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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • [4th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The 2023 PYQ on judicial independence as a prerequisite of democracy directly relates to the Collegium debate. Concealing Justice Nagarathna’s dissent shows how opacity undermines independence by eroding legitimacy and public trust. True independence requires not just freedom from external control but also internal transparency and accountability.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Transparency in judicial appointments is once again under scrutiny. The recent revelation of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on a Collegium recommendation, concealed from the public, has sparked fresh debate on the opacity of India’s judicial system. This piece examines why concealing dissent undermines the judiciary’s legitimacy, what is at stake for democracy, and how reforms could restore accountability in the higher judiciary.

    Introduction

    Constitutional democracies, as South African jurist Etienne Mureinik observed, thrive on a “culture of justification”, the principle that every exercise of public power must be explained and defended. Indian judges have often invoked this idea to hold governments accountable. Yet, when it comes to the judiciary’s own functioning, particularly the Collegium system of judicial appointments, this principle falters. The recent concealment of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on the elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi illustrates the problem starkly: the public is denied access to crucial reasoning behind decisions that shape the judiciary itself.

    Why is this news significant?

    The dissent of a sitting Supreme Court judge on a Collegium recommendation has surfaced through media leaks, not official disclosure. This is striking because the official resolution uploaded on the Court’s website suggested unanimity. The lack of transparency is troubling not just for one appointment but for the credibility of the entire judicial system. For a country where judges decide on critical questions of liberty and constitutional balance, secrecy corrodes legitimacy and deepens the democratic deficit.

    Opacity as the defining feature of the Collegium system

    1. Judge-made law: The Collegium emerged from the Second Judges Case (1993) and was reinforced in the Third Judges Case (1998).
    2. Private deliberations: Decisions are made by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court behind closed doors.
    3. Minimal disclosure: Until 2017, no explanations were given. Later, skeletal resolutions were published, with only brief reasons disclosed in 2018 before the practice was abandoned.
    4. Resistance to transparency: Concerns of reputational harm and political interference are cited as justifications for secrecy.

    The critical importance of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent

    1. Grave objections concealed: Reports suggest her reservations were serious, but neither her note nor the majority’s reasoning is accessible to the public.
    2. Unclear role of the executive: It is uncertain whether her dissent was even communicated to the Union government, which cleared the appointment within 48 hours.
    3. Democratic deficit: When even dissent within the highest court is hidden, the culture of justification collapses.

    Balancing transparency with fairness in judicial appointments

    International examples:

    1. Britain: Judicial Appointments Commission publishes criteria and detailed assessment reports.
    2. South Africa: Judicial Service Commission conducts public interviews of candidates.
    3. Indian reality: Transparency is avoided, and even dissent becomes visible only through leaks.
    4. Balancing act: Protecting reputations requires sensitive disclosure, not complete secrecy.

    Democratic stakes of a secretive Collegium process

    1. Shaping constitutional outcomes: Judges appointed today decide on civil liberties, executive powers, and Union–State relations.
    2. Institutional legitimacy: Without openness, citizens lose trust in the judiciary.
    3. Contradiction of standards: Courts demand accountability from governments but exempt themselves.

    The urgent need for reform in the Collegium system

    1. Self-accountability: A judiciary that explains its decisions strengthens, not weakens, its independence.
    2. Preserving legitimacy: Concealment erodes public trust, while openness anchors authority in people’s confidence.
    3. Past failures: Transparency initiatives have been sporadic and quickly rolled back.
    4. Future imperative: Without reform, the judiciary risks losing moral authority, the very foundation of its role in democracy.

    Conclusion

    The concealment of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is not an isolated event but a symptom of the deeper opacity in judicial appointments. If the judiciary insists on accountability from other state organs, it must hold itself to the same standards. A transparent Collegium process will not diminish judicial independence; it will enhance legitimacy, anchor democracy in trust, and ensure that the culture of justification applies to all.

  • Foreigners Tribunal (FT) can issue Arrest Warrants

    Why in the News?

    The Union Home Ministry empowered Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), especially in Assam, to detain suspected illegal immigrants in designated camps, a power earlier exercised only through executive orders.

