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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • [9th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The dark signs of restricted or selective franchise

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggest ed by various committees with particular reference to “one na tion-one election” principle.

    Linkage: The article talks about the “Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar,” initiated on June 24, 2025, after a gap of over 20 years. This SIR is described as a “complete reconstruction of the electoral rolls” based on document submission which is directly related electoral reforms given in question.  

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The Election Commission of India (ECI) has launched a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar, just months before the upcoming State Assembly elections in 2025. The process has drawn widespread criticism for being sudden, opaque, and document-heavy, potentially disenfranchising lakhs of eligible voters, particularly migrants, Muslims, and the poor. It is now being challenged in the Supreme Court for violating fundamental rights such as the right to vote, equality, and dignity. The issue has national implications, as similar exercises are reportedly planned in other states.

    Today’s editorial analyses the issues related to Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the electoral rolls in Bihar. This topic is important for  GS Paper II (Polity and Governance) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Election Commission of India (ECI) started a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar, just a few months before the 2025 State Assembly elections.

    What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

    Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a process carried out by the Election Commission of India (ECI) to update and verify the electoral rolls (voter lists) more thoroughly than usual.

    Key Features of SIR:

    • Not a routine update: Unlike regular annual revisions, SIR involves a more detailed and document-heavy verification process.
    • Document verification: Voters are required to submit proof of citizenship (like birth certificates, land documents, or school records), especially if they are not listed in older rolls (e.g., from 2003).
    • Purpose: Officially, it aims to: Remove duplicate or deceased voters, Identify ineligible entries, and Add newly eligible voters.

    Why is the Bihar Special Intensive Revision (SIR) seen as a threat to electoral democracy?

    • Sudden and Opaque Implementation: The SIR was launched abruptly in June 2025 with minimal public awareness and a tight deadline of July 31, offering little time for a state with high migration and low documentation. Eg: Migrants working outside Bihar during monsoon may be excluded due to inability to submit documents on time.
    • Document-Heavy Verification Process: Common documents like Aadhaar or voter ID are not accepted. Instead, hard-to-obtain papers like birth certificates, land records, or matriculation certificates are required, placing a disproportionate burden on poor, rural populations.  
    • Creation of a Two-Tier Citizenship: The process presumes voters not on the 2003 rolls are “suspect” citizens until proven otherwise, undermining the principle of universal adult franchise and equal voting rights. Eg: Like in Assam’s NRC, the burden of proof shifts to individuals, potentially creating a permanent class of disenfranchised citizens.
    • Violation of Natural Justice: Requiring voters to prove citizenship reverses the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and treats individuals as suspect citizens unless they can prove otherwise. Eg: In the Bihar SIR process, those not on the 2003 voter list must submit rarely available documents like birth certificates or land records, making many vulnerable to arbitrary exclusion.

    How does the Bihar SIR compare with Assam’s NRC exercise?

    Aspect Bihar SIR (2025) Assam NRC (2013–2019)
    1. Suddenness vs. Supervised Process Launched suddenly with only one-month deadline, causing logistical challenges. Conducted over six years, supervised by Supreme Court, with phased rollout.
    2. Legal Oversight No direct judicial monitoring; raises concerns about transparency and accountability. Directly monitored by the Supreme Court, ensuring legal safeguards.
    3. Scale and Timeframe Targets 50 million voters in just one monsoon month, with floods and migration. Covered 33 million applicants in multiple phases over years.
    4. Document Requirements Demands rare documents (birth/matriculation/land records); common IDs not accepted. Required legacy documents, but provided assistance centres and lists.
    5. Purpose and Outcome Ostensibly for voter list update, but risks becoming a citizenship test, causing mass disenfranchisement. Explicitly aimed at identifying illegal immigrants; excluded 19 lakh people.

    What constitutional principles are at stake in the current voter verification drive?

    • Universal Adult Franchise: Article 326 guarantees every Indian citizen above 18 the right to vote without discrimination. The demand for rare documents like land titles or educational certificates risks excluding poor and illiterate citizens.
    • Equality Before Law (Article 14): The selective burden of proof imposed on new or undocumented voters violates the principle of equal treatment. It creates two classes of citizens — one presumed to be voters and another forced to prove eligibility.
    • Presumption of Innocence (Principle of Natural Justice): The shift of burden from the state to the citizen undermines the principle that individuals are “innocent until proven guilty.”

    Who are the vulnerable groups most affected by the SIR process?

    • Migrant Workers: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) disproportionately affects migrant workers who are often away from their home constituencies during the verification period, especially in July, a peak seasonal migration month.
    • Poor and Illiterate Citizens: Those from economically weaker sections, particularly in rural areas, often lack the official documents such as birth certificates, matriculation degrees, or land records now required for voter verification. Their reliance on documents like Aadhaar, ration cards, or job cards, which the ECI currently does not accept, puts them at risk of disenfranchisement.
    • Women (especially Elderly or Homemakers): Many women, especially widows, elderly, or those confined to domestic roles, are not listed on ownership documents and may lack the required identity proofs.
    • Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SCs/STs): Historically marginalised communities such as SCs and STs face greater hurdles due to their geographic isolation, poor access to services, and lower literacy levels, making it harder to furnish the required documentation to prove citizenship or residence.
    • Urban Slum Dwellers and Informal Settlers: Migrants living in slums or unauthorised colonies in cities often lack registered addresses, utility bills, or tenancy documents. This makes it difficult to verify their voter eligibility either in their native village or in the urban location, risking double exclusion from electoral rolls.

