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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • SC clarifies Governor’s powers: How SC answered 14 questions President posed

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s opinion on the President’s 14 queries recalibrates the balance between Raj Bhavan and elected state governments. It ends the uncertainty around “pocket veto”, clarifies that gubernatorial discretion is narrow, and rejects any judicial power to impose timelines on constitutional authorities. The ruling is significant because it formalises procedural discipline without enabling judicial overreach, and reveals continued ambiguity that may trigger future litigation.

    Why in the news?

    The Supreme Court delivered a rare and highly consequential opinion under Article 143, addressing 14 constitutional doubts raised by the President regarding the Governor’s powers on Bills, aid and advice, delay, and discretion. It is a big development because the Court categorically ruled out the Governor’s “pocket veto”, reaffirmed that discretion is exceptional, not routine, and clarified that the judiciary cannot impose procedural timelines on constitutional posts. This marks a striking departure from previous ambiguities in Centre-State relations and reopens debate on federal accountability.

    What constitutional options are available to a Governor when a Bill is presented?

    1. Four Constitutional Options: Return the Bill, reserve it for the President, assent, or withhold assent; these options arise strictly from Article 200.
    2. Bar on Pocket Veto: The ruling prohibits an indefinite delay, emphasising that constitutional silence cannot be exploited to stall legislation.
    3. Return of Bill Allowed Only Once: The Governor cannot repeatedly send the same Bill back once the House re-passes it.
    4. No Withhold After Re-passage: Once the legislature re-adopts a Bill, the Governor must assent, ensuring legislative primacy.

    Is the Governor bound by aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?

    1. Binding Advice Rule: Aid and advice are mandatory except in constitutionally specified discretionary functions.
    2. No Unfettered Discretion: The Governor’s disagreement with political outcomes does not justify refusing advice.
    3. Improper Refusal: The Court held that a Governor cannot withhold assent simply because a new government would not prefer the Bill.

    Are the Governor’s discretionary powers unlimited?

    1. Narrow Discretion: Discretion is “exceptional”, not a general supervisory authority over the legislature.
    2. Subjective Satisfaction Allowed Only for President’s Reservation: Under Article 200, the Governor may reserve a Bill if doubts on constitutionality exist.
    3. Judicial Review Retained: Reserving a Bill on irrelevant grounds is open to legal challenge.
    4. Discretion Must Meet Constitutional Purpose: Decisions must align with constitutional morality, not political preference.

    Can timelines be imposed on Governors or the President?

    1. No Judicially Enforceable Deadlines: The Court cannot prescribe rigid timelines because the Constitution does not contain them.
    2. Institutional Respect Principle: Judiciary recognises the separation of powers and avoids issuing operational directives to constitutional authorities.
    3. Practical Concern Highlighted: While Governors should act “reasonably expeditiously”, this remains non-justiciable.

    Are actions under Article 200 justiciable?

    1. Yes, on Limited Grounds: Courts may intervene if the Governor acts on irrelevant considerations or violates constitutional limits.
    2. Reasonableness Standard Applies: Judicial review ensures the Governor does not misuse constitutional silence to stall governance.
    3. Invalid Withholding Possible: A Governor withholding assent after re-passage would be unconstitutional and challengeable.

    Can a Governor substitute his decision with the President’s under Article 201?

    1. Permissible Only for Constitutionality Doubts: The Governor may reserve Bills only when genuine constitutional issues arise.
    2. No Arbitrary Referral: Relying on the President for policy disagreements is unconstitutional.

    Can courts adjudicate contents of Bills?

    1. Judicial Review Limited: Courts cannot examine legislative content before enactment except for exceptional situations.
    2. No Pre-Enactment Censorship: Validity can be tested only after the Bill becomes law.
    3. Reiterates Separation of Powers: Judiciary cannot intrude into legislative functioning.

    Can the President exercise constitutional powers in place of the Governor under Article 142?

    1. Court Rejects the Assumption: No constitutional fiction allows the President to step into the Governor’s role.
    2. Limits to Article 142: It cannot rewrite constitutional architecture.

    Conclusion

    The opinion reaffirms constitutional restraint, narrows gubernatorial discretion, disallows “pocket vetoes”, strengthens legislative sovereignty, and emphasises judicial non-interference in executive timelines. Yet the Court’s hesitation to set procedural limits leaves space for future litigation, signalling continuing tensions in Indian federalism.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Linkage: This PYQ is directly relevant as the latest SC Article 143 opinion clarifies the Governor’s narrow legislative powers and rejects misuse like delay or withholding assent. It links to the issue of constitutional propriety, making re-promulgation without placing ordinances before the legislature clearly unconstitutional.

  • Is federalism in retreat under single party hegemony?

