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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • A welcome move: On Wikipedia and Supreme Court order

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court overturned the Delhi High Court’s order, which had asked Wikimedia to remove a Wikipedia page due to a defamation case filed by the news agency Asian News International (ANI). The Supreme Court corrected a mistake made by the High Court.

    What was the Supreme Court’s main reason for quashing the Delhi High Court’s order against Wikimedia?

    • Overbroad Takedown Order: The Supreme Court found the High Court’s direction to remove “all false, misleading, and defamatory content” to be too broad and vague. It emphasized that such general orders lack precision and could lead to over-censorship.Eg: Asking to remove an entire Wikipedia page without identifying specific defamatory lines is like banning an entire book over one disputed paragraph.
    • Safe Harbour Protection for Intermediaries: The Court reaffirmed that Wikipedia enjoys safe harbour under the IT Act as an internet intermediary, meaning it is not directly responsible for user-generated content unless a specific violation is pointed out. Eg: Just like social media platforms aren’t liable for every comment made by users, Wikipedia too cannot be penalized without clear proof of harmful content.
    • Need for Specific Pleas: The Bench advised that ANI should file a fresh, specific plea pointing out the exact portions of the content they consider defamatory. This would allow the Court to consider actual harm rather than act on general accusations. Eg: It’s more reasonable to ask a website to remove a sentence that says “X is a fraud” rather than demanding the removal of an entire article about X.

    Why did the Delhi High Court originally ask Wikipedia to take down the page related to ANI?

    • Defamation Claim: The Delhi High Court ruled that the statements on the Wikipedia page were defamatory towards the news agency, Asian News International (ANI). It concluded that the content harmed ANI’s reputation and was therefore damaging. Eg: If an article on Wikipedia falsely claims that ANI is involved in unethical practices, it could damage the agency’s credibility and reputation.
    • Non-Verbatim Reproduction of Sources: The Court stated that the Wikipedia page did not accurately reproduce the references it cited, but rather presented them in a distorted or selective manner, which misrepresented the original information. It emphasized that this misrepresentation contributed to the defamatory nature of the content. Eg: If the page quoted investigative reports but omitted important context, it could lead to a misleading understanding of ANI’s role in the events.
    • Higher Responsibility of Wikipedia: The Court held that Wikipedia, as an encyclopaedia, carries a higher responsibility in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of its content, especially since it’s widely accessed and can influence public perception. It believed that as a trusted platform, Wikipedia should prevent the spread of defamatory or misleading content. Eg: Just like traditional encyclopaedias, Wikipedia should uphold higher standards of verification to avoid spreading misinformation.

    Who is responsible for creating and moderating content on Wikipedia?

    • Wikipedia Users and Volunteers: Users and volunteers create and edit content on Wikipedia by contributing articles and making revisions. Eg: A user with knowledge of climate change might write or update articles related to global warming.
    • Wikipedia Community: Content is moderated by the Wikipedia community through discussions, consensus, and resolving disputes. Eg: If two users disagree on an article, the community helps decide on the final content through discussion or voting.
    • Administrators (Admins): Admins, elected by the community, have special privileges to manage disputes, protect pages, and enforce Wikipedia’s guidelines. Eg: Admins might restrict editing on a page to prevent vandalism, allowing only trusted users to make changes.

    How does Wikipedia usually resolve disputes or “editing wars” over content?

    • Community Discussion and Consensus: Disputes are typically resolved through discussion on the article’s talk page, where editors reach a consensus on the correct content. Eg: If two users disagree on the phrasing of a sentence, they may discuss it on the talk page and come to an agreement.
    • Page Protection: If disputes persist, Wikipedia may protect the page, limiting edits to trusted editors or administrators to prevent further conflicts. Eg: A page on a controversial topic may be locked to prevent constant changes, with only experienced users allowed to make edits.

    What could be the potential consequence of allowing broad takedown orders against platforms like Wikipedia?

    • Censorship and Suppression of Information: Broad takedown orders could lead to censorship, stifling the free flow of information and limiting access to diverse perspectives. Eg: If a controversial topic is targeted, it could lead to entire pages being removed, denying users access to critical information.
    • Chilling Effect on Open Discussion: Such orders could create a chilling effect, discouraging people from contributing to platforms like Wikipedia for fear of legal consequences. Eg: Contributors might avoid writing about sensitive topics like politics or social issues to prevent being involved in legal disputes.
    • Undermining the Platform’s Model: Wikipedia’s model relies on user-generated content and community moderation; broad takedown orders could disrupt this and harm the platform’s collaborative nature. Eg: If Wikipedia faces constant takedown requests, it might have to impose strict content restrictions, altering its open editing structure and reducing the reliability of information.

    Way forward: 

    • Clearer Guidelines and Specificity in Takedown Requests: Courts and platforms should establish clear guidelines for takedown requests, ensuring that only specific defamatory content is targeted rather than broad or vague orders. Eg: Legal requests should identify exact defamatory statements rather than asking for the removal of entire pages.
    •  Strengthening Community Moderation and Accountability: Encourage community-based solutions to resolve disputes, with oversight from trusted administrators, while respecting Wikipedia’s open model. Eg: Wikipedia could enhance its dispute resolution processes and ensure content integrity by empowering its community to handle content concerns collaboratively.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023] What do you understand by the concept “freedom of speech and expression”? Does it cover hate speech also? Why do the films in India stand on a slightly different plane from other forms of expression? Discuss.

    Linkage: Fundamental right of speech and expression, which is central to the discussion about taking down online content like Wikipedia pages. The Supreme Court’s order emphasizes the need to carefully consider the implications for the free flow of information, a key aspect of freedom of speech.

  • History and Evolution of the Office of Governor

    Why in the News?

    The recent Supreme Court verdict on the powers of the President and Governors regarding assent to Bills under Articles 201 and 200 highlights the evolution of the office of the Governor and its changing role in India’s federal structure.