    Way forward: 

    • Ensure Inclusive and Transparent Voter Verification Process: Extend the verification timeline, especially in high-migration and flood-prone regions like Bihar. Accept commonly held identity documents such as Aadhaar, voter ID, and ration cards as valid proof. This would reduce arbitrary exclusions and uphold the principle of universal franchise.
    • Protect Vulnerable Groups through Targeted Support: Launch doorstep assistance, mobile camps, and helplines in rural, tribal, and urban slum areas to help citizens gather documents and complete verification. Special provisions should be made for migrants, women, SC/STs, and informal workers, ensuring no one is disenfranchised due to procedural hurdles.

  • Looking inward: Reservation in Supreme Court

    Why in the News?

    Recently, for the first time ever, the Supreme Court of India has introduced a reservation policy for Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) in hiring and promoting its non-judicial staff, such as assistants and attendants.

    What is the importance of the Supreme Court’s internal reservation policy?

    • Bridges the Gap Between Principle and Practice: For decades, the Court had delivered landmark judgments on affirmative action, but hadn’t applied those standards to its own staff. Eg: Judgments like Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj shaped national reservation policy, but internal implementation lagged until the 2025 reform.
    • Promotes Social Inclusion Within the Judiciary: By providing 15% reservation for SCs and 7.5% for STs in administrative posts, the Court ensures better representation of marginalised communities within its own ecosystem. Eg: Of the 1,280 reserved posts, the majority are for junior assistants and attendants, opening real job opportunities for disadvantaged groups.

    Why was the Court late in applying affirmative action to its staff?

    • Lack of Leadership Will: The implementation was delayed due to the absence of decisive leadership within the Court to prioritise internal reforms. Eg: It took Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, the second Dalit CJI in the Court’s history, to initiate the reform in 2025, showing how transformational leadership can overcome systemic inertia.
    • Contradiction Between Principle and Practice:  Despite supporting reservations through judgments like Indra Sawhney and M. Nagaraj, the Court did not extend similar benefits to its own non-judicial staff until now.
    • Institutional Inertia and Exceptionalism: For nearly three decades since R.K. Sabharwal v State of Punjab (1995), the Court’s inaction on internal reservations reflected a reluctance to challenge status quo. Eg: While government departments and many High Courts had implemented SC/ST quotas, the Supreme Court remained an exception, showcasing negative exceptionalism despite advocating for equality externally.

    How have previous rulings influenced India’s reservation system?

    • R.K. Sabharwal (1995): Shifted the system from vacancy-based to post-based rosters to prevent exceeding the 50% quota cap.
    • M. Nagaraj (2006): Upheld reservation in promotions but required data on backwardness and administrative efficiency.
    • Jarnail Singh (2018): Removed the need to prove backwardness again for SCs/STs already listed.
    • Davinder Singh (2024): Allowed sub-classification within SCs/STs, affirming substantive equality over formal equality.

    Who led the push for reservation reform in the Supreme Court?

    • Chief Justice B.R. Gavai: Only the second Dalit CJI in history, he recognized the disconnect between the Court’s rulings and its internal practices and acted to correct it. Gavai also reportedly supports extending reservations to OBCs and other marginalized groups in the future.

    What challenges lie ahead in expanding the reservation to other groups?

    • Legal Ambiguity: Extension of reservations to OBCs, PwDs, and others lacks clear policy frameworks and quota specifications. Eg: The July 2025 Gazette mentions new categories but no defined implementation.
    • Institutional Inertia: Bureaucratic delays and reluctance to change slow down the adoption of new reservation measures. Eg: It took decades after R.K. Sabharwal (1995) to implement SC/ST reservations.
    • Balancing Equity and Efficiency: Concerns over merit and administrative efficiency may resist expansion of affirmative action. Eg: M. Nagaraj (2006) required data on backwardness and efficiency, which may be hard to apply internally.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalise Inclusive Policies: Finalise and implement a comprehensive reservation framework within the Supreme Court, ensuring clarity, transparency, and consistency with government norms for SCs, STs, OBCs, PwDs, and other eligible groups.
    • Strengthen Monitoring and Accountability: Establish a diversity oversight mechanism within the judiciary to track representation, address grievances, and ensure timely implementation of reservation provisions.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Despite comprehensive policies for equity and social justice, underprivileged sections are not yet getting the full benefits of affirmative action envisaged by the Constitution. Comment.

    Linkage: The concept of “affirmative action,” which is the foundation for reservation policies in India. The Supreme Court has been instrumental in shaping the contours of affirmative action through its landmark judgments over the years.

  • [5th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Two Democracies and the Echoes of Tyranny

    PYQ Relevance:

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

    Linkage:  The articles discusses how India’s democratic backsliding occurred partly due to the exploitation of constitutional weaknesses and how “the deeper damage to political culture, to institutions, to the idea that constitutionalism alone can protect democracy remains” after the Emergency.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  On U.S. Independence Day, reflections by Judge J. Michael Luttig and a look back at India’s 1975 Emergency give a strong warning about how democracy can be weakened from within. It compares how Indira Gandhi misused the Constitution in India to how leaders like Donald Trump show signs of authoritarianism in America. It highlights that freedom and rights can be lost not by war, but by twisting laws and failing institutions. The Emergency period still feels relevant today, as many democracies around the world face similar dangers. It’s a reminder that constant vigilance is the price of liberty.

