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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • 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.

  • About 30% of MPs and MLAs face serious criminal cases

    Introduction

    The intertwining of crime and politics is not new in India, but the recent figures are deeply concerning. An analysis of elected representatives reveals that 31% of MPs and 29% of MLAs across India have declared serious criminal charges against them. More strikingly, in the Lok Sabha, this share has more than doubled from 14% in 2009 to 31% in 2024. Such data points underscore a disturbing trend where democratic institutions are increasingly being captured by individuals with questionable integrity.

    About 30% of MPs and MLAs face serious criminal cases

    The Scale of Criminalisation in Indian Politics

    • MPs with serious charges: 31% in 2024, compared to 14% in 2009.
    • MLAs with serious charges: 29% nationwide, amounting to more than 1,200 legislators.
    • Definition of serious crimes: Offences with punishments of 5+ years, or non-bailable in nature.

    State-wise Picture of the Crisis

    • Telangana: Highest share of MPs with serious cases (71%).
    • Bihar: Second-highest share of MPs (48%).
    • Uttar Pradesh: Highest absolute number of MPs (34) and MLAs (154 or 38%).
    • Andhra Pradesh: Highest share of MLAs with serious cases (56%), followed by Telangana (50%).

    Political Party-Wise Trends

    • BJP: Largest absolute number—63 MPs (26%) and 436 MLAs (26%).
    • Congress: 32 MPs (32%) and 194 MLAs (30%).
    • RJD: 100% of its 4 MPs, and 62% of MLAs face serious cases.
    • TDP: 61% of MLAs facing serious charges.

    Criminalisation of politics as a Democratic Crisis

    1. Undermines Rule of Law: Representatives sworn to make laws are themselves accused of violating them.
    2. Erodes Public Trust: Citizens lose faith in democratic institutions.
    3. Policy Capture Risk: Legislators with criminal backgrounds may promote laws benefiting vested interests.
    4. Vicious Cycle: Money, muscle power, and electoral compulsions perpetuate the entry of tainted candidates.

    Constitutional and Legal Context

    • Representation of People’s Act, 1951: Currently disqualifies convicted representatives but not those with pending cases.

    Judicial Interventions:

    1. Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013): Immediate disqualification upon conviction.
    2. Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018): Urged political parties to disclose candidate criminal records widely.

    Conclusion

    The latest data underscores that criminalisation in politics is not just persisting but worsening, with more than one in four lawmakers facing serious charges. Unless systemic reforms, ranging from fast-track courts to stricter disqualification laws, are implemented, India risks democratic backsliding. For a healthy democracy, the moral legitimacy of legislatures must be restored.

    Value Addition

    Issues with Criminalisation in Politics

    • Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy: Lawmakers accused of breaking the law undermine the moral authority of Parliament/Assemblies.
    • Weakening of Rule of Law: Offenders often manipulate investigations, delay trials, and escape accountability.
    • Policy Capture & Corruption: Legislators may pass laws or influence contracts to protect vested interests.
    • Distortion of Electoral Choices: Voters are forced to choose between tainted candidates, limiting free and fair choice.
    • Loss of Public Trust: Citizens lose faith in governance when crime and politics merge.
    • Security Threats: Nexus of politics and crime leads to rise in muscle power, intimidation, and weakens internal security.

    Why do Parties Field Candidates With Criminal Background?

    • Money Power: Candidates with criminal networks bring enormous funds to finance expensive elections.
    • Muscle Power: They help in mobilising voters, intimidating opponents, and managing booths in certain constituencies.
    • Winnability Factor: Studies show voters often overlook criminal charges if the candidate is influential, caste-backed, or delivers local patronage.
    • Weak Legal Framework: Only convicted representatives are barred; those with pending cases can contest. With trials dragging on for years, many continue to fight elections.
    • Vote-Bank Politics: Parties use “strongmen” with community backing to secure caste/religion-based votes.

    Way Forward with Committee Reports, Judgments & Reforms

    Committee Recommendations

    • Vohra Committee (1993): Flagged deep nexus between crime, politics, and bureaucracy.
    • Law Commission 170th Report (1999): Recommended disqualification of candidates once charges are framed in heinous offences.
    • Law Commission 244th Report (2014): Suggested immediate disqualification in cases with charges punishable by 5 years or more, and where charges are framed by a court.
    • Election Commission of India (ECI) Recommendations: Ban on candidates facing heinous charges; fast-track courts to decide political cases within a year.