    About Foreigners Tribunal (FT):

    • Nature: Quasi-judicial bodies constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
    • Purpose: Decide whether a person is a foreigner/illegal immigrant, especially in the context of Assam’s border migration issues.
    • Cases handled:
      • References from border police against suspected foreigners.
      • Cases of “D” (doubtful) voters flagged by the Election Commission.
    • Composition: Members drawn from retired judges, advocates, and civil servants with judicial experience; capped at 3 members per tribunal.
    • Functioning:
      • FTs exercise powers of a civil court (summons, evidence, witness examination).
      • Required to dispose of cases within 60 days of reference.
      • Burden of proof lies on the individual to establish citizenship (Section 9, Foreigners Act).
    • Present Status: About 100 FTs operational in Assam (expanded after NRC-2019). No FTs in other states, where suspected foreigners are tried in local courts.

    New Provisions under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025:

    • Replacement: Replaces the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, now part of the comprehensive Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
    • Detention Powers: For the first time, FTs are empowered to detain suspected illegal immigrants in designated transit camps, a power earlier exercised through executive orders.
    • Judicial Authority:
      • Powers of a civil court under CPC, 1908.
      • Powers of a judicial magistrate (first class) under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — including issuing arrest warrants, ordering detention, and directing personal appearance.
    • Ex-parte Orders: Can be set aside if the appellant files a review within 30 days.
    • Scope: Though applicable nationwide, functional relevance remains in Assam.
    • Restrictions on Employment: Bars foreigners from working in strategic sectors (defence, nuclear energy, petroleum, power, water supply, space, human rights) without Central government approval.
    • Border Security Measures: Border forces/Coast Guard to record biometrics and demographic data of illegal entrants before pushing them back.
    • Grounds for Refusal of Stay: Foreigners convicted of terrorism, espionage, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, human trafficking, cybercrime, child abuse, crimes against humanity, etc., can be refused entry or deported.
    • Exemptions: Citizens of Nepal, Bhutan, Tibetans, and Sri Lankan Tamils exempted under a special 2025 order.
    [UPSC 2009] Consider the following statements:

    1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up during the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri.

    2. The Members for CAT are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams.

    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

     

  • [3rd September 2025] India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The acute gender imbalance in the Supreme Court, with only 11 women judges since 1950, directly reflects the inequity in higher judiciary appointments. Greater representation of women is not only about fairness but also about inclusiveness, diversity of perspectives, and legitimacy of justice delivery. This makes the 2021 UPSC question highly relevant as it highlights why institutionalising gender as a criterion in judicial appointments is essential.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The issue of women’s representation in the higher judiciary has resurfaced sharply after the recent appointments to the Supreme Court overlooked senior women judges and lawyers. Despite being the guardian of constitutional morality and equality, the apex court itself reflects a glaring gender imbalance. This article explores the extent of underrepresentation, the opacity in the appointment process, and why diversity on the Bench is not merely symbolic but essential for justice delivery.

    Introduction

    The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 created an opportunity to address the deep gender imbalance in India’s Supreme Court. However, with the appointments of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Alok Aradhe, the Court continues to have only one woman judge—Justice B.V. Nagarathna. This exposes both a structural problem in the judicial appointment system and the reluctance to institutionalise gender as a criterion for higher judiciary appointments.

    The significance of gender imbalance in the Supreme Court

    1. Striking underrepresentation: Only 11 women judges out of 287 since 1950 (3.8%).
    2. Missed opportunity: Despite two vacancies in August 2025, no woman judge was appointed.
    3. Historical first ignored: The 2021 Collegium decision appointing three women judges at once raised hope of change, but the momentum has not continued.
    4. Symbolic contradiction: The Court upholds gender equality but does not reflect it internally.

    The historical trajectory of women judges in the Supreme Court

    1. First woman judge: Justice Fathima Beevi (1989).
    2. Trail of appointments: Only 11 till date, with short tenures limiting their influence.
    3. Tenure disparity: Women often appointed at a late stage in career, reducing chances of reaching the Collegium or CJI position.
    4. Upcoming first woman CJI: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, but for only 36 days (Sept–Oct 2027).
    5. Lack of caste and minority representation: Only Justice Fathima Beevi represented a minority faith; no SC/ST woman judge was ever appointed.