    Today’s editorial analyses the  1975 Emergency and its impact in India. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The same problems that caused the Emergency in India are now putting the U.S. at risk. The lesson is that tyranny grows when important institutions stop doing their job.

    What Constitutional gaps enabled the 1975 Emergency’s misuse?

    • Vague Grounds for Proclaiming Emergency (Article 352): The term “internal disturbance” (before it was amended to “armed rebellion” by the 44th Amendment) was undefined, allowing the government to declare an Emergency without sufficient justification.
    • Lack of Judicial Safeguards: The judiciary, including the Supreme Court, failed to protect fundamental rights. In the ADM Jabalpur case (1976), the Court ruled that even the right to life could be suspended, revealing a serious weakness in judicial independence and constitutional checks.
    • Absence of Parliamentary Oversight Mechanisms: There was no mandatory review or time limit for an Emergency once proclaimed. Parliament was not empowered to effectively question or revoke the declaration, enabling prolonged executive overreach.
    • Preventive Detention Laws without Safeguards: Laws like the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) allowed for the detention of individuals without trial, and the suspension of habeas corpus, giving the executive near-total control over personal freedoms.

    How did the Emergency weaken democratic institutions in India?

    • Suppressing the Free Press: The government imposed pre-censorship on newspapers like The Indian Express and The Statesman, curbing freedom of the press. Journalists were jailed, and dissenting voices silenced, eroding media independence.
    • Paralysing the Legislature and Bureaucracy: Parliament became a rubber stamp, passing ordinances and amendments without real debate. Civil servants and ministers followed orders unquestioningly, prioritising loyalty over legality, thereby hollowing out institutional integrity.

    Why is India’s Emergency relevant to the current global democratic decline?

    • Authoritarianism through Legal Means: The 1975 Emergency showed how laws can be manipulated to suspend rights and suppress dissent without military coups. Today, similar tactics are used globally — leaders use legal loopholes and executive decrees to weaken democratic norms (e.g., Hungary’s rule-by-decree during the COVID-19 pandemic).
    • Erosion of Institutional Independence: During the Emergency, judiciary, media, and civil services failed to resist executive overreach. This institutional submission mirrors current trends in several democracies where checks and balances are compromised under pressure (e.g., judiciary weakening in Turkey and political pressure on U.S. law enforcement).
    • Cult of Personality and Centralised Power: Indira Gandhi’s consolidation of power and her son’s parallel command structure resemble modern populist leadershipsthat centralise authority, undermine opposition, and control narratives (e.g., executive overreach in Brazil, Philippines, or even Russia).

    What ethical duties do institutions hold in resisting authoritarianism?

    • Upholding Constitutional Values: Institutions like the judiciary, legislature, and civil services must prioritise the Constitution over political loyalty, ensuring that democratic principles, civil liberties, and rule of law are never compromised.
    • Maintaining Institutional Independence: Institutions have a duty to remain independent and impartial, resisting pressure from the executive or ruling parties. This includes protecting dissent, enabling checks and balances, and avoiding complicity in authoritarian overreach.
    • Defending Public Trust and Accountability: Ethical responsibility requires institutions to serve the public interest, not individual leaders. They must ensure transparency, fairness, and accountability, especially during crises when democratic norms are most vulnerable.

    How can citizens safeguard democracy from internal threats?

    • Active Civic Participation: Citizens must engage in democratic processes such as voting, peaceful protest, and public discourse to hold leaders accountable. Eg: Mass movements like India’s JP Movement in the 1970s or the U.S. Civil Rights Movement helped restore democratic accountability.
    • Demanding Transparency and Accountability: Citizens should question government actions, demand answers through RTI, media, and civil society platforms, and resist normalisation of unconstitutional acts. Eg: Public pressure during India’s anti-corruption movement (2011) led to the Lokpal Act.
    • Promoting Constitutional Literacy and Vigilance: A well-informed public is less likely to fall for authoritarian rhetoric. Citizens must educate themselves about constitutional rights and duties, enabling them to recognize and resist erosion of democratic norms.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Institutional Independence: Ensure autonomy of key democratic institutions like the judiciary, election commission, and media through legal safeguards and transparent appointments to resist political influence.
    • Promote Constitutional Literacy and Civic Engagement: Launch nationwide awareness campaigns and integrate constitutional values into education to empower citizens to uphold democratic principles and resist authoritarianism.

  • CJI assures ‘complete transparency’ in Collegium System

    Why in the News?

    Recently, CJI B.R. Gavai affirmed that the collegium system will ensure merit, transparency, and inclusive representation, and will not be swayed by external pressures.

    What is the Collegium System?

    • About: The Collegium System is the process by which judges are appointed and transferred in the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
    • Origin: It was developed by the Supreme Court itself and is not mentioned in the Constitution.
    • Purpose: It aims to ensure judicial independence by minimizing the role of the executive in judicial appointments.
    • Basis for Appointments:
      • Supreme Court Judges: Under Article 124, the President appoints judges after consulting relevant judges from the Supreme Court and High Courts.
      • High Court Judges: Under Article 217, appointments are made by the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India, Governor of the State, and Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
    • Structure of the Collegium:
      • Supreme Court Collegium: It consists of 5 judges — the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and the four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court.
      • High Court Collegium: It comprises the Chief Justice of the High Court and the two senior-most judges of that High Court.

