The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is being used to defeat the Right to Information Act, 2005. The conflict is between the right to informational privacy and the right of citizens to access public information.
What is Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023?
Amending provision: Section 44(3) amended Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which governs exemption of personal information.
Effect: It removed the earlier public interest override, allowing any personal information to be withheld.
Why does this threaten the Right to Information?
Blanket exemption: Officials can now deny information by labelling it ‘personal data’ without a public interest test.
Journalism risk: Investigative reporting that relies on named records could be gagged.
Accountability loss: Asset disclosures and beneficiary lists that expose wrongdoing may fall outside access.
What is the case for the privacy safeguard?
Fundamental right: Privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 in the K.S. Puttaswamy judgment.
Data misuse: Uncontrolled disclosure of personal data can enable profiling and harm.
What must be resolved for the two laws to coexist?
Public interest test: A restored balancing standard is the missing precondition for reconciling access and privacy.
Conclusion
The central question is whether privacy protection can be read so widely that it nullifies transparency. The next milestone is the Court’s substantive hearing on the challenge to Section 44(3).
Back2Basics: Right to Information Act, 2005
Objective: Empowers citizens to seek information from public authorities to promote transparency and accountability.
Key body: Central and State Information Commissions adjudicate appeals and complaints.
Section 8: Lists exemptions from disclosure, including the personal information clause now amended.
“[2020, GS2, 10 marks] ‘Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission’. Discuss.”
The Supreme Court agreed to consider a plea alleging misuse of Form 7 during Uttar Pradesh’s Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. In Karnataka, nearly half of Bengaluru’s voters are flagged for possible deletion ahead of the draft roll. The draft roll is due on 17 August 2026.
What is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls?
Definition: the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a house to house exercise by the Election Commission to update and verify electoral rolls.
Enumeration: electors are mapped and verified, and doubtful entries are flagged for review.
Draft stage: a draft roll is published, followed by a claims and objections phase before finalisation.
What is Form 7 and how is it alleged to be misused?
Form 7: a statutory mechanism under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, for limited and bona fide objections to inclusion, or deletion on narrow grounds.
Allegation: a Congress Member of Parliament cited documented evidence of bulk, fraudulent and targeted deletion attempts.
Targeting: the plea says objections hit minority and marginalised electors, including those already verified during the revision.
Mechanical filing: Booth Level Officers reportedly received pre filled Form 7 applications with identical grounds and no credible basis.
Respondents: the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer of Uttar Pradesh are named respondents.
What is the ASDDO flag in Karnataka?
Full form: Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate or Other.
Scale: of Bengaluru’s 1.03 crore voters, 49.42 lakh are flagged under this category.
State total: across Karnataka, 1.11 crore voters, one fifth of the 5.54 crore mapped, are flagged.
Hotspots: ten Bengaluru constituencies show flagged deletions above 50 percent, led by Bommanahalli at 57.08 percent.
[2017] For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by (a) Anyone residing in India. (b) A resident of the constituency from which the election is to be contested. (c) Any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency. (d) Any citizen of India.
An analysis examines how crowd control weapons meant to be non lethal cause serious injury during protests. The tension is between the state’s duty to maintain order and its obligation to protect the right to protest safely.
What are less lethal weapons?
Non lethal intent:Less lethal weapons are meant to disperse crowds without killing, but can cause serious harm.
Common types: They include tear gas, pepper and PAVA spray, lathis, pellet guns, and shock batons.
Chemical agents: Tear gas is a riot control agent that irritates the eyes and respiratory tract.
Which are the types of less lethal weapons?
Tear Gas: A chemical riot-control agent that causes intense eye irritation, tearing, coughing, breathing difficulty, and temporary disorientation. Its main chemical compounds include CS Gas (2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile), CN Gas (Chloroacetophenone), OC Gas (Oleoresin Capsicum), CR Gas (Dibenzoxazepine) and Chloropicrin (PS).
