Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Type: Bills/Act/Laws

  • Supreme Court asks Centre to institutionalise National Testing Agency reforms, cites the Union Public Service Commission as the model

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has directed the Union government to file an affidavit within three weeks setting out what it has done to implement the recommendations of the expert committee headed by a former Chairperson of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) on the National Testing Agency (NTA). The Bench held that reforms must be institutionalised and carried forward by successive officers rather than restarted with each new committee after each failure.

    What is the National Testing Agency (NTA)?

    1. Status: The National Testing Agency (NTA) is an autonomous testing organisation set up in 2017 under the Ministry of Education and registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, to conduct entrance examinations for higher education institutions.
    2. Examinations conducted: It conducts the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG), the Joint Entrance Examination Main, the University Grants Commission National Eligibility Test, and the Common University Entrance Test, among others.
    3. Why it is before the Court: The agency has been under the Supreme Court’s scanner since the NEET-UG 2026 paper leaks, with petitioners describing the failure as recurring and systemic rather than isolated.

    What is a sovereign database?

    1. Meaning: A sovereign database is one whose servers, storage and control remain within the jurisdiction and ownership of the sovereign authority, rather than on infrastructure owned or operated by a third party or located abroad. The Bench asked whether the NTA has one and where question papers are stored.

    Why did the National Testing Agency come under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny?

    1. The trigger event: The 2026 NEET-UG question paper leaks led to cancellation of the examination and left over 23 lakh medical college aspirants stranded.
    2. Criminal process: A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe was ordered into the leaks and arrests were made.
    3. Political consequence: The leaks led to nationwide protests and a police crackdown on students, and ultimately to the resignation of the then Union Education Minister.
    4. The petitioners’ framing: The Court was hearing petitions by the Federation of All India Medical Association and the United Doctors Front, which characterised the 2026 leak as part of a recurring, systemic and catastrophic failure of the NTA in conducting NEET-UG.

    Why does the Court treat committee hopping as the problem rather than the solution?

    1. The Bench’s central objection: The Court held that it should not be that a committee gives recommendations and a new committee is then formed which removes the old one lock, stock and barrel.
    2. The specific sequence at issue: A seven member committee formed in 2024 under a former ISRO Chairperson recommended structural reforms in the NEET system, and the Centre has since constituted a task force under an Infosys co founder for new technological reforms.
    3. The Court’s fix, not replacement but review: The new task force must review the earlier committee’s recommendations and improve on them where necessary, and the earlier committee’s chairperson could be made part of the new body.
    4. The pattern is older than these two: The Bench pointed out that there were two more committees before the 2024 committee, and that recommendations must not remain on paper but must translate into action.
    5. The Solicitor General’s position: The Union government agreed on the need for a permanent mechanism to introduce reforms and maintain their continuity, and stated that it had already accepted the 2024 committee’s recommendations.

    What does the Court mean by institutional memory in an examination body?

    1. The failure mode named: A set of reforms implemented for one examination is undone in the next when senior NTA officers are shifted out, so continuity depends on individuals rather than on the institution.
    2. The standard set: Reforms must be vibrant, institutionalised and carried on within the NTA by successive officers, and must flow down from one generation of officers to the next.
    3. The comparator used: The Court cited the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), which has conducted examination after examination without a hitch because it holds institutional memory and institutional expertise.
    4. What the earlier committee already said: The 2024 committee had itself focused on ways to build institutional memory and had identified the problem as systemic rather than logistical.

    What specific institutional gaps did the Bench probe?

    1. Technology capability: The Bench asked how the agency was facing new technological challenges, and whether the necessary infrastructure and software systems were in place.
    2. Data security and storage: It asked about cybersecurity and storage, whether the NTA has a sovereign database, and where question papers are stored.
    3. Physical premises: It asked where the agency’s office is situated and pressed on the need to secure office premises and operational infrastructure.
    4. Manpower: It asked how many officers the body has, how much staff is available, whether the various director and joint director positions had been filled, and how many had taken charge.
    5. Candidate facing systems: It stressed training and preparing personnel for the long term, candidate friendly arrangements and a grievance mechanism, and the strengthening of physical and intellectual capacity.
    6. The government’s response on hiring: The Solicitor General said hiring for scaling up digital infrastructure was under way and that the chief technology officer and chief financial officer had already been selected.

    What has the Centre placed on record?

    1. Earlier affidavit: The Court referred to an affidavit of 4 August filed by the Union government listing several senior appointments to be made to the NTA.
    2. Fresh affidavit directed: The Secretary must file an affidavit within three weeks, containing all details and indicative timelines, on steps taken to implement the 2024 committee’s suggestions as reflected and nuanced by the new task force.
    3. Measures claimed: The Centre’s affidavit described the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 and the constitution of the new task force as landmark measures against future paper leaks.
    4. Mandate of the new task force: It has been constituted to recommend end to end reforms focused on leveraging advanced technology such as artificial intelligence and blockchain to strengthen examination security and integrity.
    5. Limits on redesigning NEET-UG: Any structural change in the design of NEET-UG would be undertaken only in consultation with and with the concurrence of the Union Health Ministry and the National Medical Commission.
    6. Assurance to candidates: The Union government committed to giving candidates adequate advance notice of any change in the mode or design of the examination.
    7. The residual admission: The Solicitor General submitted that the system in place is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.

    Challenges to institutionalising reform in the National Testing Agency

    1. Officer rotation defeats continuity: Reforms owned by a posting rather than a post are reversed on transfer, which is precisely the failure the Court described. e.g. reforms implemented for one examination cycle being undone in the next after senior NTA officers were shifted out.
    2. No statutory foundation: The NTA is a registered society rather than a body created by statute, so its powers, tenure protections and accountability are weaker than those of a constitutional or statutory examination body. e.g. the UPSC derives its independence from Article 315 of the Constitution, which the NTA has no equivalent of.
    3. Recommendations without an implementation tracker: Successive committees have produced reports with no published mechanism to show which recommendation was executed and when. e.g. the Court had to direct an affidavit with indicative timelines three weeks out simply to learn the status of the 2024 committee’s recommendations.
    4. The human link in an otherwise sealed chain: Security design can cover technology and logistics but not the conduct of every person with access. e.g. the Solicitor General’s own submission that the system is foolproof but that at some point there is human intervention.
    5. Vendor and outsourcing dependence: Question paper printing, transport and centre operations run through private contractors whose staff sit outside the agency’s disciplinary reach. e.g. arrests following the NEET-UG leak extended beyond the agency’s own personnel.
    6. State level examinations remain outside the frame: The Court’s directions bind the NTA, and state recruitment and board examinations run on separate legal and administrative regimes. e.g. the Jharkhand government’s cancellation of 22 recruitment examinations over alleged irregularities in the same week.

    Conclusion

    The Court has shifted the remedy from constituting committees to building an institution, holding that reforms must survive the officers who introduced them. The immediate stage is a directed affidavit from the Secretary within three weeks, setting out implementation of the 2024 committee’s recommendations as nuanced by the new task force, with indicative timelines. Whether the NTA acquires a sovereign database, filled senior posts, secured premises and a grievance mechanism is the test the Court has set. Committee count is not the measure of reform; institutional memory is.

    [2024, GS2, 15 marks] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

  • Due diligence: curbs on surrogate advertising must avoid regulatory overreach

    Why in the News

    The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner has begun summoning celebrity endorsers of a pan masala brand, treating the endorsement as a surrogate promotion of tobacco. The action moves enforcement from the manufacturer to the person who supplies the brand recall, and it tests whether the state can discharge the burden of proof that the courts have already placed on it.

    What is surrogate advertising?

    1. Definition: Surrogate advertising is the promotion of a banned product through a legally saleable substitute that carries the same brand name, packaging and visual identity.
    2. How it operates: A tobacco or liquor manufacturer registers an extension product such as elaichi, soda or music CDs, then advertises that extension so the parent brand stays visible where direct advertising is prohibited.
    3. The legal test: An advertisement becomes surrogate when the substitute product has no market identity independent of its association with the prohibited product.
    4. The case at hand: The FDA holds that the pan masala brand endorsed by three leading film actors has no identity independent of tobacco, so endorsing it amounts to endorsing tobacco.

    What is endorser liability?

    1. Meaning: Endorser liability is the statutory responsibility placed on a celebrity or influencer for a false or misleading claim made in an advertisement they lend their name to.
    2. Source of the duty: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 created this liability along with monetary penalties, which removes ignorance of the manufacturer’s intent as a defence.

    Why has enforcement shifted from the manufacturer to the endorser?

    1. The asymmetry named: The person carrying the persuasive power bears almost none of the health or economic cost of the product being consumed.
    2. Where the cost lands: The consumer absorbs that cost, and an underfunded public health system absorbs the treatment burden that follows.
    3. Why the manufacturer route stalls: Brand extension is legal on its face, so acting only against the manufacturer leaves the advertisement itself untouched.
    4. Why the endorser route bites: Requiring endorsers to explain their decision making applies the endorser liability principle at the enforcement stage rather than only after a complaint.
    5. The wider field: The same asymmetry runs through advertisements making unsubstantiated health claims such as “boosts immunity”, and through educational and financial products.