    Qualifications for SC Judges:

    • Citizenship: Must be an Indian citizen.
    • Judicial Experience: At least 5 years as a High Court judge or 10 years as an advocate in one or more High Courts.
    • Alternative Route: Can also be a distinguished jurist, in the President’s opinion.

    Qualifications for HC Judges:

    • Experience: Must have held a judicial office for 10 years or practiced as an advocate for 10 years in a High Court.
    • Bar Enrollment: Must be enrolled with the Bar Council of India.

    Evolution of the Collegium System:

    • First Judges Case (1981): The Supreme Court ruled that the executive had primacy in appointments, and the CJI’s opinion was not binding.
    • Second Judges Case (1993): The Court reinterpreted “consultation” to mean “concurrence”, giving primacy to the judiciary and formally creating the Collegium System.
    • Third Judges Case (1998): On Presidential Reference, the Collegium was expanded to five members — the CJI + 4 senior-most judges.

    How does it Work?

    • Appointment of Chief Justice of India (CJI): The outgoing CJI recommends the next CJI, based on seniority. The Law Minister forwards it to the PM, who advises the President.
    • Appointment of Other SC Judges: The CJI initiates the proposal after consulting Collegium members and the senior-most judge from the concerned High Court.
    • Appointment of High Court Judges: Initiated by the High Court Chief Justice, approved by the High Court Collegium, and forwarded via the state government to the Union Law Ministry.
    [UPSC 2012] What is the provision to safeguard the autonomy of the Supreme Court of India?

    1. While appointing the Supreme Court Judges, the President of India has to consult the Chief Justice of India.

    2. The Supreme Court Judges can be removed by the Chief Justice of India only.

    3. The salaries of the Judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India to which the legislature does not have to vote.

    4. All appointments of officers and staff of the Supreme Court of India are made by the Government only after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 and 3 only * (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • [4th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Socialism, Secularism are the spirit of the Constitution

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] Discuss India as a secular state and compare with the secular principles of the US Constitution.

    Linkage: This question directly addresses India’s secular character. The  article explicitly defines Indian secularism not as “mere religious neutrality but the positive assurance that the state will treat all religions equally, protect the rights of minorities, and ensure that no citizen suffers discrimination on the basis of faith”.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The words (socialism and secularism) were added during the Emergency through the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), but they are not just additions; they are core values that reflect the spirit of India’s freedom struggle and the vision of the Constitution’s framers.  

    Today’s editorial analyses the impact of the removal of socialism and secularism in the Indian Constitution. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The recent statement by the right-wing leader advocating the removal of “socialism” and “secularism” from the Preamble of the Constitution has triggered widespread concern.

    What is the role of socialism and secularism beyond the Preamble?

    • Role of Socialism beyond the Preamble:

        • Embedded in Directive Principles: Articles like 38, 39, 41–43 guide the state to secure economic justice, reduce inequality, and promote welfare measures.  
        • Reflected in Fundamental Rights: Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment) embody the socialist commitment to justice and dignity.
        • Guides Judicial and Legislative Action: Courts and lawmakers have interpreted and enacted policies (like land reforms, reservation, public healthcare) in line with socialist philosophy to ensure inclusive growth.

    • Role of Secularism beyond the Preamble:

      • Constitutional Protections for Religious Freedom: Articles 25–28 ensure freedom of religion, worship, and prohibit religious taxes or religious instruction in state-funded institutions.
      • Equality and Non-Discrimination: Articles 15 and 29–30 ensure that no citizen is discriminated against based on religion and that minority cultural and educational rights are protected.
      • Part of Basic Structure Doctrine: The Supreme Court has affirmed that secularism is inherent to the Constitution’s basic structure, safeguarding religious neutrality of the state in governance. Eg: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), secularism was upheld as part of the basic structure.

    Why is removing socialism and secularism seen as a threat to the basic structure?

    • Undermines Constitutional Guarantees of Equality and Justice: Secularism ensures the equal treatment of all religions and protects minority rights, while socialism underpins the goal of economic equality and a welfare state. Their removal would weaken the guarantee of justice, liberty, and equality. Eg: Articles 14–16 (Right to Equality) and 25–30 (Freedom of Religion and Minority Rights) draw directly from secular and socialist ideals.
    • Contradicts the Foundational Vision of the Constitution: The Objective Resolution, Constituent Assembly Debates, and freedom struggle clearly endorsed secular and socialist principles as integral to India’s identity. Removing them attempts to rewrite history and alter the spirit of the Constitution. Eg: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s final speech in the Constituent Assembly emphasized equality and fraternity—values rooted in socialism and secularism.

    How do India’s freedom struggle and debates reflect these constitutional values?

    • Freedom Struggle Emphasised Equality and Social Justice (Socialism): Leaders like MK Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar envisioned an India free not only from colonial rule but also from poverty, caste oppression, and economic exploitation. These ideals laid the foundation for a socialist orientation in the Constitution, focusing on welfare, equitable distribution, and dignity for all.
    • Constituent Assembly Debates Favoured Religious Pluralism and Inclusion (Secularism): The framers, influenced by India’s diverse social fabric, stressed a neutral state that treats all religions equally. Debates clearly show a consensus that religion should not influence state affairs, leading to the inclusion of secular provisions like Articles 25–28.

