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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Supreme Court cites Preamble to reject a plea

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court rejected a plea against a religious leader inaugurating Mysuru Dasara, reminding that the Preamble upholds secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as core ideals of unity.

    Backgrounder:

    • The Karnataka government invited Banu Mushtaq, 2025 International Booker Prize winner, to inaugurate Mysuru Dasara Festival and perform the pooja.
    • A 2023 video resurfaced where she questioned the worship of Goddess Bhuvaneshwari, sparking controversy.
    • BJP and others opposed the invite, for her selective criticism of Hindu rituals and demanded withdrawal of the invite sent to her.

    Supreme Court’s Observations:

    • Secular Character: The Court reminded that the Preamble enshrines secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as unifying ideals.
    • State’s Neutrality: Dasara inauguration was a State event, not a private ritual. The State “maintains no religion of its own” (echoing M. Ismail Faruqui, 1994).
    • Key Precedents Recalled:
      • Kesavananda Bharati (1973) & S.R. Bommai (1994): Secularism = basic feature of the Constitution.
      • R.C. Poudyal (1994): Even before “secular” was inserted (42nd Amendment, 1976), the Constitution upheld equal treatment of all faiths.
      • Dr. Balram Singh v. UOI (2024): State can intervene to curb religious practices impeding equality & development.

    Preamble

    About the Preamble:

    • Nature: Introductory statement; reflects philosophy, vision, and objectives.
    • Origin: Based on Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 1946); adopted 1947.
    • Declarations: India as Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic ensuring Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

    • Symbolism:

      1. Source of Authority: “We, the People of India.”
      2. Nature of State: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic.

    Amendment of the Preamble:

    • Permissible: Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) has held that Preamble is part of Constitution and can be amended without violating Basic Structure.
    • Only Amendment: 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 (during Emergency).
      • Added “Socialist” and “Secular” between Sovereign and Democratic.
      • Added “Integrity” to Unity of the Nation.

    Key Judicial Pronouncements:

    • Berubari Union Case (1960): Preamble not a part of the Constitution; only a tool for interpretation.
    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Overruled Berubari; Preamble is part of the Constitution, embodies basic structure but cannot override provisions.
    • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Secularism upheld as basic feature of the Constitution.
    • LIC of India Case (1995): Reaffirmed Preamble as integral, but non-justiciable (not enforceable in court).
    [UPSC 2020] The Preamble to the Constitution of India is:

    Options: (a) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect

    (b) not a part of the Constitution and has no legal effect either

    (c) part of the Constitution and has the same legal effect as any other part

    (d) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts*

     

  • Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPP)

    Why in the News?

    The Election Commission de-listed 474 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPP) for not contesting polls in six years, as part of its electoral clean-up drive.

    Delisting of Political Parties:

    • ECI’s Powers: Governed by Section 29A, RP Act, 1951.
      • No explicit power with ECI to de-register a party once registered, except for fraud or anti-Constitutional allegiance.
    • Judicial Interpretation:
      • INC vs Institute of Social Welfare (2002): SC ruled that ECI cannot de-register parties, only delist or declare inactive, which removes privileges but NOT their legal entity.

    About Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs):

    • Constitutional Right: Right to form political associations is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c).
    • Registration: RUPPs are political associations registered with the Election Commission of India (ECI) under Section 29A, Representation of the People Act, 1951.
    • Not recognised: As either State or National parties because they have not secured the required vote share or seats in past elections.
    • Privileges & Benefits:
      • Tax exemption under Section 13A, Income Tax Act, 1961.
      • Eligibility for common poll symbols during elections (under Symbols Order, 1968).
      • Can nominate up to 20 star campaigners.
    • Obligations:
      • Must contest elections periodically.
      • File annual audit accounts and contribution reports.
      • Disclose donations above ₹20,000.
      • Ensure no donations above ₹2,000 are taken in cash.
    • Issues: Many RUPPs exploit privileges without contesting elections, crowding out genuine contesting parties and confusing voters.

    What are Recognised Political Parties?

    • Types: Recognised parties are classified as National Parties or State Parties.
    • Privileges:
      • Exclusive reserved symbols.
      • Free copies of electoral rolls.
      • Broadcasting time on Doordarshan/All India Radio.
      • Consultation rights with ECI in election matters.
    • Recognition depends on vote share or seats won in Lok Sabha/Assembly elections.

    Conditions for Recognition:

    National Party State Party
    Secures 6% of valid votes in Lok Sabha/Assembly elections in any 4 or more states + wins 4 Lok Sabha seats. Secures 6% of valid votes in the state Assembly election + wins 2 Assembly seats.
    Wins 2% of Lok Sabha seats (currently 11 seats) from at least 3 states. Secures 6% of valid votes in the state’s Lok Sabha election + wins 1 Lok Sabha seat.
    Recognised as a State Party in 4 or more states. Wins 3% of Assembly seats or 3 seats (whichever is higher) in the state Assembly.
    — Wins 1 Lok Sabha seat for every 25 seats allotted to that state.
    — Secures 8% of total valid votes in the state’s Assembly or Lok Sabha election (added in 2011).