    What must the state prove before it can call an advertisement surrogate?

    1. The governing ruling: The Delhi High Court in DGHS vs Som Pan Product Pvt. Ltd. (2024) held that the state carries the responsibility of proving a case of surrogate advertising.
    2. Brand registration is not proof: The mere registration of an extension brand does not by itself establish that the advertisement is surrogate.
    3. Legality is not a shield either: The existence of a technically legal product does not automatically permit the particular advertisement built around it.
    4. What follows for the FDA: Suspicion must be converted into inquiries under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 and its Rules and under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that survive judicial scrutiny.

    Why does the existing regulatory regime struggle with such advertisements?

    1. Fragmentation: Regulation is scattered across a series of Acts and Rules with no single authority owning the surrogate advertising question end to end.
    2. Forum shopping: Advertisers use the multiplicity of legal and administrative instruments to draw the judiciary into the dispute and stall enforcement.
    3. Definitional gap: No statute defines the threshold at which an extension product’s independent market identity becomes real rather than nominal.
    4. Health stakes: India carries the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is what makes treatment of these advertisements as unfair trade practices a consumer health question rather than a marketing dispute.

    Does tougher enforcement strengthen the rule or invite regulatory overreach?

    1. The case for acting: Penalties or prohibitions in this case would materially narrow the space that surrogate advertising currently exploits.
    2. The case for restraint: An action that fails the evidentiary standard set in 2024 becomes a precedent that advertisers cite in every later proceeding.
    3. The self defeating outcome: Enforcement seen as arbitrary strengthens the very practice it was meant to end, by converting a public health question into a dispute about administrative excess.
    4. The distinction that matters: Targeting the marketing chain is legitimate, targeting individuals without completing the statutory inquiry is not.

    Challenges to regulating surrogate advertising

    1. Proving the negative: The state must establish that a lawfully sold product has no independent market, which requires sales and distribution evidence that regulators rarely collect. e.g. brand extensions in elaichi and mouth freshener categories report genuine retail sales, which manufacturers cite as proof of independent identity.
    2. Split jurisdiction: Tobacco control sits with the health administration, food safety with the FDA and unfair trade practices with consumer authorities, so no single body carries the case through. e.g. the present action begins with a state FDA whose primary statute is the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, not COTPA.
    3. Digital advertising escapes the frame: Influencer posts and platform advertisements are transient and geo targeted, so they leave little evidence for a later inquiry. e.g. short video endorsements of betting and fantasy gaming platforms circulate widely without the disclosure labels print and television carry.
    4. Weak deterrence in practice: Penalties are small relative to advertising budgets and are contested for years. e.g. tobacco control prosecutions under COTPA are typically compounded at low fines rather than pursued to conviction.
    5. Sponsorship and event routes: Prohibited categories reach audiences through sports and cultural sponsorship where the brand appears without any product claim. e.g. surrogate liquor branding through music, soda and sporting event sponsorship has continued despite the advertising prohibition.
    6. Enforcement capacity: State drug and food administrations are staffed for sampling and licensing work, not for evidentiary media investigations. e.g. food safety officer vacancies in several States leave routine sampling targets unmet, before any advertising inquiry is added.

    Conclusion

    The action against celebrity endorsers is a defensible extension of endorser liability into the enforcement stage, and it addresses a real asymmetry between who persuades and who pays the health cost. Its survival depends entirely on whether the inquiry under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 meets the evidentiary standard the Delhi High Court fixed in 2024. A well grounded order would narrow the space for surrogate advertising across tobacco, health claims, education and finance. An unsupported one would leave the practice stronger than it found it.

    Advertising Regulation in India

    1. What it covers: Advertising regulation governs the content, placement and truthfulness of commercial communication, and reaches the advertiser, the agency, the publisher and the endorser.
    2. Mixed model: India uses statutory control for specific product categories alongside self regulation by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a voluntary industry body whose code is not itself law.
    3. Statutory anchor since 2019: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, can order the discontinuation of a misleading advertisement and impose penalties on the advertiser and the endorser.
    4. Prohibited categories: Direct advertising of tobacco products is banned, and liquor advertising is restricted, which is precisely what creates the incentive for brand extension.
    5. Scale: India is among the world’s largest advertising markets by volume of impressions, with digital and influencer marketing now the fastest growing segment and the least documented.

    Laws and Rules Governing Advertising and Surrogate Promotion

    1. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003: Prohibits direct and indirect advertisement, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and regulates sale to and around minors.
    2. Section 5: Bars advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including indirect advertisement, which is the provision surrogate advertising is tested against.
    3. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines misleading advertisement, creates the CCPA, and imposes liability and penalties on manufacturers and endorsers.
    4. Endorser penalty: Provides monetary penalty on an endorser for a false or misleading advertisement, with a prohibition on further endorsements for a stated period on repetition.
    5. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Regulates food product claims and advertising, and prohibits misleading claims about the nature, quality or health effect of a food.
    6. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Bars advertisement of prohibited products on cable television through the Advertisement Code framed under it.
    7. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954: Prohibits advertisements claiming cure for listed diseases and conditions.
    8. Central Consumer Protection Authority (Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements) Guidelines, 2022: Set conditions for a non misleading advertisement, regulate bait and surrogate advertisements, and fix due diligence duties for endorsers.
    9. Endorsement Know hows for digital advertising, 2023: Require celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers to disclose a material connection with the advertiser in a clear and prominent manner.

    Government Initiatives in Advertising and Consumer Protection

    1. National Tobacco Control Programme (NTCP): Implemented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to enforce COTPA, run awareness campaigns and support cessation, targeted at tobacco users and youth.
    2. National Tobacco Quitline and mCessation: Provide telephone and mobile based cessation support to tobacco users seeking to quit.
    3. Jago Grahak Jago: Consumer awareness campaign of the Department of Consumer Affairs, aimed at informing consumers about misleading advertisements and grievance routes.
    4. National Consumer Helpline and the INGRAM portal: Give consumers a single point to lodge complaints against misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
    5. Eat Right India: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) campaign to curb misleading food claims and promote safe and healthy food, aimed at consumers and food businesses.

    Key Facts about Tobacco Control and Advertising Regulation

    1. World No Tobacco Day is observed on 31 May each year.
    2. India has the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is the health basis for the strict treatment of tobacco surrogate advertising.
    3. India is a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), the first international public health treaty, which India ratified in 2004.
    4. Pictorial health warnings must cover 85 percent of the principal display area on both sides of a tobacco product package in India, among the largest such requirements globally.
    5. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) was set up in 1985 as a voluntary self regulatory body and its code has no statutory force of its own.

    Challenges in Advertising and Consumer Protection Regulation

    1. Self regulation without teeth: ASCI rulings bind only members and carry no penalty, so a non member advertiser faces no consequence. e.g. several offshore betting and crypto platforms advertising into India are outside ASCI’s membership entirely.
    2. Influencer economy outpaces disclosure rules: Paid endorsements are presented as personal opinion, and disclosure labels are omitted or hidden. e.g. financial influencers recommending securities without registration led the Securities and Exchange Board of India to restrict regulated entities from associating with unregistered advice givers.
    3. Dark patterns in digital interfaces: Design choices such as false urgency and forced action steer consumers without any express claim to test. e.g. the Department of Consumer Affairs notified guidelines in 2023 listing thirteen specified dark patterns on e commerce platforms.
    4. Regulatory capacity gap: The CCPA and State food and drug administrations have small investigation teams against a very large advertising volume. e.g. misleading claims in the coaching and edtech sector produced a separate CCPA advisory only after repeated complaints.
    5. Cross border advertising: Advertisements served from outside India for products banned within India are hard to reach through domestic statutes. e.g. offshore betting platforms advertise through surrogate news and sports content channels aimed at Indian audiences.
    6. Health claims without evidence: Immunity, weight loss and fortification claims sit between food law and drug law and are contested at the margin. e.g. claims on health supplements and nutraceuticals repeatedly draw FSSAI action for lacking substantiation.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)

    1. Governing Act: Established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
    2. Year established: Constituted in 2008, with the Act’s substantive provisions brought into force from 2011.
    3. Parent ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    4. Mandate: Lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import and advertising.
    5. Composition: Headed by a Chairperson of the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, with a Chief Executive Officer and members drawn from States, industry, consumer groups and food technology.
    6. Enforcement structure: Implemented on the ground by State Food Safety Commissioners, Designated Officers and Food Safety Officers, which is why a State FDA leads the present action.

    Way Forward

    1. Complete the statutory inquiry: Convert the summons into a documented proceeding under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that records evidence of the extension product’s dependent market identity.
    2. Define independent market identity: Notify an objective test combining sales volume, distribution reach and advertising spend of the extension product relative to the parent brand.
    3. Single window coordination: Create a joint mechanism between the CCPA, the health administration and State food and drug administrations so one authority carries a surrogate advertising case to conclusion.
    4. Raise the penalty to advertising spend: Link penalties to the advertising outlay of the campaign so the fine is not absorbed as a cost of business.
    5. Mandatory pre certification for prohibited categories: Require prior vetting of advertisements for brand names shared with tobacco and liquor products before release.
    6. Extend disclosure enforcement to digital: Audit influencer endorsements for the material connection disclosure and publish enforcement outcomes so the rule becomes visible.
    7. Consumer side remedy: Publicise the CCPA and National Consumer Helpline routes so complaints against misleading endorsements do not depend on regulator initiative alone.