    How has the Supreme Court upheld secularism under the basic structure doctrine?

    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Court held that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution. Though this case didn’t directly address secularism, it laid the foundation for later rulings protecting it as part of the core constitutional philosophy.
    • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): The Court explicitly declared that secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure. It ruled that a state government can be dismissed if it acts against secular principles, reinforcing that the State must remain neutral and equidistant from all religions.
    • Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002): The Court upheld that secularism does not mean hostility to religion, but rather equal respect for all religions (Sarva Dharma Sambhava). It reaffirmed that religious pluralism and tolerance are integral to the Indian State’s identity.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Constitutional Literacy and Civic Education: Promote widespread awareness about the values of socialism and secularism embedded in the Constitution through school curricula, public campaigns, and community programs. An informed citizenry is essential to defend constitutional principles against any attempts at dilution.
    • Judicial and Legislative Vigilance: The judiciary must remain proactive in upholding secularism and social justice as part of the basic structure doctrine. Parliamentarians and civil society must oppose regressive amendments and uphold constitutional morality in lawmaking and governance.

  • Careful curation: On Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls

    Why in the News?

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) is currently carrying out a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar. This has caused political and social concerns because the ECI is focusing only on verifying “ordinary residents” and has given a very short deadline ending on July 31 for this process.

    Why is the ECI’s voter roll revision in Bihar being criticised?

    • Short timeframe: The ECI allocated just one month, till July 31, for the entire revision process, which is inadequate for comprehensive voter verification in a state like Bihar.
    • Strict criteria: The emphasis on “ordinary residents” could ignore the legal protection for temporary absentees as outlined in the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
    • Risk of wrongful deletions: Migrant workers might not be present for verification, leading to lakhs of wrongful deletions from electoral rolls.

    What hurdles do migrant voters face in verification?

    • Inaccessibility During Verification Window: Many migrant voters are unable to be physically present at their home constituencies during the short verification period, making it difficult to confirm their status. Eg: An estimated 20% of Bihar’s electorate is migrant; many may miss the July 31 deadline, risking exclusion.
    • Lack of Clarity for Long-Term Migrants: There is ambiguity in addressing voters who have moved long-term but haven’t updated their registration to their new place of work.

    How does the law define ‘ordinary residence’ for voters?

    The Representation of the People Act, 1950 defines ‘ordinary residence’ as the place where a person normally lives and has the intention to return, even if they are temporarily absent.

    Key Legal Provisions:

    • Section 19 of the Act: A person shall be registered in the electoral roll of the constituency of their ordinary residence. Temporary absence does not disqualify a person from being considered ordinarily resident.
    • Electoral Roll Manual Guidelines: Migrants temporarily away (for work, studies, etc.) are still eligible if they have the ability and intention to return. Removal from the roll requires proof of permanent relocation.

    What does Bihar’s gender turnout reveal about migration?

    • Higher Female Voter Turnout: In the 2024 general election, more women voted than men in absolute numbers in Bihar. This indicates a gender skew in voter participation likely linked to male absenteeism due to migration.
    • Male Migrant Absenteeism: Despite having more registered male voters, the male turnout was lower, suggesting many men were away for work and could not vote. It reflects the scale of male labour migration out of Bihar.

    Do the same issues occur in other states?

    • Jharkhand – Migration-linked Voter Drop: Like Bihar, Jharkhand has seen low male voter turnout due to seasonal and long-term migration for labour work.
    • Uttar Pradesh – Exclusion Risk in Urban Centres: In urban areas of Uttar Pradesh, slum and migrant populations often lack proper identity or address documents, making voter verification difficult during intensive revision drives. This causes large-scale exclusions, especially among economically vulnerable groups.

    What are the issues related to NRIs at the all-India level? 

    • Lack of Remote Voting Mechanism: Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) often face difficulty in exercising their voting rights due to the requirement of physical presence at their home constituency in India. Eg: An NRI working in the UAE must travel to India to vote, leading to low voter turnout among overseas citizens.
    • Legal and Procedural Constraints: Though the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 2010 allowed NRIs to register, postal or online voting is still not widely available.
      Eg: The Electronically Transmitted Postal Ballot System (ETPBS) has not yet been fully extended to overseas voters, limiting participation.

    What are the case studies in the world? 

    • Mexico – Voting Rights for Migrants Abroad: Mexico allows its citizens living abroad to vote in national elections via postal ballots and electronic voting. This ensures inclusivity for a large number of migrant workers living in the United States and other countries.
    • Philippines – Overseas Absentee Voting Act (2003): The Philippines enacted a law enabling overseas Filipinos to vote in presidential, senatorial, and party-list elections. It recognizes the political rights of migrant workers, encouraging participation despite physical absence.

    How can migrants get better electoral representation? (Way forward)

    • Enable Registration at Place of Work: Long-term migrants should be allowed and encouraged to register as voters at their current place of residence. This ensures their political voice aligns with the region where they live and work, making representation more meaningful.
    • Extend Verification and Enrollment Timelines: The Election Commission should provide a longer and flexible verification window, especially in high-migration states. This prevents wrongful exclusion and ensures migrants’ voting rights are protected even during temporary absence.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.