    Gender disparity in direct elevation from the Bar

    1. Male dominance: Nine men have been directly elevated from the Bar.
    2. Single woman appointee: Justice Indu Malhotra (2018) was the only woman elevated directly.
    3. Systemic discrimination: Despite women Senior Advocates being present, elevation remains blocked.
    4. Global comparison: Worldwide, the Bar is a major route to the higher judiciary, India lags in enabling women lawyers.

    The opacity of the judicial appointment process

    1. Collegium secrecy: No clarity on criteria or names under consideration.
    2. Inconsistent transparency: Collegium resolutions briefly made public in 2017 under CJI Dipak Misra, but not institutionalised.
    3. Regional and caste factors considered: Yet gender is ignored as a formal category.
    4. Violation of merit claims: Recent appointments skipped senior women High Court judges despite “seniority” being cited in the past as a hurdle.

    The importance of women’s representation on the Bench

    1. Unique perspectives: Women judges bring experiential diversity that shapes judicial outcomes.
    2. Public trust: Greater representation builds confidence in judicial impartiality.
    3. Truly representative court: The SC must reflect India’s social and gender diversity to strengthen legitimacy.
    4. Judicial precedents: The Court itself has mandated 30% reservation for women in Bar Association elections, but has no such rule for its own appointments.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s gender imbalance undermines its constitutional commitment to equality and inclusivity. Unless women are institutionalised as a criterion for judicial appointments, alongside caste, religion, and region, the credibility of India’s top court will remain in question. Representation is not tokenism; it is a constitutional necessity to ensure justice is dispensed through the lens of diversity, fairness, and lived realities.

    Value Addition

    Committees & Reports

    1. Law Commission 230th Report (2009): Recommended adequate representation of women and minorities in higher judiciary.
    2. Justice Verma Committee (2013): Strongly stressed the need for gender diversity in judiciary to handle women-related cases with sensitivity.

    International Comparisons & Norms

    1. Beijing Platform for Action (1995): Calls for women in decision-making positions, including judiciary.
    2. Canada & UK: Women form 40–50% of higher judiciary in recent years.
    3. South Africa: Institutionalised diversity (race + gender) as a mandatory criterion in judicial appointments.

     

  • Appointment of Vice Chancellors by Governor

    Why in the News?

    A recent controversy arose in Kerala, where the Governor (ex-officio Chancellor of State Universities) urged the Supreme Court to exclude the Chief Minister from the process of selecting Vice-Chancellors (VCs).

    Who is the Vice-Chancellor?

    • Position: Serves as Principal Academic and Executive Officer of the university.
    • Functions: Bridges executive and academic wings; ensures compliance with Acts, Statutes, and Regulations.
    • Authority: Chairs key bodies such as the Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee, and Selection Committees.
    • Qualities Emphasized: Historical commissions (Radhakrishnan 1948, Kothari 1964–66, Gnanam 1990, Ramlal Parikh 1993) stressed academic excellence, administrative skill, integrity, and vision.
    • Significance: Maintains quality, relevance, and reform in higher education.

    About the Role of Governor and President in Universities:

    1. State Universities:
      1. Chancellor’s Position: The Governor is ex-officio Chancellor, functioning independently of the State Cabinet in university matters.
      2. VC Appointment: As per UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor appoints Vice-Chancellors from a panel recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
      3. Legal Supremacy: In conflicts between UGC regulations and State laws, UGC norms prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution.
    2. Central Universities:
      1. Visitor Role: The President of India is the Visitor under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
      2. Chancellor: A ceremonial head, appointed by the President.
      3. VC Appointment: The President selects from a panel suggested by a Search Committee and can demand a fresh panel if unsatisfied.
      4. Oversight Powers: The President can authorize inspections and inquiries into universities.
    [UPSC 2014] 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) a) 1 and 2 only (b) b) 1 and 3 only (c) c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • Recusal of Judges

    Why in the News?

    A Madhya Pradesh High Court judge has recused himself from hearing a petition in an alleged illegal mining case, saying that a MLA had “attempted to call him” to have a discussion regarding the matter.

