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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Schedules/Parts

  • The Constitution (71st Amendment) Act, 1992 amends the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution to include which of the following languages

    The Constitution (71st Amendment) Act, 1992 amends the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution to include which of the following languages?
    1. Konkani
    2. Manipuri
    3. Nepali
    4. Maithili
    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

  • Which one of the following statements is correct as per the Constitution of India

    Which one of the following statements is correct as per the Constitution of India?

  • Consider the following subjects under the Constitution of India

    Consider the following subjects under the Constitution of India:
    I. List I – Union List, in the Seventh Schedule
    II. Extent of the executive power of a State
    III. Conditions of the Governor’s office
    For a constitutional amendment with respect to which of the above, ratification by the Legislatures of not less than one-half of the States is required before presenting the bill to the President of India for assent?

  • Consider the following statements with reference to the Constitution of India

    Consider the following statements with reference to the Constitution of India:
    1. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that specifies that the Constitution of India
    will be officially called the ‘Constitution of India’.
    2. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that specifies that the Indian Independence
    Act, 1947 and the Government of India Act, 1935 stand repealed.
    3. There is no Article in the Constitution of India that mentions 26th January, 1950 as the date
    of the commencement of the Constitution of India.
    Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?

  • Constitution of India in Santhali Language

    Why in the News?

    The President of India Droupadi Murmu released the Constitution of India in the Santhali language, written in the Ol Chiki script, at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

    What is the Development

    • Constitution of India translated into Santhali language
       • Script used: Ol Chiki
       • Enables Santhali speaking population to read and understand the Constitution in their own language

    About Santhali Language

    • One of the most ancient living languages of India
       • Belongs to the Austroasiatic language family
       • Included in the Eighth Schedule through the 92nd Constitutional Amendment Act
       • Major speaker population in Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal and Bihar

    Ol Chiki Script

    • Indigenous script developed specifically for the Santhali language
       • Created by Pandit Raghunath Murmu
       • The year marks the centenary of the Ol Chiki script
       • Enhances cultural identity and literary development of Santhali speakers

    Significance

    • Promotes linguistic inclusion and constitutional literacy
       • Strengthens access to fundamental rights and duties for tribal communities
       • Aligns with the constitutional vision of cultural and linguistic diversity
       • Symbolic recognition of tribal heritage at the highest constitutional level

    Dignitaries Present

    • Vice President C P Radhakrishnan
       • Union Minister of State for Law and Justice Arjun Ram Meghwal

    Prelims Pointers

    • Language: Santhali
       • Script: Ol Chiki
       • Constitutional status: Eighth Schedule language
       • Amendment year: 2003
       • Occasion: Centenary year of Ol Chiki script
    [2024] The Constitution (71st Amendment) Act, 1992 amends the Eighth Schedule to the Constitution to include which of the following languages? 

    1. Konkani 

    2. Manipuri 

    3. Nepali 

    4. Maithili 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

    (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 1, 2 and 4 (c) 1, 3 and 4 (d) 2, 3 and 4

  • Mayor in India

    Why in the News?

    Zohran Mamdani of Indian-origin has been elected as the mayor of New York City.

    Mayor in India:

    • Overview: The Mayor serves as the head of a Municipal Corporation, responsible for urban governance, civic infrastructure, and local service delivery in large cities.
    • Basis: Institutionalised under the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992, which gave constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and transferred 18 functional subjects to them.
    • Administrative Framework: Municipal corporations function under state municipal laws, operating under the supervision of state urban development departments.
    • Historical Context: The first municipal corporation was created in Madras (1688), followed by Bombay and Calcutta (1762) under British rule.
    • Evolution of the office: The idea of an elected municipal President was first introduced through Lord Mayo’s Resolution (1870). The present form of local self-government was shaped by Lord Ripon’s Resolution (1882), earning him the title “Father of Local Self-Government in India.”
    • Election and Tenure:
      • Direct Election: Citizens directly elect the Mayor in cities like Bhopal, Indore, and Jaipur.
      • Indirect Election: Elected councillors choose the Mayor in cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru.
      • Tenure: Varies from 1 to 5 years, depending on state-specific legislation.
    • Powers and Functions:
      • Ceremonial Role: Acts as the first citizen of the city, representing it in official and public functions.
      • Presiding Officer: Chairs meetings of the Municipal Corporation and ensures smooth deliberations.
      • Limited Executive Power: Administrative authority lies with the Municipal Commissioner (IAS officer) appointed by the state government.
      • Policy and Representation: Serves as a political leader and civic advocate, voicing urban development concerns.