    Evolution of the Office of Governor:

    • Formal Establishment (1858): The office of the Governor was established under the Government of India Act of 1858, which transitioned administration from the East India Company to the British Crown. Governors acted as agents of the Crown and had significant powers in provincial administration.
    • Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (1919): The GoI Act of 1919, under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms, aimed to increase Indian participation but kept the Governor central to governance, including vetoing Bills passed by legislative councils.
    • GoI Act of 1935: The GoI Act of 1935 gave provincial autonomy but retained the Governor’s discretionary powers, including vetoing Bills and withholding assent, signalling a transition toward more autonomy while maintaining significant Governor authority.
    • Post-Independence Transition (1947): As India moved toward independence, the India (Provisional Constitution) Order of 1947 modified the 1935 Act. It removed the phrase “in his discretion,” reducing the Governor’s discretionary powers and signalling a shift to a more symbolic and constitutional role.
    • Constituent Assembly Debates: It debated whether Governors should be elected or nominated. Concerns over separatism led to the decision that Governors would be nominated by the President to maintain unity and strengthen ties with the Centre, especially after the partition.
    • Post-Independence Framework: Before Independence, various documents and political proposals, including the Commonwealth India Bill (1925) and the Nehru Report (1928), supported retaining the office of the Governor, inspired by the Westminster model of governance.

    Constitutional Role of the Governor:

    • Article 163: The Governor acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, except in certain discretionary situations.
    • Ambedkar’s Views: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for limited use of discretionary powers, ensuring the Governor’s actions align with the advice of the ministers.
    • Article 200: The Governor must grant assent to Bills, but may withhold assent, reserve the Bill for the President, or return it for reconsideration. Ambedkar amended this in 1949 to ensure the Governor acts in alignment with the elected government.
    • Symbolic and Impartial Role: The Governor is expected to represent the Union, support democratic functioning, and remain non-interfering in day-to-day state affairs.
    • Discretionary Powers: The Governor’s discretion is limited to constitutional guidelines and should be used sparingly, ensuring the Governor’s role remains constitutional, not political.
    [UPSC 2017] In the context of Indian history, the-principle of ‘Dyarchy (diarchy)’ refers to:

    (a) Division of the central legislature into two houses.

    (b) Introduction of double government i.e., Central and State governments.

    (c) Having two sets of rulers; one in London and another in Delhi.

    (d) Division of the subjects delegated to the provinces into two categories. *

     

  • Unnecessary amendment: On the RTI Act

    Why in the News?

    The Right to Information (RTI) Act has clearly helped make those in power more accountable in India. However, in recent years, there have been efforts to weaken some of its important provisions, even though the Act — a major reform — was passed 20 years ago.

    What is the role of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act in promoting transparency?

    • Balances Privacy and Public Interest: Section 8(1)(j) permits denial of personal information only if it has no relationship to public activity or interest or causes an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Eg: An officer’s medical records may be withheld, but details of their salary or qualifications can be disclosed if it serves public interest.
    • Includes a Public Interest Override: Even if information is personal, it must be disclosed if larger public interest is involved. Eg: A bureaucrat’s caste certificate was disclosed in public interest when he was accused of using a fake caste certificate to secure a reserved post.
    • Enhances Accountability of Public Officials: Prevents misuse of power by allowing scrutiny of officials’ actions, qualifications, and benefits. Eg: RTI queries have uncovered cases of bogus educational degrees among elected representatives and civil servants.
    • Empowers Citizens to Seek Information: It strengthens democratic participation by giving citizens access to relevant information on public functionaries. Eg: Citizens have used RTI to access asset declarations of elected representatives and government officers.
    • Prevents Blanket Denial of Information: Ensures that authorities cannot reject RTI requests merely by labeling the information as ‘personal’; they must justify how it affects privacy and weigh it against public interest. Eg: Information about government employees’ attendance records or transfers can be accessed to detect nepotism or irregularities.

    Why does Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 worry transparency advocates?

    • Removes Public Interest Safeguard: Section 44(3) amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by eliminating the provision that allowed disclosure of personal information in public interest. Eg: A fake caste certificate case could now be shielded from scrutiny as the information might be denied without evaluating public interest.
    • Enables Blanket Denial Through Vague Definition: The term “personal information” is broad and undefined, enabling authorities to classify many types of public-relevant data as private. Eg: Details like educational qualifications or property disclosures of public servants could be denied under the label of “personal”.
    • Undermines RTI as a Transparency Tool: It weakens the RTI Act’s core intent by restricting access to information that previously helped expose corruption and misconduct. Eg: RTI requests that once revealed official misconduct or nepotism in postings may now be rejected citing privacy under the DPDP Act.

    How does the DPDP amendment deviate from the intent of the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment?

    • Ignores the Balancing Principle of Privacy and Transparency: The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) upheld the right to privacy but emphasized that it must be balanced with other fundamental rights, including the right to information and public interest. Eg: The DPDP amendment removes the RTI Act’s public interest test, allowing personal information to be withheld even when it reveals corruption or fraud.
    • Undermines Democratic Accountability: The judgment did not suggest overriding transparency laws like RTI but stressed minimum and necessary restrictions on information access. Eg: Instead of proportionate safeguards, the DPDP Act allows authorities to blanket-deny RTI requests without assessing public relevance.
    • Distorts the Spirit of “Informed Citizenry”: Puttaswamy emphasized that transparency is essential for democracy, and privacy cannot be used to shield public officials from scrutiny. Eg: Information such as public officials’ property details or caste certificates may now be refused, limiting citizens’ ability to hold them accountable.

    What information could now be denied under the amended RTI provisions as ‘personal’?

