.

    Major Concerns Raised

    • Unchecked Executive Access
      • Broad exemptions for the State.
      • Alleged scope for surveillance.
    • Blocking Without Hearing
      • Lack of procedural safeguards.
    • Absence of Meaningful Consent
      • Questioning adequacy of consent framework.
    • Opaque Exemptions
      • Wide discretionary powers.
    • Impact on RTI
      • Alleged dilution of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
    • Adjudicatory Structure
      • Data Protection Board under executive control.
      • Appeals lie before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal.
      • Section 39 bars jurisdiction of civil courts.
    [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

  • Ramdev’s Personality Rights Plea before Delhi High Court

    Why in the News?

    Yoga guru Ramdev approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against parody accounts, memes and alleged unauthorised digital identities on social media platforms. The Court orally observed that public figures cannot be overly sensitive to satire or commentary.

    What are Personality Rights?

    • Personality rights refer to a person’s right to:
      • Protect their name, image, voice, likeness and identity
      • Prevent unauthorised commercial use
      • Stop misrepresentation or false endorsement
    • In India, personality rights are not codified in a single statute but are derived from:
      • Article 21 of the Constitution, Right to life and personal liberty
      • Law of torts
      • Passing off under trademark law

    Issues Raised in the Case

    • Objection by Petitioner

      • Parody accounts allegedly using his identity
      • Meme based political commentary
      • Digital identities created without consent
      • Alleged monetisation and product endorsement

    • Stand of Social Media Platforms

      • Satire, political commentary and fair comment must be protected
      • Not all parody violates personality rights
      • Some accounts already suspended or modified
    [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 on Fraternity & Public Speech by Constitutional Functionaries

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India orally observed that political leaders and holders of high public office must foster fraternity and adhere to constitutional morality while hearing a petition alleging stigmatizing and discriminatory public statements by Chief Ministers and senior officials.

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    • Preamble: Secures Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
    • Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
    • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions on speech.
    • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
    • Article 51A(e): Fundamental duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.

    Key Observations by the Court

    • Political leaders must promote fraternity in a 75 plus year old democracy.
    • Constitutional functionaries are not ordinary speakers as their words carry the imprimatur of the State.
    • Need for restraint in communally divisive and discriminatory speeches.
    • Court indicated willingness to consider guidelines, without imposing prior restraint.
    • Concern over “normalisation” of constitutionally unbecoming speeches.

    Important Concepts for Prelims

    • Constitutional Morality: First articulated in Indian constitutional discourse in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018). Refers to adherence to constitutional values over majoritarian impulses.
    • Fraternity: Ensures unity and integrity of the nation. Protects dignity of the individual. Linked to prevention of hate speech and social exclusion.
    • Constitutional Tort: Public law remedy where State action violates fundamental rights. Compensation may be awarded for violation of rights by public authorities.

    Free Speech vs. Accountability

    • No prior censorship advocated.
    • Focus on regulating consequences of speech when made by high public officials.
    • Balancing Article 19(1)(a) with Article 14 and Article 21.
    [2017] Which one of the following statements is correct? (a) Rights are claims of the State against the citizens. 

    (b) Rights are privileges which are incorporated in the Constitution of a State. 

    (c) Rights are claims of the citizens against the State. 

    (d) Rights are privileges of a few citizens against the many.