    “[2014, GS2, 12.5 marks] The setting up of a Rail Tariff Authority to regulate fares will subject the cash strapped Indian Railways to demand subsidy for obligation to operate non-profitable routes and services. Taking into account the experience in the power sector, discuss if the proposed reform is expected to benefit the consumers, the Indian Railways or the private container operators.”

  • Punjab’s decade-long journey towards a formal sacrilege law

    Why in the News

    Punjab brought a stringent sacrilege law into force in April 2026 by amending an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, avoiding the Presidential assent that had defeated three earlier attempts. The route exposes a conflict between a State's determination to legislate on religious sentiment and the constitutional limits set by secularism, equality, proportionality and the division of legislative competence. A challenge to the Act is pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

    What does Punjab's 2026 sacrilege law do?

    1. What it penalises: It punishes sacrilege committed against the Guru Granth Sahib, and covers no other religious scripture.
    2. The sentence it carries: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, leaving no room for a judge to calibrate punishment to the facts of a case.
    3. The statute it amends: It amends a pre existing State law concerned specifically with the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, rather than the central penal code.
    4. How it was brought into force: Because the State argued the amendment falls within its own legislative competence, it claimed no Presidential assent was needed, and the Governor's signature brought it into force in April 2026.

    What is the current status of sacrilege law in India?

    1. The central provision: Insulting religion or religious beliefs with deliberate and malicious intent is an offence under Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the successor to Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    2. The settled constitutional position: Section 295A was upheld in Ramji Lal Modi, and the Supreme Court has not revisited that ruling in almost sixty years.
    3. The intent requirement on paper: Conviction requires proof of deliberate and malicious intent, a threshold the court reads into the provision.
    4. Where the practical harm falls: Indian criminal procedure allows a First Information Report to be lodged and an accused arrested well before any court examines whether that intent was present, so the chilling effect operates at the point of complaint, not at the point of conviction.
    5. No standalone national sacrilege statute: There is no separate central law on sacrilege beyond the religious offence provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which is why Punjab has repeatedly attempted a State law.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Sacrilege, Speech and Secularism

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law, and permits classification only where an intelligible differentia bears a rational nexus to the law's stated purpose.
    2. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
    3. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom in the interests of public order, decency or morality, among other grounds.
    4. Article 21: Guarantees life and personal liberty, which the Supreme Court has read as requiring a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform even where this cuts against religious custom.
    6. Entry 1, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places criminal law within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.
    7. Article 254: Provides that a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same Concurrent List subject is void to that extent.
    8. Article 254(2): Saves such a State law only where it has been reserved for and has received the assent of the President.

    How did Punjab arrive at this law across a decade?

    1. 2016, the first attempt: The then Akali Dal and Bharatiya Janata Party government passed a bill imposing life imprisonment for sacrilege committed specifically against the Guru Granth Sahib. The Centre returned it, objecting that a law protecting only one religion's scripture could not sit easily with India's secular Constitution.
    2. 2018, the second attempt: The succeeding Congress government extended the same life sentence to the Guru Granth Sahib, the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran and the Bible, through a new Section 295AA of the penal code. That Bill was also returned without Presidential assent.
    3. July 2025, the third attempt: The Aam Aadmi Party government introduced the Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, again covering all four texts, with sentences ranging from ten years to life. It was sent to a select committee and has since been effectively shelved.
    4. April 2026, the successful route: The State abandoned the amendment of the central penal code and instead amended an existing State statute on the ceremonial custody of the Guru Granth Sahib, bringing the law into force on the Governor's signature alone.
    5. The pattern the sequence shows: A State legislature has persistently tried, by one route or another, to entrench a sacrilege code of ever increasing severity, undeterred by repeated constitutional rebuffs.

    Why does a religion specific penal law run into the equality guarantee?

    1. The classification test it must pass: A provision drawing a line between one community's sacred text and every other's needs an intelligible differentia bearing a rational nexus to its stated purpose, the test the Supreme Court set out in State of West Bengal versus Anwar Ali Sarkar.
    2. Why the classification fails on its own terms: The Act's stated purpose is communal harmony, framed in terms of all communities, and singling out one faith's scripture does not serve a purpose framed in terms of all of them.
    3. The objection is not new: By protecting only the Guru Granth Sahib, the 2026 Act revives precisely the objection that sank the 2016 attempt.
    4. The pending litigation: In May 2026, the Anglican Church of India, through its Amritsar bishop, petitioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court arguing that the Act creates a religion specific penal regime violating equality before law, and sought both the quashing of the Act and a stay on its implementation.
    5. The standing wrinkle: The Bench reportedly questioned how a church whose own scripture the Act does not touch could claim to be aggrieved by it, a question that demonstrates the very defect alleged, since a law can discriminate in structure while leaving those it excludes without the conventional standing to challenge it. The petition remains pending.

    Why does the mandatory life sentence raise a proportionality problem?

    1. What the Act does: Its most serious provisions carry a mandatory minimum sentence extending to life imprisonment, removing all sentencing discretion from the trial judge.
    2. The controlling precedent: In Mithu versus State of Punjab, the Supreme Court struck down a different mandatory sentencing provision precisely because it stripped courts of discretion.
    3. The standard applied: Mithu applied the requirement of a just, fair and reasonable procedure that Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India had read into Article 21.
    4. The parallel is close: The earlier case also arose out of Punjab, which makes the comparison with the 2026 Act direct rather than analogical.
    5. Why proportionality matters here: Sacrilege covers conduct ranging from a deliberate desecration to an inadvertent act, and a single fixed maximum sentence prevents a court from distinguishing between them.

    Does the State have the legislative competence to enact this law?

    1. Where the subject sits: Criminal law sits on the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and the State legislature may legislate on it.
    2. The repugnancy rule: Article 254 makes a State law repugnant to a central enactment on the same subject void to that extent, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 carries its own provisions on sacrilege and on outraging religious feeling.
    3. The only saving route: Article 254(2) saves such a State law only where it has received Presidential assent, which is the requirement that defeated the 2016 and 2018 Bills.
    4. How Punjab avoided it: The State amended a pre existing, ostensibly ceremonial statute rather than the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita directly, and argued that no assent was therefore needed.
    5. The challenge to that route: A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court argues that a life sentence is a matter of criminal law and cannot dodge central scrutiny merely by changing which statute book it sits in.

    Why does the free speech objection survive despite Ramji Lal Modi?

    1. The vagueness of the operative terms: Section 295A and its successor in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 rest on terms such as outrage, insult and religious feelings, policed after the fact by whichever officer receives the complaint.
    2. The precedent that should apply: In Shreya Singhal versus Union of India in 2015, the court struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in its entirety, holding that criminalising online messages using undefined terms such as offensive and menacing left the provision impermissibly vague, invited arbitrary enforcement and chilled protected speech in violation of Article 19(1)(a).
    3. The terms are no more precise: The words on which the religious offence provisions rest are as undefined as the words the court found fatal in Shreya Singhal.
    4. What the court has not done: It has never brought the Shreya Singhal reasoning to bear on Section 295A, whose constitutionality it settled in Ramji Lal Modi almost sixty years earlier and has not revisited since.
    5. The reason for the gap: The inconsistency reads as reluctance rather than principle, since it is easier to strike down a recent statute governing an unfamiliar medium than to unsettle an eighty year old precedent with a long and emotionally fraught history behind it.
    6. What the vagueness enables: A cartoon, a novel, a documentary or a stray remark on social media can all be made to fit the language of insult without any accompanying threat of actual disorder.

    Major debates surrounding sacrilege law

    1. Secularism as an unamendable limit: Secularism was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, precisely so that the State could neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, and a sacrilege law does the second.
    2. Religious freedom against religious reform: Article 25 protects the practice of religion and at the same time preserves the space for social reformers, sceptics and atheists to challenge religious practice, since the right is subject to public order, morality and health and the State may legislate for reform.
    3. Public order as a threshold or a label: One position requires an actual threat of disorder before speech may be punished, the other treats the giving of offence as itself a disturbance of public order.
    4. Ramji Lal Modi against Shreya Singhal: Two lines of authority now sit in tension, one upholding a vague religious offence provision and the other striking down a vague online speech provision on the same reasoning.
    5. Federal competence against local sentiment: A State legislature responding to local religious sentiment collides with a national criminal code and the Article 254 assent requirement designed to keep criminal law uniform.
    6. Deterrence against chilling effect: Severe sentences are defended as deterrence against desecration, and are opposed on the ground that the harm is inflicted at the stage of arrest, long before any court weighs intent.