    Linkage: The article focuses on the “Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls” conducted by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Bihar, highlighting criticisms due to the enormity of the task, short duration, and strict verification criteria that could result in the “wrongful exclusion of lakhs of voters”

  • [30th June 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A year later — colonial-era laws to new criminal codes

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2024] The Doctrine of Democratic Governance makes it necessary that the public perception of the integrity and commitment of civil servants becomes absolutely positive. Discuss.

    Linkage: The new criminal codes, through provisions like mandatory audio-video recording of searches and seizures, aim to improve the quality of investigation and ensure greater integrity and commitment from investigating officers (IOs). This directly seeks to foster a positive public perception of civil servants involved in law enforcement, aligning with the query’s emphasis on progress in the new codes.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  As India completes one year of implementing its overhauled criminal justice framework—comprising the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA)—the on-ground feedback is beginning to surface. A major highlight has been the operationalization of the ‘e-Sakshya’ app for real-time evidence collection. While it empowers investigation officers (IOs) and enhances transparency, several systemic and logistical constraints hinder its full potential. Despite attempts at modernization, the gap between legal reforms and infrastructural readiness threatens to blunt the progressive intent of these laws. This transitional phase is a crucial moment for policy correction and investment.

    Today’s editorial talks about the effectiveness of India’s new criminal laws—BNS, BNSS, and BSA. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Indian Polity & Governance) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, India’s new criminal laws—BNS, BNSS, and BSA—mark a year of implementation. Technological tools like the e-Sakshya app aid progress, but feedback from investigating officers reveals key challenges and improvement needs.

    What are the key improvements brought by the BNS, BNSS, and BSA in the criminal justice system?

    • Modernization of Colonial Laws: The new laws replace the outdated Indian Penal Code (1860), CrPC (1973), and Indian Evidence Act (1872), aligning criminal justice with contemporary realities, citizen-centric values, and technological advancements.
    • Integration of Technology in Investigation: The BNSS mandates audio-video recording of critical procedures such as search, seizure, and statement recording. It supports the use of tools like the ‘e-Sakshya’ app for real-time digital evidence collection, improving transparency and accountability.
    • Improved Victim-Centric and Time-Bound Procedures: Provisions like seven-day deadlines for medical reports in rape cases and emphasis on video conferencing for witness examination under BNSS aim to ensure faster process, reduce trauma for victims, and increase judicial efficiency.

    How has the ‘e-Sakshya’ app enhanced evidence collection and policing?

    • Real-time digital documentation: The app enables investigating officers to capture photos and videos on the spot with geo-coordinates and a timestamp, ensuring authenticity and preventing tampering. For instance, during a search and seizure, the officer must record the process under Section 105 of BNSS, improving transparency.
    • Improved accountability in investigations: Investigating officers are now required to take selfies at crime scenes, ensuring that they personally conduct the investigation and don’t delegate it unofficially. This deters fabrication of evidence and builds a stronger chain of custody for trial.
    • Strengthened witness reliability: The visual capture of witness presence at the crime scene discourages denial of participation later in court. Eg when a suspect is made to show the place where a weapon or contraband is hidden, the recording serves as reliable secondary electronic evidence admissible in court.

    Why is digital integration through CCTNS and ICJS vital for the new laws’ success?

    • Seamless transition and registration of cases: The Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) ensures smooth FIR registration and jurisdictional transfers, enabling police stations to shift from old laws to BNS, BNSS, and BSA without disruption. For instance, zero FIRs are easily routed to the correct police stations within a state using CCTNS.
    • Interlinking of justice system pillars: The Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) connects police with forensic labs, prosecution, courts, and jails, improving coordination and efficiency. This digital integration supports time-bound actions like forwarding medical examination reports or conducting video-based evidence collection as mandated under BNSS.
    Note: About Zero FIR It refers to a First Investigation Report (FIR) that is registered irrespective of the area where the offence is committed. The police in such a case can no longer claim that they have no jurisdiction.

    What are the challenges that hinder the effective implementation of the new criminal laws?

    • Inadequate digital infrastructure: Many police stations have only one tablet, and officers often use their personal phones to operate the e-Sakshya app, which requires Android version 10 or higher and at least 1GB of storage. This limits the ability to uniformly implement mandatory audio-video recording provisions under BNSS.
    • Lack of real-time integration with courts: While images and videos are stored on the National Government Cloud (NGC), courts still do not directly access this digital evidence through the ICJS. Instead, police submit evidence using pen drives, leading to duplication, extra costs, and delay in proceedings.
    • Forensic and legal bottlenecks: Despite the requirement of FSL expert visits under Section 176 of BNSS, forensic infrastructure in many states remains underdeveloped. Also, cybercrime evidence often needs expert analysis and testimony, but State forensic labs are yet to be notified under the IT Act, hampering admissibility of digital evidence.

    What reforms are needed to address them? (Way forward)

    • Strengthen digital infrastructure in police stations: The government should ensure that each investigating officer (IO) has access to a dedicated device compatible with the e-Sakshya app. Providing sufficient tablets or mobile phones with the required specifications will help officers capture evidence reliably and eliminate the need for using personal devices.
    • Enable direct court access to digital evidence: Courts must be integrated with the Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) to allow secure, real-time access to evidence stored on the National Government Cloud. This will eliminate dependency on external storage like pen drives and promote efficiency and authenticity in judicial proceedings.

  • Revisit digital search powers under the I-T Bill 2025 

    Why in the News?