    How a Mayor in India differ from a Mayor in the U.S.?

    India U.S.
    System Type Parliamentary model under state supervision Executive or presidential city model
    Election Usually indirectly elected by councillors Directly elected by citizens
    Tenure 1–5 years, varies by state Fixed 4-year term, renewable once
    Administrative Power Ceremonial, executive power with Commissioner Full executive control over departments and budget
    Financial Authority Dependent on state approval Autonomous budgetary power (e.g., NYC manages $120+ bn)
    Legislative Role Chairs council meetings Can veto bills and issue executive orders
    Autonomy Subordinate to state Semi-autonomous, independent within city jurisdiction
    Nature of Office Symbolic and representational Powerful executive, city-level head of government

     

    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following statements:

    1. Powers of the Municipalities are given in Part IX A of the Constitution.

    2. Emergency provisions are given in Part XVIII of the Constitution.

    3. Provisions related to the amendment of the Constitution are given in Part XX of the Constitution.

    Select the answer using the code given below:

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

     

  • [3rd October 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Should Ladakh get statehood?

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to strengthen federalism.

    Linkage: Ladakh’s case reflects the Union’s increasing control over border UTs, where administrative powers lie with the LG and Centre, marginalising local bodies — a recent trend in Centre-State/UT relations. Strengthening federalism requires constitutional safeguards (Sixth Schedule/statehood) and greater devolution of powers and finances to elected institutions.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The debate on Ladakh’s statehood is not merely about administrative restructuring, it is about the soul of Indian federalism. It combines questions of representation, tribal identity, border security, and constitutional safeguards. This issue is now a case study in balancing national interests with local aspirations.

    Introduction

    Ladakh, separated from Jammu & Kashmir in 2019 and designated a Union Territory (UT), was expected to gain autonomy and focused development. Instead, it has witnessed deepening resentment. The recent violence in Leh (September 24, 2025), which left four dead and led to the arrest of climate activist Sonam Wangchuck under the NSA, highlights the widening trust deficit. Civil society platforms like the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) demand statehood, inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, a Public Service Commission, and separate Lok Sabha representation.

    Why in the News?

    This is the first major violent episode in Ladakh since its conversion to a UT, bringing the region’s discontent into national focus. While the Centre insists that measures like reservations and recruitment drives are underway, locals argue these are executive orders, not constitutional guarantees. The clash exposes the failure of the UT model in ensuring democratic accountability, despite Ladakh’s strategic importance on the China–Pakistan frontier.

    Democratic Deficit in Ladakh

    1. Loss of Voice: Earlier part of J&K Assembly; now Ladakhis cannot influence laws or leadership.
    2. Dominance of Bureaucrats: Short-term officials override local voices, bypassing elected Hill Councils.
    3. Recruitment Vacuum: No Public Service Commission; six years without gazetted officer recruitments.

    Tribal and Land Safeguards at Risk

    1. Earlier Protection: Article 370 & 35A guaranteed land and job protections.
    2. Post-2019 Vacuum: Absence of safeguards raises fears of demographic change.
    3. Constitutional Demands: LAB & KDA demand Sixth Schedule — protection for tribal culture, language, land rights, beyond mere executive orders.

    Sixth Schedule vs Statehood

    1. Government Stance: Argues Sixth Schedule inclusion is a logical first step before statehood.
    2. Counter View: Sajjad Kargili stresses that Sixth Schedule alone is insufficient; democracy needs statehood.
    3. Delhi Model Analogy: UTs with legislatures (Delhi) show friction with LGs — raising doubts about partial arrangements.

    Population and Statehood Question

    1. Centre’s Hesitation: Population (~3.5 lakh) too small for statehood.
    2. Rebuttal: Sikkim (similar population) became a State in 1975; Goa in 1987.
    3. Fragmented Governance: Ladakh’s five new districts have micro-populations (5,000–7,000), making local governance difficult without a state-level structure.

    Federalism and Centre-State Relations

    1. Supreme Court Endorsement: Upheld bifurcation of J&K into UTs.
    2. Federal Concerns: Raises questions about top-down imposition of governance models in sensitive areas.
    3. Centre vs Local Bodies: ₹6,000 crore annual budget, but only ₹600 crore devolved to Hill Councils; rest controlled by LG & bureaucrats.

