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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • 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

     

  • [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