Pepper Spray: An oleoresin capsicum (OC)-based spray that causes severe burning of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract, leading to temporary incapacitation.
PAVA Spray: A synthetic pepper spray (Pelargonic Acid Vanillylamide) that causes intense eye irritation and pain with a more controlled and consistent effect than natural pepper spray.
Lathi: A wooden or polycarbonate baton used by police for crowd control through physical force.
Pellet Guns: Firearms that discharge multiple small pellets to disperse crowds; they can cause serious injuries, particularly to the eyes. They are loaded with cartridges containing hundreds of small metal sub-projectiles.
Shock Batons (Stun Batons): Handheld electroshock devices that deliver a brief electric shock to temporarily immobilise a person through pain and muscle disruption.
Why do these weapons cause medical crises?
Misuse at range: Pellet guns fired at close range or at the head cause blinding injuries.
Enclosed spaces: Tear gas used in confined areas raises the risk of asphyxiation.
Vulnerable groups: Children and people with respiratory illness face higher harm.
What do international and domestic norms say?
Chemical Weapons Convention: Under the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons rules, the Chemical Weapons Convention bans tear gas in warfare while permitting it for domestic policing.
UN guidance: The United Nations Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons sets limits on their use.
Precedent: The 2016 pellet gun injuries in Jammu and Kashmir left many with permanent vision loss.
Conclusion
The weapons are lawful for policing yet routinely cause disproportionate harm in practice. The unresolved gap is enforceable standards on how and when they are deployed.
Back2Basics
The United Nations Guidance on Less Lethal Weapons
The United Nations Human Rights Guidance on the Use of Less-Lethal Weapons in Law Enforcement, released by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), provides international standards for the lawful design, testing, training, and deployment of less-lethal equipment to prevent unnecessary harm, abuse, and human rights violations during policing and assemblies.
Core Principles
Legality: Use must be strictly authorized by domestic and international law.
Necessity: Force is applied only when strictly necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.
Proportionality: Harm caused must not outweigh the objective; excessive force is prohibited.
Accountability: States and agencies must track, record, and review every deployment of less-lethal systems.
Scope and Covered Equipment
Chemical Irritants: Regulations on tear gas and pepper spray deployment parameters.
Kinetic Impact Projectiles: Standards for rubber bullets and beanbag rounds to avoid lethal head or torso strikes.
Electric-Shock Weapons: Protocols for Tasers and other projectile stun systems.
Area-Effect Tools: Oversight on water cannons and acoustic disruption gear.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2021] Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.
Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s human rights protection framework and institutional accountability. The article highlights excessive use of less-lethal weapons and the need for stronger human rights safeguards and accountability.
A large intensive revision of electoral rolls has removed millions of names across States, with objection windows now open. The tension is between cleaning the rolls of ineligible entries and the risk of wrongful deletion of genuine voters.
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
Roll revision: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is a house to house re verification of electoral rolls by the Election Commission of India.
ASDD categories: Names are marked under absent, shifted, duplicate, and dead (ASDD) categories for deletion.
Claims window: Deletions are provisional until the claims and objections period closes.
What is the scale of deletion?
Jharkhand: About 43.6 lakh names, or 16.5%, were removed from the draft roll.
Karnataka: The State projects deletions of about 20% of electors.
Correction route: Voters can seek restoration through Booth Level Officers and Form 6.
Why is the revision contested?
Wrongful removal: Genuine voters risk deletion through data errors.
Compressed timeline: The claims and objections window runs only to 4 September 2026.
Legal challenge: The revision faces litigation over its process and scale.
“[2017] Consider the following statements: 1. The Election Commission of India is a ‘ five-member body. 2. Union Ministry of Home Affairs decides the election schedule for the conduct of both general elections and bye-elections. 3. Election Commission resolves the disputes relating to splits/mergers of recognized political parties. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 only (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 3 only
Parliament passed the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, 2026, increasing the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court through the Money Bill route, triggering debate over the constitutional validity of bypassing the Rajya Sabha.