    Judicial Interventions

    • Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013): MPs/MLAs disqualified immediately upon conviction (earlier they could continue for 3 months pending appeal).
    • Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018): Directed political parties to publicise candidate criminal records widely (website, media, papers).

    Suggested Reforms

    • Fast-track Courts: To ensure cases against politicians are resolved within strict timelines.
    • Stricter Disqualification Norms: Disqualify candidates at the stage of framing of charges (with safeguards against false cases).
    • Political Party Accountability: Legal provisions to penalise parties giving tickets to tainted candidates.
    • State Funding of Elections: Reduce dependence on money/muscle power.
    • Voter Awareness: Encourage citizens to reject candidates with serious charges through awareness campaigns.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC GS II] There is a need for simplification of procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act.” Comment

    Linkage: The issue of disqualification under the Representation of People’s Act (RPA), 1951 is central to tackling criminalisation of politics. Recent data showing over 30% MPs/MLAs facing serious criminal charges highlights the inadequacy of current provisions that act only after conviction. Simplifying and strengthening disqualification procedures, as urged by committees and the Supreme Court, is vital to restore public trust in democracy.

  • Before legislation becomes litigation

    Introduction

    The framers of the Indian Constitution rejected the British model of absolute parliamentary sovereignty and instead vested sovereignty in the Constitution. Parliament was given the power to make laws, but within constitutional limits. Judicial review was meant to be a sparing power, used exceptionally when laws violated constitutional principles. However, what was once exceptional has increasingly become the norm. With vague drafting, bypassing of procedures, and lack of constitutional guidance, Indian law-making has frequently ended up in litigation. This trend not only undermines democratic trust but also burdens the judiciary and disrupts policy implementation.

    Why is this issue in the news?

    The controversy around the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which was challenged in the Supreme Court within days of its enactment, highlights a disturbing pattern. Shockingly, the challengers included MPs themselves, indicating a lack of confidence in their own law-making. The Law Ministry has admitted that 35 central legislations and constitutional amendments were under challenge before the Supreme Court between 2016 and 2022. This points to a systemic crisis in legislative drafting and scrutiny.

    The constitutional design of law-making

    • No absolute sovereignty: Unlike Britain, Parliament in India operates within constitutional limits; no law can derogate from the Constitution.
    • Judicial review as exception: The power to strike down laws was meant to be sparing, not routine.
    • Current practice: Courts are increasingly forced into the role of a “parallel legislator” due to Parliament’s failures in precision and scrutiny.

    Why do laws end up in litigation

    • Constitutional scrutiny: Laws may violate constitutional guarantees or principles (e.g., Transgender Persons Act, 2019 vis-à-vis Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).
    • Political theatre: Legal challenges are sometimes used as political tactics by opposition parties or even MPs.
    • Flawed drafting: Vague definitions, incoherent clauses, poor harmonisation with existing laws, and internal contradictions.

    Where does the system break down

    • Bypassing procedure: Bills introduced without notice; committees sidelined.
    • Rushed debates: Clause-by-clause discussion often ignored.
    • Poor consultation: Stakeholders and experts not adequately consulted.
    • Dense legalese: MPs unable to engage with overly technical drafting, reducing their role to party-line voting.

    The human cost of poor drafting

    • Economic loss: Unclear or contradictory laws disrupt industries and businesses.
    • Social injustice: Unequal punishments (e.g., transgender vs. women sexual abuse provisions).
    • Democratic deficit: MPs are unable to represent citizens effectively when legislation is incomprehensible.

    The case for a stronger Attorney-General (AG) role

    • Article 88 of the Constitution: AG has the right to participate in Parliament’s proceedings but rarely invoked.
    • Preventive review: AG can identify constitutional infirmities during debate itself.
    • Non-partisan guidance: AG’s counsel would enable lawmakers to vote more responsibly.
    • Better statutes: Well-drafted laws prevent substitution of legislative intent by judicial interpretation.

    Conclusion

    India’s constitutional democracy rests on the balance of powers between Parliament and the judiciary. When Parliament abdicates its responsibility of precise and constitutional law-making, the courts inevitably step in, eroding this balance. Institutionalising preventive constitutional review within Parliament, particularly through a proactive role for the Attorney-General, can ensure that legislation serves people effectively without routinely ending up in litigation. A robust democracy demands laws that are clear, just, and constitutionally sound before they leave the House.

    Value Addition

    What procedural lapses in Parliament lead to flawed laws?