    About Recusal:

    • Overview: Recusal is the act of a judge or official abstaining from a case due to conflict of interest or a possible perception of bias.
    • Legal Basis:
      • There are no codified laws, but multiple Supreme Court rulings provide guiding principles.
      • In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987), SC held that the test of bias is the reasonableness of the apprehension in the mind of the affected party.
    • Grounds for Recusal:
      • Prior personal/professional association with a party.
      • Having appeared for a party in the case earlier.
      • Ex parte communications with parties involved.
      • Cases where a judge may be reviewing his own earlier judgment (e.g., SC appeals against HC orders delivered by the same judge earlier).
      • Financial or personal interests (e.g., shareholding in a company party to the case).
    • Underlying Principle: Rooted in the maxim “nemo judex in causa sua” — no one should be a judge in their own cause.

    Process of Recusal:

    • Judge’s Discretion:
      • Decision usually rests with the judge’s conscience and discretion.
      • Judges may orally inform the parties, record it in the order, or sometimes recuse silently without explanation.
    • On Request:
      • Lawyers or parties may request recusal; final decision still rests with the judge.
      • Some judges have recused even without conflict, merely to avoid doubt. Others refuse if no genuine bias exists.
    • Procedure: Once recusal is declared, the case is placed before the Chief Justice for reassignment to another Bench.

    Concerns Related to Recusal:

    • Judicial Independence at Risk: Can be misused by litigants to bench hunt (cherry-pick a judge), undermining judicial impartiality.
    • Lack of Uniform Standards: Absence of formal rules might lead to inconsistent approaches by different judges.
    • Potential for Abuse:
      • Requests for recusal may be used to delay proceedings, intimidate judges, or obstruct justice.
      • This undermines both the integrity of courts and timely justice delivery.
    [UPSC 2019] With reference to the Constitution of India, prohibitions or limitations or provisions contained in ordinary laws cannot act as prohibitions or limitations on the constitutional powers under Article 142. It could mean which one of the following?

    Options:

    (a) The decisions taken by the. Election Commission of India while discharging its duties cannot be challenged in any court of law.

    (b) The Supreme Court of India is not constrained in the exercise of its powers by the laws made by Parliament.

    (c) In the event of grave financial crisis in the country, the President of India can declare Financial Emergency without the counsel from the Cabinet.

    (d) State Legislatures cannot make laws on certain matters without the concurrence of Union Legislature.

     

  • RTE Act and Minority Educational Institutions

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has referred to a larger Bench the question of whether Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs) are completely exempt from the purview of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009.

    About Minority Educational Institutions (MEIs):

    • Constitutional Basis:
      • Article 30(1) grants religious and linguistic minorities the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
      • Article 29 protects their cultural and educational rights.
    • Legal Framework:
      • Defined under the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions (NCMEI) Act, 2004.
      • The NCMEI adjudicates disputes, grants recognition, and safeguards the autonomy of such institutions.
    • Recognized Minority Communities: Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) are notified as minorities by the Government of India.
    • Judicial Principles:
      • In T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka (2002), SC held that minority status is determined state-wise, not nationally.
      • Minority institutions can reserve seats for their community and enjoy greater control over administration and recruitment.
    • Purpose and Role:
      • Preserve the cultural, linguistic, and religious heritage of minority groups.
      • Provide quality education with constitutional protection from excessive state interference.

    What is the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009?

    • Genesis: Stemming from Unnikrishnan vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993), where SC declared education as a Fundamental Right under Article 21.
      • Later given constitutional backing through the 86th Amendment Act (2002), which inserted Article 21A – free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years.
    • Enactment: To operationalize Article 21A, Parliament passed the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
    • Key Provisions:
      • Free and compulsory education for all children aged 6–14 in a neighbourhood school.
      • 25% reservation in private schools for children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections.
      • No detention, expulsion, or board exams up to Class VIII (amended in 2019 to allow states discretion).
      • Teacher norms: TET (Teachers Eligibility Test) qualification mandatory; ban on private tuitions by teachers.
      • School Management Committees (SMCs): Parents, local authority reps, and teachers oversee school functioning.
      • Curriculum & Standards: Developed by an academic authority (often NCERT/SCERT).
    • Amendments:
      • 2012: Included children with disabilities; exempted minority/religious institutions.
      • 2019: Abolished uniform “no-detention policy,” left to states’ choice.

     

    [UPSC 2018] Consider the following statements:

    1. As per the Right to Education (RTE) Act, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a State, a person would be required to possess the minimum qualification laid down by the concerned State Council of Teacher Education.