What is a Money Bill?
Constitutional basis: Defined under Article 110 of the Constitution.
Scope: A Bill is a Money Bill only if it deals exclusively with matters such as:
Taxation, Government borrowing, Custody or withdrawal of money from the Consolidated Fund of India, Contingency Fun, and Appropriation of public money
Speaker’s certification: The Speaker of the Lok Sabha decides whether a Bill is a Money Bill, and the certification is endorsed on the Bill.
Limited role of Rajya Sabha: The Rajya Sabha can only recommend amendments within 14 days, which the Lok Sabha may accept or reject.
What does the Bill provide?
Higher judicial strength: Increases the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38 judges, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
Replaces an Ordinance: Substitutes the Ordinance promulgated in May 2026.
Government’s objective: Reduce case pendency, improve judicial efficiency, and strengthen access to justice.
Why is the Money Bill route controversial?
Constitutional issue pending: The validity of certifying certain laws as Money Bills is under consideration by a larger Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court.
Concern over precedent: In the Aadhaar judgment (2018), the dissenting opinion described the use of the Money Bill route for substantive legislation as a “fraud on the Constitution.”
Reduced parliamentary scrutiny: Since the Rajya Sabha has only an advisory role, critics argue that the route weakens bicameral legislative oversight.
“[2014] The power to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court of India is vested in? (a) The President of India. (b) The Parliament. (c) The Chief Justice of India. (d) The Law Commission.
The 16th Finance Commission has retained the size of the tax pool for States but reshaped the grants that equalise between them. The tension is between fiscal efficiency and the constitutional intent of equity across unequal States.
What is the Finance Commission?
Constitutional body: The Finance Commission is set up under Article 280 every five years to recommend the sharing of taxes between the Union and the States.
Vertical devolution: It fixes the share of central taxes that goes to States as a whole.
Horizontal devolution: It sets the formula distributing that share among individual States.
What are the Key Recommendations of the 16th Finance Commission?
Vertical devolution retained at 41%: The States’ share of the divisible pool stays at 41%, the same level as the 15th Finance Commission, giving continuity and predictability.
Income distance weight trimmed: The income distance weight in the horizontal formula is cut from 45% to 42.5%.
New GDP contribution weight: A 10% GDP contribution weight is introduced in the horizontal formula.
Revenue Deficit Grants eliminated: The Revenue Deficit Grants that plugged the gap for States unable to meet committed expenditure are discontinued.
Sector and State specific grants cut: Most sector specific and State specific grants are removed.
Grants in aid share halved: Grants in aid fall from 19.4% to 8.3% of total transfers.
Why do the changes raise equity concerns?
Rewarding the prosperous: A GDP contribution weight favours already prosperous States that contribute more to national output.
Removing the equaliser: Revenue Deficit Grants had cushioned States that cannot meet committed expenditure from their own revenue.
Constitutional intent: Grants in aid under Article 275 are meant to lift weaker States, and a shrinking grant share works against that purpose.
Conclusion
The award tilts the transfer system toward fiscal performance and away from equalisation. The unresolved question is whether poorer States can meet their obligations once the grant cushion is withdrawn.
What is Fiscal Federalism?
About:Fiscal federalism is the division of taxation powers, expenditure responsibilities, borrowing powers, and intergovernmental transfers among the different levels of government in a federal system.
Rationale: It is not merely a mechanism for dividing taxes, it ensures that a citizen’s access to essential public services does not depend excessively on the fiscal capacity of the State in which they live. Indian fiscal federalism reconciles three imbalances.
Vertical fiscal imbalance: The Union has access to buoyant, broad based taxes, while the States carry expenditure intensive responsibilities such as health, education, agriculture, police, and local infrastructure.
Horizontal fiscal imbalance: States differ widely in income, resources, geography, demographics, and revenue raising ability, so a lower income State cannot fund the same services as a richer one at similar tax rates.