    INTRODUCTION

    The rationalisation of GST ushered in a new era of indirect taxation but triggered concerns among several States regarding declining revenue autonomy. Disputes around compensation, centrally-sponsored schemes, disaster relief funding, and Finance Commission recommendations have reached the Supreme Court, raising a fundamental question: Is Indian federalism being structurally reshaped under a single-party political hegemony?

    The conversation in the article traces how fiscal and political federalism has shifted from cooperative frameworks in the 1990s to competitive and increasingly centralised dynamics post-2014.

    WHY IN THE NEWS

    The article is significant because it captures the unprecedented stress on fiscal federalism under GST, the decline of traditional accommodation politics, and the growing disconnect between richer southern States and the Union’s redistributive design. For the first time since liberalisation, States across the political spectrum are questioning the vertical imbalance and the shrinking autonomy embedded in taxation, grants, and centrally sponsored schemes. The issue is compelling because these structural tensions coincide with the rise of a dominant national party, altering how bargaining, negotiation, and regional representation historically shaped Indian federalism.

    Shifts in Federalism: From Accommodation to Assertion

    1. Federal Coalition Politics: Provided space for regional parties to influence national policy in the 1990s; reforms had federal character, and Centre-State interaction increased.
    2. Decline of Accommodation: Rise of single-party majority reduced negotiation; regional anxieties and political identities feel less represented.
    3. BJP’s Unitary Political Vision: Emphasises uniformity over accommodation, reducing incentives for coalition-based bargaining.

    How Has GST Altered the Fiscal Architecture?

    1. Loss of Tax Autonomy: States surrendered sovereign taxation power; they now depend on shared revenues and compensation.
    2. Compensation Tensions: Delays triggered mistrust; design issues, particularly Finance Commission-linked vertical imbalance, create sustained stress.
    3. Redistributive Principle: Southern States argue that redistributive transfers have become structurally rigid without acknowledging their economic efficiency.

    What Is Driving Regional Inequality and Fiscal Stress?

    1. Unequal Growth Patterns: Southern States showed high economic growth but lack employment-intensive outcomes; inequality persists.
    2. Structural Vertical Imbalance: Centre retains key taxation powers while States bear expenditure responsibilities; this misalignment fuels fiscal dissatisfaction.
    3. Urbanisation and Labour Migration: Remittances from poorer northern States sustain the growth of southern economies, deepening interdependence yet also friction.

    How Has Single-Party Dominance Reshaped Political Federalism?

    1. Reduced Federal Bargains: With weaker regional representation at the Centre, the cooperative ethos has weakened.
    2. Rise of Central Schemes: States perceive centralisation in scheme design, financing patterns, and conditionalities.
    3. Executive Federalism: More meetings, consultations, and vertical controls replacing political negotiation platforms like the Planning Commission.

    Why Are Delimitation and Census Triggering Concerns?

    1. Southern States’ Anxiety: Fear losing political weight due to lower population growth relative to northern States.
    2. Economic Contribution vs Representation: High-growth States feel the political architecture does not reward efficient governance.
    3. One Nation, One Election Debate: Seen as another centralising push, weakening federal political competition.

    CONCLUSION

    The article concludes that the crisis in Indian federalism is not merely episodic but structural, rooted in post-GST fiscal architecture, weakened accommodation politics, regional disparities, and the rise of a dominant national party. The challenge is to redesign mechanisms of trust, negotiation, and fiscal balance so that India’s federal compact remains resilient to political shocks and centred on cooperative problem-solving.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.

    Linkage: This PYQ directly aligns with the article’s core themes of growing centralisation, GST-driven fiscal stress, and weakening accommodation politics between the Centre and States. It links perfectly with the discussion on fiscal imbalance, GST Council tensions, Finance Commission changes, and the impact of single-party dominance on federal bargaining.

  • SC advisory on Presidential Reference on Governors’ timelines

    Why In The News?

    The Supreme Court will issue an advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning its authority to impose timelines and prescribe procedures for Governors and the President when handling State Bills sent for assent or consideration.

    1) About the Judgement:

    • Scheduled Advisory Opinion: The Supreme Court is set to deliver its advisory opinion on a Presidential Reference questioning whether the Court can impose timelines and procedures for Governors and the President when dealing with State Bills.
    • Bench’s Position: The five-judge Bench led by CJI B.R. Gavai held that the Court cannot remain inactive if a constitutional authority fails to perform its duties.
    • Political–Federal Context: The matter arises amid friction between Opposition-ruled States and Governors, with delays in assenting to key State legislation.
    • April 8 Judgment Trigger: The reference stems from the Supreme Court’s April 8 judgment that imposed a three-month deadline on Governors and the President to act on Bills.
    • Impact on Governance: The Court ruled that Governors cannot impede governance by indefinitely withholding action on welfare legislation.
    • Union Government’s Objection: The Centre argued that the April 8 ruling creates a “one-size-fits-all” approach that may be inappropriate given the varied nature of Bills.
    • Argument on Judicial Overreach: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended that the Court cannot assume legislative functions by compelling Governors to grant assent through mandamus.