    2. As per the RTE Act, for teaching primary classes, a candidate is required to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education guidelines.

    3. In India, more than 90% of teacher education institutions are directly under the State Governments

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 (b) 2 only* (c) 1 and 3 (d) 3 only

     

  • The importance of India’s federal design

    Introduction

    India’s federal design is unique, balancing a strong Union with an inclusive representation of States. The abrogation of Article 370 and the downgrading of Jammu and Kashmir into a Union Territory in 2019 raised critical constitutional and political debates. The Supreme Court’s December 2023 ruling upheld the abrogation but directed restoration of statehood. While elections were held in October 2024, the absence of progress on restoring statehood highlights a sharp tension between constitutional intent and political practice. The issue has become a litmus test of Indian federalism, bringing into focus the balance between unity, diversity, and democratic representation.

    The Demand for Restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir

    1. Supreme Court Intervention: Recently, the Court sought a detailed response from the Centre on the timeline for restoring statehood to J&K.
    2. Sharp Contrast: While elections were held in 2024, statehood has not been restored, despite the Court’s explicit direction.
    3. Federal Implications: Critics argue that prolonged delay undermines federalism, part of the Constitution’s basic structure, and weakens democratic rights of J&K’s citizens.
    4. Striking Point: For the first time, a full-fledged State was downgraded into a Union Territory, setting a precedent that challenges constitutional norms.

    Constitutional Processes for the Creation of States

    1. Admission: Admission of new States requires an organised political unit; e.g., J&K’s Instrument of Accession (1947).
    2. Establishment: Territory can be acquired under international law, as in the case of Goa and Sikkim.
    3. Formation: Article 3 empowers Parliament to reorganise existing States by altering boundaries, names, or creating new ones.

    India’s Federal Design and Its Unique Character

    1. Union of States: Article 1 describes India as a Union of States, signifying indivisibility while denying the right of secession.
    2. Composite Culture: The dual identity of India and Bharat reflects political unity and cultural plurality.
    3. Unitary Tilt: The word Union ensures a strong Centre, but representation of States through the Rajya Sabha balances federalism.
    4. Basic Structure Doctrine: Federalism is recognised as part of the Basic Structure, making it inviolable.

    Constitutional Imperatives for Restoring Statehood

    1. Violation of Federal Features: The Union can reorganise States but cannot permanently strip a State into a Union Territory.
    2. Supreme Court’s Directive: In December 2023, the Court mandated restoration of statehood along with Assembly elections.
    3. Representation at the Centre: Permanent representation of States in the Rajya Sabha is essential to sustain India’s federalism.
    4. Erosion of Trust: Prolonged delay risks alienating citizens and eroding India’s image as a welfare-oriented union.

    The Road Ahead for Jammu and Kashmir

    1. Elections Held: A 90-member Assembly election was conducted in October 2024.
    2. Centre’s Silence: No concrete roadmap has been shared for restoring statehood, despite judicial directions.
    3. Critics’ Argument: Restoring statehood would empower the elected government, reducing the powers of the Lieutenant Governor, which the Union may be reluctant to cede.
    4. Constitutional Morality: Failure to restore statehood risks weakening the principle of cooperative federalism.

    Conclusion

    The demand for restoration of J&K’s statehood is not a mere political debate but a constitutional necessity. India’s federal design hinges upon the delicate balance between a strong Union and empowered States. If the Union delays restoration indefinitely, it risks setting a precedent that erodes the sanctity of federalism and weakens democratic representation. Upholding statehood is thus not only about J&K but about preserving the essence of India’s constitutional federation.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] Though the federal principle is dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one of its basic features, but it is equally true that federalism under the Indian Constitution leans in favour of a strong Centre, a feature that militates against the concept of strong federalism. Discuss.

    Linkage: The recent controversy over the restoration of statehood to Jammu & Kashmir directly exemplifies the asymmetry in India’s federal design. While federalism is a part of the Basic Structure, the downgrading of a full-fledged State into a Union Territory shows the unitary tilt of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s directive to restore statehood reflects the tension between a strong Centre ensuring unity and the need to preserve the spirit of cooperative federalism, echoing the very debate raised in the 2014 question.

  • Grant of Bail in India

    Why in the News?

    The US President has stopped federal funds that allowed cashless bail, sparking debate on whether the system is fair to the poor.

