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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • Madras HC judge picks: 88% not from general category

    Why in the News?

    During the tenure of Chief Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Sanjiv Khanna, authorities appointed 15 out of 17 judges to the Madras High Court from BC, OBC, MBC, SC, or ST communities.

    Why is BC/OBC/SC/ST representation highest in Madras High Court?

    • Strong Social Justice Framework in Tamil Nadu: Tamil Nadu has a long history of affirmative action and reservation policies aimed at uplifting Backward Classes (BC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), Scheduled Castes (SC), and Scheduled Tribes (ST), which creates a larger pool of eligible candidates from these communities.
    • Better Educational Access and Mobility: The state contributes disproportionately to the OBC population in higher education—while Tamil Nadu has about 10% of India’s OBC population, it accounts for 13% of OBCs enrolled in higher education nationally. This leads to higher qualifications among BC/OBC candidates, increasing their chances of judicial appointments.
    • Collegium Appointments Reflect State Demographics: The Supreme Court Collegium, while selecting judges, considers inputs from the state, and the Madras High Court appointments reflect this social reality, with 88.2% of recent appointees belonging to BC/OBC/MBC/SC/ST groups, the highest among all High Courts.

    Why do Southern High Courts have more non-general category judges?

    • Higher Social Mobility and Educational Access: Southern States like Tamil Nadu have better upward social mobility for BC/OBC groups, reflected in higher enrollment rates in higher education. Eg, Tamil Nadu has about 10% of India’s OBC population but accounts for 13% of OBCs in higher education nationally, which leads to greater representation in judicial appointments.
    • Regional Political and Social Dynamics: Southern States often have political environments and social policies that encourage inclusion of non-general categories in key positions. Eg, Madras High Court had 88.2% of appointees from BC/OBC/SC/ST groups, the highest share among all High Courts.

    What role do Chief Ministers and State Intelligence play in appointments?

    • Chief Ministers’ Opinions Are Considered: The Supreme Court Collegium takes into account the views of Chief Ministers during the appointment process, which can subtly influence the selection of judges. Eg, this influence might explain variations in representation across States, though the exact extent of their impact is unclear.
    • State Intelligence Inputs Are Used: The Collegium also reviews inputs from the State Intelligence Branch to assess candidates’ suitability and background. Eg, such inputs could affect appointments in States like Rajasthan, where political and security considerations might play a role.

    How does BC social mobility affect judicial representation?

    • Women from Non-General Categories Are Represented but in Small Numbers: Out of 34 women appointed, several belonged to BC, OBC, MBC, SC, or ST communities, showing some diversity in gender and social groups. Eg, at the Madras High Court, 5 women were appointed, including one from BC, one from MBC, and three from OBC categories.
    • Other High Courts Also Appoint Women from Non-General Categories: States like Telangana, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Guwahati, and Manipur have women appointees from various non-general groups, reflecting broader inclusivity. Eg, Telangana appointed women from BC and OBC categories, while Manipur had a woman appointee from the ST category.

    Way forward: 

    • Institutionalize Diversity Criteria in Appointments: Formal guidelines should be introduced to ensure fair representation of BC/OBC/SC/ST and women in judicial appointments across all High Courts.
    • Strengthen Educational and Legal Training Access: Expand scholarships, coaching, and mentorship programs for underrepresented communities to build a larger pool of eligible candidates for the judiciary.

    Mains PYQ:

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

    Linkage: While the article focuses on social categories (caste/class), the underlying theme of ensuring diversity and representation in the judiciary is common. The article also provides data on women appointees, including their social categories in Madras HC.

  • Permanent Lok Adalats 

    Why in the News?

    Permanent Lok Adalats in as many as 16 districts of Rajasthan have ceased functioning owing to the non-extension of tenure of their presiding officers and members.

    About Permanent Lok Adalats (PLAs) 

    • Legal Basis: PLAs are statutory bodies established under Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
    • Establishment: They were introduced in 2002 to offer speedy and affordable dispute resolution for public utility services.
    • Disputes Handled: PLAs resolve issues related to transport (air, road, water), postal, telecom, electricity, water supply, sanitation, healthcare, and insurance.
    • Composition: Each PLA has a Chairman (a current or retired District Judge or higher) and 2 members with experience in the relevant public utility sectors.
    • Functioning: Unlike regular Lok Adalats, PLAs operate on a continuous basis and are always available for dispute resolution.
    • Jurisdiction Limit: They can hear cases involving claims up to â‚č1 crore but cannot take up non-compoundable criminal cases.
    • Unique Power: If conciliation fails, the PLA has the authority to adjudicate the dispute and issue a final and BINDING award, just like a civil court.