    2) Presidential Reference Under Article 143:

    • Meaning and Scope: Article 143 allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on questions of law or fact of public importance.
    • Article 143(1) – Optional Opinion: The Supreme Court may accept or decline to answer references under this clause. Example: refusal in the 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi reference.
    • Article 143(2) – Mandatory Opinion: For disputes involving pre-Constitution treaties or agreements, the Court must render its opinion.
    • Nature of Advice: The advisory opinion is not binding on the President but carries significant legal authority.
    • Bench Requirement: Article 145(3) mandates that a minimum five-judge Bench must hear Presidential References.
    • Historical Origins: The power originates from the Government of India Act, 1935. Comparative jurisdictions: Canada accepts advisory opinions; the U.S. does not.
    • Past References: About 15 previous references include the Delhi Laws Act (1951), Kerala Education Bill (1958), Berubari (1960), Keshav Singh (1965), Presidential Poll case (1974), Third Judges Case (1998).
    • Key Question in Present Reference: Whether courts can impose timelines on Governors/President that are not expressly provided in Articles 200 and 201, and whether Article 142 enables the Court to frame such directions.
    • Limit on Overturning Judgments: As held in the 1991 Cauvery decision, Article 143 cannot be used to review or overturn settled Supreme Court judgments.
    • Constitutional Significance: The reference may clarify the constitutional roles of the President/Governors, promote federal balance, and remove procedural ambiguities.
    • Challenges of the Advisory Process: Advice is nonbinding, references may become politicized, “public importance” is undefined, and there is no timeline for the Court to respond.

    3) Relevant Constitutional Provisions & Case Law on Governors’ Powers to reserve state bills:

    • Article 200 – Governor’s Options: The Governor may assent, withhold assent with reasons, return a non-Money Bill once, or reserve the Bill for the President. Upon reconsideration and re-passage, the Governor must assent.
    • Article 201 – President’s Options: The President may assent, withhold assent, or return a non-Money Bill; unlike the Governor, the President is not bound even if the Bill is re-passed.
    • No Absolute or Pocket Veto: The Supreme Court held in the 2023 Tamil Nadu case that Governors cannot exercise a pocket veto; “as soon as possible” implies reasonable promptness.
    • Restriction on Reserving Bills: After a Bill is re-passed without amendments, the Governor must assent; it cannot be reserved again unless the content has changed.
    • Aid and Advice Principle: The Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except in limited situations concerning High Court or Supreme Court powers.
    • Judicial Timelines and Reviewability: The Supreme Court imposed definitive timelines for Governor’s action under Article 200 and held that inaction is subject to judicial review.
    [UPSC 2012] Question: Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule

    2. Appointing the Ministers

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1 and 3 only* (c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • SC strikes down provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act, tells govt. to set up panel

    Why In The News?

    Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act 2021, saying they gave government excessive control over tribunal appointments, functioning and salaries, undermining independence.

    1) About the Supreme Court Judgement on the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021:

    • Striking Down Provisions: The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 that gave the Union government dominant control over appointments, functioning, and salaries of tribunal chairpersons and members.
    • Need for Independence: The Court held that Parliament must structure the tribunal system to ensure independence, impartiality, and effective adjudication as constitutional requirements.
    • Violation of Constitutional Principles: Laws that enable executive control, curtail tenure, or weaken autonomy violate foundational constitutional values.
    • National Tribunal Commission: The Bench directed the Centre to establish a National Tribunal Commission within four months to ensure independence and transparency.
    • Repackaged Ordinance: The 2021 Act was a “repackaged version” of the earlier ordinance struck down in July 2021.
    • Ignoring Defects: Parliament had ignored the defects pointed out earlier by the Supreme Court, transferring the same provisions into the 2021 Act with minor changes.
    • Rejection of Parliament’s Argument: The Court dismissed the claim that Parliament has discretion to ignore Supreme Court decisions.
    • Judicial Review as a Basic Feature: The Court insisted that judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and Parliament cannot brush aside the supremacy of the Constitution.

    2) Power of Judicial Review:

    • Meaning: Judicial review is the power of courts to examine the lawfulness of decisions or actions of public authorities.
    • Process Review: It reviews how a decision was made, not the correctness of the decision itself.
    • Procedure Established by Law: A law is valid only if enacted following the proper legislative procedure.
    • Due Process of Law: Ensures that laws are fair and just; India follows Procedure Established by Law.
    • Scope: Extends to reviewing actions of the legislature, executive, and administrative bodies.
    • Functions: Helps legitimize government action and protects the Constitution from undue encroachment.
    • Basic Structure: Judicial review forms part of the basic structure doctrine (Indira Gandhi vs Raj Narain, 1975).
    • Judicial Functions: Includes interpretational and observer roles of the judiciary.
    • PILs and Suo Moto: Courts can intervene through Public Interest Litigation and suo moto cases.
    • Types:
      • Review of Legislative Actions: Ensures laws comply with the Constitution.
      • Review of Administrative Actions: Enforces constitutional discipline on administrative bodies.
      • Review of Judicial Decisions: Allows correction of prior judicial decisions.
    • Importance: Ensures supremacy of the Constitution, prevents misuse of power, protects rights, maintains federal balance, and upholds judicial independence.
    • Problems: May limit government functioning, create overreach, lead to rigidity, risk judicial bias, and diminish public faith through repeated interventions.
    • Indian Context: India follows separation of functions, not strict separation of powers, but has checks and balances empowering courts to strike down unconstitutional laws.