    The proposed changes in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 allowing tax officials to access a person’s “virtual digital space” during search and seizure have sparked strong debate about privacy, government surveillance, and misuse of power.

    What is the current legal framework for tax-related search and seizure?

    • Under Section 132 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, search and seizure powers are currently restricted to physical spaces like houses, offices, and lockers.
    • These powers are exercised based on a reasonable suspicion of undisclosed income or assets, and apply only to the person under investigation.

    What does the new proposal change?

    • Expansion to digital realm: The new proposal includes access to emails, cloud storage, social media accounts, digital applications, and vaguely “any other space of similar nature.”
    • Override of access barriers: Authorities can override access codes of devices to enter these digital spaces.
    • Open-ended scope: The vague phrasing leaves room for nearly any digital platform to fall under scrutiny, exposing data beyond the individual concerned.

    What are the privacy risks of allowing tax access to digital spaces?

    • Deep intrusion into personal life: Digital spaces like emails, social media, and cloud drives contain private, non-financial information. Their access exposes not just the individual but also their family, friends, and professional networks.
    • Risk to confidentiality: Professionals like journalists and lawyers could have confidential sources and sensitive data compromised, affecting freedom of expression and legal rights.
    • Lack of oversight: The provision allows tax authorities to bypass judicial warrants, violating principles of transparency, accountability, and privacy.

    What is the Proportionality Principle?

    Proportionality Principle is a legal doctrine that ensures any action taken by the State—especially those that limit fundamental rights—must be reasonable, necessary, and least restrictive in achieving a legitimate aim.

    How does the proposal violate the proportionality principle?

    • Absence of judicial safeguards: The proposal allows tax authorities to access an individual’s digital data without prior judicial approval or warrant. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court in Riley vs California mandated warrants before accessing digital content due to the sensitive nature of personal data.
    • No relevance filter for accessed data: The provision lacks a clear distinction between financial and non-financial data, enabling authorities to access personal content unrelated to tax evasion. For instance, a journalist’s device could reveal confidential sources and communications, compromising press freedom.
    • Fails the least intrusive means test: The measure does not explore less invasive options to meet enforcement goals and grants sweeping powers without ensuring necessity. The Supreme Court in the Puttaswamy case clearly stated that any restriction on privacy must be necessary and adopt the least intrusive method.

    Which global safeguards can India adopt for digital searches?

    • Judicial Authorization Before Search: In Canada, Section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms mandates that searches (including digital) must be pre-approved by a neutral and impartial judge, based on reasonable and probable grounds. This ensures accountability and protects citizens from arbitrary intrusions.
    • Warrant Requirement for Digital Devices: In the United States, the Supreme Court ruling in Riley v. California (2014) held that law enforcement must obtain a warrant before accessing data on cell phones, given the deeply personal nature of digital information. This aligns digital privacy with Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches.
    • Taxpayer Bill of Rights: The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) enforces the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which guarantees that searches are not more intrusive than necessary and are conducted with due process. It emphasizes that digital investigations must follow legal safeguards, respecting taxpayer privacy.

    Way forward: 

    • Mandate Judicial Oversight and Clear Warrants: Any access to an individual’s digital space must require prior approval from a neutral judicial authority, based on tangible evidence and specific relevance to the tax investigation.
    • Define ‘Virtual Digital Space’ Narrowly and Precisely: The term should be clearly limited to platforms directly linked to financial transactions, excluding unrelated personal data, to prevent excessive intrusion and ensure proportionality.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of a child in the womb to establish its paternity.

    Linkage: This question directly addresses the fundamental right to privacy, which is the central concern raised by the proposed digital search powers in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025. The article explicitly states that the Bill “raises significant concerns about privacy, overreach, and surveillance” and emphasizes that “The right to privacy cannot and must not be eroded under the garb of regulatory action”.

  • Practicing equality in constitutional courts 

    Why in the News?

    On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court gave a key judgment revisiting earlier cases on senior lawyer designation. Though overlooked as an internal court issue, it raised concerns about inequality in the legal profession, elitism, and the fairness of classifying lawyers under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

    What are the legal issues with the senior advocate designation?

    • Arbitrary Classification under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961: Section 16 allows courts to classify lawyers into “senior advocates” and others based on vague terms like “ability” or “standing at the Bar”, which lack objective benchmarks. It has been challenged as violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution because it creates unequal treatment among equals without a clear rationale.
    • Lack of Objective Selection Process in Court Rules: The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 prescribe procedures for designation but allow subjective discretion, enabling possible favouritism or bias. Eg: Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules allows for pre-audience to senior advocates, reinforcing hierarchical privilege without transparency in how they are chosen.
    • Undermines Egalitarian Access to Justice: Designation often leads to a concentration of influence among a few, marginalising others and affecting diversity in courtroom representation. Eg: In Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), the Court upheld the validity of Section 16 but did not address how it leads to systemic exclusion, especially of women and underprivileged lawyers, conflicting with constitutional ideals of equality and non-discrimination.

    Why is the 2025 Jitender judgment seen as inadequate?