    Cashless Bail System in the US:

    • Cashless Bail: Removes upfront cash requirement, relying on non-financial conditions like monitoring or appearance assurance.
    • Criticism of Cash Bail: Disadvantages the poor, keeping undertrials jailed for minor offences. Imposes financial strain that may itself push individuals toward further crime.

    About Bail Provisions in India (BNSS, 2023, replacing CrPC, 1973):

    • Bail is essentially a mechanism to release an accused from custody with assurances that they will not abscond or tamper with evidence.
    • Governed by Chapter 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

    Types of Bail under BNSS:

    1. Regular Bail:
      • For bailable offences (Sec. 478): Bail is a right.
      • For non-bailable offences (Secs. 480, 483): Bail is at court’s discretion, depending on seriousness of offence, evidence, risk of absconding, and public interest.
    2. Anticipatory Bail (Sec. 482): Pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences, granted by higher courts with conditions such as no interference in investigation or threats to witnesses.
    3. Interim Bail: Temporary release while a regular or anticipatory bail application is pending.
    4. Statutory/Default Bail (Sec. 187): Accused has the right to bail if chargesheet not filed within the stipulated period.

    Bail Mechanisms in Practice:

    • Bond: Accused signs a bond and deposits cash as guarantee; refunded after trial unless terms are violated.
    • Bail Bond: Surety given by another person such as a friend, family member, or employer. Courts verify their documents, financial stability, and residence. In Mumbai, a solvency certificate issued by a revenue officer is required, which delays bail.
    • Personal Recognisance (PR) Bond: Accused released without immediate cash deposit but must arrange money within a specified time. Courts often hesitate to grant PR bonds citing trial integrity.

    Challenges in India’s Bail System

    • Undertrials stuck despite bail:
      • Many accused cannot furnish surety or small sums (₹5,000 or less).
      • Maharashtra (2022): 1,600+ persons in jail unable to meet bail conditions; 600 in Mumbai Metropolitan Region alone.
      • Prisons overcrowded: Maharashtra prisons had 12,343 excess prisoners (July 2025).
    • Judicial concerns: 268th Law Commission Report (2017):
      • Monetary bail system is discriminatory & unconstitutional.
      • Violates right to fair trial; leads to arbitrary classifications.
    • Supreme Court (2023 guidelines):
      • If an accused remains in jail >1 week despite bail, jail superintendent must inform District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
      • DLSA can send para-legal volunteers/lawyers to assist release.
      • Based on NALSA data: ~5,000 undertrials jailed despite bail.
    • Reform under BNSS (2023):
      • Jail authorities must apply for bail for undertrial prisoners who have:
        • Served 1/3 of maximum sentence (first-time offenders).
        • Served 1/2 of maximum sentence (repeat offenders).
      • Not applicable in life imprisonment or death penalty cases.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements:

    1.Judicial custody means an accused is in the custody of the concerned magistrate, and such an accused is locked up in the police station, not in jail.

    2.During judicial custody, the police officer in charge of the case is not allowed to interrogate the suspect without the approval of the court.

    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

     

  • Cooperatives at crossroads

    Introduction

    The National Cooperative Policy, 2025 has triggered a sharp Centre–State tussle, with Kerala at the forefront of resistance. Beyond a policy dispute, it reflects deeper tensions around cooperative federalism, involving constitutional authority, political stakes, and nearly ₹3 lakh crore in deposits, making the issue both high-stakes and nationally significant.

    The Current Tussle between Centre and Kerala

    1. Policy provokes backlash: Kerala describes the National Cooperative Policy as “unconstitutional”, asserting that it violates the State’s exclusive authority over cooperatives.
    2. Political dimension: The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government accuses the BJP of attempting to capture Kerala’s cooperative network for political consolidation.
    3. Financial stakes: Kerala’s cooperatives manage deposits worth ₹2.94 lakh crore, making them critical financial entities in the State’s economy.

    The Contentious Nature of the National Cooperative Policy

    1. Federalism at stake: Cooperative societies are a State List subject, yet the Centre is asserting influence, reviving concerns first raised during the Multi-State Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 2023.
    2. Kerala’s historical legacy: Cooperative institutions date back to early 20th century Travancore, Cochin, and Malabar, and evolved through the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, making them central to socio-economic life.
    3. Grassroots importance: Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) serve as the credit backbone of Kerala’s rural economy.