    3) Tribunals:

    • Nature: Tribunals are quasi-judicial bodies aimed at reducing caseloads and providing technical expertise.
    • Constitutional Basis: Articles 323A and 323B added via the 42nd Amendment (1976) empower creation of tribunals.
    • Article 323A: Enables Parliament to form administrative tribunals for service matters.
    • Article 323B: Allows Parliament and state legislatures to create tribunals on subjects like taxation and land reforms.
    • 2010 SC Clarification: Subjects under Article 323B are not exclusive—legislatures may create tribunals for any subject in the Seventh Schedule.
    • Composition: Tribunals include judicial and technical members.
    • Jurisdiction: Defined, subject-specific jurisdiction; some have appellate powers.
    • Appeals: Generally lie with High Courts, though some go directly to the Supreme Court.
    • Chandra Kumar Judgment (1997): Appeals from tribunals must reach a division bench of High Courts.
    • Current Position: Tribunals may function as substitutes for High Courts or remain subordinate.

    Significance of Tribunals:

    • Specialization:
      • Ensures cases are handled by individuals with deep legal and technical expertise.
    • Speedy Resolution:
      • Enables timely resolution in crucial matters like tax, service disputes, and environmental issues.
    • Reduced Case Load:
      • Helps ease the burden on regular courts and reduces judicial backlog.
    • Accessibility:
      • Tribunals often have geographically dispersed benches, improving access for litigants.
    • Efficiency in Service Matters:
      • Bodies like CAT expedite government service-related disputes.

    Concerns with Tribunals:

    • Independence Issues:
      • Government-controlled appointments raise concerns about executive influence.
      • In 2019, the Supreme Court warned that lack of judicial dominance violates the separation of powers.
    • Pendency of Cases:
      • Example: Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) had 18,829 pending cases in 2021.
    • Human Resource Constraints:
      • Lack of staffing contributes to rising pendency.
    • Tenure Problems:
      • Short tenure and reappointment provisions increase executive control.
    • Non-Uniform Procedures:
      • Wide variations cause inconsistency and confusion for litigants.
    • Overlapping Jurisdictions:
      • Leads to conflicts between courts and tribunals.
    • Technical Member Issues:
      • Some technical members lack legal qualifications.
    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements:

    1. The 44th Amendment to the Constitution of India introduced an Article placing the election of the Prime Minister beyond judicial review.

    2. The Supreme Court of India struck down the 99th Amendment to the Constitution of India as being violative of the independence of judiciary.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a)  1 only (b) 2 only* (c)  Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Independence of Election Commission Of India(ECI)

    Why in the news?

    Amidst SIR exercise, the Opposition raised questions on the independence of ECI.

    About Election Commission of India(ECI)

    The Election Commission of India (ECI), established under Article 324, is responsible for ensuring free, fair, and impartial elections. Its independence is essential for democratic legitimacy.

    Constitutional Safeguards Ensuring Independence

    1.Security of Tenure – CEC-The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) can be removed only through a process similar to that of a Supreme Court judge- by a special majority of Parliament on grounds of proved misbehaviour or incapacity.

    2.Protection for Election Commissioners (ECs)-ECs can be removed only on the recommendation of the CEC, preventing arbitrary dismissal by the executive.

    3. Financial Independence-ECI’s expenses are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India, insulating it from executive control through budget cuts.

    4. Plenary Powers under Article 324-ECI can act when existing laws are inadequate, allowing it functional autonomy during elections

    Independence After the 2023 Act

    Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023. This Act overrides the 2023 Supreme Court directive that required a three-member committee :PM + Leader of Opposition + CJI.

    Key Provisions and Their Impact

    1.New Appointment Committee-Appointments to CEC and ECs now made by a three-member panel:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the PM

    Impact: Replaces the CJI with a Cabinet minister, increasing executive dominance over appointments, raising concerns about ECI independence.

    2. Service Conditions-CEC and ECs will have the same salary and perks as Cabinet Secretary.

    Impact: This equates their status with high-ranking executive officers, which critics argue may reduce institutional insulation from the government.

    3.Term of Office-Fixed tenure of 6 years or until age 65, whichever earlier.