    • Bypassing Committees: Less than 25% of Bills (2019–2023) were sent to Parliamentary Standing Committees, compared to 60–70% in earlier decades. This reduces scrutiny and expert input.
    • Rushed Legislation: Important laws such as the Farm Acts (2020) and the Aadhaar Bill (2016) were passed as Money Bills to bypass Rajya Sabha, undermining debate.
    • Poor Stakeholder Consultation: Unlike developed democracies, draft bills in India are rarely put out for public comments. (E.g., Data Protection Bill, 2019, was tabled without thorough consultation)
    • Clause-by-Clause Neglect: Debates are cut short; MPs often do not engage with technical legal provisions due to lack of time and expertise.
    • Opaque Drafting Process: Drafting happens primarily within ministries with little parliamentary/legal vetting before introduction.
    • ARC 2nd Report (Ethics in Governance): Calls for greater pre-legislative scrutiny and institutional strengthening of committees.

    How does flawed drafting affect democracy and society?

    • Judicial Overreach: Poorly worded statutes lead to constant constitutional challenges (e.g., NJAC Act struck down in 2015, Transgender Rights Act 2019 contradictions). The Judiciary ends up legislating by interpretation.
    • Erosion of Parliamentary Sovereignty: Frequent judicial invalidation makes Parliament look ineffective, undermining public trust.
    • Democratic Deficit: Laws in dense legalese alienate both MPs and citizens, reducing informed participation.
    • Economic Uncertainty: Unclear laws discourage investment (e.g., retrospective taxation case leading to Vodafone arbitration).
    • Social Injustice: Disparities in sentencing/punishment (e.g., lower penalties for abuse of transgender persons than for women) perpetuate inequality.
    • Law Commission Report (2008, 210th Report): Identified vague language and excessive delegation as reasons why laws face repeated judicial strikes.

    Comparative Perspective

    • UK: Parliamentary sovereignty model; no judicial review of primary legislation, but House of Lords Committees scrutinise bills heavily pre-enactment.
    • USA: Strong judicial review, but bills are subject to Congressional hearings and exhaustive committee scrutiny with expert testimonies before passage.
    • Germany: Has a robust Bundesrat (Upper House) system where laws undergo constitutional and legal vetting before final passage.
    • India: Hybrid system; has judicial review, but Parliamentary scrutiny is weak. Unlike the US/UK, pre-legislative consultation is not institutionalised.

    Way Forward

    • Mandatory Committee Review: Make it compulsory for all non-Money Bills to be referred to standing/select committees.
    • Pre-legislative Consultation Policy (2014): Institutionalise it across all ministries with draft bills published in public domain.
    • Strengthening Legislative Research Services: Provide MPs with non-partisan legal/technical assistance (as in US Congressional Research Service).
    • Empowering the Attorney-General: Invoke Article 88 to ensure AG flags constitutional issues during debates.
    • Clarity & Accessibility: Draft laws in plain language versions for MPs and citizens, alongside legal text.
    • Judicial-Parliamentary Dialogue: Structured interactions between constitutional benches and parliamentary committees to ensure harmony.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC GS II] Individual Parliamentarian’s role as the national lawmaker is on a decline, which in turn, has adversely impacted the quality of debates and their outcome. Discuss.

    Linkage: The decline in the individual role of MPs as lawmakers, noted in the PYQ (2019), directly links to the article’s theme of flawed law-making. Dense legalese, party whip culture, and bypassed scrutiny reduce MPs’ capacity for meaningful debate. This weakens legislative quality and pushes more laws into judicial review.

  • [25th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The new Constitution Bill, the need for a balancing act

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 has sparked intense debate in Parliament and across the country. While it appears to be a strong step toward cleaner politics, it also raises deep constitutional and democratic concerns. For UPSC aspirants, this issue is important not only for its immediate political relevance but also for its intersection with constitutional morality, criminalisation of politics, separation of powers, and due process. This article breaks down the Bill, its context, judicial linkages, and its broader implications for democracy.

    Introduction

    India has long grappled with the paradox of demanding clean politics while being governed by leaders facing serious criminal charges. The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20, seeks automatic resignation or removal of Ministers, Chief Ministers and even the Prime Minister if they remain in custody for over 30 days in offences punishable with five years or more. While aimed at restoring public trust, the Bill risks undermining due process and democratic safeguards.

    Why is this Bill in the news?