    Challenges to enforcing a sacrilege law

    1. Undefined operative terms: Insult and outrage are not statutorily defined, so the same conduct produces prosecution in one district and none in another. e.g. Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal in 2015 for exactly this defect.
    2. Arrest precedes adjudication of intent: A First Information Report can be registered and an accused arrested before any court tests the deliberate and malicious intent the offence requires. e.g. the 2026 Punjab Act's life sentence attaches to a charge that a magistrate never has to evaluate before custody begins.
    3. Selective protection invites litigation: Protecting one scripture and not others invites an equality challenge that can stall the law for years. e.g. the Anglican Church of India's May 2026 petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, still pending.
    4. No sentencing discretion: A mandatory minimum forces the same punishment on a deliberate desecration and an inadvertent act. e.g. Mithu versus State of Punjab struck down a mandatory sentencing provision for removing exactly this discretion.
    5. Repugnancy risk to the whole statute: A State criminal law that overlaps a central enactment is void to the extent of repugnancy unless it carries Presidential assent, so the entire Act can fall on a procedural ground. e.g. the 2016 and 2018 Punjab Bills were both returned without assent.
    6. Incentive for mob complaint: A severe penalty attached to a subjective standard makes the police complaint itself a weapon against critics, writers and artists. e.g. the returned 2018 Bill would have extended a life sentence to insult of four separate scriptures, multiplying the categories of complainant.
    7. Standing gap for excluded groups: A community whose scripture the law does not cover may be told it is not aggrieved, so the discrimination cannot be tested. e.g. the Punjab and Haryana High Court's question to the Amritsar bishop in the pending petition.

    Conclusion

    Punjab's 2026 Act carries three distinct constitutional infirmities at once: an equality defect under the Anwar Ali Sarkar test, a proportionality defect under Mithu, and a legislative competence defect under Article 254. Each of these is separate from the broader secularism objection that a State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one. The petitions challenging the Act remain pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the next milestone is that court's decision on the quashing and stay applications.

    What is Secularism as a Constitutional Doctrine?

    1. About: Indian secularism requires the State to maintain equal distance from all religions, neither establishing nor favouring one, while retaining the power to regulate the secular aspects of religious practice.
    2. Rationale: It exists to secure equal citizenship in a society of multiple faiths, so that a citizen's legal standing does not vary with religious affiliation.
    3. Its constitutional status: It was declared part of the Constitution's unamendable basic structure in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India, and was written into the Preamble by the Forty second Amendment in 1976.
    4. Its distinguishing feature: Unlike a strict wall of separation, the Indian model allows positive State intervention in religion for social welfare and reform, which Article 25(2) expressly authorises.
    5. Where it is enforced: Articles 25 to 28 supply the operative provisions, and Article 15 and Article 16 bar religious discrimination by the State.

    Key Concerns Regarding Constitutional Secularism

    1. State regulation shading into State preference: The power to reform religious practice can be exercised unevenly across communities, converting regulation into favour.
    2. Religious offence provisions in a secular code: Criminal provisions protecting religious feelings require the State to adjudicate what counts as an insult to faith, a task secularism was meant to keep it out of.
    3. Uneven codification of personal law: Some communities' family law is codified and reviewable while others' is not, producing different legal protection for identically placed citizens.
    4. The essential religious practices test: Courts must decide what is essential to a religion before they may regulate it, drawing judges into theological determination.
    5. Local majoritarian legislation: State legislatures respond to locally dominant religious sentiment, so a nationally uniform standard fragments at the State level.
    6. Enforcement discretion at the police station: Where the offence turns on a subjective standard, the identity of the complainant rather than the conduct determines whether the law is invoked.

    Laws and Rules Governing Speech Restrictions in India

    Source: Backgrounder, Limits on Speech.docx

    1. Constitutional provision: Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech and Article 19(2) permits enumerated reasonable restrictions.
    2. Constitutional anchors for hate speech regulation: Article 14 on equality, Article 15 on non discrimination, Article 21 on dignity, Article 51A on the fundamental duty of harmony, and the Preambular value of fraternity.
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 196 on promoting enmity between groups, Section 197 on imputations prejudicial to national integration, Section 299 on outraging religious feelings, and Section 356 on defamation.
    4. Section 152, effective from 1 July 2024, replaced Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and criminalises acts exciting secession, armed rebellion, subversive activities, separatist feelings or endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity, with punishment extending to life imprisonment.
    5. Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 123(4) prohibits false statements about candidates during elections, and the Act carries the electoral speech restrictions.
    6. Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Govern online content, intermediary due diligence and takedown obligations.
    7. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Prohibits misleading and prohibited broadcast content under its Programme Code.
    8. Cinematograph Act, 1952: Governs film certification and censorship.
    9. Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Restricts indecent depiction of women in publications and advertisements.
    10. Kedar Nath Singh versus State of Bihar (1962): Sedition requires both a tendency to create disorder and incitement to violence, and vigorous criticism of government measures is protected.
    11. Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015): Distinguishes discussion, advocacy and incitement, protects discussion and advocacy even where unpopular, and holds that vague terms such as annoyance or inconvenience cannot be the basis for restricting speech.
    12. Amish Devgan versus Union of India (2020): Applies a three part contextual test of content, intent of the speaker and harm caused or likely to be caused, with public figures held to a higher standard.
    13. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay versus Union of India (29 April 2026): The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of petitions seeking new hate speech laws, holding that creating criminal offences belongs exclusively to the legislature and that the existing framework is adequate, the real problem being an enforcement deficit.

    Back2Basics: S.R. Bommai versus Union of India

    1. What it is: A Supreme Court ruling of 1994 delivered by a nine judge bench, arising out of the dismissal of State governments and the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356.
    2. Its holding on federalism: It made the exercise of Article 356 justiciable, requiring the proclamation to rest on relevant material and permitting courts to restore a dismissed government.
    3. Its holding on secularism: It declared secularism a part of the Constitution's basic structure, and therefore beyond the amending power under Article 368.
    4. The consequence for State action: A State government acting against secularism can itself be a ground for action under Article 356.
    5. Why it governs this item: It is the authority for the proposition that the State may neither favour a religion nor punish disrespect towards one, which is the core objection to a scripture specific penal law.
    6. Its broader effect: It sharply reduced the routine use of President's Rule, which had been invoked over a hundred times before the ruling.

    Way Forward

    1. Legislate through the correct route: A State that wishes to create a criminal offence on a Concurrent List subject should reserve the Bill for Presidential assent under Article 254(2) rather than route it through a ceremonial statute.
    2. Protect all scriptures equally or none: A provision framed around communal harmony must apply uniformly across faiths to satisfy the intelligible differentia and rational nexus test.
    3. Restore sentencing discretion: Replacing the mandatory minimum with a graded range lets courts distinguish deliberate desecration from an inadvertent act, meeting the Mithu standard.
    4. Define the operative terms: Statutory definitions of insult and religious feelings, and an express requirement of proximate incitement, would reduce the vagueness Shreya Singhal identified as fatal.
    5. Insert a pre registration safeguard: Requiring a preliminary inquiry or prior sanction before a First Information Report is registered addresses the chilling effect that operates at the point of complaint.
    6. Refer Ramji Lal Modi for reconsideration: A larger bench revisiting the 1957 ruling in the light of Shreya Singhal would settle the doctrinal inconsistency that now runs through religious offence law.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?”

  • National Medical Commission proposes a single national licence to practise medicine

    Why in the News

    The National Medical Commission has notified draft regulations under which a doctor registered with any one State Medical Council would be able to practise anywhere in India without fresh registration, using a unique identification number in the National Medical Register. The right to practise is being nationalised while the power to discipline stays with the State where the alleged misconduct occurred.

    What do the draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 propose?

    1. The core change: A medical practitioner once registered with a State Medical Council would be eligible to practise across India without obtaining fresh registration or a licence in another State.
    2. The identifier: The practitioner would be allotted a Unique Identification (UID) number in the National Medical Register (NMR), which becomes the single reference for the right to practise.
    3. What it amends: The draft amends the 2023 regulations governing registration and licensing of doctors, and routes the process through a unified registration portal of the Commission's Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    4. Stage and consultation: The draft was notified by the Commission on 11 August 2026, and objections and suggestions have been invited for 30 days from the date of notification.

    What is the National Medical Register (NMR)?

    1. Function: The National Medical Register is the central repository of registration details of all medical practitioners in India, maintained by the National Medical Commission alongside the State Medical Registers kept by each State Medical Council. Under the draft it would also hold disciplinary records and the active or inactive status of every licence.

    Who is the Ethics and Medical Registration Board?

    1. Role: The Ethics and Medical Registration Board is one of the four autonomous boards of the National Medical Commission, responsible for maintaining the National Medical Register and regulating professional conduct and ethics. Under the draft it would allot the unique identification number and operate the unified registration portal.

    How would the unique identification number work?

    1. Composition of the number: The unique identification number assigned in the register would incorporate the State or Union Territory code and the practitioner's State Medical Register number.
    2. Sequence of grant: The State Medical Council first grants registration, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board then allots the unique identification number.
    3. Effect of allotment: Once the number is allotted, the doctor would not require fresh registration or a separate licence to practise in another State or Union Territory.
    4. Register synchronisation: The draft proposes automatic electronic synchronisation between the national and State registers, so a change made in one register is reflected in the other.