    Impact: Fixed tenure supports stability, but early retirement age could shorten term length.

    4. Removal & Suspension-No change: CEC retains constitutional protection; ECs removable only on CEC’s recommendation.

    Challenges to Independence (Post-2023 Act)

    • Executive-Dominated Appointments: A selection panel with a government majority may undermine the Commission’s neutrality.
    • Exclusion of CJI: Removing the Chief Justice from the panel weakens institutional checks and balances.
    • Status Dilution: Equating the CEC/ECs with a bureaucratic rank risks undermining their constitutional stature.
    • Post-Retirement Incentives: Possibility of government-appointed positions may affect independent decision-making.
    • Administrative Dependence: Continued reliance on government machinery for staffing and logistics limits functional autonomy.

    The Election Commission of India, protected by the Constitution, ensures free elections; the 2023 Act clarifies appointments, and strengthening autonomy and capacity can further reinforce its credibility and democratic role.

    [UPSC 2012] Consider the following statements:

    1. Union Territories are not represented in the Rajya Sabha.
    2. It is within the purview of the Chief Election Commissioner to adjudicate election disputes.
    3. According to the Constitution of India, the Parliament consists of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha only.

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 (c) 1 and 3 (d) None*

     

     

  • SC recalls verdict rejecting Green Clearances

    Why in the News?

    A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India recalled its May 16 verdict that had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) to construction projects as a “gross illegality” and “anathema” to environmental laws. This decision had struck down a 2017 notification and 2021 office memorandum of the Union Government that allows such retrospective clearances.

    Key Points of Decision

    1. Majority Opinion:
      • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran ruled to recall the May 16 verdict, which had declared the granting of ex post facto environmental clearances (ECs) as illegal.
      • The majority emphasized the public interest in avoiding the demolition of ongoing construction projects, which could lead to significant financial losses and job cuts.
      • They argued that retrospective clearances should be an exceptional measure rather than a routine practice, and these projects could continue if heavy penalties were imposed for violations.
    2. Dissenting Opinion:
      • Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, critiquing the majority for undermining environmental jurisprudence.
      • Justice Bhuyan argued that granting ex post facto ECs violates the precautionary principle and undermines sustainable development, as it encourages illegal constructions that bypass environmental laws.
      • He emphasized that environmental protection should not be compromised for development purposes.

    Implications of the Judgement

    • Development vs Environment: The decision underscores the tension between economic development and environmental protection, highlighting the judiciary’s role in ensuring sustainable development while addressing violations of environmental laws.
    • Environmental Governance: It raises questions on judicial review of executive actions, emphasizing the need for effective regulatory compliance and policy frameworks that balance growth with ecological safeguards.
    • Sustainability and Public Health: The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to environmental laws to protect natural resources and public health, which is critical for India’s long-term sustainability and policymaking.

     

  • [18th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ED: The lower-judiciary- litigation, pendency, stagnation

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Explain the reasons for the growth of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. As a result of it, has the Indian Supreme Court emerged as the world’s most powerful judiciary?

    Linkage: Judiciary is one of the most important topics for GS-II. This PYQ tests how failures of the lower judiciary, delay, pendency, and weak remedies, drive the rise of PILs and expand the Supreme Court’s role. The article directly shows these systemic gaps, explaining why litigants bypass subordinate courts and seek relief through PILs.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The lower judiciary forms the backbone of India’s justice delivery system. Yet, a combination of procedural complexity, chronic pendency, and structural stagnation has now reached a point where even the Supreme Court has begun to publicly express concern. The following article unpacks the crisis using insights from the given text, presenting it in a UPSC-oriented, structured, exam-ready format.

    Why in the News? 

    A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by the Chief Justice, recently flagged the stagnation and systemic decay in India’s subordinate judiciary. With 4.69 crore pending cases in district courts (National Judicial Data Grid), the Court has now asked judges in Delhi to undergo training due to lack of basic knowledge, a move rarely made earlier. This highlights a deep structural crisis, where procedural rigidity, unclear statutes, and administrative delays have created a near-gridlock in India’s justice system, affecting millions of litigants.

    Introduction

    India’s subordinate judiciary, comprising district and lower courts, handles the vast majority of cases filed in the country. Despite its crucial role, it is plagued by procedural delays, inadequate training, unnecessary litigation, unclear statutes, and case mismanagement. The editorial highlights how routine court processes, outdated laws, poorly drafted statutes, and lack of judicial preparedness have cumulatively created low efficiency and high pendency. Strengthening the lower judiciary is essential for access to justice, rule of law, and economic productivity.

    Why Are Procedural Rigidities Choking the Lower Judiciary?