    The Bill marks the first time Parliament has proposed automatic removal of top executive leaders on mere detention without conviction. This is in sharp contrast with the current legal position under the Representation of the People Act, where disqualification begins only upon conviction. The stakes are high: India already faces a staggering rise in criminalisation of politics, with 46% of MPs in 2024 declaring criminal cases, up from 30% in 2009. Against this backdrop, the Bill seeks to restore public trust but also risks political misuse, raising concerns of democratic erosion.

    Judicial foundations and constitutional morality

    1. Articles 75, 164, 239AA: Provide for ministerial tenure “at the pleasure” of President/Governor, limited by constitutional morality.
    2. S.R. Bommai case: Stressed that integrity and accountability are core to constitutional morality.
    3. Manoj Narula case: Warned against entrusting power to those with serious criminal charges.
    4. Lily Thomas case: Held that disqualification of legislators must occur upon conviction, striking down earlier appeal window.
    5. Tension: While courts upheld high ethical standards, they stopped short of mandating automatic removal before conviction, the Bill goes further, creating friction with Article 21 (right to life and liberty).

    Risk of Bill being misused as a political weapon

    1. Executive discretion: PM/CM advice governs removal; if withheld, automatic removal applies after 30 days. This dual mechanism may be exploited politically.
    2. Selective shield or target: PM may protect allies temporarily, while hostile leaders may allow rivals to fall under automatic removal.
    3. Politicisation of accountability: Instead of insulating governance, it may embed accountability in partisan strategies.

    Inconsistency in the treatment of legislators and Ministers

    1. RPA framework: Legislators disqualified only on conviction.
    2. Ministerial paradox: A Minister under arrest is removed after 30 days, but a legislator convicted of corruption may still technically hold ministerial office until disqualification proceedings.
    3. Asymmetry: Creates harsher standards for Ministers than legislators, risking deterrence for capable leaders.

    Political instability and the “revolving door”

    1. Reappointment clause: Once released, Ministers can be reinstated.
    2. Cycle of instability: Arrest → resignation → release → reinstatement may lead to political uncertainty without improving accountability.
    3. Tactical misuse: Legal proceedings could be manipulated to weaken opponents through timed arrests.

    Why do critics demand a more nuanced model?

    1. Criminalisation of politics: Rising trend demands reform, 251 MPs (46%) with criminal cases in 2024.
    2. Judicial milestone approach: Removal linked to framing of charges by a competent court rather than arrest alone ensures judicial scrutiny.
    3. Independent review: Tribunal/judicial panel could prevent executive misuse.
    4. Interim suspension: Instead of removal, suspension of ministerial functions during trial could balance governance and accountability.
    5. Scope refinement: Apply only to corruption and moral turpitude offences, not all crimes with five years’ punishment (which may include minor offences).

    Conclusion

    The 130th Amendment Bill embodies India’s long-standing demand for clean politics. However, its blunt approach risks weakening constitutional safeguards like presumption of innocence, creating political instability, and enabling misuse of arrest as a weapon. The Joint Parliamentary Committee must recalibrate the Bill with judicially tested safeguards, narrowing its scope to serious offences and ensuring impartial mechanisms for enforcement. Only then can India achieve the delicate balance where power is exercised with integrity without sacrificing fairness.

    UPSC Relevance:

    [UPSC]: “There is a need for simplification of procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act.” Comment.

    Linkage: “The 130th Amendment Bill echoes the long-standing concern flagged in the 2020 PYQ on RPA disqualification: India needs clearer and fairer procedures to ensure accountability in politics. While the PYQ emphasised simplification post-conviction, the Bill risks moving the trigger point too early (mere custody), thereby complicating rather than simplifying the disqualification process.”

  • [23rd August 2025] Set the guardrails for AI use in courtrooms

    Mentors Comment

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is steadily entering the Indian judiciary, promising efficiency in a system burdened with nearly five crore pending cases. However, without proper guardrails, it risks undermining the very foundation of justice. The recent Kerala High Court guidelines mark India’s first attempt at framing policy around AI use in judicial processes. This is a critical juncture where technology and justice intersect demanding careful balance between innovation and accountability.

    Introduction

    The integration of Artificial Intelligence into courts represents a paradigm shift in India’s judicial landscape. While AI tools such as transcription, translation, and defect detection offer solutions to systemic inefficiencies, their unregulated use could lead to serious ethical and legal risks. From mistranslations of legal terminology to hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs), the challenges are real. The need of the hour is a structured framework that ensures AI strengthens, rather than weakens, the judiciary’s integrity and human-centric decision-making.