    • Did Not Address Constitutional Validity of Section 16: The 2025 judgment failed to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which creates a classification between senior advocates and other advocates. The Court did not refer the matter to a larger Bench for a deeper constitutional review. The classification was upheld without addressing whether it was arbitrary or led to inequality in the legal profession.
    • Acknowledged Subjectivity but Retained Flawed Process: The Court admitted that the point-based assessment system used to designate senior advocates is “highly subjective”, yet it retained the application-based process. This allows judges’ discretion to continue dominating the selection process, opening space for favoritism and elite networks. Eg: Many competent lawyers are left out simply because they lack access to the corridors of power.
    • Missed Opportunity to Promote Inclusiveness and Reform: Instead of proposing systemic change, the Court left it to High Courts to frame rules, without tackling the core issue of representation. The process continues to exclude women, Dalits, and those from less privileged backgrounds, reinforcing elitism in the judiciary. Eg: The designation process continues to favour a “creamy layer” of elite lawyers, limiting judicial diversity.

    What are the factors fueling inequality in the legal profession?

    • Unequal Access to Quality Legal Education: Aspiring lawyers from rural or low-income backgrounds often lack access to top law schools due to language barriers, lack of coaching, or high costs. Eg: Students from remote areas rarely make it to National Law Universities, which limits their exposure and opportunities.
    • Urban Concentration of Legal Opportunities: Legal practice in metropolitan cities attracts more recognition, clients, and judicial exposure compared to small-town lawyers. Eg: Talented advocates in lower courts of Bihar or Odisha are often overlooked for high-profile cases or designations.
    • Subjectivity in Senior Advocate Designation: The selection process often favours those with elite networks or familiarity with judges, sidelining equally competent but lesser-known lawyers. Eg: Women and Dalit lawyers remain significantly underrepresented among senior advocates.

    Way forward: 

    • Transparent and Inclusive Designation Process: Develop a merit-based, transparent system for designating senior advocates with clear evaluation criteria. Include diverse representation (e.g., women, marginalized groups) in selection committees to promote judicial inclusiveness.
    • Strengthening Legal Education and Access: Expand access to quality legal education through scholarships, regional law schools, and skill-based training in vernacular languages, especially for students from rural and underprivileged backgrounds to reduce structural entry barriers.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2014] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.

    Linkage: This question prompts an evaluation of the judiciary’s role in achieving “ideals of democracy”. The article talks about the direct counter-narrative to this positive assertion by arguing that the classification of senior advocates, as upheld by Supreme Court judgments in Indira Jaising and Jitender, creates a “legal oligarchy” and perpetuates inequality that can damage the justice delivery system enormously.

  • ‘Socialist’ and ‘Secular’ Words in Preamble

    Why in the News?

    A far-right leader has called for a public debate on the terms “socialist” and “secular” in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution, arguing they were added undemocratically during the Emergency via the 42nd Amendment and now require re-evaluation.

    About the Preamble:

    • Overview: It is the introductory statement to the Constitution of India. It sets out the philosophy, vision, and objectives of the Constitution.
    • Origin: It is based on the Objectives Resolution introduced by Jawaharlal Nehru on December 13, 1946, and adopted by the Constituent Assembly on January 22, 1947.
    • Declaration made: It declares India to be a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic and seeks to secure to all citizens:
      Justice (social, economic, political), Liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship), Equality (of status and opportunity), and Fraternity (assuring dignity and national unity).
    • Significance: It serves as a guiding light for interpreting the Constitution. N.A. Palkhivala called it the “Identity Card of the Constitution”, while K.M. Munshi described it as the “Political Horoscope” of India.
    • Key symbolism associated:
      1. Source of Authority – We, the People of India emphasizes that power originates from the people.
      2. Nature of Indian State – India is described as Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic.

    Preamble

    Amendments to the Preamble:

    • Can the Preamble be amended: Yes, the Supreme Court in the Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) held that the Preamble is part of the Constitution and can be amended, provided the Basic Structure Doctrine is not violated.
    • The Preamble has been amended only once in the history of the Constitution.
    • 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976:
      • Passed during the Emergency (1975-77) under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
      • Based on the recommendations of the Sardar Swaran Singh Committee.
    • Three words were added:
      • “Socialist” and “Secular” – inserted between “Sovereign” and “Democratic”.
      • “Integrity” – added to the phrase “Unity of the Nation” → changed to “Unity and Integrity of the Nation”.

    Why was it controversial?

    • It was passed during the Emergency, a time of suppressed democratic processes and curbed civil liberties.
    • Critics argue that the words were politically motivated and not part of the original constitutional vision.
    • Proponents argue that these values were already implicitly present in the Constitution, and the amendment merely made them explicit.

    Preamble as an integral part of the Constitution: Key Judgments

    • Berubari Union Case (1960):
      • The Supreme Court initially held that the Preamble is not a part of the Constitution.
      • It could be used to interpret ambiguous provisions but had no independent legal standing.
    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): The Court overruled the earlier view and held that:
      • The Preamble is a part of the Constitution.
      • It reflects the basic structure and essential philosophy of the Constitution.
      • However, it cannot be used to override specific provisions of the Constitution.
    • LIC of India Case (1995):
      • The Court reaffirmed that the Preamble is an integral part of the Constitution.
      • But it is not enforceable in a court of law—i.e., one cannot file a case solely based on a violation of the Preamble.
    [UPSC 2020] The Preamble to the Constitution of India is:

    Options: (a) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect (b) not a part of the Constitution and has no legal effect either (c) part of the Constitution and has the same legal effect as any other part (d) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts

    [UPSC 2016] Discuss each adjective attached to the word ‘Republic’ in the preamble. Are they defendable in the present circumstances stances?Â