    What changes for State Medical Councils?

    1. Entry point unchanged: State Medical Councils would continue to scrutinise applications and to grant registration and licence for doctors to practise.
    2. Dual reflection of approval: The approval would be reflected in both the State Medical Register and the National Medical Register.
    3. Central oversight added: The Ethics and Medical Registration Board and the Commission would have powers to seek records and monitor State Medical Councils.
    4. The stated purpose of oversight: The monitoring power is intended to promote uniformity and transparency in regulation across States.

    How is disciplinary jurisdiction handled under the draft?

    1. Territorial principle retained: Disciplinary jurisdiction stays primarily with the State Council in whose territorial jurisdiction the alleged professional misconduct, unethical conduct or medical negligence occurred.
    2. Powers of that Council: It has the power to inquire into and decide the matter, and to record the outcome against the practitioner's credentials in the online register.
    3. Cross council cases: Where disciplinary action is recommended by a State Council other than the doctor's primary registering council, the action would be reflected in the National Medical Register.
    4. Automatic flow back: That action would then be automatically updated in the State register of the council of primary registration.
    5. What the register would carry: The National Medical Register would hold disciplinary proceedings including suspension, removal and restoration of registration, and details of disciplinary action taken.

    What happens to licence validity and renewal?

    1. Validity retained: The proposal retains the five year validity of a licence to practise.
    2. Renewal window: If a doctor does not apply for renewal within three months of expiry, the registration will be marked inactive.
    3. Consequence of inactive status: A practitioner whose registration is marked inactive is not entitled to practise medicine.
    4. Visibility of status: The National Medical Register would carry whether a doctor's licence is active or inactive, so the status is nationally visible.

    Does a national licence without a national disciplinary forum close the accountability gap?

    1. Portability of practice is immediate: A single number confers the right to practise in every State and Union Territory from the moment it is allotted.
    2. Portability of accountability is derived: Discipline still runs through whichever State Council has territorial jurisdiction over the place of the alleged misconduct, and reaches the rest of the country only through register synchronisation.
    3. The gap is procedural, not conceptual: If synchronisation lags or a State Council does not record an outcome, a suspended practitioner remains visible as active elsewhere.
    4. Uniformity of standards is not guaranteed: Different State Councils apply the professional conduct regulations with differing rigour, and a national licence carries the outcome of the least rigorous forum as readily as the most rigorous.
    5. The Commission's answer is oversight, not adjudication: The draft responds with powers to seek records and monitor State Councils rather than with a central disciplinary forum.

    Challenges to the proposed national licence framework

    1. Synchronisation dependence: The entire accountability design rests on electronic updates between the national and State registers working without delay. e.g. a suspension recorded by one State Council but not reflected in the National Medical Register would leave a barred doctor practising elsewhere.
    2. Uneven State Council capacity: State Medical Councils differ widely in staffing, digitisation and case disposal, and the weakest becomes the entry point for the whole country. e.g. State Councils with long pending complaint backlogs would still be the first scrutiny layer for national practice rights.
    3. Forum shopping in registration: Applicants may seek primary registration with the council perceived to have the lightest scrutiny, since the licence is then valid everywhere. e.g. the unique identification number carrying the State code makes the choice of registering State visible but does not restrict it.
    4. Renewal lapse risk: A three month renewal window creates a cliff on which an administrative omission ends the right to practise. e.g. a practitioner on long clinical assignment abroad missing the window and finding registration marked inactive.
    5. Data accuracy in the register: A national register carries forward whatever errors and duplicates the State registers already contain. e.g. duplicate entries across State registers have long complicated counts of registered allopathic practitioners in India.
    6. No stated appellate route in the draft: The draft records the State Council's power to inquire and decide without setting out a national appellate forum against an adverse finding. e.g. a doctor disciplined by a State Council other than the primary registering council faces consequences nationally through the register.
    7. Interface with the criminal and consumer forums: Professional discipline runs alongside criminal prosecution and consumer litigation, and the register reflects only the first. e.g. a practitioner facing a medical negligence complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with no corresponding entry in the register.

    Conclusion

    The draft Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine (Amendment) Regulations, 2026 stand notified by the National Medical Commission on 11 August 2026, with objections and suggestions invited for 30 days from the date of notification, which is the next milestone in the process. The proposal creates portable practice rights through a unique identification number while leaving discipline with the State Council of the place of misconduct. The accountability question turns on whether automatic synchronisation between the National Medical Register and the State registers actually works in practice. A national licence with a fragmented disciplinary record would widen mobility faster than it widens accountability.

    Medical Regulation in India

    1. The apex regulator: The National Medical Commission (NMC) regulates medical education and medical practice in India, having replaced the Medical Council of India in 2020.
    2. Four autonomous boards: The Under Graduate Medical Education Board, the Post Graduate Medical Education Board, the Medical Assessment and Rating Board, and the Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    3. Two tier registration: Registration is granted by State Medical Councils and recorded in State Medical Registers, with the National Medical Register maintained centrally.
    4. Common entrance and exit: Admission to undergraduate and postgraduate medical courses runs through the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, and the National Exit Test is provided for as a common final year and licentiate examination.
    5. Scale of the system: India has expanded medical college and undergraduate seat capacity substantially over the past decade, with the government citing a doctor to population ratio better than the World Health Organization norm of one per thousand when practitioners of all recognised systems are counted.
    6. Plural systems of medicine: Allopathic practice is regulated by the National Medical Commission. Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani and Siddha are regulated by the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine, and homoeopathy by the National Commission for Homoeopathy.

    Laws and Rules Governing Medical Practice in India

    1. National Medical Commission Act, 2019: Establishes the Commission and its four autonomous boards, provides for the National Medical Register, the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test and the National Exit Test, and repealed the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
    2. Statutory basis of the register: The Act requires a National Register of licensed practitioners to be maintained and made publicly available.
    3. Registration of Medical Practitioners and Licence to Practice Medicine Regulations, 2023: The regulations the present draft seeks to amend, governing registration and licensing procedure.
    4. National Medical Commission Registered Medical Practitioner (Professional Conduct) Regulations, 2023: Set out the ethical duties of doctors, including on prescribing by generic name, telemedicine and consent.
    5. Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2010: Provides for registration and minimum standards for clinical establishments in adopting States and Union Territories.
    6. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Provides the forum for medical negligence claims as deficiency in service, separate from professional disciplinary proceedings.
    7. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940: Regulates the manufacture, sale and prescription of drugs that registered practitioners are authorised to prescribe.
    8. Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Governs the treatment and rights of persons with mental illness and the registration of mental health professionals and establishments.
    9. Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994: Regulates removal, storage and transplantation of human organs, with obligations placed on registered practitioners.

    Government Initiatives in Medical Regulation and Health Human Resources

    1. National Medical Register portal: Launched by the Commission to create a verifiable public register of allopathic practitioners with unique identification numbers.
    2. Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission: Maintains the Healthcare Professionals Registry and the Health Facility Registry, linking verified practitioner identity to digital health records.
    3. Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana: Funds new All India Institutes of Medical Sciences and upgrades existing government medical colleges to expand tertiary care and teaching capacity.
    4. Centrally Sponsored Scheme for district hospital upgradation: Supports establishment of new medical colleges attached to existing district and referral hospitals in underserved districts.
    5. National Exit Test: Provided for under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019 as a single examination serving as the final year undergraduate examination, the licentiate examination and the postgraduate entrance test.
    6. Telemedicine Practice Guidelines, 2020: Permit registered practitioners to consult remotely within a defined professional and ethical framework.
    7. eSanjeevani: The national teleconsultation platform connecting patients to registered practitioners through health and wellness centres and directly from home.

    Key Facts about the National Medical Commission

    1. Year of operation: The Commission came into being in 2020 on the repeal of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and the dissolution of the Medical Council of India.
    2. Composition: It is headed by a Chairperson and includes ex officio and part time members, with the presidents of the four autonomous boards as members.
    3. Medical Advisory Council: The Act creates a Medical Advisory Council as the primary platform through which States and Union Territories place their views before the Commission.
    4. Rating power: The Medical Assessment and Rating Board assesses and rates medical institutions and grants permission to establish new medical colleges.
    5. Fee regulation: The Commission frames guidelines for the determination of fees for a proportion of seats in private medical institutions and deemed universities.

    Challenges in Medical Regulation in India

    1. Maldistribution rather than absolute shortage: Doctors concentrate in metropolitan and urban districts while rural and tribal blocks remain unstaffed. e.g. persistent vacancies of specialists at Community Health Centres reported in successive Rural Health Statistics.
    2. Quackery and unqualified practice: Unregistered practitioners operate widely where regulated supply is thin, and a national register alone does not displace them. e.g. State Medical Councils issuing repeated public notices against unqualified practitioners in rural districts.
    3. Ethics enforcement capacity: Professional conduct proceedings are slow and outcomes are inconsistent across State Councils. e.g. complaints of professional misconduct pending for years before State Medical Councils.
    4. Cost of medical education: High private medical college fees shape both who enters the profession and where graduates practise. e.g. the Commission having to issue fee determination guidelines for a share of private and deemed university seats.
    5. Postgraduate seat bottleneck: Undergraduate seat expansion has outpaced postgraduate capacity, leaving a specialist training gap. e.g. the ratio of postgraduate to undergraduate seats remaining a standing constraint on specialist availability.
    6. Faculty shortage in new colleges: Rapid expansion of colleges has outrun the availability of qualified teaching faculty. e.g. assessment findings of faculty deficiencies at newly permitted medical colleges.
    7. Fragmented digital records: Practitioner data sits across State registers, the national register and separate health workforce databases with limited reconciliation. e.g. duplicate and outdated entries complicating any count of practising allopathic doctors.