     

    [UPSC 2001] Consider the following statements regarding the political parties in India:

    1. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the registration of political parties.

    2. Registration of political parties is carried out by the Election Commission.

    3. A national level political party is one which is recognised in four or more States.

    4. During the 1999 general elections, there were six National and 48 State level parties recognised by the Election Commission.

    Options: (a) I, II and IV (b) I and III (c) II and IV (d) I, II, III and IV*

     

  • [18th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business

    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: The recent Supreme Court directive fixing a timeline for Governors under Article 200 directly relates to the constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers discussed in the 2022 question. Both highlight that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not misuse discretion to stall legislation. Just as re-promulgation of ordinances undermines legislative supremacy, withholding assent indefinitely violates constitutional morality and federal balance.

    Mentor’s Comment:

    The recent Supreme Court intervention fixing a time limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills marks a constitutional milestone. This decision is not merely about timelines but about strengthening federalism, ensuring legislative efficacy, and curbing misuse of gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, it becomes a vital case study in Centre-State relations, separation of powers, and the evolving role of the judiciary in sustaining democracy.

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s decision to prescribe a three-month time limit for Governors and the President to take a final call on Bills under Article 200/201 has reignited debates on federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of judicial activism. For decades, Governors have been accused of sitting indefinitely on Bills, creating a legislative deadlock and undermining the democratic will of elected legislatures. This judicial nudge aims to resolve what has become a serious constitutional anomaly, ensuring that governance does not remain hostage to political manoeuvring.

    Why is this in the news?

    The issue is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court has imposed a specific timeline—three months—for Governors and the President to act on Bills, despite the Constitution prescribing none. This intervention arose after repeated instances where Governors withheld assent or simply delayed action on Bills for years, undermining legislative functioning. The decision is both a remedy for constitutional paralysis and a reinforcement of federal balance, making it a landmark moment in India’s constitutional journey.

    Judicial clarity on Article 200:

    1. Four options under Article 200: Assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
    2. No discretion intended: The omission of the words “in his discretion” (present in Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75) shows the Constituent Assembly wanted Governors to act only on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    3. Judicial commissions’ stand: Both Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not independent power centres.

    Has the Governor misused discretionary powers?

    1. Contradictory judicial stance: While Shamsher Singh (1974) acknowledged discretionary scope, later judgments including Nabam Rebia (2016) and Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) rejected such independence.
    2. Risk of overreach: Allowing Governors unilateral discretion would convert them into “super constitutional authorities,” stalling state governance.
    3. Expert view: D.D. Basu highlighted that unlike UK sovereigns, Indian Governors have no scope for withholding assent independently.

    Why did the Supreme Court fix a timeline?

    1. Legislative paralysis: Governors had sat on Bills for years without decision, blocking governance.
    2. Judicial remedy: By fixing three months, the Court ensured smooth functioning of legislatures, akin to how Article 21’s scope was expanded through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi.
    3. Federal protection: Recent rulings in State of Punjab v. Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) strengthened states’ autonomy, preventing misuse of gubernatorial office.

    Could the Union have intervened earlier?

    1. Role under Article 355: The Union is duty-bound to ensure constitutional governance in states. A Governor blocking Bills indefinitely amounts to violation of constitutional provisions.
    2. Non-intervention so far: Successive Union governments avoided directing Governors, leading to judicial stepping in.
    3. Judicial nudge as necessity: The Court’s ruling acts as a constitutional guardrail in absence of executive remedy.

    Implications for federalism and democracy

    1. Strengthening federal balance: Prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.
    2. Judicial activism or necessity?: Critics see it as judicial overreach, but history shows courts often expand constitutional meaning to meet new realities (e.g., Article 21 due process).
    3. Legislative efficiency: Restores faith in elected assemblies’ authority, ensuring people’s mandate is not subverted.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s directive to Governors and the President is a pragmatic response to a constitutional vacuum. It plugs misuse, safeguards federalism, and ensures legislative efficiency. Far from amending the Constitution, it exemplifies how judicial interpretation adapts constitutional principles to emerging challenges. This marks a significant moment where judicial innovation has strengthened democracy by preventing paralysis of governance.

  • [17th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Judicial Experimentalism versus the Right to Justice

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.

    Linkage: The recent “cooling period” ruling in Shivangi Bansal (2025) shows the judiciary’s proactive, sometimes overreaching, role in experimenting with safeguards beyond legislative intent. While judicial activism has often upheld democracy by protecting rights (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati, Arnesh Kumar), such interventions can also compromise access to justice. Thus, the case illustrates both the potential and pitfalls of judicial activism in strengthening democratic ideals.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Supreme Court’s recent endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines introducing a “cooling period” before action in matrimonial cruelty cases (formerly Section 498A IPC, now Section 85 BNS) has sparked a heated debate. While the move aims to check misuse of law, critics argue it undermines a victim’s right to prompt justice. This article analyses the issue through the lens of judicial experimentalism, statutory intent, and the balance between liberty and justice, an important discussion for UPSC aspirants studying the interface of law, rights, and institutional reforms.