    Back2Basics: Lok Adalats vs Permanent Lok Adalats

    Lok Adalats Permanent Lok Adalats 
    Nature Ad hoc, held occasionally Permanent, functional continuously
    Jurisdiction Broad (civil, compoundable criminal, family, etc.) Limited to public utility service disputes
    Dispute Stage Usually post-litigation Pre-litigation stage only
    Panel Composition Judicial officers, lawyers, social workers Chairman (Judge) + 2 experts in utility services
    Conciliation Role Only conciliatory; no decision if no settlement Can adjudicate if no settlement is reached
    Decision Binding only if parties agree Award is final and binding, with no appeal
    Legal Status Decree of a civil court Also a civil court decree, but with adjudication power
    Appeal Provision No appeal, but fresh suit possible No appeal, but constitutional remedies may apply

     

    [UPSC 2009] With reference to Lok Adalats, consider the following statements:

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

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

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only * (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • [16th May 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Does Article 21 include right to digital access?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2022] The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment.

    Linkage: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States and the performance of these schemes; mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.

     

    Mentor’s Comment: On 30 April, 2025, the Supreme Court’s directive to revise digital KYC norms to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities (PwDs), recognizing digital access as a fundamental right under Article 21. It highlights legal safeguards like the RPwD Act 2016, challenges faced by PwDs in current KYC processes, and the Court’s emphasis on inclusive, accessible digital infrastructure for marginalized groups.

    Today’s editorial discusses the Supreme Court’s order to update digital KYC rules to make them accessible for persons with disabilities (PwDs). This topic is useful for GS Paper II (covering governance, the Supreme Court’s role, and issues related to vulnerable groups like PwDs).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, ​​the Supreme Court of India directed the revision of digital Know Your Customer (KYC) norms to ensure they are accessible to persons with disabilities (PwDs), especially the visually impaired.

    What KYC changes did the Supreme Court direct for PwDs?

    • Mandated Accessible Digital KYC Processes: KYC procedures must include accessible design features like screen-reader compatibility, audio cues, and simplified verification steps.
    • Alternative Identity Verification Methods: KYC systems must allow thumb impressions, signatures in accessible formats, and alternative ways to verify identity without facial recognition or selfies. Eg: An acid attack survivor unable to use facial recognition can verify their identity using thumb impression linked with Aadhaar and OTP verification.
    • Uniform Accessibility Standards Across Institutions: All regulated entities (banks, telecom, SEBI, etc.) must follow a standardized, inclusive KYC frameworkrather than creating their own tests Eg: Every bank and mobile provider must adopt unified, accessible KYC apps that meet 2021 and 2022 ICT Accessibility Standards, ensuring consistency and inclusion.

    Which laws protect the rights of PwDs in India?

    • Constitution provision: Guarantees equality, dignity, and non-discrimination through the Preamble, Fundamental Rights(Articles 14, 15, 21), and Directive Principles (Article 38). Eg: Under Article 21, the Supreme Court reinterpreted the right to life to include digital access for PwDs.
    • Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016: Adopts a social-barrier model of disability and mandates measures for accessibility, inclusion, and equal opportunity. Eg: Section 42 requires the government to ensure accessible electronic media, including sign-language, audio descriptions, and captions.
    • UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD): India is a signatory and is obligated to promote, protect, and ensure full human rights and freedoms of PwDs. Eg: The RPwD Act, 2016 was enacted to give domestic effect to the UNCRPD’s principles like accessibility, dignity, and non-discrimination.
    • Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Accessibility Standards (2021, 2022): Prescribe technical standards for websites, apps, and digital services to be screen-reader friendly, with audio/video guidance. Eg: Despite these standards, most KYC platforms lack audio prompts or camera alignment assistance, which the SC directed to be rectified.

    Why do banks and other financial and government institutions mandate collecting KYC details?

    • Ensures Security: KYC helps identify and verify customers, reducing risks of money laundering, fraud, and terrorism financing. Eg: Under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, banks are required to verify identities and report suspicious transactions to the Financial Intelligence Unit.
    • Availing Financial and Telecom Services: KYC is a regulatory requirement to access services like bank accounts, SIM cards, demat accounts, insurance, and pension schemes. Eg: A person must complete KYC to open a bank account or activate a mobile number.
    • Enables Access to welfare schemes:  Digital KYC links individuals to Aadhaar-based Direct Benefit Transfers (DBTs), ensuring targeted delivery of welfare schemes. Eg: Students must complete e-KYC to receive national scholarshcips or access Aadhaar-linked subsidieslike LPG or pensions.