    Back2Basics: National Medical Commission (NMC)

    1. Governing Act: Established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
    2. Year established: Constituted in 2020, replacing the Medical Council of India which functioned under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
    3. Parent ministry: Functions under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    4. Jurisdiction: Regulates medical education, medical institutions, medical research and medical professionals in the allopathic system across India.
    5. Composition: A Chairperson, ex officio members including the presidents of the four autonomous boards, part time members, and members representing States and Union Territories on a rotational basis.
    6. Autonomous boards: Under Graduate Medical Education Board, Post Graduate Medical Education Board, Medical Assessment and Rating Board, and Ethics and Medical Registration Board.
    7. Core mandate: To improve access to quality and affordable medical education, ensure availability of adequate and high quality medical professionals, and maintain a national register of licensed practitioners.
    8. Key instruments: The National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, the National Exit Test, the National Medical Register and the professional conduct regulations.

    Way Forward

    1. Guarantee synchronisation by design: Build the national and State registers on a single source of truth rather than on periodic updates, so that a suspension takes effect nationally the moment it is recorded.
    2. Set uniform disciplinary standards: Issue binding procedure and timeline norms for State Council inquiries, so that a national licence does not carry the outcome of the weakest forum.
    3. Create a national appellate tier: Provide an appeal from a State Council's disciplinary decision to the Ethics and Medical Registration Board, since the consequence of that decision is now national.
    4. Clean the register before nationalising it: Complete deduplication and verification of State registers before unique identification numbers become the basis of practice rights everywhere.
    5. Make the register publicly searchable: Allow patients and employers to verify a practitioner's licence status and disciplinary record by unique identification number, which is the only way a register changes behaviour.
    6. Provide a renewal grace mechanism: Allow reactivation on application with reasons where the three month window has lapsed for demonstrable cause, so that an administrative lapse does not end a career.
    7. Use the register for workforce planning: Link active licence data to district level workforce mapping so that maldistribution can be measured and addressed rather than estimated.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Closest microtheme: Sectoral Regulatory Bodies.”

  • Why is the Supreme Court examining polygamy again?

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response to a petition challenging the constitutional status of polygamy under Muslim Personal Law. The court additionally asked the Centre to consider legislative steps to abolish the practice for all citizens, irrespective of religion. The dispute sets a religion specific statutory exemption against the equality guarantees the Constitution extends to every citizen.

    What is the legal basis of polygamy in India?

    1. The practice: Polygamy is the contracting of a further marriage by a person whose earlier marriage is still subsisting.
    2. The permitting provision: Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 applies Shariat rules to matters of marriage and dissolution for Muslims, and it is under this provision that polygamy is permitted.
    3. The prohibiting provision: Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes marrying another person during the subsistence of an existing marriage with imprisonment up to seven years, and it applies to non Muslims.
    4. The asymmetry at issue: The same act is a criminal offence for one set of citizens and a protected personal law entitlement for another.

    What is the current status of polygamy law in India?

    1. Permitted for Muslim men alone: Polygamy remains lawful for Muslim men under the 1937 Act, with the scriptural ceiling being four wives.
    2. A criminal offence for everyone else: Bigamy is punishable under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, carrying up to seven years, and applies to Hindus, Christians, Parsis and citizens married under civil law.
    3. No compulsory registration: Muslim marriages and divorces are not universally required to be registered with State authorities, so a subsisting marriage is often not on any official record.
    4. Related practices already struck down: Instant triple talaq was invalidated by the Supreme Court in August 2017, and the Centre followed by framing the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019, making the practice a punishable offence.
    5. Polygamy and nikah halala left open: The 2017 bench refrained from ruling on polygamy and nikah halala even though both had been sought, which is why the question returns to the court now.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Personal Law and Gender Equality

    1. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person within India.
    2. Article 15: Prohibits discrimination by the State on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    3. Article 16: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
    4. Article 21: Protects life and personal liberty, read by the Supreme Court to include dignity and autonomy within marriage.
    5. Article 25: Guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion, subject to public order, morality and health, and expressly permits the State to legislate for social welfare and reform.
    6. Article 44: Directs the State to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens throughout India, as a Directive Principle.
    7. Entry 5, Concurrent List, Seventh Schedule: Places marriage, divorce, infants and minors, adoption, wills, intestacy and succession within the legislative competence of both Parliament and the State legislatures.

    What are the petitioners seeking?

    1. Criminalisation of polygamy: The five petitioners want polygamy treated as a criminal offence under Section 82 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for all citizens.
    2. Striking down the enabling provision: They have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, as violating Articles 14, 15 and 16.
    3. Annulment of the exemptions: They have sought annulment of the exemptions granted to polygamy under Muslim Personal Law.
    4. Compulsory registration: They want compulsory registration of Muslim marriages and divorces with State authorities, so that a second or subsequent marriage by a man with a subsisting marriage can be prevented.
    5. Protection of the first family: Where registration is flouted, they want the first wife and her children to have the first and lasting right to the matrimonial home.
    6. Codification of Muslim Personal Law: They want the court to direct the Law Commission of India or the Union government to prepare a draft codifying Muslim Personal Law so that marriage, divorce and succession align with constitutional principles of gender equality.

    How has the Supreme Court ruled on plural marriage before?

    1. Sarla Mudgal (1995): The Supreme Court held that the second marriage of a Hindu husband after converting to Islam, without dissolving the first marriage, is void, prohibiting conversion undertaken purely to marry again.
    2. Lily Thomas versus Union of India (2000): The court reiterated the Sarla Mudgal position, holding that a second marriage contracted after a feigned conversion to Islam was illegal and punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
    3. Shayara Bano (2017): The court invalidated instant triple talaq on the argument that the practice violated the fundamental rights of women, on a petition in which two of the present activists were also involved.
    4. The gap the rulings leave: All three rulings addressed the abuse of conversion or the mode of divorce, none tested the validity of polygamy itself under Articles 14, 15 and 16.

    Does Islamic scripture itself sanction polygamy?

    1. The scriptural position: The Quran encourages monogamy and does not encourage polygamy, contrary to the common contention.
    2. The narrow permission: It permits a man up to four wives in special circumstances, such as marrying a widow or an orphan.
    3. The condition attached: It makes complete equality between wives incumbent on the man, and because that is a practical impossibility, it asks men to desist from multiple marriages.
    4. The text relied on: Verse 3 of Surah Nisa states that if a man fears he will fail to maintain justice, he should content himself with one wife, a verse revealed when many men had multiple spouses running into three figures.

    Major debates surrounding polygamy and personal law reform

    1. Equality against religious freedom: One position reads Articles 14, 15 and 16 as overriding a religion specific exemption, the other reads Article 25 as protecting a practice integral to a community's personal law.
    2. Judicial invalidation against legislative codification: The court can strike down Section 2 of the 1937 Act, but a durable settlement requires Parliament to codify Muslim Personal Law, which is what the petitioners are actually asking for.
    3. The essential religious practices test: The dispute turns on whether polygamy is an essential religious practice protected by Article 25 or a permitted social custom open to reform, and the two characterisations produce opposite outcomes.
    4. Uniform Civil Code against pluralism: The court's suggestion that the Centre abolish the practice for all citizens irrespective of religion moves the question toward Article 44, which reopens the standing dispute over a Uniform Civil Code.
    5. The evidence gap: There is no reliable national dataset on the current prevalence of polygamy, so both sides argue from contested estimates rather than measured incidence.
    6. Gender justice inside communities: The debate over whether reform of a minority's personal law is best driven by the courts, by Parliament or by the community itself remains unsettled.

    Challenges to abolishing polygamy through law

    1. Absence of marriage registration: Without compulsory registration, a subsisting marriage cannot be proved, so a bigamy prosecution collapses at the evidence stage. e.g. Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has historically produced very few convictions because the prosecution must first prove a valid first marriage and then a valid second one.
    2. The essential practices doctrine: Courts must first decide whether the practice is essential to the religion before they can regulate it, which is a theological inquiry judges are poorly placed to conduct. e.g. the Sabarimala reference of 2019 sent exactly this question to a larger bench, where it remains pending.
    3. Standing and enforcement: A first wife who depends on her husband economically has little incentive to complain, so a criminal provision goes unused. e.g. the low prosecution rate for dowry related matrimonial offences despite a wide statutory framework.
    4. Community resistance to codification: Attempts to codify a minority's personal law are read as an intrusion on identity rather than a gender reform. e.g. the reversal of the Shah Bano ruling through the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
    5. Displacement rather than abolition: Criminalisation can push plural unions outside the legal record, leaving second wives and their children without maintenance or inheritance rights. e.g. Hindu bigamy has continued through unregistered customary unions despite being an offence since 1955.
    6. Federal complexity: Marriage and divorce sit on the Concurrent List, so State level marriage registration laws vary and a national standard needs Parliamentary action.