Third tier fiscal imbalance: Panchayats and Municipalities carry substantial service delivery duties but have limited own source revenue and depend on transfers from the Union and the States.
Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule: Divides legislative and taxation powers through the Union, State, and Concurrent Lists, placing public order, health, agriculture, and local government largely in the State domain.
Article 246A: Inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016, gives Parliament and State Legislatures concurrent power over Goods and Services Tax, with Parliament exclusive over inter State GST.
Article 270: Defines the taxes forming the divisible pool shared with the States on the Finance Commission’s recommendation.
Article 271: Allows Union surcharges, which along with cesses are excluded from the divisible pool.
Article 275: Empowers Parliament to give grants in aid from the Consolidated Fund of India to States in need, including for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Areas.
Article 280: Requires the President to constitute a Finance Commission every five years to recommend vertical and horizontal devolution, the principles of grants in aid, and measures to augment State funds for local bodies.
Article 282: Permits the Union or a State to make grants for any public purpose, the constitutional basis for many discretionary and centrally sponsored transfers.
Articles 243-I and 243-Y: Require States to constitute State Finance Commissions every five years for Panchayats and Municipalities respectively.
Article 293: Lets States borrow within India, but a State indebted to the Union needs Union consent for further borrowing.
Article 279A: Establishes the GST Council, institutionalising cooperative Union State decision making on indirect taxes.
[2023] Consider the following : 1. Demographic performance 2. Forest and ecology 3. Governance reforms 4. Stable government 5. Tax and fiscal efforts For the horizontal tax devolution, the Fifteenth Finance Commission used how many of the above as criteria other than population area and income distance? (a) Only two (b) Only three (c) only four (d) All five
PYQ Relevance [UPSC 2016] To what extent is Article 370 temporary? Discuss future prospects. Linkage: The PYQ directly tests the constitutional character of Article 370 that this article’s central event revolves around. Now after its abrogation the theme extends to statehood demand of J&K.
Mentor’s Comment
August 5, 2026, marks seven years since Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 was revoked; August 9 will mark seven years since it lost Statehood. Seven years on, the promised trade-off of temporary central control for security and economic growth remains unfulfilled, even as the Lieutenant-Governor’s unaccountable powers have expanded further.
Has the trade-off of temporary central control for security and economic growth delivered its promised outcomes?
No formal emergency, emergency-scale measures: The 2019 actions were accompanied by troop deployment, detention of over 5,000 political leaders and cadre, curfew, and a communications blockade, without any emergency being formally declared.
Violence has spread, not receded: Terrorist attacks continued in 2025 at Pahalgam in April and Delhi’s Red Fort in November, and violence spread to previously dormant areas such as Poonch-Rajouri and adjoining districts.
Economic convergence has reversed: J&K’s per capita income as a share of the national average fell from 79.9% in 2013-14 to 76.6%, per the J&K Economic Survey 2025-26, a decline of 3.3 percentage points.
Unemployment remains structurally high: Overall unemployment is close to twice the national average; graduate unemployment stands at 23.9%.
Peaceful response met with intensified control: Kashmiris responded to the Pahalgam attack with peace marches and candlelit demonstrations, but the Union Home Ministry responded with the most militarised Amarnath Yatra in J&K’s history, routine PSA and UAPA charges, summons to over 2,000 people after a single incident, near-continuous curfews, and the highest number of internet shutdowns of any region in the country since 2019.
What made the process of revoking Article 370 and Statehood constitutionally unprecedented?
Executive fiat over Article 370: Article 370 was hollowed out through executive action; the Governor later stated he was directed by the Union Home Minister to sign.
Legislative fiat over Statehood: Statehood was removed through Parliament without consulting J&K’s people or its elected political leadership.
First such downgrade since 1956: J&K became the first State since Delhi in 1956 to lose Statehood.
Basic structure implications: Together, the two actions represent a departure from constitutional principles and the basic structure of the Union.