    Kerala’s Political and Institutional Response

    1. Political opposition: State Cooperation Minister V.N. Vasavan termed the policy “harmful to cooperatives.”
    2. Organised resistance: The Kerala Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society association passed a resolution against the policy.
    3. Workers’ unions’ concerns: The Kerala Cooperative Employees Union (KCEU) alleged that the Centre seeks to hand over the cooperative sector to corporates.

    Existing Challenges in the Cooperative Sector

    1. Credibility crisis: Several cooperative banks face embezzlement scandals and non-refund of depositors’ money.
    2. Case in point: The Karuvannur Service Cooperative Bank scam in Thrissur dented public confidence and put the State government on the defensive.
    3. State reforms: In 2023, Kerala amended its Cooperative Societies Act to plug loopholes and strengthen safeguards.

    Structural Reforms in Kerala’s Cooperative System

    1. Bank consolidation: Merging of district cooperative banks into the Kerala State Cooperative Bank (Kerala Bank) reduced the traditional three-tier credit structure into a two-tier system.
    2. Policy rationale: Streamlining was aimed at improving efficiency and financial stability in the sector.

    Future Trajectory of Kerala’s Cooperatives

    1. New crossroads: Accelerated urbanisation, youth aspirations, and sectoral shifts in energy, shipping, technology, and health present opportunities for cooperative diversification.
    2. Future trajectory: The ability of cooperatives to adapt and modernise will shape Kerala’s economic resilience in the coming decades.

    Conclusion

    Kerala’s cooperative movement, historically a pillar of rural credit and grassroots empowerment, stands at a critical juncture. The National Cooperative Policy, 2025, while framed in the language of reform, has exposed fault lines in India’s federal structure and deepened Centre–State tensions. For Kerala, the challenge lies in balancing its rich cooperative legacy with the demands of modernisation and transparency. For the Union, respecting constitutional boundaries while ensuring financial discipline will be key to sustaining trust in the cooperative model.

    Value Addition

    Overview of the National Cooperative Policy 2025

    The National Cooperative Policy, 2025—officially unveiled on July 24, 2025 —replaces the 2002 framework with a visionary 20-year roadmap (2025–2045) centered on “Sahkar se

    Policy Goals:

    • Tripling cooperative sector’s GDP contribution by 2034 through expanded outreach and growth-boosting measures
    • Establish one cooperative unit in every village, and set up 5 model cooperative villages per tehsil, with active creation of 2 lakh new multipurpose PACS by 2026
    • Bring 50 crore more people into the fold, increasing cooperative membership and societal participation

    Core Pillars of the Policy: Outlined across six strategic pillars designed to transform cooperatives:

    • Strengthening Foundations
    • Promoting Vibrancy
    • Preparing Cooperatives for the Future (e.g., digitalisation)
    • Enhancing Inclusivity & Reach
    • Expanding into Emerging Sectors
    • Engaging the Younger Generation

    Institutional and Structural Measures:

    • Legal & governance revamp: Updated model bye‐laws, regular review mechanisms (every 10 years), and cluster-based monitoring systems for accountability and responsiveness
    • Tribhuvan Cooperative University: A first-of-its-kind cooperative education hub aimed at professionalising the sector and reducing nepotism
    • National Cooperative Exports Limited (NCEL): To enhance global market integration for cooperatives, especially in staples like wheat and rice
    • Leveraging existing schemes: Integration with programs like DIDF, PMMSY, NPDD to establish infrastructure and functional PACS

    Sectoral Diversification & Modernisation:

    • New sectors for cooperatives: Including green energy, insurance, tourism, taxi services (“Sahkar Taxi”), Jan Aushadhi Kendras, LPG outlets, CSCs, and more
    • Model Cooperative Villages: Combining dairy, fisheries, floriculture, agri-services, and focused inclusion of women and tribal groups as excellence center

    Why It Matters:

    • Policy Revitalisation: First major overhaul in 23 years, indicating the renewed importance given to cooperatives by the government
    • Aligning with National Vision: Anchored in the larger goal of Viksit Bharat 2047, positioning cooperatives as engines of inclusive, rural-led development
    • Digital and Professional Transformation: Emphasises tech adoption, capacity building, and modern governance—crucial in restoring public trust and efficiency
    • Inclusivity at Core: Explicit focus on increasing participation of women, Dalits, Adivasis, and youth—building on the ethos of cooperative empowerment
    • Decentralized Growth Strategy: Village and tehsil-level expansion ensures economic decentralisation and rural integration—a critical tool for grassroots development

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] “In the villages itself no form of credit organisation will be suitable except the cooperative society.” – All India Rural Credit Survey. Discuss this statement in the background of agricultural finance in India. What constraints and challenges do financial institutions supplying agricultural finance face? How can technology be used to better reach and serve rural clients?”