    How do current KYC methods exclude PwDs?

    • Visual Verification Disadvantage: Steps like reading flashing codes, aligning for selfies, or signing on paper are inaccessible to those with visual impairments or disfigurements. Eg: A blind user cannot complete video-KYC if the app lacks screen-reader prompts or audio guidance for camera positioning.
    • Lack of Alternative Biometric Methods: Common alternatives like thumb impressions are not accepted as valid signatures, and PAN cards aren’t issued with them. Eg: A visually impaired person using thumbprint verification may be denied KYC approval due to lack of signature or photo verification.
    • Non-Compliant Digital Infrastructure: Most KYC apps and portals violate ICT Accessibility Standards by lacking features like text-to-speech, audio cues, or accessible form inputs. Eg: A KYC website without voice feedback or keyboard navigation makes it impossible for a person using assistive tech to complete the process independently.

    Why did the SC link digital access to Article 21?

    • Digital Access is Integral to the Right to Life and Dignity: The Court held that in today’s digital era, access to essential services through digital means is part of living with dignity and autonomy. Eg: Denying blind users the ability to complete KYC digitally affects their right to life under Article 21 by limiting access to banking or welfare services.
    • Ensures Substantive Equality:  The Court emphasized substantive equality, noting that equality is not just about treating everyone the same, but removing barriers for the disadvantaged. Eg: People with visual impairments face unique hurdles with video-KYC, which violates their equal access to services guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21.
    • Bridges the Digital Divide:  The judgment recognized that digital exclusion impacts not just PwDs, but also rural citizens, elderly people, and linguistic minorities, deepening socio-economic inequality. Eg: During COVID-19, the Court earlier ruled that digital vaccine portals must be accessible, reinforcing the idea that public digital infrastructure must be inclusive.

    Way forward: 

    • Adopt Inclusive Digital Design Standards: Ensure all KYC platforms follow universal design principles with features like screen-readers, voice prompts, and alternative authentication methods.
    • Mandate Regulatory Oversight and ComplianceRBI, SEBI, and DoT must monitor and enforce accessibility standards across all regulated entities to guarantee equal digital access for PwDs.

  • Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

    Why in the News?

    The Tamil Nadu CM has criticised the Presidential Reference under Article 143 as a “desperate attempt” to weaken State powers, following a Supreme Court ruling that set timelines for Governors and the President to act on State Bills.

    Article 143 of the Indian Constitution

    Recent Invocation:

    • The Presidential Reference asked whether the Supreme Court could impose timelines on:
      • Governors under Article 200 (assent to State Bills)
      • The President under Article 201 (Bills reserved for Presidential assent)

    What is Article 143 of the Indian Constitution?

    • Article 143 empowers the President of India to seek the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law or fact that is-
      • of public importance
      • Likely to arise or has already arisen
    • This provision defines the Supreme Court’s advisory jurisdiction, exclusive to the President.
    • Sub-clauses and Legal Operation:
      • Article 143(1): The President may refer any matter to the Supreme Court for its opinion. In the first case, the Supreme Court may tender or may refuse to tender its opinion to the president.
      • Article 143(2): Allows the President to refer disputes arising from pre-Constitution agreements, including state-related matters, for the Supreme Court’s opinion. The Supreme Court must tender its opinion to the President.
    • Nature of the Reference: The Supreme Court’s opinion is advisory and NOT legally binding since it is NOT a judicial pronouncement.
    • President’s Response: It is NOT binding on the President; he/she may follow or may not follow the opinion. However, it facilitates the government to have an authoritative legal opinion.
    • Types of Questions Referred: Article 143(1) allows the President to refer questions of law or fact.
      1. Legal questions: Constitutional interpretation, rights, and executive powers.
      2. Factual questions: The 1993 Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid reference asked whether a temple existed at the disputed site.
    • Judicial Interpretation: The Supreme Court has clarified that Article 143 is broad in scope and not limited to questions that have arisen; potential or likely questions can also be referred.

    Executive’s Control of Presidential Reference: 

    • Although Article 143 vests the power in the President, the real decision to refer is taken by the Union Council of Ministers under Article 74(1). 
    • Article 74(2) bars the Court from inquiring whether such advice was given.

     

    [UPSC 2010] Consider the following statements:

    The Supreme Court of India tenders’ advice to the President of India on matters of law or fact

    1. on its own initiative (on any matter of larger public interest).

    2. if he seeks such an advice.