    Introduction

    Section 498A IPC was enacted to protect women from cruelty in matrimonial settings. However, fears of its misuse led courts and lawmakers to build safeguards against arbitrary arrests and frivolous cases. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025) has endorsed a two-month “cooling period” and referral to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before action is taken on complaints. While it echoes earlier judicial experiments, critics highlight that such directions compromise victims’ right to timely justice and extend judicial power beyond legislative intent.

    Judicial Experimentalism Versus Right to Justice

    Why is this ruling in the news?

    The ruling is significant because, for the first time since the rollback of Rajesh Sharma guidelines in 2018, the Supreme Court has revived the idea of FWCs and delayed coercive action through a “cooling period.” This marks a sharp contrast with previous judicial positions that upheld victims’ right to prompt redressal. The problem is big: over 1.4 lakh cases registered under Section 498A in 2022 (NCRB) yet with declining arrests, showing safeguards were already in place. Introducing new hurdles raises questions on judicial overreach and justice delivery.

    Why was Section 498A enacted?

    1. Objective: Punish cruelty against women in matrimonial homes.
    2. Protection intent: Safeguard women from physical, mental, and emotional abuse by husband and family.
    3. Concerns of misuse: Courts acknowledged misuse through false FIRs and arrests, which led to checks and procedural safeguards.

    What safeguards already existed against misuse?

    1. Lalita Kumari (2013): Classified matrimonial disputes under ‘preliminary inquiry’ before FIR registration.
    2. CrPC amendment (2008): Introduced the ‘principle of necessity’ in arrests.
    3. Arnesh Kumar (2014): Checklist for police; mandatory notice for appearance before arrest.
    4. Satender Kumar Antil (2022): Strengthened protection by ensuring bail if arrest directions were violated.
    5. Impact: NCRB shows while cases increased (1,13,403 in 2015 → 1,40,019 in 2022), arrests fell (1,87,067 → 1,45,095).

    How does the “cooling period” affect justice delivery?

    1. Delay in action: Victims must wait two months before any coercive step is taken.
    2. Denial of prompt redressal: Even after FIR, police cannot act, worsening victim’s plight.
    3. Institutional overreach: FWCs lack statutory backing, leading to ambiguity about their jurisdiction and powers.
    4. Historical lesson: Similar FWC directions in Rajesh Sharma (2017) were termed “regressive” and rolled back by Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).

    What does this mean for judicial experimentalism?

    1. Judicial innovation vs legislative intent: Experimentation may be progressive but must not override statutory design.
    2. Checks already in place: With safeguards from CrPC amendments, Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, additional hurdles appear unnecessary.
    3. Risk of regressive rollback: Echoes earlier failed experiments that compromised women’s access to justice.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s “cooling period” in Section 498A cases reflects judicial anxiety over misuse of law but risks undermining victim protection, the very intent of the provision. With sufficient safeguards already in place, the ruling revives debates on judicial overreach and calls for revisiting its implications. Justice must balance the liberty of the accused with the victim’s right to immediate redressal, without diluting either.

  • SC on amended Waqf Act: What has been stayed, what remains

    Introduction

    The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament earlier this year, faced widespread opposition from political leaders, religious organisations, and civil society. Over 65 petitions were filed, challenging its constitutional validity. On September 15, the Supreme Court issued an interim order staying several key provisions, particularly those expanding the powers of district collectors, imposing a five-year Islam practice condition for creating a waqf, and capping non-Muslim representation in Waqf boards. At the same time, the Court upheld other significant changes such as the removal of “waqf-by-user” and the applicability of the Limitation Act. This selective intervention reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing equity, religious freedom, and governance.

    Waqf

    Why is the Supreme Court’s interim stay significant?

    1. First major judicial intervention: The SC’s order is the first substantive check on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 since its passage.
    2. Large-scale impact: With nearly 65 petitions filed, the matter affects thousands of properties and the rights of the Muslim community across India.
    3. Balance of powers: The Court flagged violation of the separation of powers doctrine by preventing revenue officers from adjudicating property titles.
    4. Guardrails against misuse: While not striking down the Act, the Court has added interim safeguards to prevent dispossession and misuse of powers.

    What powers of District Collectors were stayed?

    1. Section 3C inquiry power: District Collectors could declare that land claimed as waqf is government property. The SC stayed the clause that made waqf status cease immediately upon inquiry.
    2. Arbitrariness highlighted: Entrusting title determination to a revenue officer was held to be prima facie arbitrary.
    3. Safeguard applied: Waqf properties will retain their status until adjudicated by a Waqf Tribunal. However, no third-party rights can be created until final resolution.