    Conclusion

    The dispute before the court is not about the scriptural permissibility of polygamy but about whether a statutory exemption can hold when the same conduct is a criminal offence for other citizens. A judicial strike down of Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 would remove the permission without supplying the registration and maintenance machinery that makes a prohibition workable. The Centre's response to the notice, and whether it accepts the court's invitation to legislate for all citizens, is the next milestone in the case.

    What is Personal Law in India?

    1. About: Personal law is the body of rules governing marriage, divorce, maintenance, guardianship, adoption, succession and inheritance, applied to a person according to their religious community rather than their territory.
    2. Rationale: It survived as a distinct legal category because the colonial state declined to legislate on the family affairs of religious communities, and the Constitution retained it while placing the subject on the Concurrent List.
    3. The four principal systems:
    4. Hindu law: Codified through four statutes in 1955 and 1956, covering Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.
    5. Muslim law: Largely uncodified, applied through the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, with limited statutory intervention on divorce and maintenance.
    6. Christian law: Governed by the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
    7. Parsi law: Governed by the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936.
    8. The secular alternative: The Special Marriage Act, 1954 offers any two citizens a civil marriage independent of religion, along with a uniform succession regime.

    Key Concerns Regarding Personal Law

    1. Unequal entitlements between citizens: Rights on divorce, maintenance and inheritance differ by religion, so two women in identical situations receive different legal protection.
    2. Gender asymmetry within systems: Several personal law systems give men wider rights over the dissolution of marriage and over property than they give women.
    3. Uncodified rules resist reform: Where the law is not written into a statute, amending it requires either judicial intervention or community consensus, both of which are slow.
    4. Weak registration infrastructure: Absent compulsory registration across all communities, the State has no record against which to enforce even the rules it has enacted.
    5. Article 44 remains unimplemented: The Directive Principle on a Uniform Civil Code has produced State level initiatives rather than a national framework, leaving the constitutional aspiration unfulfilled.

    Laws and Rules Governing Marriage and Personal Status in India

    1. Indian Divorce Act, 1869: Governs the dissolution of marriage among Christians.
    2. Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872: Governs the solemnisation of Christian marriages.
    3. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937: Applies Shariat rules to Muslims in matters including marriage, dissolution, maintenance and succession.
    4. Section 2 is the provision under challenge, since it is the route through which polygamy is permitted.
    5. Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936: Governs marriage and divorce among Parsis.
    6. Special Marriage Act, 1954: Provides a civil marriage available to any two citizens irrespective of religion, with its own divorce and succession rules.
    7. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Codified Hindu marriage law and made bigamy void and punishable.
    8. Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Codified intestate succession for Hindus, amended in 2005 to make daughters coparceners by birth.
    9. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986: Enacted after the Shah Bano ruling to govern maintenance for divorced Muslim women.
    10. Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006: Sets the minimum age of marriage and makes child marriage voidable at the option of the minor party.
    11. Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019: Made the pronouncement of instant triple talaq void and a punishable offence.
    12. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Section 82 punishes bigamy with up to seven years, replacing Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

    Back2Basics: Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937

    1. What it is: A short central statute that directs courts to apply Muslim personal law to Muslims in the matters it lists.
    2. Enacted: 1937, by the Central Legislative Assembly in British India.
    3. Subjects covered: Intestate succession, special property of females, marriage, dissolution of marriage including talaq, maintenance, dower, guardianship, gifts, trusts and wakfs.
    4. Effect of Section 2: It displaces custom and usage in these matters and substitutes Shariat as the rule of decision.
    5. What it does not do: It does not codify Muslim personal law, it only directs which body of rules applies, which is why the substantive rules remain uncodified.
    6. Present relevance: It is the statute whose Section 2 is under constitutional challenge in the polygamy petition before the Supreme Court.

    Way Forward

    1. Enact compulsory marriage registration: A uniform registration requirement for all marriages and divorces, irrespective of religion, creates the record without which any bigamy prohibition is unenforceable.
    2. Codify Muslim Personal Law: A codified statute drafted with the community, as the petitioners seek from the Law Commission of India, converts contested custom into reviewable law.
    3. Secure the first family's rights first: Statutory protection of the first wife's and children's right to the matrimonial home and to maintenance addresses the harm even where the marriage itself is not annulled.
    4. Use the Special Marriage Act, 1954 route: Simplifying and publicising civil marriage gives couples an existing exit from personal law without waiting for its reform.
    5. Build the evidentiary base: A national survey of the prevalence of plural marriage would replace contested estimates with measured data on which any legislation must rest.
    6. Sequence reform through Parliament: A legislative framework, rather than a bare judicial strike down, supplies the transitional provisions, penalties and remedies that a court order cannot create.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Which Article of the Constitution of India safeguards one's right to marry the person of one's choice? (a) Article 19 (b) Article 21 (c) Article 25 (d) Article 29 Answer: (b)”

  • District Collectors in six border States, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh empowered to grant citizenship

    Why in the News

    The Union Home Ministry has notified the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026, authorising District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories to grant registration or naturalisation to applicants found fit and proper. The power now sits with a single district officer in place of the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously exercised it, in exactly the regions where citizenship determination is most contested.

    What do the Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 provide?

    1. Delegation of power: The Rules authorise District Collectors in the specified States and Union Territories to process applications seeking citizenship by registration or naturalisation.
    2. The operative provision: The Collector, on being satisfied with the suitability of the applicant, that he is a fit and proper person to be registered or naturalised, shall grant him the citizenship of India.
    3. Full processing authority: The gazette notification authorises Collectors to receive, scrutinise and dispose of such applications in accordance with the laid down parameters.
    4. Replacement of earlier authorities: Collectors in these States replace the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers that previously held these powers, and all pending applications with those committees are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    What is the difference between registration and naturalisation?

    1. Registration: Acquisition of citizenship under Section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by persons with a defined connection to India, such as persons of Indian origin, spouses of Indian citizens and minor children of Indian citizens, on shorter residence conditions.
    2. Naturalisation: Acquisition under Section 6 of the Citizenship Act, 1955 by a foreigner with no such prior connection, on satisfying the longer residence and other conditions set out in the Third Schedule.

    What is the current status of citizenship acquisition in India?

    1. Single citizenship: India provides for a single citizenship of the Union with no separate State citizenship, and there is a single domicile for the whole territory.
    2. Five modes of acquisition: The Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for acquisition by birth under Section 3, descent under Section 4, registration under Section 5, naturalisation under Section 6, and incorporation of territory under Section 7.
    3. Naturalisation threshold: The Third Schedule requires residence in India for twelve months immediately preceding the application, and residence or government service for eleven years in the aggregate in the fourteen years preceding those twelve months.
    4. Reduced threshold under the 2019 amendment: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 reduces the aggregate residence requirement to five years for Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    5. Birth rule as it now stands: A person born in India on or after 3 December 2004 is a citizen by birth only if both parents are citizens, or one parent is a citizen and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of birth.
    6. Loss of citizenship: Citizenship may be lost by renunciation under Section 8, termination on voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship under Section 9, and deprivation by the Union government under Section 10 on specified grounds including fraud and disloyalty.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Citizenship

    1. Article 5: Confers citizenship at the commencement of the Constitution on persons domiciled in India who were born in India, or either of whose parents was born in India, or who had been ordinarily resident in India for at least five years.
    2. Article 6: Confers citizenship on persons who migrated to India from Pakistan, subject to conditions of date of migration and registration.
    3. Article 7: Deals with persons who migrated to Pakistan after 1 March 1947 and later returned to India under a permit for resettlement.
    4. Article 8: Confers citizenship on persons of Indian origin residing outside India who register with an Indian diplomatic or consular mission.
    5. Article 9: Bars a person from being a citizen of India if that person has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State.
    6. Article 10: Provides that every person who is or is deemed to be a citizen continues to be so, subject to any law made by Parliament.
    7. Article 11: Empowers Parliament to regulate the right of citizenship by law, which is the source of the Citizenship Act, 1955 and every amendment to it.
    8. Seventh Schedule, Union List Entry 17: Places citizenship, naturalisation and aliens exclusively within Parliament's legislative competence, which is why the Rules are made by the Union Home Ministry and not by States.

    Which regions and authorities does the new delegation cover?

    1. Six States: Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab, West Bengal, Assam and Tripura.
    2. Two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh.
    3. A carve out for tribal areas: In Assam and Tripura, the Rules specifically exclude tribal areas, which remain outside the Collector's new authority.
    4. Common characteristic of the list: Every State and Union Territory in the list shares an international land border, which is what links the eight jurisdictions.
    5. Transfer of pending cases: All applications pending with the Empowered Committees and Designated Officers in the specified regions are to be transferred immediately to the relevant Collector.