    The Growing Relevance of AI in Courts

    • First policy initiative: In July 2025, the Kerala High Court released the “Policy Regarding Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools in District Judiciary,” the first of its kind in India.
    • Case Management & Reducing Pendency: AI can assist in case listing, tracking, and prioritization to improve efficiency. Eg: The Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE) developed by the Supreme Court helps judges analyze case facts quickly.
    • Enhancing Transparency & Access to Justice: AI chatbots and online portals assist litigants in understanding procedures, filing cases, and accessing justice without middlemen. Eg: The Supreme Court’s AI-driven translation project ‘SUVAS’ (Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software) translates judgments into regional languages to empower citizens.

    Why are AI-enabled court processes risky?

    • Mistranslation risks: In India, the Supreme Court’s AI-based translation initiative SUVAS once mistranslated “leave granted” as “chhutti manzoor” (holiday approved) in Hind
    • Hallucinations in AI: LLMs such as Whisper generate fictitious phrases when encountering pauses, leading to unreliable records.
    • Bias in legal research: AI search results may amplify user patterns, invisibilising relevant precedents, impacting fair adjudication.
    • Reductionist adjudication: AI risks turning nuanced judicial reasoning into mere rule-based inference, undermining human judgment.

    How is AI being used in courts today?

    • Pilot tools: Market tools are in test use for transcription of oral arguments and witness depositions, though without timelines or safeguards.
    • Manual checks: Current safeguards include retired judges and translators manually vetting AI-generated judgments.
    • Risk of dependency: Courts adopting AI pilots without frameworks risk becoming dependent on vendors without sustainable adoption plans.

    What are the guardrails necessary for responsible AI use? 

    • Critical AI literacy: Judges, lawyers and staff need capacity-building to understand both potential and limitations of AI.
    • Transparency rights: Litigants should be informed if AI is used in research or judgment-writing; they should also have the right to opt out.
    • Procurement standards: Courts need standardised procurement guidelines to assess reliability, explainability, data handling, and vendor compliance.
    • Dedicated tech offices: The Vision Document for Phase III of the eCourts Project suggests creating technology offices to guide courts in evaluating and adopting AI tools.

    The way forward for AI in judiciary

    • Balanced adoption: AI must serve the ends of justice, not replace human reasoning.
    • Infrastructure readiness: Reliable internet and hardware are prerequisites before full-scale deployment.
    • Oversight and accountability: Independent monitoring systems and ethical review frameworks must be built into adoption.

    Conclusion

    AI can be a transformative force in India’s judiciary, addressing inefficiencies in a system struggling under massive case pendency. But technology without guardrails risks introducing new layers of error, bias, and opacity. The ultimate purpose of judicial reform must remain the same, to deliver fair, timely, and human-centred justice. Clear guidelines, transparency, and ethical oversight will determine whether AI strengthens or weakens the rule of law in India.

    Value Addition
    AI is already being deployed in judicial systems worldwide to improve efficiency, accessibility, and decision-making.

    1. Legal Interpretation Aid: Judges in the U.S. used AI to clarify the meaning of complex legal terms during sentencing appeals.
    2. Victim Impact Statement: Arizona courts allowed AI to recreate a victim’s voice for delivering impact statements.
    3. Affordable Legal Services: Garfield AI in the UK provides cheap legal documents, reducing case backlog.
    4. Responsible AI Use Rules: California courts framed formal guidelines for safe AI adoption in judicial work.
    5. Transcription & Translation (India): Supreme Court uses AI for live transcription and translation of hearings.
    6. Case Summarization (India): Nyay-Darpan delivers summaries and similar case retrieval in consumer law disputes.
    7. Case Classification (Brazil): AI model routes Supreme Court cases, cutting delays in document handling.
    8. AI Judge for Small Claims (China): Smart Courts handle repetitive small cases via AI systems.
    9. Judicial Summaries (Brazil): AI tools assist in generating summaries, easing court management.
    10. Access to Justice (Canada): Botler AI chatbot helps citizens understand rights in harassment cases.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] E-Governance is not only about utilization of technology but also about the ‘use value’ of information. Explain.

    Linkage: The 2018 UPSC question on E-Governance and ‘use value’ of information directly links to AI in judiciary: while AI can speed up translations, research, and transcription, its real worth lies in enhancing accessibility, transparency, and fairness in justice delivery—not just technological adoption.