    How did the Court deal with non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards?

    1. Capping membership: Central Waqf Council (22 members) shall not have more than 4 non-Muslims; State Waqf Boards (11 members) shall not have more than 3 non-Muslims.
    2. Community rights upheld: This ensures that the Muslim community’s right under Article 26 to manage religious affairs is not diluted.
    3. Avoiding ambiguity: The SC clarified numbers to prevent misinterpretation of the law.

    What about the ‘five years of practising Islam’ rule?

    1. New definition of waqf: The 2025 Act required proof of practising Islam for five years to create a waqf.
    2. Provision stayed: SC stayed this rule until the government frames rules and mechanisms for proof.
    3. Judicial caution: The Court noted concerns of arbitrariness and discrimination, but also recognised historical misuse of waqf as a tool to evade creditors.

    Which provisions were not stayed?

    1. Abolition of ‘waqf by user’: The Court upheld its removal, citing misuse to encroach upon government lands.
    2. Applicability of the Limitation Act: Waqfs must now act within statutory limitation periods. This was upheld as removing previous discrimination.
    3. Registration compliance: SC emphasised that waqfs had 102 years (since 1923) to register, hence claims of arbitrariness were weak.

    What is the larger constitutional and governance context?

    1. Presumption of constitutionality: Laws passed by Parliament carry weight until struck down.
    2. Balancing equities: The SC avoided blanket suspension, staying only contentious clauses.
    3. Protection of minority rights: Ensures Article 26 freedoms are not eroded.
    4. Preventing property misuse: Legislative intent to protect government property and curb misuse was acknowledged.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 reflects a nuanced judicial approach—protecting religious freedoms while respecting legislative authority. By drawing constitutional boundaries for state power and emphasising procedural fairness, the Court has reinforced its role as a guardian of equity and minority rights. The final verdict will have long-lasting implications for governance of religious endowments and minority trust in legal institutions.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of secularism.

    Linkage: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has been challenged for allegedly curbing the Muslim community’s right under Article 26 to manage its religious endowments, showing how state intervention can threaten cultural practices. The Supreme Court’s interim stay on provisions like non-Muslim majority in Waqf Boards and “five years of practising Islam” directly reflects the tension between secular governance and religious autonomy. Thus, the case exemplifies the broader challenge of balancing secularism with protection of cultural practices, as asked in the 2019 question.

  • National Lok Adalat  

    Why in the News?

    On September 13, a countrywide National Lok Adalat was held with a special focus on clearing pending traffic e-challans for minor offences.

    What is National Lok Adalat?

    • Overview: Lok Adalats held 4 times a year, on a single day, across all courts from the Supreme Court to Taluk Courts.
    • Scope: Settles both pending cases and pre-litigation disputes suitable for compromise.
    • Organisation: Dates fixed in the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) calendar; sessions conducted nationwide.
    • Method: Focuses on amicable settlement rather than judicial imposition.
    • Common Cases: Matrimonial/family disputes, compoundable criminal cases, land acquisition, labour disputes, compensation claims, bank recoveries, and accident claims.
    • Exclusions: Non-compoundable or sensitive offences are outside its scope.

    About Lok Adalats:

    • Legal Status: Statutory body under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; amended in 2002 for Permanent Lok Adalats (public utility services).
    • Composition: Includes a judicial officer (Chairman), a lawyer, and a social worker.
    • History: First Lok Adalat held in Gujarat, 1982, as a voluntary conciliatory forum.
    • Award/Decision: Final, binding, and equivalent to a civil court decree; no appeal permitted.
    • Jurisdiction: Can settle pending cases, matters within court jurisdiction (even pre-litigation), on mutual consent, referral, or court satisfaction.
    • Organisation: Conducted by NALSA and State/District/High Court/Taluk Legal Services Authorities. NALSA operational since 9 November 1995.
    • Powers: Enjoy powers of a civil court; proceedings treated as judicial proceedings.
    • Benefits: No court fee, speedy disposal, procedural flexibility, direct party–judge interaction, and finality of settlement.
    [UPSC 2009] With reference to Lok Adalats, consider the following statements:

    1. An award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a degree of a civil court and no appeal lies against thereto before any court.

    2. Matrimonial/Family disputes are not covered under Lok Adalat.

    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

     

  • [12th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Relief for Refugees (Foreign (Exemption) Order, 2025)

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] India is an age-old friend of Sri Lanka. Discuss India’s role in the recent crisis in Sri Lanka in the light of the preceding statement.