    3. only if the matters relate to the Fundamental Rights of the citizens.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • Justice B.R. Gavai takes charge as 52nd CJI

    Why in the News?

    Justice B.R. Gavai has been sworn in as the 52nd Chief Justice of India (CJI).

    About the Chief Justice of India:

    • The CJI is the head of the Supreme Court and the highest-ranking judicial officer in the country.
    • As the “Master of the Roster,” the CJI has the exclusive authority to:
      • Constitute benches
      • Allocate cases among judges
      • Decide the schedule of hearings
    • The CJI leads the judicial and administrative functions of the Supreme Court.
      • Holds administrative control as recognised in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1997).
    • The CJI is referred to as “first among equals” among Supreme Court judges.

    Powers and functions of the CJI:

    • Judicial Functions:
      • Assigns judges to the Constitution Benches. (Article 145)
      • Handles interpretation of important legal and constitutional matters. (Article 145)
      • Exercises judicial leadership by steering jurisprudential direction. (Article 145)
      • Exercises judicial authority in matters of national significance. (Article 136)
      • Protects fundamental rights through the Supreme Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction. (Article 32)
    • Administrative Functions:
      • Maintains court roster and case listing. (Derived from judicial precedent and administrative conventions)
      • Supervises court staff and administration. (Based on administrative authority of the CJI)
      • Ensures smooth functioning of the Supreme Court. (Supreme Court Rules, 2013)
      • Holds disciplinary authority over subordinate judicial officers. (Administrative powers acknowledged in precedents)
      • Engages in administration of justice at the highest level. (Overarching responsibility under Article 145)
    • Advisory Function:
      • Provides advisory input when consulted by the President. (Article 143)

    Appointment and Terms:

    • Article 124 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to appoint the CJI.
    • Traditionally, the senior-most judge of the Supreme Court is appointed.
    • Exceptions to this practice:
      • 1973: Justice A.N. Ray appointed over 3 senior judges.
      • 1977: Justice M.H. Beg appointed over Justice H.R. Khanna.
    • Qualifications as outlined in Article 124(3):
      • Must be a citizen of India, and:
      • Served at least five years as a High Court judge, or
      • Practised at least ten years as a High Court advocate, or
      • Deemed a distinguished jurist by the President.

    Selection Procedure:

    • Governed by the Memorandum of Procedure for Appointment of Supreme Court Judges.
    • The Union Law Minister seeks the outgoing CJI’s recommendation.
    • The recommendation is processed as follows:
      • Sent to the Prime Minister by the Law Ministry.
      • Prime Minister advises the President.
      • President of India appoints the new CJI.
    • No specific timeline is defined — the recommendation must be made at the “appropriate time”.

    Tenure and Removal:

    • CJI serves until the age of 65 years.
    • Can only be removed through removal under Article 124(4):
      • Requires approval by both Houses of Parliament.
      • Must be supported by:
        • A majority of total membership, and
        • A two-thirds majority of members present and voting.
      • Grounds for removal: Proven misbehavior or incapacity.
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to the Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:

    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.
    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgment as the Supreme Court does

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options:  (a) 1 only  (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 * (d) Neither I nor 2

     

  • Right to Know: On the Wikimedia case, key rights

    Why in the News?

    On May 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India canceled the Delhi High Court’s order that had asked the Wikimedia Foundation to remove a page from its Wikipedia website. This decision is important for several reasons.

    What was the Supreme Court’s reason for overturning the High Court’s order on Wikipedia?

    • Protection of Free Speech and Public Debate: The Supreme Court emphasized that important legal and public issues must be open to public discussion, even if they are under judicial consideration (sub judice). Eg: Wikipedia users commenting critically on a judge’s order were exercising free speech, not committing contempt — the Court said the High Court “overreacted” by viewing it as contempt.
    • Right to Know is a Fundamental Right: The Court reaffirmed that the right to know is part of the fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). Eg: Wikipedia entries serve public interest by disseminating information — taking down pages affects people’s access to knowledge.
    • Wikimedia is a Neutral Intermediary: The Foundation does not create or control content but provides the platform, which is maintained by users under community guidelines.Eg: Since Wikimedia only hosts content and does not produce it, the responsibility lies with users — the High Court erred by targeting the platform instead of applying proper intermediary liability norms under the IT Act.

    Why is the right to know protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21?