    1. Mandatory procedures: Courts are bound to entertain pleadings, issue repeated summons, and ensure appearances, leading to wasted time and multiple adjournments. Example: Subordinate judges must call every suit for appearance or vakalatnama, often pointless.
    2. Inefficient daily case flow: Judges take up matters from 10:30 AM and continue till evening, leading to exhaustion and slow disposal. Result: Even if cases are adjourned, orders still need dictation.
    3. Heavy clerical & ministerial workload: Quality time is lost, reducing focus on adjudication.

    Why Is the Subordinate Judiciary Functioning Below Optimal Capacity?

    1. Lack of experience: Many judges are fresh graduates without adequate training or exposure. Observation-based training plays a minimal role.
    2. Inadequate orientation: Civil judges rarely receive training with senior district or High Court judges in handling evidence, settlements, and procedural complexities.
    3. Absence of structured mentoring: No robust system for judge mentoring and skill development exists.

    How Poorly Drafted Statutes Create Litigation Instead of Resolution?

    1. Negative impact of new provisions: Despite claims of faster disposal, many statutes increase complexity. Example: Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act on mandatory pre-institution mediation.
    2. Ambiguity causing additional litigation: Example: Confusion on whether a party that has already exchanged notices can skip mediation.
    3. Statutes creating contradictory interpretations: Judges are unsure whether processes are mandatory or directory, resulting in wastage of time.

    What Makes Family and Civil Disputes Especially Burdensome?

    1. Six-month cooling-off confusion: Confusion on whether the six-month period in mutual-consent divorce is mandatory or waivable causes delays.
    2. Two-year separation interpretation: Courts differ on whether the couple must be separately living for two years before filing or after filing.
    3. Unclear appellate steps: Example: When the 90-day limitation begins for filing appeals if the written statement is delayed.
    4. Property disputes: Example: Whether a preliminary decree must be followed by a fresh application to pass a final decree.

    How Do Outdated Procedural Laws Deepen Pendency?

    1. Archaic provisions retained: Several Code of Civil Procedure rules continue to burden courts.
    2. Unclear bars to appeal: Example: Whether written statements filed after 90 days can be accepted.
    3. Conflicting decrees: Parties get stuck when preliminary decrees are not automatically converted into final decrees.
    4. Excessive adjournments: Even when mediation fails, the litigant has to refile fresh applications, clogging the system.

    Why Must Higher Judiciary Intervene in the Lower Judiciary Crisis?

    1. Review of subordinate court functioning: Supreme Court’s intervention highlights widespread stagnation.
    2. Training requirement: Judges asked to undergo training due to lack of basic knowledge, an unprecedented move.
    3. Need for systemic correction: Simplification of statutes, harmonized procedural laws, and modernization of case-management systems are essential.

    Conclusion

    The crisis in India’s lower judiciary is structural, not episodic. Procedural rigidity, unclear statutes, inexperienced judges, and outdated rules have combined to create massive pendency. Reform must focus on statutory simplification, judicial training, transparent case management, and harmonized procedural norms. Without systemic changes, the lower judiciary will continue to be a bottleneck in India’s justice delivery and governance framework.

  • Sixteenth Finance Commission submits its report for 2026-31 to the President 

    Why in the News?

    The Sixteenth Finance Commission (16th FC), chaired by Arvind Panagariya, has formally submitted its report to the President of India on 17 November 2025.

    Recommendations will be made public once tabled in Parliament under Article 281.

    Back2Basics: Finance Commission

    • Constitutional Body: Established under Article 280 of the Constitution to define financial relations between the Union and the States.
    • Appointment: Constituted every 5 years or earlier by the President.
    • Composition: A Chairperson and 4 members, all appointed by the President.
    • Qualifications (under Finance Commission Act, 1951):
      • Chairperson must have experience in public affairs.
      • Members must be persons with expertise as:
        1. a High Court judge,
        2. an expert in government finance and accounts,
        3. a specialist in financial administration,
        4. an economist.
    • Functions: Recommends
      • Distribution of net proceeds of central taxes between Centre & States (vertical devolution);
      • Allocation of States’ share across individual States (horizontal distribution);
      • Principles governing grants-in-aid under Article 275;
      • Measures to augment State resources to support Panchayats and Municipalities;
      • Any additional financial matter referred by the President.
    • Submission & Tabling: Submits report to President; President lays it before both Houses of Parliament along with an explanatory memorandum.
    • Purpose: Ensures cooperative fiscal federalism, balanced revenue distribution, financial stability, and predictable Union–State relations.