    Linkage: The issue of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees directly ties to India’s longstanding friendship with Sri Lanka. While India has consistently extended humanitarian aid during Sri Lanka’s crises, the 2025 Immigration Order reflects another dimension of this support by protecting refugees from forcible repatriation. It highlights how India balances compassion for vulnerable groups with its broader role as a stabilising partner in Sri Lanka’s recovery

    Mentor’s Comment

    The recent Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, marks a turning point in India’s refugee policy, particularly concerning Sri Lankan Tamil refugees. While it offers legal relief, many gaps remain in ensuring citizenship, dignity, and durable solutions. This article explores the issue through a UPSC lens, connecting it with governance, international relations, and humanitarian concerns.

    Introduction

    The Union Ministry of Home Affairs notified the Immigration and Foreigners (Exemption) Order, 2025, exempting specified groups from passport and visa requirements for entering, staying, and exiting India. For the first time, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees, who have lived in Tamil Nadu since the 1990s, find explicit mention, gaining protection from forcible repatriation. However, questions of legal status, citizenship, and long-term rehabilitation remain unresolved, making this both a humanitarian and policy challenge.

    Why in the News

    For over three decades, Sri Lankan Tamil refugees have lived in India without a clear roadmap for citizenship or repatriation. The 2025 Order gives them temporary relief but does not resolve their “illegal migrant” status. This is significant because, unlike the six religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan who received relief under the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Sri Lankan Tamils had been left out earlier. The recognition in 2025 is thus both a success and a reminder of unaddressed policy gaps.

    What Does the New Immigration Order Provide?

    1. Exemption Granted: Nationals of Nepal and Bhutan, Tibetan refugees, six religious minorities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lankan Tamils are exempted from strict passport and visa rules.
    2. Historical Reference: Refugees must have entered India before January 9, 2015, and registered themselves to avail of the benefit.
    3. Protection from Forcible Return: This safeguards Sri Lankan Tamils from involuntary repatriation after decades of uncertainty.

    Why Are Sri Lankan Tamil Refugees a Special Case?

    1. Civil War Displacement: Many fled to Tamil Nadu in the 1990s during Sri Lanka’s civil war.
    2. Post-war Welfare: Both Union and Tamil Nadu governments provided welfare after the civil war ended in 2009.
    3. Exclusion from CAA 2019: Unlike refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, Sri Lankan Tamils were excluded from citizenship benefits.

    What Legal Hurdles Do Refugees Still Face?

    1. Illegal Migrant Tag: Despite the order, they remain classified as “illegal migrants” under Indian law.
    2. Citizenship Barriers: They cannot easily apply for citizenship under Section 5 (registration) or Section 6 (naturalisation) of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
    3. Long Term Visa (LTV) Gap: Exclusion from LTV eligibility blocks access to gainful employment and higher education.
    4. Missed Precedent: Tibetan refugees receive certificates of identity, which could serve as a model for Sri Lankan Tamils.

    What Are the Policy Options Ahead?

    1. Liberalisation of LTVs: Extending LTVs to Sri Lankan Tamil refugees would facilitate education and jobs.
    2. Voluntary Repatriation: India and Sri Lanka can collaborate on structured assistance for safe return.
    3. Local Integration: For those unwilling to return, gradual local integration with a humane approach can be considered.
    4. Model Replication: Certificates of identity, as given to Tibetan refugees, can help provide dignity and legal standing.

    Conclusion

    The 2025 Immigration Order is a step forward, but it leaves critical questions unresolved. Sri Lankan Tamil refugees deserve a humane, durable solution, whether through voluntary repatriation with assistance, or integration with rights and dignity. India, while balancing domestic concerns and foreign relations with Sri Lanka, must craft a policy that reflects compassion, legality, and long-term stability.

  • A Sense of Drift: Democracy at the Crossroads: Youth, Corruption and the New Global Malaise

    Introduction

    Democracy, once celebrated as the ultimate safeguard of freedom and governance, is witnessing profound crises across continents. Nepal’s weak institutions, France’s protest-prone presidentialism, and America’s violent polarisation reveal that democratic malaise is not confined to one geography. The recurring theme is stark: young people feel robbed of their future.

    Why is democracy back in crisis?

    1. Recurring crises: Democracies appear to follow cycles of expansion (40–50 years) followed by exhaustion.
    2. Current triggers: Corruption in Nepal, unsustainable economic models in France, and violent political divisions in the US.
    3. Historical echoes: Similar crises were witnessed in the 1920s–30s and the 1960s–70s, culminating in debates such as the Trilateral Commission’s 1975 report on “The Crisis of Democracy.”

    What role does youth disillusionment play?

    1. Stolen future: Across Nepal, France, and the US, young people feel alienated and betrayed.
    2. Lack of consensus: Youth anger does not translate into youth unity; it produces anxiety but not collective solutions.
    3. Gerontocracy problem: Democracies like India and the US are led largely by older generations, deepening generational divides.

    How does inequality and polarisation fuel the malaise?

    1. Different consensus: Unlike the 1970s when “excess participation” was blamed, today growing inequality is seen as the root of discontent.
    2. Dual polarisation: A clash of values coupled with diametrically opposed economic visions — Left demanding more state investment, Right fearing socialist excess.
    3. Jobless growth: Declining employment elasticity of capital threatens to erode trust even in well-designed policies.