    • Linked to Freedom of Speech and Expression (Article 19(1)(a)): Freedom of speech includes both the right to express and the right to receive information. Without access to information, freedom of expression is incomplete. Eg: Journalists rely on access to court documents, government records, or public statements to report news and foster transparency.
    • Essential for a Life with Dignity (Article 21): The right to life includes the right to live with dignity, which requires access to truthful and relevant information that affects one’s wellbeing and rights. Eg: A patient has the right to know about the risks of a medical procedure; a citizen has the right to know about environmental hazards in their locality.

    How does Wikimedia qualify as an intermediary under IT law?

    • Provides Platform Without Editing User Content: Wikimedia only offers the technical infrastructure for Wikipedia — it does not create or edit the content published by users. Eg: If a Wikipedia page contains inaccurate information, it is user-generated. Wikimedia itself does not write or verify the content.
    • Acts Within Safe Harbour Protections (Section 79, IT Act): As an intermediary, Wikimedia is protected from liability for third-party content as long as it doesn’t initiate or modify the transmission and follows due diligence. Eg: If defamatory content appears on Wikipedia, Wikimedia is not legally responsible unless it fails to act on legitimate removal requests.
    • Operates Under Community Guidelines, Not Control: Wikipedia’s content is governed by community-led guidelines and editors, not by Wikimedia itself. This decentralized structure supports its status as a neutral intermediary. Eg: Disputes over article edits are resolved through user discussion forums, not by Wikimedia’s direct intervention.

    Where did the High Court overstep in interpreting adverse comments as contempt?

    • Misconstrued Online Criticism as Judicial Contempt: The High Court treated user discussions and critical comments on Wikipedia as contempt of court, despite them being expressions of public opinion. Eg: A user forum questioning the logic of the High Court’s interim order was taken as contempt, even though it reflected public debate — a protected form of speech.
    • Failed to Recognize the Role of Open Debate in Democracy: By ordering content removal based on adverse comments, the Court ignored the constitutional protection of open criticism, especially on matters of public interest. Eg: The take-down order was based on perceived insult to the judiciary, but the Supreme Court clarified that public discussion, even when a case is sub judice, is vital to democratic accountability.

    When should courts uphold free speech in online platform cases?

    • When Public Debate Involves Matters of Legal or Democratic Importance: Courts should protect speech that contributes to informed public discourse, even if the topic is sub judice, as long as it doesn’t obstruct justice. Eg: In the Wikipedia case, users debated a High Court order — the Supreme Court ruled this was legitimate discussion, not contempt.
    • When the Platform Functions as a Neutral Intermediary: If an online platform merely provides infrastructure without controlling content, courts should focus on protecting users’ freedom of expression rather than penalizing the platform. Eg: Wikimedia does not write or edit articles but hosts user content — thus, courts should defend user rights unless unlawful content is proven.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Intermediary Guidelines: Clearer regulations are needed to distinguish between platforms acting as neutral hosts and those responsible for content, ensuring they are not unduly penalized for user-generated content.
    • Promote Balanced Public Discourse: Courts should encourage open debate on matters of public interest, ensuring that free speech is upheld while preventing actions that could obstruct justice or harm reputations.

    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: Article 21, one of the fundamental rights the Supreme Court linked to the “right to know” in the Wikimedia case. It discusses the expanding scope of rights under Article 21, similar to how the right to know is being interpreted.

  • How the judiciary maintains accountability

    Why in the News?

    The recent remarks made by the Vice-President of India about the role of judges have raised serious concerns and need to be carefully examined.

    What concerns arise from the Vice-President’s comments on judges’ roles in India?

    • Undermines Judicial Authority: Calling judges a “super parliament” questions the legitimacy of judicial review — a core function to uphold the Constitution. Eg: Criticism of court directions to Governors on bill assent.
    • Erosion of Constitutional Balance: His comments disrupt the delicate balance among the legislature, executive, and judiciary by implying judicial overreach without constitutional basis. Eg: In cases like Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court protected constitutional principles through its basic structure doctrine—critical for maintaining checks and balances.
    • Erodes Public Trust: Statements from high offices may weaken public faith in judicial impartiality and independence. Eg: Comments implying judges are unaccountable raise doubts on rule of law.

    Why is the term “super parliament” problematic in India’s parliamentary system?

    • Contradicts the Principle of Popular Sovereignty: Parliament derives its authority from the people; no organ, including the judiciary, can override it. Calling the judiciary a “super parliament” distorts this hierarchy. Eg: In Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019), the Supreme Court clarified that judicial review strengthens—not replaces—parliamentary supremacy.
    • Misrepresents the Role of Judicial Review: Judicial review is a constitutional mechanism to check the validity of laws—not an attempt to legislate. Calling it a “super parliament” falsely equates judicial scrutiny with lawmaking. Eg: In Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980), the Court struck down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure without encroaching on the legislative domain.
    • Undermines Separation of Powers: The term falsely suggests that the judiciary exceeds its mandate, eroding the balance between the three organs of government enshrined in the Constitution. Eg: The L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) judgment upheld judicial review as part of the basic structure, emphasizing that courts act within their defined constitutional limits.