    • Educational Qualifications and Certificates: Details about the academic background or degrees of public servants could be withheld as “personal information” under the amended provision. Eg: RTI queries that previously revealed fake degrees of elected representatives may now be denied.
    • Caste and Community Certificates: Information related to caste status, often crucial in verifying eligibility for reservation benefits, may be deemed private. Eg: In cases where a public official allegedly used a fake caste certificate, such details could be denied under the privacy shield.
    • Property, Assets, and Financial Disclosures: Disclosures regarding property holdings, assets, and liabilities of government employees might be refused by classifying them as personal. Eg: RTI applications that earlier exposed disproportionate assets could now be blocked.

    Way forward: 

    • Restore Public Interest Safeguard: Amend the DPDP Act to reinstate the public interest clause from Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, ensuring transparency is not overridden by vague privacy claims.
    • Define ‘Personal Information’ Clearly: Provide a narrow and precise definition of “personal information” to prevent misuse and ensure critical public accountability data remains accessible.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: The discussion from 2020 highlights the ongoing attention on potential changes to the RTI Act. It shows that the issue of amending the RTI Act and its effects has been a concern for some time.

  • Telangana becomes first State to notify Sub- categorization of SCs

    Why in the News?

    The Telangana government has officially implemented the sub-categorization of Scheduled Castes (SCs) into three groups, following a Supreme Court judgment in August 2024 that upheld the constitutionality of sub-classifying SCs and Scheduled Tribes (STs) to grant separate quotas for the most marginalized groups.

    Telangana becomes first State to notify Sub- categorization of SCs

    About Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Their Subcategorization:

    • SCs are a historically marginalized group identified in India’s Constitution to receive preferential treatment in education, employment, and political representation.
    • Constitutional Provisions:
      • Article 341: Empowers the President to specify castes as SCs within states or UTs.
      • Article 342: Allows Parliament to include/exclude castes from the SC list.
    • While grouped for reservations, disparities exist within SCs, with some groups being more disadvantaged than others.
    • Subcategorization involves dividing SCs into smaller groups based on social, economic, and educational backwardness, ensuring the most marginalized receive targeted benefits.
    • Sub-classification of SCs and STs for reservations is subject to judicial review to prevent misuse.

    Supreme Court Verdict on Sub-categorization: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2020) Case

    • In its August 2024 verdict, the Supreme Court allowed states to sub-classify SCs and STs, enabling separate quotas for the most marginalized groups.
    • Key Points:
      • Empirical Data: Subclassification must be based on data of systemic discrimination, not political motives.
      • Creamy Layer: Excludes the more advanced members of SCs/STs, applying the creamy layer principle.
      • Quota Limits: No sub-categorization can exceed the overall constitutional quota ceiling.
      • First-Generation Benefit: Reservations are restricted to the first generation of a family that has not benefitted from previous reservations.

     

    [UPSC 2005] Which one of the following statements is correct regarding population?

    (a) Bihar has the highest percentage of Scheduled Castes in its population.

    (b) The decadal growth of population of India (1991-2001) has been below 20%.

    (c) Mizoram is the Indian State with the least population.

    (d) Pondicherry has the highest sex ratio among the Union Territories.

     

  • A Governor’s conduct and a judgment of significance

    Why in the News?

     In The State of Tamil Nadu vs. The Governor of Tamil Nadu and Another, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, reaffirmed that Governors’ powers are limited and must follow constitutional boundaries.  

    What constitutional issue was addressed in the Tamil Nadu vs the Governor case?

    Aspect Details Example
    Limits of Gubernatorial Discretion (Article 200) The Governor cannot withhold assent to a Bill indefinitely or act independently of the elected State Cabinet, except in constitutionally specified situations. The role is largely ceremonial. Governor of Tamil Nadu withheld assent to 12 Bills, including those on the appointment of Vice-Chancellors to public universities.
    Constitutional Obligations of the Governor and State Executive The Governor is bound by the advice of the State Cabinet and cannot act on personal discretion unless explicitly permitted by the Constitution. This upholds representative democracy. Governor delayed referrals to the President without valid reasons, thereby undermining the democratic function of the State Legislature.
    Judicial Review of Governor’s Actions Article 361 gives personal immunity to the Governor but does not shield official actions from judicial review. Courts can check if actions comply with the Constitution and democratic norms. Supreme Court held that the Governor’s inaction violated the Constitution, and invoked Article 142 to deem the Bills as assented to, resolving the legislative deadlock.

    Why was the Governor’s inaction on Tamil Nadu Bills ruled unconstitutional?

    • Violation of Constitutional Duty under Article 200: The Governor is constitutionally bound to either assent to a Bill, withhold assent (and return it for reconsideration), or reserve it for the President. Indefinitely sitting on Bills without any action violates this mandate. Eg: The Governor kept 10 re-enacted Bills pending without any action or justification, undermining the role of the legislature.
    • Undermining the Principles of Representative Democracy: By not acting on duly passed Bills, the Governor disregarded the advice of the elected Council of Ministers, thereby disrupting the democratic process and the legislative will of the people. Eg: Despite the Tamil Nadu Assembly passing the Bills again in a special session, the Governor forwarded them to the President without consulting the State Cabinet, showing a lack of respect for democratic norms.

    When can a Governor use discretion under Article 200?

    • When a Bill Affects the Powers of the High Court: The second proviso to Article 200 allows the Governor to reserve a Bill that directly affects the powers of the High Court for the President’s consideration. Eg: If a State law tries to curtail the High Court’s jurisdiction or authority, the Governor can use discretion to reserve it.
    • When Presidential Assent is Constitutionally Mandatory: If a Bill falls under categories where presidential assent is specifically required (such as laws under Article 31C that seek immunity from judicial review), the Governor may reserve it. Eg: A Bill claiming protection under Article 31C, linked to Directive Principles, must be reserved for the President.
    • When a Bill Fundamentally Undermines Constitutional Values: The Governor can act without ministerial advice if the Bill threatens the basic structure or core values of the Constitution. Eg: A Bill that violates secularism or federalism in an extreme manner could justify the Governor’s discretionary action.