    Security Dimensions and Border Considerations

    1. Centre’s Argument: Border sensitivity justifies UT status.
    2. Counterpoint: Punjab, Sikkim, Uttarakhand are border states yet enjoy full statehood.
    3. Chinese Incursion 2020: Occurred post-UT status, undermining the security rationale.

    Civil Society Demands and Distrust

    1. Four Core Demands: Statehood, Sixth Schedule, Public Service Commission, dual Lok Sabha seats (Leh & Kargil).
    2. Distrust of MHA: LAB & KDA halted talks, citing cosmetic concessions (women’s reservation, ST reservation) that miss the core demands.
    3. Governance Paralysis: Hill Councils reduced to ceremonial bodies; LG ignores their inputs.

    Nationalism vs Allegations of “Anti-national”

    1. Local Sentiment: Ladakhis argue they are patriotic, sacrificing lives to defend frontiers.
    2. Mistrust Campaign: Trolls label them pro-China/pro-Pakistan, deepening alienation.
    3. Identity Politics: Perceived delegitimisation fuels separatist tendencies — dangerous for a border region.

    Comparative Perspectives

    1. Delhi & Puducherry: UTs with legislatures — persistent Centre-LG tussle.
    2. North-East Sixth Schedule States: Despite safeguards, autonomy diluted by weak implementation.
    3. Statehood as Trust-Building: Granting Ladakh statehood could mirror past steps where integration was strengthened by empowerment (Sikkim, Mizoram).

    Conclusion

    The Ladakh case underscores that federalism is not only about administrative convenience but about trust-building. Sixth Schedule inclusion may provide interim safeguards, but without democratic statehood, Ladakh risks remaining voiceless. The challenge before India is to ensure that Ladakhis, guardians of a strategic frontier, feel like equal partners in the Union, not subjects of bureaucratic rule.

  • Supreme Court cites Preamble to reject a plea

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court rejected a plea against a religious leader inaugurating Mysuru Dasara, reminding that the Preamble upholds secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as core ideals of unity.

    Backgrounder:

    • The Karnataka government invited Banu Mushtaq, 2025 International Booker Prize winner, to inaugurate Mysuru Dasara Festival and perform the pooja.
    • A 2023 video resurfaced where she questioned the worship of Goddess Bhuvaneshwari, sparking controversy.
    • BJP and others opposed the invite, for her selective criticism of Hindu rituals and demanded withdrawal of the invite sent to her.

    Supreme Court’s Observations:

    • Secular Character: The Court reminded that the Preamble enshrines secularism, liberty, equality, and fraternity as unifying ideals.
    • State’s Neutrality: Dasara inauguration was a State event, not a private ritual. The State “maintains no religion of its own” (echoing M. Ismail Faruqui, 1994).
    • Key Precedents Recalled:
      • Kesavananda Bharati (1973) & S.R. Bommai (1994): Secularism = basic feature of the Constitution.
      • R.C. Poudyal (1994): Even before “secular” was inserted (42nd Amendment, 1976), the Constitution upheld equal treatment of all faiths.
      • Dr. Balram Singh v. UOI (2024): State can intervene to curb religious practices impeding equality & development.

    Preamble

    About the Preamble:

    • Nature: Introductory statement; reflects philosophy, vision, and objectives.
    • Origin: Based on Objectives Resolution (Nehru, 1946); adopted 1947.
    • Declarations: India as Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic ensuring Justice, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

    • Symbolism:

      1. Source of Authority: “We, the People of India.”
      2. Nature of State: Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic.

    Amendment of the Preamble:

    • Permissible: Supreme Court (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973) has held that Preamble is part of Constitution and can be amended without violating Basic Structure.
    • Only Amendment: 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 (during Emergency).
      • Added “Socialist” and “Secular” between Sovereign and Democratic.
      • Added “Integrity” to Unity of the Nation.

    Key Judicial Pronouncements:

    • Berubari Union Case (1960): Preamble not a part of the Constitution; only a tool for interpretation.
    • Kesavananda Bharati Case (1973): Overruled Berubari; Preamble is part of the Constitution, embodies basic structure but cannot override provisions.
    • S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Secularism upheld as basic feature of the Constitution.
    • LIC of India Case (1995): Reaffirmed Preamble as integral, but non-justiciable (not enforceable in court).
    [UPSC 2020] The Preamble to the Constitution of India is:

    Options: (a) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect

    (b) not a part of the Constitution and has no legal effect either

    (c) part of the Constitution and has the same legal effect as any other part

    (d) a part of the Constitution but has no legal effect independently of other parts*

     

  • Untouchability Cases Drop, Pendency Rises

    Why in the News?