    How does the Constitution ensure judicial independence and separation of powers?

    • Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
    • Financial Independence of the Judiciary: The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.
    • Constitutional Authority of Judicial Review: The Constitution explicitly empowers courts to review laws and executive actions for constitutional validity, preserving checks and balances between organs of government. Eg: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court asserted its authority to strike down amendments violating the Constitution’s basic structure.

    What justifies the judiciary setting deadlines for the President to clear Bills in line with popular sovereignty?

    • Fixed Tenure and Security of Judges: Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts enjoy security of tenure and can only be removed through a rigorous impeachment process, ensuring they are free from executive or legislative pressure. Eg: The impeachment process under Article 124(4) was invoked in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), though it did not lead to removal, demonstrating the difficulty of arbitrary dismissal.
    • Financial Independence of the Judiciary
       The salaries, allowances, and pensions of judges are charged on the Consolidated Fund of India and are not subject to parliamentary vote, protecting them from financial manipulation. Eg: This provision, under Article 112 and Article 125, ensures that the executive cannot curtail judicial functioning by reducing funds.

    Why is the claim that judges are above the law considered irrational?

    • Judges are bound by the Constitution and Rule of Law: Judges operate strictly within the constitutional framework and are accountable to it. Any violation of constitutional provisions by a judge amounts to “proved misbehaviour” and can lead to removal. Eg: Article 124(4) allows Parliament to impeach a Supreme Court judge for proven misbehaviour or incapacity, showing they are not immune from the law.
    • Parliament can override judicial decisions by making new laws: If the judiciary overreaches or issues controversial verdicts, Parliament can counter it through legislative action, reinforcing democratic accountability. Eg: After the Shah Bano case (1985), Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively reversing the Court’s judgment.

    Way forward: 

    • Respect Constitutional Boundaries: All constitutional authorities should uphold the principle of separation of powers and avoid statements that may undermine public trust in institutions.
    • Promote Constructive Dialogue: Encourage open, respectful discussions between the judiciary and executive to resolve differences while maintaining democratic values.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2020] Judicial Legislation is antithetical to the doctrine of separation of powers as envisaged in the Indian Constitution. In this context justify the filing of large number of public interest petitions praying for issuing guidelines to executive authorities.

    Linkage:  Judicial action (issuing guidelines to the executive) to the separation of powers doctrine. It discusses judicial legislation, which is when courts effectively create law, blurring the lines between the judiciary and legislature. This raises concerns about accountability – to whom is the judiciary accountable when it is perceived to be legislating?

  • Detaining Non-Citizens and the Rule of Law

    Why in the News?

    Assam’s immigration detention system not only harms the freedom and well-being of the people held there, but also raises serious questions about whether it follows the basic rules and values of the Constitution.

    What laws are used to detain non-citizens in India?

    • Foreigners Act, 1946: Allows the government to detain and deport individuals deemed as foreigners without valid documents. Eg: In Assam, many people declared as “foreigners” by Foreigners Tribunals were detained under this Act.
    • National Security Act (NSA), 1980: Permits preventive detention of individuals if they pose a threat to national security or public order. Eg: Non-citizens suspected of disturbing public order can be detained for up to 12 months without trial.
    • Passports Act, 1967: Penalizes entry or stay in India without valid passport or travel documents; used in conjunction with the above laws. Eg: A person found without a passport may be prosecuted and detained before deportation proceedings begin.

    How do they impact detainees?

    • Indefinite and Arbitrary Detention: Many non-citizens are detained for years without trial or clear deportation prospects. Eg: In Assam, over 1.5 lakh people declared foreigners, but only a few dozen have actually been deported.
    • Lack of Legal Safeguards and Due Process: Detainees are often denied proper legal representation, and decisions are based on minor discrepancies in documents. Eg: Variations in spelling or lack of pre-1971 documentation have led to detention, despite lifelong residence in India.
    • Harsh Living Conditions and Psychological Distress: Detention camps have been criticised for overcrowding, poor facilities, and causing mental trauma. Eg: Many families are separated and live in uncertainty for years in Assam’s detention centres.

    Why have many people in Assam been stripped of citizenship through the NRC process?