    How did the Supreme Court invoke Article 142 to resolve the constitutional deadlock in the Tamil Nadu Bills case?

    • Used Article 142 to Ensure Complete Justice: The Court exercised its special power under Article 142 to deliver complete justice by deeming the 10 re-enacted Bills as having received the Governor’s assent. Eg: Instead of waiting for further assent or action from the Governor, the Court directly validated the Bills to avoid further delays in governance.
    • Bypassed Unworkable Remedies Like Mandamus: Issuing a writ of mandamus (to compel the Governor to act) was seen as ineffective since the Governor is protected from personal liability under Article 361. Eg: Since the Governor cannot be punished for contempt, the Court chose Article 142 as a more enforceable solution.
    • Restored the Legislative Authority of the State: By invoking Article 142, the Court reinforced the principle that the Governor cannot override the will of an elected legislature through inaction Eg: This prevented indefinite delays in implementing laws passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly, thus preserving democratic functioning.

    Why was issuing a writ of mandamus deemed inadequate?

    • Governor is Immune Under Article 361: The Constitution grants the Governor personal immunity from legal proceedings while in office, making it difficult to enforce any court directive. Eg: Even if the Court issued a mandamus to compel assent or action, the Governor could not be held legally accountable for ignoring it.
    • Mandamus Cannot Be Enforced Practically: Courts cannot force a Governor to exercise discretion in a particular way, only to consider doing so—making the remedy ineffective when deliberate inaction is involved. Eg: If the Governor simply delays action without giving reasons, courts have limited tools to compel a timely decision.
    • Could Cause a Constitutional Standoff: Forcing the Governor through judicial direction risks undermining the separation of powers and could lead to a deadlock between constitutional authorities. Eg: If the Governor resists the court order, it could trigger a conflict between the judiciary and the executive, weakening the constitutional balance.

    Way forward: 

    • Codify Time Limit for Assent: Amend the Constitution or enact a statutory framework to prescribe a reasonable time limit (eg: 30 days) within which the Governor must act on Bills to prevent indefinite delays.
    • Enhance Legislative Oversight: Establish a mechanism for State Legislatures to seek judicial clarification or initiate review when the Governor delays action, reinforcing accountability and upholding democratic norms.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.

    Linkage: This question directly addresses the legislative powers of the Governor, a key aspect of their conduct. The second part specifically asks about the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances, which can be a contentious issue and often involves judicial scrutiny. This relates to the constitutional limits on the Governor’s powers, similar to the issues raised in the article.

  • [11th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Are existing mechanisms effective in combating judicial corruption?

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2017] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘The National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ concerning the appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.

    Linkage: The integrity of the appointment process is a key mechanism to prevent the entry of potentially corrupt individuals into the judiciary. Debates around judicial appointments often touch upon the need for transparency and meritocracy to safeguard against various forms of impropriety, including corruption.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  The current system to deal with corruption in the judiciary includes in-house inquiries, impeachment, and oversight by the Supreme Court and High Courts. However, it is often slow, and secretive, and rarely results in strict action. Lack of transparency and political influence can weaken its impact, making it less effective in ensuring full accountability of judges.

    Today’s editorial talks about problems in making judges more accountable. It highlights gaps in how judicial misconduct is handled and why better checks are needed. This topic is useful for UPSC GS Paper 2 (governance, transparency) and GS Paper 4 (ethics, integrity in public life).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Last month, a large amount of unaccounted cash was reportedly found at the official home of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma. In response, Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, started an internal inquiry into the matter.

    What are the limitations of the impeachment process in ensuring judicial accountability?

    • High Threshold for Removal: The impeachment process requires a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament and an absolute majority of total membership. This makes it extremely difficult to impeach a judge even in cases of credible misconduct. Eg: No judge of the Supreme Court or High Court has ever been successfully impeached in independent India, despite allegations — such as in the case of Justice V. Ramaswami (1993), whose impeachment failed due to political abstentions.
    • Over-Reliance on Political Consensus: The process is politically driven, requiring broad support across parties, which may not be feasible in a fragmented or polarized Parliament. Political considerations often override judicial integrity in decision-making.
    • Delayed and Ineffective as a Deterrent: The process is slow, opaque, and reactive, initiated only after significant public outcry or media coverage. It fails to act as a timely or effective deterrent, allowing misconduct to go unchecked. Eg: Justice Nirmal Yadav of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was acquitted nearly 15 years after a corruption inquiry, despite early evidence.

    Why is there a demand to institutionalise transparency in judicial inquiries?

    • Prevents Perception of Shielding Judges: Transparency helps counter the belief that the judiciary protects its own members in misconduct cases. Eg: In the Justice Yashwant Varma case, the Supreme Court proactively released CCTV footage showing recovery of unaccounted cash to pre-empt accusations of cover-up.
    • Builds Public Trust and Confidence: In an era of social and mass media scrutiny, opaque proceedings can fuel public suspicion and damage the judiciary’s credibility. Making inquiry reports public can reaffirm accountability and institutional integrity.
    • Reduces Speculation and Misinformation: Lack of official communication can lead to rumours or leaks, which may distort facts and undermine due process. Eg: Experts have suggested appointing dedicated communications personnel in the judiciary to clarify facts and handle sensitive disclosures responsibly.

    Who informally influences judicial appointments, and how does it impact the collegium?

    • Executive’s Role in Informal Consultations: Even before formal recommendations, the executive is consulted informally, allowing it to influence selections. Eg: The Union Government often shares IB (Intelligence Bureau) inputs that can sway or stall decisions by the collegium.
    • De Facto Executive Veto: The government can withhold or delay approval of names without giving reasons, effectively creating a veto power. Eg: Several appointments have been indefinitely delayed by the executive sitting on the collegium’s recommendations.
    • Impact on Transparency and Candidate Morale: This opaque and selective process discourages deserving candidates from participating in judicial selection. Eg: Many lawyers and judges avoid the process due to its lack of transparency and potential for humiliation.