    The 2022 Annual Report on the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955, sheds light on the declining registration of untouchability-related offences and systemic inefficiencies in enforcing the law.

    Key Highlights of the 2022 Annual Report:

    • The report was released by Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.
    • Only 13 cases were registered under the PCR Act in 2022, showing a decline from previous years.
    • No state or UT declared any area as “untouchability-prone.”
    • Courts had 1,242 cases pending; out of 31 disposed, ONLY 1 led to conviction.
    • In contrast, 62,501 cases were filed under the SC/ST Act, highlighting its growing use.
    • 18,936 inter-caste marriage couples received financial incentives, but data from several major states was missing.

    About Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, 1955 and Its Provisions:

    • Enacted under Article 35 to implement Article 17 and criminalize untouchability.
    • Originally titled the Untouchability Offences Act, 1955, renamed and strengthened in 1976.
    • Key Provisions:
      • No provision for pardon; any conviction leads to disqualification from elections.
      • Penalties: Up to 2 years imprisonment, ₹2000 fine, or both.
      • Any right denied due to untouchability is considered a civil right under the Act.
    • Preventive Measures under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989:
      • Aimed at curbing atrocities and providing victim protection and rehabilitation.
      • Establishes special courts and police cells.
      • In some cases, allows firearms for self-defense by vulnerable SC/ST individuals.

    Understanding ‘Untouchability’ and Its Abolition:

    • What is it: Untouchability refers to social discrimination based on caste, historically excluding certain communities from public, religious, and social spaces.
    • Constitutional Safeguard: Article 17 of the Constitution of India abolishes untouchability and prohibits its practice in any form.
    • Legal Status: Any disability arising from untouchability is declared a punishable offence under Article 17.
    • Nature of the Right under Article 17: Article 17 is an absolute fundamental right with no exceptions, applicable to both state and private actors.
    • Lack of Definition: The term “untouchability” is not explicitly defined in the Constitution or in related legislation but is understood as referring to caste-based social discrimination.
    • Scope of Discrimination: Untouchability includes denial of access to public utilities, places of worship, public services, education, and market services.

    Various Judgments Related to Untouchability:

    • Devarajiah v. Padmanna (1961): This case reaffirmed that Article 17 is intended to eliminate inhuman treatment based on caste distinctions.
    • State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale (1993): The judgment likened untouchability to slavery and held that the caste system must be eradicated for democracy and the rule of law to survive.
    • Union of India v. People’s Union for Democratic Rights (1982): The Court ruled that violations of Article 17 by private individuals also warrant state intervention.
    • Union of India v. Safai Karamchari Andolan (2014): The Court directed the implementation of the Manual Scavengers and Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, and mandated rehabilitation, skill training, and compensation for families of victims of sewer deaths.

     

    [UPSC 2020] Which one of the following categories of ‘Fundamental Rights incorporates against untouchability as a form of discrimination?

    Options: (a) Right against Exploitation (b) Right to Freedom (c) Right to Constitutional Remedies (d) Right to Equality*

     

  • [14th July 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Secularism — implicit from day one, explicit in 1976

    PYQ Relevance:

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

    Linkage: The article talks about the concept of secularism was deeply embedded in India’s foundational principles long before the word was explicitly added to the Constitution. The question directly asks for a discussion of India as a secular state and a comparison with the secular principles of the US Constitution. This necessitates an understanding of the fundamental nature and historical evolution of Indian secularism, which aligns perfectly with the theme of “implicit from day one, explicit in 1976.”

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  Indian secularism is a core constitutional and civilizational value, not a foreign imposition. Secularism was always embedded in India’s political philosophy—rooted in Ashoka’s Dhamma, the freedom struggle, and Nehruvian ideals—long before the term was explicitly added to the Preamble in 1976.

    Today’s editorial analyses the ongoing national debate on secularism in India. This topic is important for  GS Paper II (Indian Polity) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the ongoing national debate on secularism in India, especially in light of rising Hindutva narratives, political calls to re-examine or delete the word “secular” from the Constitution, and broader questions about the role of religion in Indian politics and governance.

    What is the Indian model of secularism?