    • Stringent Documentation Requirements: Applicants had to prove ancestry from before March 24, 1971, using official documents. Eg: Many rural residents could not furnish land or birth records from that period due to illiteracy or displacement.
    • Loss or Inaccessibility of Records: Natural disasters, especially floods, led to the destruction or loss of vital documents. Eg: In flood-prone areas of Assam, many families lost old records multiple times over decades.
    • Minor Discrepancies Rejected: Minor differences in names or spelling between documents led to rejection. Eg: A person listed as “Rafiqul” in one document and “Rafiqul Islam” in another was flagged as suspicious.
    • Exclusion of Marginalised Communities: The verification process disproportionately affected Bengali Muslims, women, and tribal groups who lacked formal documentation. Eg: Women often lacked independent proof of lineage due to patriarchal registration systems.
    • Unfair and Opaque Procedures: Many claims were rejected by Foreigners Tribunals without transparent reasoning or opportunity for appeal. Eg: Individuals were declared foreigners without being adequately notified or heard by the tribunal.

    How does the detention of non-citizens in Assam violate constitutional safeguards under Article 21 and 22?

    • Violation of Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Article 21): Detention without fair reason or legal justification breaches the fundamental right to life and liberty. Eg: People who have committed no crime are detained for years without any realistic prospect of deportation.
    • Absence of Procedural Safeguards (Article 22): Article 22 requires clear legal procedures and rights during preventive detention, such as being informed of grounds and access to legal counsel. Eg: Many detainees in Assam are not told why they’re detained or given timely legal aid.
    • Detention Without Conviction or Trial: Under Indian law, liberty can be curtailed mostly through judicial sanction, such as after conviction or during trial — not arbitrarily. Eg: People declared “foreigners” by tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies) are detained despite not being criminals or facing trial.
    • Detention Without Legitimate Preventive Purpose: Preventive detention must be for a specific, imminent threat — not indefinite holding due to lack of documents. Eg: Detainees are held even when deportation is not possible, making the detention purposeless.
    • Executive Overreach Undermines Judicial Role: Detention decisions are taken by the executive or tribunals without proper judicial oversight, undermining separation of powers. Eg: Tribunals and officials act without court direction, limiting detainees’ access to judicial remedy.

    Way forward: 

    • Ensure due process and legal aid: Establish transparent procedures with timely legal representation for those declared non-citizens, ensuring compliance with Articles 21 and 22.
    • Pursue humane alternatives to detention: Introduce community release programs or supervised residency for non-deportable individuals instead of indefinite detention.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2017] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.

    Linkage: The scope of fundamental rights, including Article 21, which is central to the discussion on the legality of detention in the article.

  • Water Sharing Dispute between Punjab and Haryana

    Why in the News?

    Tensions escalated between Punjab and Haryana after the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) decided to release an extra 4,500 cusecs of water from the Bhakra dam to Haryana, sparking political and legal opposition from Punjab.

    Water Sharing Dispute between Punjab and Haryana

    About the Punjab-Haryana Water Dispute:

    • The dispute dates back to 1966 when Haryana was created from Punjab and was promised a share of river waters from the Ravi and Beas rivers.
    • The Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal was proposed to deliver Haryana’s share but remains incomplete due to Punjab’s resistance.
    • The current issue involves Punjab and Haryana over the release of additional water from the Bhakra dam, managed by the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).
    • On April 30, 2025, BBMB ordered the release of 8,500 cusecs of water to Haryana for drinking needs, which Punjab opposed, claiming Haryana had already withdrawn 104% of its annual share.
    • Water levels in the Bhakra, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams are low due to poor snowfall in the Himalayas.
    • Punjab argues that BBMB’s decision is unilateral and has refused to open the Nangal dam sluice gates.

    Inter-State Water Dispute Resolution in India:

    Water Sharing Dispute between Punjab and Haryana

    • Article 262 of the Constitution empowers Parliament to legislate on inter-state river water disputes and bar courts from intervening in such matters.
    • River Boards Act, 1956 allows creation of boards for inter-state river management, but no such board has ever been constituted.
    • Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 provides for:
      • Conciliation by the Centre among aggrieved states.
      • Tribunal formation if conciliation fails.
    • The 2002 amendment mandates:
      • Formation of a tribunal within 1 year.
      • Tribunal decision within 3 years.
    • Supreme Court cannot question the award of a tribunal but can examine procedural issues.
    • Other prominent disputes include Krishna, Cauvery, and the Satluj Yamuna Link canal disputes.
    [UPSC 2006] Recently Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding for the linking of two rivers as a link project. Which are these two rivers?