    About Sixteenth Finance Commission:

    • Constitution & Basis: Constituted by the President of India under Article 280(1) in November 2024 to examine Union and State finances and recommend tax-sharing for the period 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031.
    • Chairperson & Members: Chaired by Dr. Arvind Panagariya with members Annie George Mathew, Dr. Manoj Panda, T. Rabi Sankar, Dr. Soumyakanti Ghosh, and Secretary Ritvik Pandey.
    • Report Submission: Submitted its report to the President on 17 November 2025; copies also presented to the Prime Minister and the Union Finance Minister.
    • Term of Work: Mandated to submit the report by 31 October 2025, covering a five-year award period starting FY 2026-27.
    • Mandate (Terms of Reference): Recommend
      • Vertical devolution – share of States in the Centre’s divisible pool;
      • Horizontal distribution – breakup of the States’ share across individual States;
      • Principles for grants-in-aid to States under Article 275;
      • Measures to augment State resources to support Panchayats and Municipalities;
      • Review of financing arrangements for Disaster Management, including National and State Disaster Response Funds;
      • Any other matter referred by the President.
    • Method of Work: Analysed finances of Union & States; held extensive consultations with
      • Central government, all State governments,
      • Local governments (urban & rural),
      • Chairpersons of previous Finance Commissions,
      • Multilateral institutions, academic & research bodies,
      • Advisory Council and domain experts.
    • Structure of Report: Final output organised in two volumes – Volume I (recommendations) and Volume II (annexures and analytical backup).
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following:

    1. Demographic performance 2. Forest and ecology 3. Governance reforms 4. Stable government 5. Tax and fiscal efforts

    For the horizontal tax devolution, the Fifteenth Finance Commission used how many of the above as criteria other than population area and income distance?

    Options: (a) Only two (b) Only three* (c) Only four (d) All five

     

  • Article 32 of Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    At an event marking 75 years of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of India B.R. Gawai, said Ambedkar saw Article 32 as the core provision allowing citizens to approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

    About Article 32:

    • Right to Constitutional Remedies: Article 32 allows any individual to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights under Part III of the Constitution.
    • Judicial Review Power: Empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs to protect Fundamental Rights, making judicial review an essential constitutional feature.
    • Fundamental Right Status: The right to move the Supreme Court is itself a Fundamental Right and can be suspended only during a National Emergency under Article 359.
    • Jurisdiction: Grants the Supreme Court original but not exclusive jurisdiction; High Courts also have concurrent writ powers under Article 226.
    • Types of Writs Under Article 32:
      1. Habeas Corpus: Commands authorities to produce a detained person before the Court to prevent illegal detention.
      2. Mandamus: Orders public officials or bodies to perform a legal duty they have failed to discharge.
      3. Certiorari: Quashes orders of courts or tribunals that act without jurisdiction or violate due process.
      4. Prohibition: Stops lower courts or tribunals from exceeding their lawful authority during proceedings.
      5. Quo Warranto: Requires a person holding a public post to prove their legal authority, preventing illegal occupation of public office.

    Ambedkar’s Rationale for Article 32:

    • Rights Need Remedies: Ambedkar held that rights are meaningless without enforceable remedies; therefore, Article 32 had to be placed within the Constitution itself.
    • Objective Resolution Gap: He noted that the Objective Resolution (1946) declared rights but failed to guarantee mechanisms for enforcement.
    • “Heart and Soul” of the Constitution: Ambedkar called Article 32 the heart and soul because it transforms Fundamental Rights into legally enforceable claims against the State.
    • Supreme Court as Protector: He believed the Supreme Court must act as the guardian of individual liberty, ensuring no authority can violate fundamental freedoms.
    • Living Constitution Principle: Article 32 works alongside the amendment power under Article 368, ensuring adaptability while preserving core civil liberties.
    [UPSC 2012] Which of the following is included in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?

    1. Dispute between the Government of India and one or more States
    2. A dispute regarding elections to either House of the parliament or that of Legislature of a State
    3. A dispute between the Government of India and Union Territory
    4. A dispute between two or more States.

    Select the correct answer using the codes given below:

    (a) 1 and 2  (b) 2 and 3  (c) 1 and 4* (d) 3 and 4

     

  • Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, 2025

    Why in the News?

    The Centre has notified major provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 under the DPDP Rules, 2025, operationalising India’s first comprehensive digital privacy law. The notification is a major shift from years of unregulated data collection where companies faced minimal obligations for consent, breach reporting, or user rights.

    Key Features of the DPDP Rules, 2025:

    • Phased Compliance: All entities receive 18 months; full compliance by May 2027 for large entities and SDFs.
    • Consent Management: Consent must be explicit, purpose-specific, and revocable, managed through licensed Consent Managers (Indian-registered entities).
    • Protection for Children & Persons with Disabilities: Requires verifiable parental consent for minors and lawful guardian consent for persons unable to provide consent.
    • Transparency Obligations: Data Fiduciaries must publish Data Protection Officer (DPO) details and respond to access/deletion requests within 90 days.
    • DPBI: Fully digital grievance-redressal and enforcement body monitoring compliance and imposing penalties.
    • Enhanced Oversight for SDFs: Includes regular audits, data protection impact assessments, and appointment of independent DPOs.
    • Exemptions: For activities related to national security, judiciary, law enforcement, and academic/statistical research.
    • Cross-Border Transfers: Allowed under approved conditions; data localisation can be required for national interest.