    • Equal respect for all religions: Unlike strict separation models (like in France), Indian secularism does not oppose religion but ensures that the state maintains a principled distance and treats all religions equally.
    • Religious autonomy with state neutrality: It protects religious communities from state interference, while also allowing the state to intervene in religious practices that violate fundamental rights (e.g., banning untouchability, regulating temple entry).
    • Rooted in pluralism and history: It draws from India’s civilizational ethos, including Ashoka’s Dhamma, and the ideals of the freedom struggle, ensuring a harmonious coexistence of diverse faiths within a democratic framework.

    Why did the Constitution’s framers reject a state religion for India?

    • Commitment to Equality and Non-Discrimination: The framers believed the state must treat all religions equally to ensure religious freedom and equal citizenship, irrespective of faith. Eg: The 1928 Motilal Nehru Report and 1931 Karachi Resolution explicitly advocated for state neutrality in religious matters.
    • Historical Legacy of Tolerance: India’s long tradition of religious pluralism, influenced by Ashokan edicts, emphasised coexistence and respect for all faiths, not state endorsement of one. Eg: Ashoka’s Rock Edict 7 promoted the idea that all religions should coexist peacefully.
    • Avoidance of Theocracy and Communal Division: After witnessing Partition and its communal violence, the framers feared that endorsing a state religion would deepen sectarian divides and weaken national unity. Eg: Even Syama Prasad Mookerjee and the Hindu Mahasabha’s 1944 draft constitution did not support declaring Hinduism as the state religion.

    What are the risks of redefining secularism in India’s current context?

    • Erosion of Religious Neutrality of the State: Redefining secularism could weaken the state’s impartial stance in religious matters, leading to preferential treatment for the majority religion and marginalisation of minorities. Eg: The growing demand to formally declare India a Hindu Rashtra could alienate religious minorities and threaten inclusive governance.
    • Undermining Constitutional Morality and Democratic Ideals: Secularism is part of the basic structure doctrine upheld by the Supreme Court. Altering it could compromise constitutional values like liberty, equality, and fraternity. Eg: The Kesavananda Bharati case (1973) affirmed secularism as an inviolable part of the Constitution.
    • Increase in Communal Polarisation and Social Instability: Shifting away from secularism may embolden majoritarian narratives, intensify hate speech, and provoke inter-religious conflicts, disrupting national unity. Eg: The Ram Temple consecration in 2024, influenced more by political decisions than theological consensus, reflects state intrusion into religious space.

    What can India learn from global models of religion–state relations?

    • Balance between Symbolism and Equality: Countries like England and Greece recognize a dominant religion symbolically (e.g., Anglican Church or Greek Orthodox Church), yet uphold equal rights and religious freedom for all citizens through constitutional guarantees. India can maintain its spiritual heritage while ensuring non-discrimination and equality in law.
    • Institutional Autonomy with Legal Safeguards: Ireland and Sri Lanka offer models where religion is acknowledged culturally, but the state cannot endow or control religious institutions, preserving religious autonomy and legal protection for minority practices. India can reinforce legal safeguards for all religions while maintaining a non-theocratic state.
    • Flexible Jurisdictional Models: In Western Thrace (Greece) and Sri Lanka, minority religious communities have the option to resolve disputes through personal or religious laws, within constitutional limits. India can explore plural legal frameworks that respect cultural autonomy without compromising constitutional supremacy.

    What are the steps taken by the Indian Government? 

    • Equal Treatment of All Religions: The state maintains neutrality in religious affairs — it does not promote or adopt any state religion, ensuring equal respect for all communities (e.g., no public funding for religious instruction in state-funded educational institutions).
    • Minority Rights Protection: Through Articles 29 and 30, the government protects cultural and educational rights of religious and linguistic minorities, allowing them to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice.
    • Personal Law Autonomy: The state allows different religious communities to follow their own personal laws in matters like marriage, divorce, and inheritance, reinforcing religious autonomy while also subjecting them to judicial review.
    • Legal Actions Against Communalism: The government has enacted laws like the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, Places of Worship Act, 1991, and anti-hate speech provisions to prevent communal violence, hate speech, and religious polarization.
    • Representation and Inclusion: Reservation in educational institutions and government jobs for socially and educationally backward classes, including religious minorities, promotes inclusive development.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Constitutional Literacy: Promote public awareness about secular values enshrined in the Constitution through education and civic outreach to counter misinformation and foster interfaith harmony.
    • Ensure Political Neutrality in Religious Matters: Enforce strict separation between religion and politics, preventing the misuse of religion for electoral gains and ensuring the State remains neutral in matters of faith.