Treated as an exception, not a precedent: The actions were framed as specific to a conflict-ridden J&K rather than examined as part of a broader strain on India’s constitutional democracy.
Why have judicial and administrative checks failed to restore accountable government in J&K?
Prolonged judicial deference: The Supreme Court allowed the Union’s security-justification argument to stand unchallenged for four years before weakly recommending that Statehood be restored “as soon as possible.”
No timeline since: Three years after that recommendation, the Court has not heard petitions seeking a definite restoration timeline.
No test of necessity: At no point has the Court examined the Union’s measures against constitutional or pragmatic standards of necessity.
Six-month limit bypassed: The Constitution caps emergency conditions at six months, yet J&K has remained under emergency-like conditions for seven years without formal invocation.
Lieutenant-Governor holds core powers: Under the 2024 Transaction of Business Rules, the Lieutenant-Governor, an appointee, controls the administration, police, and government prosecutors, despite J&K having had an elected government since 2024.
Powers still expanding: The Lieutenant-Governor has since been granted emergency powers over telecommunications.
High Court strictures without reform: The J&K High Court has repeatedly criticised the police’s misuse of draconian laws, without this leading to institutional reform.
Why is the security-driven justification for prolonged unaccountable rule fundamentally flawed?
Moral flaw: The claim that subjugation is a means to a desirable end conceals the fact that subjugation is a repugnant end in itself, never a legitimate means.
Pragmatic flaw: Subjugation breeds disaffection, which expresses itself as violence once peaceful means of expression are disallowed, a pattern India has already experienced under colonial rule.
Empirical failure confirms the flaw: The continued rise and spread of violence, alongside declining economic indicators, demonstrates that the justification has failed on its own practical terms.
Judicial non-scrutiny entrenches the flaw: The absence of any judicial test of the argument’s utility has allowed it to function as a durable substitute for accountable governance rather than a genuinely temporary emergency measure.
What would it take for J&K to move from unaccountable control to democratic accountability?
Constitutional design points to elected government: The Constitution recognises an elected administration as the only structure capable of delivering accountability.
Downstream institutions depend on it: An independent legislature, institutional oversight, autonomous bodies, and a free media all require an elected administration to develop.
Civil society space is conditional: Civil society gains room to push for reform under an elected administration that it lacks under an appointed one.
Renewed political campaign: J&K’s National Conference has renewed the campaign for Statehood restoration, earlier pursued only fitfully by the Congress, now framed explicitly around accountability.
A record of “ugly firsts”: J&K has been the first State to see wide use of semi-lethal pellet guns (2016), the first to lose special status and Statehood (2019), and the first to undergo a communal delimitation altering Jammu’s demography through additional Hindu-majority constituencies (2022).
A possible “positive first”: The 2024 State election produced a majority for the pluralist National Conference-Congress alliance despite the delimitation exercise, showing that engineered political outcomes can be overcome through the ballot; Statehood restoration would be a fitting next “first.”
Conclusion
Seven years of Central rule in Jammu and Kashmir have not delivered the promised improvements in security or economic development. Instead, power has become concentrated in the Lieutenant Governor, reducing the role of the elected government. The argument that prolonged Central control is necessary for security is flawed because it weakens democratic accountability and can increase public alienation. Restoring Statehood remains the constitutional path to accountable governance, but it requires timely political and judicial action rather than indefinite delay.
The first phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Punjab ended with about 20 lakh names flagged as uncollectable. Authorities cited permanent relocation, absence, death and duplicate entries, and opened a claims and objections window.
What is the Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?
Roll purification drive: SIR is an Election Commission of India (ECI) exercise of house to house enumeration to update and cleanse the electoral roll of ineligible or dead entries.
Fresh verification: Electors submit enumeration forms and are mapped afresh, unlike a routine summary revision that only adds or deletes on application.
What did the first phase in Punjab find?