    Why does corruption persist as a democratic fault line?

    1. Structural vs transactional corruption: Elites monopolising power versus ostentatious lifestyles of politicians.
    2. Anti-corruption paradox: Movements rarely eliminate corruption and often fuel authoritarian turns, seen in Nepal’s staggering levels of rent extraction.
    3. Authoritarian co-option: Anti-corruption rhetoric is used to justify illiberal governance.

    What is the role of war and misinformation?

    1. Historical corrosion: Vietnam and Iraq wars eroded democratic legitimacy in the US.
    2. Current crises: Gaza conflict risks corroding Western liberal legitimacy.
    3. Misinformation cycle: Radical democratisation of information through social media has dissolved authority and deepened adversarial suspicion.

    Can democracies reinvent themselves?

    1. Past reinventions: Post-1930s depression and 1970s crises were followed by new waves of democratisation.
    2. Paradox of protest: While protests mobilise energy, they often breed drift, violence, or nihilism.

    Way Forward for Democracies

    1. Institutional Reinvention: Strengthen checks and balances through judicial independence, parliamentary accountability, and free media — preventing democratic backsliding.
    2. Inclusive Growth: Address structural inequality and jobless growth by creating policies focused on employment elasticity and equitable redistribution.
    3. Youth Participation: Channel youth disillusionment into institutionalised participation (youth parliaments, policy fellowships, digital consultative platforms).
    4. Taming Polarisation: Build broad-based social coalitions that transcend Left–Right economic divides and cultural polarisation.
    5. Responsible Information Order: Regulate misinformation while protecting freedom of speech; strengthen media literacy to combat nihilism fuelled by social media.
    6. Corruption Reform: Focus on structural corruption (elite monopolisation of power) rather than episodic “anti-corruption crusades” that risk authoritarian capture.
    7. Global Learning: Draw lessons from past crises (1930s, 1970s) where institutional reinvention, new social contracts, and reform waves revitalised democracy.

    Value Addition

    Samuel P. Huntington’s Views and Theory on Democracy

    Political Order and Institutionalisation

    • Book: Political Order in Changing Societies (1968).
    • Core Argument: The stability of a political system depends more on the strength of its institutions than on the level of modernisation.
    • Key Point: Modernisation without strong institutions leads to instability (e.g., corruption, coups, unrest).
    • Quote: “The most important political distinction among countries is not their form of government but their degree of government.”

    The Third Wave of Democratisation

    • Book: The Third Wave: Democratisation in the Late Twentieth Century (1991).
    • Theory: Democracies emerge in “waves,” each followed by a possible “reverse wave.”
      • First Wave (1828–1926): Expansion in Western countries.
      • First Reverse Wave (1922–1942): Rise of fascism, military regimes.
      • Second Wave (1945–1962): Post-WWII, decolonisation.
      • Second Reverse Wave (1960–1975): Coups in Latin America, Africa, Asia.
      • Third Wave (1974 onwards): Started with Portugal’s Carnation Revolution, followed by democratisation in Latin America, Eastern Europe, parts of Asia and Africa.

    Key Factors for Third Wave:

    • Declining legitimacy of authoritarian regimes.
    • Economic growth and rising middle class.
    • Religious changes (e.g., Catholic Church’s role in Latin America).
    • Global democratic norms (influence of EU, US).
    • “Snowballing effect” (success in one country inspired others).
    • Relevance: Many current democracies (including in Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe) emerged in this wave

    Clash of Civilisations (1993)

    • Book: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.
    • Argument: Post-Cold War conflicts would be driven not by ideology or economics, but by cultural and civilisational differences.
    • Link to Democracy: Democracies rooted in Western civilisation may clash with non-Western civilisations (Islamic, Sinic/Chinese).

    Relevant Quotes on Democracy 

    On Cycles and Fragility

    • John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
    • Samuel Huntington: “Democracy is the only political system that is self-correcting.”

    On Reinvention

    • Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
    • Amartya Sen: “No famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.”

    On Corruption and Morality

    • Mahatma Gandhi: “Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.”
    • Alexis de Tocqueville: “The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.”

    On Youth and Future

    • Jawaharlal Nehru: “The future belongs to those who can give to the next generation reasons for hope.”
    • Kofi Annan: “Young people should be at the forefront of global change and innovation.”

    How to Use in UPSC Answers

    • Quote John Adams or Huntington when talking about cycles of democracy.
    • Quote Gandhi or Amartya Sen when linking democracy with corruption or development outcomes.
    • Quote Churchill when emphasising democracy’s resilience despite flaws.

    PYQ Relevance:

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

    Linkage: The current crisis of democracy, as highlighted in Nepal, France, and the US, shows that without robust and independent institutions, democratic legitimacy erodes. Judicial independence acts as a bulwark against corruption, elite capture, and authoritarian drift. Thus, safeguarding constitutional autonomy of the judiciary is indispensable for reinvigorating democracy.