    Linkage: The 2014 question emphasised cooperatives as the most suitable form of rural credit, highlighting their role in agricultural finance. The Kerala–Centre tussle over the 2025 policy shows how this very grassroots credit system, with PACS and cooperative banks at its core, remains vital yet contested. Thus, the article provides a contemporary case study of both the potential and challenges of cooperatives in India’s agricultural and financial landscape.

  • False righteousness

    Introduction

    In a democracy, the judiciary acts as the guardian of fundamental rights, ensuring that executive and legislative actions remain within constitutional limits. However, recent judicial pronouncements urging the executive to tighten controls over online speech raise a worrying question: Is the Court inadvertently enabling state encroachment into constitutionally guaranteed freedoms? This concern is sharpened by the backdrop of the IT Rules, 2021, which already tilt power heavily towards the government in regulating digital speech.

    Expanding Powers of the Executive over Free Speech

    1. Judicial Instructions: The Supreme Court recently directed the Union government to frame guidelines on regulating online speech.
    2. Problematic Precedent: Instead of protecting rights, the Court’s instructions risk empowering the executive to expand censorship powers under vague grounds like “misuse of freedom of speech.”

    Digital Speech: Between Regulation and Censorship

    1. IT Rules, 2021: These rules already allow the government to flag and order removal of online content, with penalties for intermediaries.
    2. 2023 Amendment: Expanded scope to hold social media companies accountable for user-generated content, giving the state wide-ranging discretionary powers.
    3. Challenge Pending in SC: These rules are already under constitutional challenge, making further expansion questionable.

    The Risk of False Righteousness

    1. Distasteful vs. Criminal: While hate speech and incitement to violence are already criminalised, regulating distasteful humour or dissenting opinions risks expanding censorship beyond constitutional boundaries.
    2. Chilling Effect: Citizens begin to self-censor, fearing repercussions for expressing views.
    3. Suppression of Creative Expression: Film producers, directors, and journalists face FIRs and restrictions, stifling art, reporting, and debate necessary for a vibrant democracy.

    Judiciary’s Institutional Role under Question

    1. Protector of Rights: The Court is constitutionally mandated to check executive overreach.
    2. Risk of Overstepping: By urging executive rulemaking, the judiciary risks acting like an unquestioned lord in a feudal setup rather than a rights-protecting institution.
    3. Misplaced Priorities: Instead of fortifying existing protections against hate speech, the Court seems to encourage executive expansion into grey zones.

    Broader Democratic Implications

    1. Weaponisation of Laws: Governments have a record of using regulations to target political opponents and inconvenient voices.
    2. Threat to Democratic Discourse: An atmosphere of censorship undermines deliberation, dissent, and innovation—all vital for a progressive society.
    3. Global Comparison: Mature democracies often rely on civil remedies and self-regulation, rather than empowering the state to police thought and humour.

    Conclusion

    The judiciary’s role is not to expand executive power but to ensure constitutional freedoms are protected. Hate speech and incitement to violence are already criminalised; expanding censorship to regulate humour, dissent, or artistic expression risks creating an atmosphere of fear and conformity. The Supreme Court must remember its constitutional role as the sentinel on the qui vive—guarding liberty, not enabling its curtailment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] Discuss Section 66A of the IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

    Linkage: The present debate on the Supreme Court urging the executive to frame guidelines for regulating social media echoes the concerns raised in Section 66A of the IT Act, where vague terms led to misuse against free expression. Just like 66A, expanding executive powers risks creating a chilling effect on speech beyond Article 19(2)’s reasonable restrictions. Both highlight the judiciary’s responsibility to act as a protector of rights, not an enabler of censorship.