    How can peer review within the judiciary be strengthened to prevent judicial misconduct?

    • Institutionalising Informal FeedbackRegularise the informal feedback already exchanged within legal circles into a formal review system. Eg: Concerns shared among judges and lawyers about a colleague’s integrity can be compiled and assessed systematically.
    • Involving Bar Associations: Inputs from bar associations can serve as early warnings of problematic judicial behaviour. Eg: If advocates repeatedly report bias or misconduct by a judge, it could trigger a formal internal review.
    • Mandatory Periodic Evaluations: Judges could undergo peer-reviewed performance evaluations at regular intervals. Eg: Evaluation of case disposal rates, conduct in court, and legal soundness of judgments by a panel of peers.
    • Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Enforce mandatory disclosures of family members practicing in the same court or other potential conflicts. Eg: If a judge’s relative practices in the same court, either the judge is transferred or the relative is barred from appearing.
    • Protection of Whistleblowers Within Judiciary: Create a safe mechanism for judges or staff to report unethical conduct without fear of retaliation. Eg: A junior judge or clerk reporting bribe attempts or unusual case assignments should be protected and heard confidentially.

    When can contempt laws allow public scrutiny without undermining judicial dignity?

    • When Criticism is in Good Faith and Based on Facts: Legitimate concerns or constructive criticism aimed at reform, not defamation, should be allowed. Eg: A lawyer or journalist pointing out procedural delays or lack of transparency in judicial appointments based on verified data.
    • When the Speech is Not Intended to Scandalise the Court: Public discourse that respects the institution but critiques specific actions or decisions helps improve accountability. Eg: Civil society groups questioning a controversial verdict or delay in inquiry, without using derogatory language.
    • When It Promotes Institutional Integrity: Scrutiny that leads to reform and helps maintain the credibility of the judiciary should not be penalised. Eg: Media coverage exposing corruption in the judiciary, like the Justice Yashwant Varma case, can lead to necessary reforms if done responsibly.

    Way forward:

    • Establish an Independent Judicial Oversight Body: A permanent and independent authority comprising retired judges, legal scholars, and public representatives can investigate complaints, oversee peer reviews, and recommend disciplinary action.
    • Codify Transparent Guidelines and Communication Protocols: Formulate clear, time-bound procedures for judicial appointments, disclosures, and inquiry mechanisms with mandatory public reporting (where appropriate). Eg: Publish annual integrity audits, conflict-of-interest registers, and inquiry outcomes (with due protection for sensitive data) to uphold public trust.

  • When Parliament stayed awake through the night

    Why in the News?

    The recently held Budget session of Parliament became historic, as both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha continued working all night and ended only around sunrise.

    What made the recently concluded Budget session of Parliament historically significant?

    • All-night Sitting: Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha continued debates through the night until early morning, which is extremely rare. For example, the Rajya Sabha was still debating at 8:30 p.m., with 22 speakers left, and the Waqf Bill was passed only around 2:30 a.m.
    • Record High Productivity: The session saw exceptionally high legislative productivity — 118% in Lok Sabha and 119% in Rajya Sabha. Eg: This indicates that the Houses worked more hours than scheduled, completing more business than expected.
    • Rich Parliamentary Debate and Public Engagement: Despite the late hours, MPs spoke passionately, aiming for impactful speeches that could go viral or make headlines. Eg: A woman MP quoted Victor Hugo (mistakenly calling him British), showing both the depth and drama of the debate.

    Who played a critical role in capturing the nuances of the all-night parliamentary session for the public?

    • Parliamentary Reporters: They stayed overnight in the House, observing debates and documenting proceedings for the media. Eg: The author of the editorial, a parliamentary reporter, described the urgency and drama of speeches during the night.
    • News Desks and Editors: They coordinated under pressure to ensure reports met tight print deadlines while maintaining accuracy. Eg: The reporter received frantic messages from the desk urging for a timely copy to meet the morning paper’s schedule.
    • Media as a Democratic Bridge: Reporters help the public understand what’s happening inside Parliament, especially during rare sittings. Eg: Despite physical restrictions in the new Parliament building, reporters continue to attend sessions to provide detailed coverage.

    Where are reporters restricted from going within the new Indian Parliament building, despite having official access?

    • Glass Enclosure for Media Personnel: Reporters, especially from electronic media, are confined to a glass enclosure within the Parliament premises. This limits their ability to move freely and interact with Members of Parliament (MPs). Eg: On July 29, 2024, journalists were restricted to this enclosure and prevented from accessing areas like the ‘Makar Dwar’, where they traditionally gathered sound bites from MPs.
    • Restricted Access to ‘Makar Dwar’: The ‘Makar Dwar’, a main entrance used by MPs, has been cordoned off, preventing journalists from approaching MPs for interviews. Eg: Journalists were removed from this area, which was previously a common spot for media interactions with MPs.
    • Limited Entry to Press Galleries: Access to the press galleries has been significantly reduced, with only a limited number of journalists allowed entry, often through a non-transparent selection process. Eg: The Editors’ Guild of India noted that only a fraction of the approximately 1,000 accredited journalists are granted access, without a clear procedure.
    • Separate Entry Points and Increased Security Checks: Journalists now have designated entry points separate from MPs and officials, coupled with multiple security checks, making access more cumbersome. Eg: Reporters are frisked multiple times and must navigate a windowless corridor with security cameras to reach the press gallery.
    • Restrictions Around Key Offices: Areas surrounding the Prime Minister’s Office, the Speaker’s office, and the Rajya Sabha Chairman’s office are off-limits to journalists, limiting their coverage scope. Eg: These zones have been cordoned off, preventing media personnel from accessing them.

    Why do reporters persist in covering parliamentary debates despite challenges?