    Options: (a) Betwa and Chambal (b) Betwa and Ken* (c) Chambal and Son (d) Ken and Narmada

     

  • Strengthening parliamentary oversight in India

    Why in the News?

    Along with having efficient governance, there should also be a high level of accountability, which should begin with a strong and effective Parliament.

    What mechanisms does the Indian Parliament currently use to ensure executive accountability?

    • Question Hour: A daily session where Members of Parliament (MPs) ask questions to the government, holding the executive accountable for its actions. Eg: During Question Hour, MPs can ask questions on various issues like government policies, spending, and public welfare programs. If the government fails to respond adequately, it is held accountable in front of the public.
    • Zero Hour: An informal session where MPs can raise urgent matters of public importance without prior notice. Eg: In the past, MPs have used Zero Hour to raise concerns about natural disasters, governance issues, or urgent societal problems like price hikes or corruption, which require immediate attention from the government.
    • Standing Committees (e.g., Department-related Standing Committees): These committees examine the policies and functioning of various government departments, scrutinizing their budget proposals, schemes, and implementation. Eg: The Standing Committee on Railways in 2015 recommended waiving dividend payments to Indian Railways to improve its financial health, which was subsequently implemented.
    • No-Confidence Motion: A formal motion in Parliament that can be moved by MPs to express a lack of confidence in the government. If passed, it leads to the resignation of the government. Eg: In the 17th Lok Sabha, a no-confidence motion was raised against the government over issues related to economic policies, though it did not pass, it highlighted the need for greater executive accountability.
    • Public Accounts Committee (PAC): This committee scrutinizes government expenditure and ensures that public funds are used efficiently and for their intended purposes. Eg: The PAC exposed irregularities in the Commonwealth Games 2010, revealing delays, opaque appointments, and corrupt practices, leading to corrective actions and reforms.

    Why has the effectiveness of Question Hour and parliamentary committees declined in recent years?

    • Frequent Disruptions during Question Hour: Question Hour is often disrupted by protests and disruptions, leading to adjournments and reducing the time spent on addressing important government issues. Eg: During the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), Question Hour functioned for only 60% of its scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 52% in Rajya Sabha, limiting its effectiveness in holding the government accountable.
    • Focus on Isolated Queries rather than Systematic Scrutiny: MPs often focus on individual queries rather than engaging in comprehensive, cross-ministerial scrutiny of complex issues, which limits the depth of oversight. Eg: Instead of addressing broader policy issues, MPs tend to ask specific questions that do not contribute to a deeper analysis of government actions or programs.
    • Limited Impact of Parliamentary Committees’ Reports: Despite generating detailed reports, parliamentary committees’ findings are often not discussed in Parliament, leading to a lack of follow-up on recommendations and diminishing their influence on legislation and executive actions. Eg: Even though the Standing Committees on Railways and Transport made significant recommendations, such as waiving the dividend payments and influencing the Motor Vehicles Bill, many committee reports have not led to substantial legislative or executive changes.

    How can technology and data analytics improve the quality of parliamentary scrutiny?

    • AI and Data Analytics for Efficient Scrutiny: Technology can help MPs analyze vast amounts of data, such as budget documents and audit reports, enabling them to quickly identify irregularities and policy trends. Eg: Using AI, Parliament can automatically flag inconsistencies in spending or uncover patterns in policy implementation, helping MPs ask more informed, evidence-based questions during sessions like Question Hour.
    • Enhancing Accessibility and Transparency of Committee Findings: Technology can make parliamentary committee reports more accessible to the public and MPs by translating them into local languages, creating visual explainers, or using short videos. This increases transparency and public engagement while also aiding MPs in scrutinizing complex issues. Eg: The use of visual tools and AI-driven summaries could simplify the analysis of technical reports, helping MPs quickly grasp important findings and engage in more meaningful debates in Parliament.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Establish a formal process for tracking the implementation and impact of laws, ensuring timely reviews and corrections. This can be modeled on the UK system, where government departments submit reviews of major laws within a set period.
    • Enhance Technology Integration: Leverage AI, data analytics, and digital tools to support MPs with real-time insights, enabling more effective questioning and in-depth scrutiny of government actions and policies.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2018] Why do you think the committees are considered to be useful for parliamentary work? Discuss, in this context, the role or the Estimates Committee.

    Linkage: General usefulness of parliamentary committees, which are highlighted as crucial mechanisms for accountability and scrutiny. It specifically asks about the Estimates Committee, another important financial committee alongside the PAC.Â