  • Decisive step (Including Aadhar as 12th document for voter verification)

    Introduction

    The right to vote is one of the most fundamental expressions of citizenship in a democracy. However, procedural rigidity in electoral roll revisions often results in the exclusion of genuine electors. Recently, the Supreme Court intervened decisively in Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, directing the inclusion of Aadhaar as one of the 12 valid documents for voter verification. With over 65 lakh voters already struck off from Bihar’s draft rolls, this judgment is a crucial corrective step ensuring that the processes of democracy do not become instruments of exclusion.

    Significance of the Supreme Court’s Decision

    1. Judicial clarity: The Supreme Court dismantled the ECI’s argument that Aadhaar is proof of residency, not citizenship, by highlighting that most other accepted documents (e.g., ration card, driving license) also do not conclusively establish citizenship.
    2. Preventing mass exclusion: With nearly 90% of Bihar’s population holding Aadhaar versus only 2% holding passports, excluding Aadhaar would have disenfranchised a vast number of eligible voters, especially the poor and marginalised.
    3. Correcting anomalies: The Hindu’s statistical analysis of the exclusion revealed disproportionate impacts and that women were removed in large numbers, death rates appeared statistically improbable, and questionable “permanent shifts” particularly affected migrants and married women.

    Implications of the Judgment for Voter Inclusivity

    1. Lifeline for excluded electors: Over 65 lakh voters struck off the draft rolls now have a viable route back through Aadhaar verification.
    2. Support for existing electors: Even those already on the rolls needing document verification benefit from Aadhaar’s inclusion.
    3. Validation of civil society concerns: The Court’s order vindicates activists and political groups who warned that excluding Aadhaar contradicted earlier judicial guidance and created practical hurdles.

    Challenges Exposed in the Election Commission’s Process

    1. Questionable reasoning: The ECI insisted Aadhaar was inadmissible, despite its wide acceptance in governance systems.
    2. Haste over accuracy: The rushed SIR process compromised diligence, undermining the credibility of voter rolls.
    3. Patterns of exclusion: Disproportionate impact on marginalised groups like migrant workers and married women reveals systemic flaws.

    National Precedent Established by the Ruling

    1. Uniform standards: This ruling is not limited to Bihar but extends to future electoral revisions across India.
    2. Balance between accuracy and inclusivity: It forces the ECI to reorient its approach towards humane, diligent verification.
    3. Strengthening democracy: Electoral rolls form the foundation of free and fair elections; inclusivity ensures democratic legitimacy.

    Future Expectations from the Election Commission of India

    1. House-to-house verification: A more thorough, grassroots-level approach to ensure accuracy.
    2. Inclusive procedures: Processes must prevent the disenfranchisement of genuine voters, especially the vulnerable.
    3. Aligning with practical realities: Aadhaar, as the most widely held identity document, should be part of India’s democratic processes.

    Way Forward

    • Strengthening Verification Mechanisms
      1. Conduct comprehensive house-to-house verification to avoid wrongful deletions.
      2. Use technology-enabled checks (biometric authentication with Aadhaar, but with strong safeguards for privacy).
    • Ensuring Inclusivity
      1. Simplify documentation requirements for vulnerable groups (migrants, women, senior citizens).
      2. Provide doorstep assistance for voter registration in rural and marginalised areas.
    • Institutional Strengthening of ECI
      1. Enhance independence, transparency, and accountability of the Election Commission.
      2. Establish an independent audit mechanism to regularly review voter roll revisions.
    • Legal and Policy Reforms
      1. Consider amendments to the Representation of People Act to clarify permissible use of Aadhaar and protect against misuse.
      2. Align electoral processes with Supreme Court jurisprudence on Aadhaar to balance convenience with rights.
    • Public Awareness and Participation
      1. Encourage civil society participation in monitoring electoral rolls.
      2. Launch mass awareness campaigns to educate voters on their rights and available documentation.
    • Long-Term Electoral Reform Agenda
      1. Explore remote voting mechanisms for migrant workers.
      2. Move towards integrated digital electoral rolls across states for consistency.
      3. Institutionalise regular, transparent consultations between ECI, political parties, and judiciary.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s directive to include Aadhaar in voter verification is more than a legal clarification; it is a democratic safeguard. By preventing procedural exclusion and ensuring accessibility, the judgment reaffirms India’s commitment to universal suffrage. For the ECI, the challenge now lies in balancing diligence with inclusivity, creating an electoral roll that truly reflects India’s diverse citizenry.

    Value Addition

    Constitutional & Legal Dimensions:

    • Article 326: Guarantees universal adult suffrage, forming the foundation of electoral democracy.
    • Article 14 & 21: Ensure equality and due process — mass exclusion from voter rolls would violate these.
    • Representation of People Act, 1951: Governs electoral rolls, voter eligibility, and disqualification.