    • Democratic Responsibility: Reporters feel a duty to keep the public informed about how their representatives function, especially during important debates. Eg: Even during the late-night Budget session, reporters stayed to capture each speaker’s arguments, helping citizens understand crucial legislative developments.
    • Fear of Missing Crucial Details: Journalists worry they might miss significant moments or policy announcements if they leave early or tune out. Eg: During a midnight speech on the Waqf Bill, a Member of Parliament misattributed Victor Hugo as British — a detail that adds color and context to the reporting.
    • Drama and Insight: Parliamentary sessions offer intense debates, humor, emotional appeals, and unfiltered views — making them compelling for storytelling. Eg: The sight of an actor-turned-politician struggling through an angry speech added drama and human interest to the reporter’s coverage.

    Way forward: 

    • Ensure Transparent and Inclusive Media Access: Parliament should adopt a fair, transparent system for press gallery access and allow broader journalist participation, ensuring diverse media voices are represented. Eg: Revoking arbitrary restrictions and restoring access to areas like ‘Makar Dwar’ can enhance real-time, on-ground reporting.
    • Leverage Technology for Better Public Engagement: Install live-streaming infrastructure, media briefing zones, and provide official transcripts quickly to support timely, accurate reporting. Eg: Designated digital zones can help journalists report swiftly without compromising security or disrupting proceedings.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2019]  Individual Parliamentarian’s role as the national law maker is on a decline, which in turn, has adversely impacted the quality of debates and their outcome. Discuss.

    Linkage: Role of Parliamentary discussion and debate for the public. This also examines the role and effectiveness of individual Members of Parliament during parliamentary sessions. 

  • SC slams TN Governor, Fixes Time for Assent

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court criticised Tamil Nadu Governor R.N. Ravi, calling his actions “unconstitutional.” The court said he did nothing for months about 10 important Bills, and then suddenly sent them to the President only after the State Assembly passed them again and the matter reached the court.

    ‘Must act with due deference to conventions of parliamentary democracy’: Supreme Court sets aside TN Governor’s reservation of 10 Bills  

    What did the SC rule on the TN Governor’s reservation of Bills for the President in Nov 2024?

    • Action declared illegal: The Court ruled that the Governor’s act of reserving 10 Bills for the President after they were already reconsidered and passed again by the Tamil Nadu Assembly was unconstitutional. Eg: If a state legislature passes a Bill, and the Governor returns it, but the legislature passes it again, the Governor must either give assent or withhold it—he cannot send it to the President at that stage.
    • Violation of Article 200: According to Article 200, a Bill can be reserved for the President only when it is first presented to the Governor—not after it is passed again following reconsideration. Eg: The Governor had no authority to reserve the 10 Bills in November 2024 because they had already been returned, reconsidered, and passed again.
    • Presidential action also invalid: The Court held that since the Governor’s action was unconstitutional, any decision taken by the President based on that action is also invalid. Eg: Even if the President had accepted or rejected those Bills, it would not be valid because the referral itself was flawed.

    Why did the SC invoke Article 142 to grant assent to the 10 Bills?

    • Undue delay by the Governor: The Bills were kept pending for an excessively long time without any decision by the Governor, causing a constitutional deadlock. Eg: Some Bills were pending since January 2020, which hindered the functioning of the state legislature and governance.
    • Violation of constitutional spirit and conventions: The Governor showed disregard for established constitutional conventions and the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings by not acting in a timely or respectful manner. Eg: The Court said the Governor displayed “scant respect” for constitutional procedures by withholding assent without valid reason.
    • To ensure justice and restore balance: The Court used Article 142 (which allows it to do complete justice in any matter) to directly grant assent to the 10 Bills to break the impasse and uphold democratic functioning. Eg: Since the Governor failed in his duty, the Court stepped in to protect the will of the people as expressed through their elected legislature.
    Note: Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court the power to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case or matter pending before it, allowing it to transcend the limitations of existing laws and statutes. 

    When can a Governor constitutionally reserve a Bill for the President’s consideration?

    • Only at the first instance of presentation (Article 200): Under Article 200 of the Constitution, the Governor may reserve a Bill for the President only when it is presented to him for the first time. Eg: If a state Assembly passes a Bill and the Governor receives it for the first time, he can reserve it for the President instead of giving or withholding assent.
    • Not after Assembly reconsideration (Article 200 – First Proviso): If the Governor returns a Bill to the Assembly and it is re-passed (with or without changes), the Governor must act—either grant or withhold assent—and cannot reserve it again unless it is substantially changed. Eg: In the Tamil Nadu case, the Governor reserved the Bills after they were reconsidered by the Assembly, which the Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional.
    • Exception – If the Bill is materially different (Article 200 – Judicial Interpretation): If the Bill, after being reconsidered by the legislature, is substantially or materially different from the original, reservation may be allowed. Eg: If new provisions are added that affect national interest or conflict with Union laws, reservation might be justified, even after reconsideration.

    How did the SC define the Governor’s expected role and conduct under the Constitution?

    • Respect for Parliamentary Democracy and the Will of the Legislature: The Governor must act in accordance with the democratic spirit and not undermine the decisions of the elected legislature. Eg: Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) — The SC ruled that the Governor is a constitutional head and must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in specific situations.
    • Facilitator, Not an Obstructionist: The Governor should enable smooth functioning of governance and not stall legislative processes. Eg: Samsher Singh case (1974) and reaffirmed in the 2024 SC ruling on Tamil Nadu Bills — The Court held that the Governor’s prolonged inaction amounted to a constitutional failure and disruption of state functioning.
    • Bound by Constitutional Oath and Values:The Governor is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and work for the welfare of the people. Eg: Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) — The SC observed that the Governor must act within the “four corners” of the Constitution and not misuse discretionary powers.