Scale of enumeration: Against 2,14,61,043 registered electors as of 9 June, about 1,93,94,408 submitted enumeration forms by 3 August across all 23 districts and 117 constituencies.
Uncollectable forms: A total of 20,66,635 forms, or 9.63% of electors, were categorised as absent, shifted, dead or duplicate.
Breakdown: These include 5,74,568 dead, 4,12,715 untraceable or absent, 9,44,131 permanently shifted, and 1,19,145 enrolled elsewhere.
Mapping: About 93.40% of electors in the draft roll have been mapped.
Why does the ECI conduct an intensive revision?
Purity of rolls: Removing dead, shifted and duplicate entries reduces the scope for impersonation and bogus voting.
Universal inclusion: House to house verification aims to capture genuine electors missed by application based revision.
What are the challenges to the SIR exercise?
Wrongful exclusion: Genuine electors who are temporarily absent risk deletion, as seen in disputes over detention and citizenship claims.
Burden of proof: Placing the onus on electors to submit forms can disadvantage migrants, the poor and the less literate.
Enumerator capacity: House to house coverage depends on adequate, trained booth level officers within a tight timeline.
Data reconciliation: Matching shifted and duplicate entries across constituencies and states is error prone.
Political contestation: Large deletions invite allegations of targeted disenfranchisement, straining trust in the roll.
Conclusion
The SIR is at the draft roll stage in Punjab, with about 20 lakh names flagged for removal after house to house enumeration. Any person inadvertently left out can file claims and objections between 13 August and 12 September, and notices to unmapped electors will be issued from 13 August, after which the final roll will be published.
Back2Basics:
Electoral roll revision
Electoral rolls are prepared and revised under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
The Election Commission of India superintends preparation and revision of rolls.
Revisions may be intensive, involving fresh house to house enumeration, or summary, involving updates on claims and objections.
Eligibility requires Indian citizenship, age of 18 years and ordinary residence in the constituency.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2017] For election to the Lok Sabha, a nomination paper can be filed by (a) Anyone residing in India. (b) A resident of the constituency from which the election is to be contested. (c) Any citizen of India whose name appears in the electoral roll of a constituency. (d) Any citizen of India. Answer: (c)
The Supreme Court held that protection against cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 extends to women in live-in relationships, provided the partners share a genuine intent to marry. The ruling is based on Article 14 (Right to Equality).
What is Section 498A?
Penalized cruelty by a husband or his relatives against a woman.
Now corresponds to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Traditionally applied only to legally valid marriages.
Supreme Court Ruling
Adopted a purposive interpretation to address changing social realities.
Extended protection to women in live-in relationships where there is: A relationship in the nature of marriage, and A genuine intent to marry.
Held that denying such protection violates Article 14.
Why is the Domestic Violence Act Not Enough?
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act, 2005 covers women in relationships in the nature of marriage.
However, it provides civil remedies such as: Protection orders, Residence orders, and Maintenance
The Supreme Court extended mandatory Third-Party Motor Insurance to 4 years for new cars and 6 years for new two-wheelers. It also proposed a “No Insurance, No Fuel” pilot to improve compliance.
What is Third-Party Motor Insurance?
Mandatory under Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Covers compensation for injury, death, or property damage caused to a third party.
Does not cover damage to the insured vehicle or owner.
Supreme Court Directions
Mandatory third-party cover:
4 years for new cars.
6 years for new two-wheelers.
Link Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras with:
Insurance Information Bureau of India (IIB)
VAHAN portal.
Enable police to verify insurance in real time through mobile applications.
Explore a “No Insurance, No Fuel” pilot.
Why is Enforcement Needed?
Around 56% of vehicles reportedly operate without valid third-party insurance.
Victims face delays in compensation.
Insurance often lapses after the initial mandatory period.
Challenges
Lack of integration among IIB, VAHAN, and police databases.
Low renewal rates, especially for two-wheelers.
Concerns over denying fuel as an essential service.