    Case Laws:

    1. PUCL v. Union of India (2003) – Recognised “right to know” of voters.
    2. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) – Stressed on the principle of electoral integrity.
    3. Supreme Court Aadhaar Judgments (2018) – Aadhaar can be used for welfare and verification, but cannot be made mandatory for all purposes.

    Committees & Reports:

    1. Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): Highlighted need for free and fair elections as cornerstone of democracy.
    2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008): Stressed inclusivity and transparency in voter registration.
    3. Law Commission of India (255th Report, 2015): Recommended linkage of voter databases with Aadhaar for accuracy, subject to safeguards.

    Democratic Governance & Inclusivity:

    1. Inclusivity vs. Accuracy: Electoral reforms must balance weeding out bogus voters with preventing disenfranchisement of genuine citizens.
    2. Marginalised Communities: Migrants, women, and the poor are disproportionately affected by procedural rigidity — their access must be prioritised.

    Comparative Insight:

    1. USA: Struggles with strict voter ID laws that disproportionately affect minorities.
    2. Canada: Allows multiple identification options to avoid disenfranchisement.
    3. India’s Aadhaar: A unique digital identity tool with near-universal coverage (~90%), giving India an advantage in inclusive electoral reforms.

    Ethical Perspective (GS 4 angle)

    1. Principle of Justice: Fair opportunity for every citizen to vote.
    2. Procedural Fairness: Electoral rules must not arbitrarily exclude individuals.
    3. Democratic Accountability: ECI must uphold public trust by ensuring inclusivity in its procedures.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] To enhance the quality of democracy in India the Election Commission of India has proposed electoral reforms in 2016. What are the suggested reforms and how far are they significant to make democracy successful?

    Linkage: The Supreme Court’s directive on including Aadhaar as a valid voter verification document directly relates to the broader debate on electoral reforms. Just as the ECI’s 2016 reform proposals sought to strengthen inclusivity and transparency, this judgment ensures that procedural rigidity does not erode democratic participation. Both highlight the evolving role of the ECI in balancing accuracy, accessibility, and fairness in India’s electoral process.

  • Election of the Vice-President

    Why in the News?

    Thiru CP Radhakrishnan has been elected as Vice President of India.

    About Vice-President (VP) of India:

    • Position: Second-highest constitutional post; deputy to the President.
    • Parliamentary Role: Serves as ex-officio Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
    • Succession: Ranks second in order of precedence and first in line to become President.
    • Membership: Is a member of Parliament, not directly elected by the people.

    Qualifications:

    • Citizenship: Must be a citizen of India.
    • Age: Minimum 35 years.
    • Office of Profit: Should not hold any.
    • Parliamentary Eligibility: Must qualify for election to Rajya Sabha (unlike President, who must qualify for Lok Sabha) due to the VP’s role in the Upper House.

    Roles and Responsibilities:

    • Rajya Sabha Chairmanship: Presides over sessions and ensures order.
    • Bill Classification: Refers money bills to the Lok Sabha Speaker.
    • No Independent Powers: Has no executive or legislative powers unless acting as President.

    Election Procedure:

    • Constitutional Basis: Governed by Article 66.
    • Electoral College: Comprises 543 Lok Sabha MPs, 233 elected Rajya Sabha MPs, and 12 nominated Rajya Sabha members.
    • Voting Method: Proportional representation by single transferable vote and secret ballot.
    • No Whip Allowed: Parties cannot issue voting whips.
    • Conduct: Managed by the Election Commission; Returning Officer is the Secretary-General of either House (on rotation).
    • Winning Quota: Requires 50% of valid votes + 1; votes are transferred in rounds if no candidate secures majority in the first round.

    Resignation and Removal:

    Resignation

    • Article 67(a): VP submits his/her resignation to the President. Parliamentary approval is NOT needed, and the resignation takes effect immediately upon receipt.
    • No Acting VP: Constitution doesn’t provide for an acting Vice-President.
    • Presiding in Absence: Deputy Chairman of Rajya Sabha presides in VP’s absence (currently Harivansh Narayan Singh).
    • Example: Dhankhar, who took office in 2022, is only the third VP in Indian history to resign before completing his term, after V.V. Giri and R. Venkataraman.

    Removal

    • Article 67(b): Removal process begins in Rajya Sabha with 14 days’ notice.
    • Voting Requirement: Needs effective majority in Rajya Sabha and simple majority in Lok Sabha.
    • No Grounds Specified: Constitution doesn’t list specific removal grounds.
    • Judicial Immunity: Article 122 bars courts from questioning parliamentary proceedings related to removal.
    • No Precedent: No VP has been removed so far.
    [UPSC 2013] With reference to Parliament, consider the following statements:

    1.The Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha are not the members of that House.

    2.While the nominated members of the two Houses of the Parliament have no voting right in the presidential election, they have the right to vote in the election of the Vice President.

    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