    Way forward: 

    • Time-bound Action Framework for Governors: A clear timeline should be laid down—either by Parliament or through judicial interpretation—for the Governor to act on Bills (assent, withhold, or reserve). Eg: A fixed period (like 4–6 weeks) can ensure that legislative processes are not indefinitely delayed, maintaining the balance between constitutional roles and democratic governance.
    • Institutional Clarity and Accountability: The role and powers of the Governor should be revisited to reduce ambiguity and misuse of discretion. Regular communication protocols between the Governor’s office and the elected government can also be institutionalized. Eg: Like in the case of money Bills where the Governor has limited scope, similar clarity must be applied to regular Bills to avoid conflict or misuse.

    Mains PYQ: 

    [UPSC 2018] Whether the Supreme Court Judgement (July 2018) can settle the political tussle between the Lt. Governor and elected government of Delhi? Examine.

    Linkage: The broader theme of the relationship between an unelected head of state (or administrator) and an elected government in a democratic setup.

  • [8th April 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A case for a fair seat allocation

    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 readjustment of Lok Sabha seats, especially if perceived as disproportionately benefiting some states over others, can significantly impact Centre-State relations and the balance of power within the federal system.

     

    Mentor’s Comment: Delimitation means fixing or re-fixing the boundaries of election constituencies. This is done by the Delimitation Commission, but only after a Census is held. According to Article 82 of the Constitution, after each Census, the number of Lok Sabha seats should be adjusted to match the population growth. However, the current strength of the Lok Sabha is based on the 1971 Census, when India’s population was about 54.79 crore. As of March 2025, this number is estimated to have increased to 141 crore. Despite this massive population growth over the last 50 years, the number of Lok Sabha seats has remained the same, as the seat count was frozen based on the 1971 population through a constitutional amendment until 2026.

    Today’s editorial talks about the problems and discussions around changing the number of Lok Sabha seats based on the next Census. This topic is useful for GS Paper 2 in the UPSC Mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    The issue of changing the number of Lok Sabha seats based on the upcoming Census is being widely discussed across the country.

    What is the primary difference between the readjustment of Lok Sabha seats and delimitation?

    Aspect Readjustment of Lok Sabha Seats Delimitation Example (Eg)
    Definition Changing the number of seats allocated to each State based on population. Redrawing the boundaries of constituencies within a State. After 2026, Uttar Pradesh may get more Lok Sabha seats (readjustment).
    Constitutional Basis Governed by Article 82; done after every Census through Parliament. Done by an independent Delimitation Commission after a Census. Constituency borders in Tamil Nadu were redrawn in 2008 (delimitation).
    Focus Area Focuses on inter-State seat distribution to reflect population changes. Focuses on intra-State constituency adjustment. Kerala may retain 20 seats, but constituency borders may shift (delimitation).

    Why was the number of Lok Sabha seats frozen based on the 1971 Census figures until 2026?

    • Promote Population Control: The freeze aimed to incentivize States to control population growth. Eg: Kerala and Tamil Nadu implemented successful family planning programs, and the freeze ensured they weren’t penalized for lower population growth.
    • Prevent Disproportionate Political Power: If seats were allocated purely on population, high-growth States would dominate Parliament. Eg: Uttar Pradesh, with population increasing from 8.38 crore (1971) to 24.1 crore (2025), could demand up to 240 seats, disrupting national balance.
    • Maintain Inter-State Equity: The goal was to maintain fair representation for all States despite demographic differences. Eg: Southern States like Kerala (68% population rise) would have lost out to northern States with over 200% increase.
    • Allow Time for Demographic Stabilization: It provided time for States with high fertility rates to stabilize their population before readjustment. Eg: Bihar’s population grew from 4.21 crore (1971) to 13.1 crore (2025), needing time to catch up on family planning efforts.
    • Backed by Constitutional Amendments: The 42nd (1976) and 84th (2001) Amendments legally froze the seat distribution until after the 2026 Census, reflecting national consensus. Eg: Article 82 was amended to delay readjustment, reinforcing the political importance of stability and fairness.

    Which States are likely to gain the most seats if readjustment is done strictly based on population growth?

    • High Population Growth in Northern States: States like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have witnessed exponential population growth since 1971, leading to a higher claim for more seats if readjustment is done purely on population figures. Eg: Uttar Pradesh grew from 8.38 crore (1971) to 24.1 crore (2025) and may get up to 240 seats, up from the current 80.
    • Large Base and Sustained Growth in Central India: States such as Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, with relatively higher growth rates, are also poised to gain significantly in seat allocation. Eg: Madhya Pradesh, with its growing population and current 29 seats, could see a proportional jump in its representation.
    • Heavily Populated but Slower-Control States Like West Bengal and Maharashtra: These States have large populations and moderately high growth rates, placing them in the category of beneficiaries in seat readjustment. Eg: Maharashtra, with a population exceeding 12 crore, may go beyond its present 48 seats to possibly 60 or more.

    Which States fear losing political influence as a result?

    • Southern States with Successful Population Control: States like Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh fear marginalisation because they effectively implemented family planning and now risk being underrepresented in Parliament. Eg: Kerala grew only 68% since 1971 and may gain very few seats (from 20 to 34), while Uttar Pradesh could triple its seats.
    • Concern over Disproportionate Power Shift to the North: Southern leaders worry that population-based seat allocation would reward States with poor governance on population control and shift national decision-making disproportionately northward.

    When was the last Lok Sabha seat readjustment, and when is the next one due?

    • Last Readjustment – Based on 1971 Census: The last readjustment of Lok Sabha seats was done based on the 1971 Census figures. Eg: The number of seats was fixed at 543 after the 1971 population was taken into account (approx. 54.8 crore).
    • Freeze Imposed Until 2026: The 42nd and 84th Constitutional Amendments froze the number of Lok Sabha seats based on the 1971 data, to encourage population control across States. Eg: This freeze was intended to avoid penalizing States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu which successfully limited population growth.
    • Next Readjustment Due After 2026: The next readjustment is constitutionally mandated to happen after the first Census conducted post-2026, which is expected to be the 2031 Census. Eg: If readjusted based on estimated 2025 population (approx. 141 crore), total seats may rise to around 800–912.