    What Counts as Personal Data and Who Can Process It

    1. Digital Personal Data: Covers only digital data, including digitised versions of non-digital inputs.
    2. Specified Categories: Government will determine kinds of data that can be processed by “significant data fiduciaries”, entities requiring higher safeguards due to volume/sensitivity.
    3. Cross-border Transfer Rules: Transfers to certain jurisdictions may be restricted, with details notified separately.

    Breach Reporting, Accountability and Penalties

    1. Breach Notification Requirement: Mandatory reporting of personal data breaches to individuals and the Data Protection Board of India (DPBI).
    2. Penalty Regime: Fines can go as high as ₹250 crore for inadequate safeguards, making the Act one of the strongest deterrent frameworks in India
    3. Government Exemptions: Certain exemptions apply to government agencies processing data for national security or other notified purposes.
    4. Past Controversies: Previous allegations involving the National Health Authority triggered scrutiny over exemptions, highlighting need for strong safeguards.

    Key Concerns and Regulatory Gaps

    1. Narrow scope (digital-only coverage): Limits protection by excluding non-digital personal data.
    2. Broad government exemptions: Allows wide-ranging State access without strong necessity-proportionality safeguards.
    3. Lack of independent regulator: Data Protection Board remains executive-controlled, reducing autonomy and accountability.
    4. Vague “legitimate use” clauses: Enables processing without consent under broadly defined categories.
    5. Weak child data safeguards: No explicit bar on profiling or behavioural targeting despite mandatory parental consent.
    6. Uniform obligations for all fiduciaries: Absence of sensitive data classification under-protects high-risk sectors.
    7. Unclear cross-border data transfer norms: Pending notifications create uncertainty for global data operations.
    8. Delayed enforcement timeline: 12-18 month rollout slows effective protection and compliance.

    Way Forward

    1. Independent oversight mechanism: Reform Board appointments to ensure autonomy similar to global regulators.
    2. Narrower exemptions with safeguards: Introduce necessity, proportionality, and audit requirements for government agencies.
    3. Clearer child protection standards: Explicitly prohibit profiling, targeted ads, and manipulative algorithms for minors.
    4. Higher safeguards for sensitive data: Introduce tiered protection for health, biometric, and financial data.
    5. Transparent cross-border criteria: Notify clear principles for permitted and restricted jurisdictions.
    6. Privacy-by-design compliance: Mandate encryption, data minimisation, and privacy impact assessments.
    7. Capacity-building and templates: Provide model compliance tools, especially for MSMEs and public agencies.
    8. Digital literacy and awareness: Enhance user understanding of consent rights and grievance mechanisms.

    Precursor to the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023:

    • Constitutional Trigger: The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017) judgment recognised the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right under Article 21, creating the constitutional basis for a dedicated data protection law.
    • Earlier Regime: India previously relied on the Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Procedures and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011, which were limited and sector-specific.
    • Legislative Evolution: The 2023 Act was preceded by the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2018, the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, and the Data Protection Bill, 2021.
    • Data Localisation Debate: Earlier drafts mandated strict localisation; later relaxed to enable interoperability and simplify compliance.
    • Final Outcome: The 2023 Act introduced a principle-based, simplified, globally aligned digital privacy framework.

    What is the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023?

    • Overview: India’s first comprehensive digital data protection law, enacted on 11 August 2023, governing how personal data is collected, processed, and stored.
    • Seven Core Principles:
      1. Lawful Consent
      2. Purpose Limitation
      3. Data Minimisation
      4. Accuracy
      5. Storage Limitation
      6. Security Safeguards
      7. Accountability
    • Applicability: Applies to all digital personal data processed in India, and to processors abroad if they offer goods/services to people in India.
    • Rights of Data Principals (Individuals): Right to access, correct, update, erase, obtain grievance redressal, and nominate a representative for incapacity or death.
    • Obligations of Data Fiduciaries: Must ensure accuracy, prevent misuse, report breaches, erase data after purpose is fulfilled, and maintain security safeguards.
    • Significant Data Fiduciaries (SDFs): Must appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO), conduct independent audits, and prepare Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs).
    • Exemptions: For functions involving sovereignty, security of the state, public order, judicial activities, and statistical/research purposes.
    • Penalties: Fines up to ₹250 crore for major violations such as breach, unlawful processing, or failure to protect personal data.
    • Global Alignment: Creates an Indian framework aligned with global standards such as the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (EU-GDPR), while remaining simpler and business-friendly.
    [UPSC 2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy?

    Options: (a) Article 15 (b) Article 16 (c) Article 19 (d) Article 21*

    [UPSC 2024] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

    Linkage: The PYQ is directly relevant as the DPDP Act operationalises India’s first privacy law after the Supreme Court’s right-to-privacy ruling. Its recent rules on consent, fiduciary duties and breach reporting make it a high-priority current topic for UPSC.