    What would be the impact on center-state relations? 

    • Federal Tensions and Demands for Autonomy: Southern and smaller States may feel marginalized and push for more fiscal and legislative autonomy. This could strain Centre-State relations and deepen regional political divides. Eg: Tamil Nadu or Telangana may seek greater control over education, health, or language policy as compensation for lower parliamentary weight.
    • Unequal Voice in Resource Allocation: More seats mean more bargaining power during budget debates and policy framing. States with fewer seats may feel sidelined in central schemes and fund distribution. Eg: Madhya Pradesh may influence infrastructure spending more than Mizoram, despite both having important developmental needs.

    Way forward: 

    • Balanced Formula Beyond Population Alone: Adopt a hybrid model that considers not only population but also parameters like the human development index (HDI), population control efforts, and geographical diversity to ensure fairness. Eg: Southern States like Tamil Nadu, despite lower population growth, could be rewarded for their social indicators and governance.
    • Constitutional and Political Consensus Building: Initiate bipartisan discussions and possibly form a national commission to recommend a fair readjustment mechanism, preserving federal balance and cooperative federalism. Eg: Ensuring that both high-growth and low-growth States feel represented will prevent regional discontent and maintain national unity.

  • Only 12% of HC judges disclosed assets, data show

    Why in the News?

    Out of 769 judges serving in 25 High Courts, only 95 (12.35%) have disclosed their assets publicly. Courts like Kerala (93.18%) and Himachal Pradesh (91.66%) lead in transparency, while Madras (5 of 65) and Chhattisgarh (1 of 16) lag significantly.

    Only 12% of HC judges disclosed assets, data show

    Why is judicial asset disclosure vital for accountability and transparency in India?

    • Promotes Public Trust in the Judiciary: Transparency about judges’ financial status builds confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. Eg: The Kerala High Court, where 93.18% of judges disclosed their assets, is often cited for maintaining high standards of judicial transparency.
    • Acts as a Deterrent Against Corruption: Mandatory and public asset declarations reduce the scope for corrupt practices by subjecting judges to public scrutiny. Eg: The recent discovery of partially burnt currency notes at a High Court judge’s residence intensified concerns over hidden wealth and lack of oversight.
    • Ensures Accountability of Public Office Holders: Judges are public servants paid from taxpayer money, and like elected representatives, must be held financially accountable. Eg: The Supreme Court’s past judgment requiring MPs/MLAs to declare assets reflects this principle — the same logic applies to the judiciary.
    • Reduces Risk of Conflict of Interest: Regular disclosures help identify any undue financial interest that could influence judicial decisions. Eg: A judge ruling on a corporate dispute may be biased if they own shares in one of the companies involved — disclosures would reveal this.
    • Strengthens Institutional Transparency and Ethics: It sets an ethical benchmark for the judiciary and other branches of government, promoting clean and transparent governance. Eg: The Supreme Court’s recent Full Court resolution (April 2025) to make all judges’ assets public reflects a significant move toward institutional integrity.

    How can the Supreme Court’s asset disclosure push drive wider judicial reforms?

    • Sets a Precedent for High Courts: The Supreme Court’s collective decision encourages other High Courts to adopt similar transparency measures, creating a ripple effect across the judiciary. Eg: After the Supreme Court’s Full Court resolution (April 2025), pressure has increased on High Courts like Madras and Chhattisgarh, where disclosure rates remain low.
    • Catalyzes Legislative and Policy Reforms: The move strengthens the case for mandatory annual disclosures through legislation, as recommended by parliamentary committees. Eg: The 2023 Parliamentary Standing Committee Report called for laws requiring asset declarations by all judges — the Supreme Court’s step gives it momentum.
    • Promotes a Culture of Judicial Accountability and Ethics: Voluntary public disclosures help build a culture of openness, paving the way for broader reforms like transparent appointments, performance reviews, and grievance redressal. Eg: Similar transparency efforts contributed to the creation of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) debate and ongoing calls for reforming the collegium system.

    Who are the key institutions responsible for enforcing judges’ asset disclosure?

    • The Supreme Court of India: As the apex judicial authority, the Supreme Court plays a norm-setting role, influencing High Courts through its own practices and resolutions. Eg: The Full Court resolution of April 2025, where all 33 Supreme Court judges agreed to make their asset declarations public, sets a national benchmark for judicial transparency.
    • High Courts and Their Chief Justices: Each High Court is responsible for framing internal guidelines and encouraging or mandating its judges to disclose assets. Eg: The Kerala High Court, where 41 out of 44 judges have declared their assets, demonstrates effective internal leadership and commitment to transparency.
    • Parliament and Parliamentary Standing Committees: Through legislative oversight and recommendations, Parliament can initiate legal mandates for asset disclosures and hold the judiciary accountable in the public interest. Eg: The 2023 Standing Committee Report on Judicial Reforms recommended that the government make annual property disclosures by all judges a statutory requirement.

    Way forward: 

    • Enact a Statutory Framework for Mandatory Annual Disclosures: The government should introduce legislation making annual asset and liability declarations mandatory for all judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. This would ensure uniformity, legal backing, and prevent selective or voluntary compliance.
    • Establish an Independent Oversight Mechanism for Verification and Monitoring: Set up an independent judicial accountability commission or ethics body to verify disclosures, monitor compliance, and address grievances related to judicial integrity.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2021] “An independent and empowered social audit mechanism is an absolute must in every sphere of public service, including the judiciary, to ensure performance, accountability and ethical conduct. Elaborate

    Linkage:  Disclosure of assets is important to ensure that judges act responsibly and ethically. It helps build trust among the people and also supports the authority of the Constitution.