    Why does routing this power through the District Collector matter?

    1. From a collegial body to a single officer: An Empowered Committee decides collectively while a Collector decides individually, which changes both the speed and the internal check on a citizenship grant.
    2. The standard is discretionary: The Rules turn on the Collector's satisfaction that the applicant is a fit and proper person, a formulation that leaves the assessment to the officer.
    3. Proximity to the applicant: The district is where residence, documents and antecedents can actually be verified, which is the administrative case for the delegation.
    4. Border districts are where determination is contested: The delegation applies precisely in the jurisdictions where migration histories, documentary gaps and citizenship disputes are most concentrated.
    5. A rules level change to a statutory power: The delegation is effected through subordinate legislation under the Citizenship Act, 1955 rather than through an amendment to the Act itself.

    Major debates surrounding citizenship determination in India

    1. Documentary burden versus lived residence: Determination rests on documents that the poorest and most mobile populations are least able to produce, which converts an evidentiary problem into an exclusion outcome.
    2. Executive determination versus judicial safeguard: Citizenship in India is decided in the first instance by executive authorities, with judicial review available only afterwards and at the individual's cost.
    3. The 2019 amendment and Article 14: The Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 uses religion and country of origin as criteria for a reduced naturalisation threshold, and its consistency with the equality guarantee is before the Supreme Court.
    4. National register proposals: The relationship between the National Population Register, a National Register of Indian Citizens and the Citizenship Rules is contested, particularly on whether enumeration becomes verification.
    5. The Assam experience: The Assam National Register of Citizens exercise, with its cut off of 24 March 1971 under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, remains the reference case for the administrative and human cost of large scale determination.
    6. Statelessness risk: A person excluded from citizenship without any other State recognising them has no status at all, and India is not a party to the 1954 and 1961 statelessness conventions.
    7. Uniformity across deciding authorities: Where dozens of district officers apply a fit and proper standard independently, the same facts can produce different outcomes in adjacent districts.

    Challenges to the Collector led citizenship grant framework

    1. Discretion without a stated test: The fit and proper standard is not defined in the Rules, so its content depends on the individual officer. e.g. two applicants with identical residence records in adjacent districts of Rajasthan can receive different outcomes.
    2. Workload of the office: A District Collector already carries revenue, magisterial, election, disaster and development functions, and citizenship scrutiny is added to that list. e.g. Collectors in border districts of West Bengal simultaneously handle electoral roll administration and law and order duties.
    3. Loss of collegial scrutiny: Replacing an Empowered Committee with a single officer removes the internal deliberation that a multi member body provided. e.g. pending applications before those committees now move to a single decision maker without any recorded transition of standards.
    4. No stated appeal route in the notification: The Rules set out the grant power without specifying an appellate forum against refusal at the district level. e.g. an applicant refused by a Collector is left to writ jurisdiction of the High Court rather than a departmental appeal.
    5. Tribal area exclusion creates a two track system: Applicants in the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura continue under the earlier authorities, producing different processes within the same State. e.g. two applicants in Tripura face different deciding authorities depending on whether their residence falls inside a tribal area.
    6. Verification capacity in border districts: Establishing residence and antecedents requires police and revenue verification chains that are already stretched in border districts. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens exercise showed how documentary verification at scale outruns administrative capacity.

    Conclusion

    The Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 have been notified in the Gazette and are in force, replacing Empowered Committees and Designated Officers with District Collectors in six border States and two Union Territories, with tribal areas of Assam and Tripura excluded. The immediate next step named in the notification is the transfer of all pending applications to the relevant Collector, and the source states no further date or milestone beyond that. The change is administrative in form and consequential in effect, because it places a sovereign determination in the hands of a single district officer applying an undefined fit and proper standard. Whether the delegation speeds up disposal or widens variation depends on the guidance and appeal architecture that follows.

    What is Citizenship?

    1. About: Citizenship is the legal relationship between an individual and a State that carries full civil and political membership, including the right to vote, to hold public office and to hold an Indian passport.
    2. Rationale: It defines who belongs to the political community, and therefore who may claim the rights the Constitution reserves for citizens rather than for all persons.
    3. Rights reserved for citizens: Articles 15, 16, 19, 29 and 30 of the Constitution are available only to citizens. Articles 14 and 21 extend to every person.
    4. Jus soli, the territorial principle: Citizenship by place of birth, which India applied without qualification until 1987.
    5. Jus sanguinis, the descent principle: Citizenship by parentage, which India progressively adopted through the 1986, 2003 and 2004 changes to the birth rule.
    6. Naturalisation, the acquired principle: Citizenship granted by the State to a foreigner on satisfying residence, conduct and language conditions, which is the mode the new Rules deal with.

    Laws and Rules Governing Citizenship in India

    1. Citizenship Act, 1955: The principal statute, enacted under Article 11, providing for acquisition, determination and termination of Indian citizenship.
    2. 1986 amendment: Ended unqualified citizenship by birth, requiring at least one parent to be an Indian citizen for those born on or after 1 July 1987.
    3. 2003 amendment: Introduced the concept of the illegal migrant, barred illegal migrants from citizenship, and provided for a National Register of Indian Citizens and compulsory registration of all citizens.
    4. 2005 amendment: Expanded the categories eligible for the Overseas Citizen of India status.
    5. 2015 amendment: Merged the Person of Indian Origin card with the Overseas Citizen of India card, creating the Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder category.
    6. 2019 amendment: Reduced the naturalisation residence requirement to five years for six specified minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan who entered India on or before 31 December 2014.
    7. Section 6A: Provides the Assam specific framework with the 24 March 1971 cut off, upheld by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 2024.
    8. Citizenship Rules, 2009: The principal subordinate legislation prescribing forms, procedures and authorities for applications under the Act.
    9. Citizenship (Amendment) Rules, 2024: Prescribed the application procedure and the district and empowered committee structure for grants under the 2019 amendment.
    10. Citizenship (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026: Transfers the grant power in the specified border States and Union Territories to District Collectors.
    11. Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025: Consolidates the law on entry, stay and exit of foreigners, replacing the earlier Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920, the Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939, the Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act, 2000.
    12. Passports Act, 1967: Governs the issue of Indian passports and travel documents, for which proof of citizenship is a precondition.

    Government Initiatives Related to Citizenship

    1. Indian Citizenship Online portal: The Ministry of Home Affairs portal through which applications for citizenship by registration and naturalisation are filed and tracked.
    2. Dedicated portal and mobile application under the 2019 amendment: Launched in 2024 to receive applications from eligible applicants of the six specified communities.
    3. National Population Register: Maintained under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship Rules, 2003 as a register of usual residents, updated alongside the census housing phase.
    4. Long Term Visa scheme: Provides extended stay, employment and property rights to minority community migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan pending decision on their citizenship applications.
    5. Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder scheme: Provides lifelong visa free travel and parity with non resident Indians in specified economic and educational fields, without conferring citizenship or voting rights.

    Key Facts about Citizenship in India

    1. Constitutional location: Citizenship is dealt with in Part II of the Constitution, comprising Articles 5 to 11.
    2. Single citizenship: India follows single citizenship on the pattern of the United Kingdom, unlike the dual citizenship model of the United States.
    3. No dual citizenship: India does not permit dual citizenship, and voluntary acquisition of foreign citizenship terminates Indian citizenship under Section 9.
    4. Overseas Citizen of India status is not citizenship: An Overseas Citizen of India Cardholder cannot vote, hold constitutional office or purchase agricultural land.
    5. The 2004 birth rule cut off: Persons born in India on or after 3 December 2004 must have at least one citizen parent and no illegal migrant parent.
    6. Union subject: Citizenship, naturalisation and aliens is Entry 17 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.

    Challenges in Citizenship Determination in India

    1. Documentary proof in a low documentation society: Establishing descent and residence over decades requires records many households never held. e.g. the Assam National Register of Citizens process excluded over 19 lakh persons from the final list published in 2019.
    2. Gendered documentation gap: Married women who moved at marriage often lack independent linkage documents to a parent's record. e.g. panchayat residence certificates for married women became a contested category of proof during the Assam exercise.
    3. Adjudication capacity: Determination bodies handle far more cases than their sanctioned strength can process fairly. e.g. Foreigners Tribunals in Assam handling large pendency with limited members.
    4. Detention and post declaration limbo: A person declared a foreigner with no country willing to receive them remains in indefinite administrative limbo. e.g. the Supreme Court's directions on conditional release of long term detainees from Assam detention centres.
    5. Legal challenge to the 2019 framework: The reduced naturalisation threshold for specified religious communities is under constitutional challenge, leaving the framework unsettled. e.g. petitions against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 pending before the Supreme Court.
    6. Variation across deciding authorities: Multiple district level authorities applying an undefined standard produce inconsistent outcomes. e.g. the fit and proper test in the 2026 Rules carrying no statutory definition.
    7. Absence of a statelessness framework: India has no domestic law on statelessness and is not party to the 1954 and 1961 conventions on the subject. e.g. persons excluded from a citizenship register having no recognised alternative legal status.

    Way Forward

    1. Issue binding guidance on the fit and proper test: Publish parameters, documentary standards and a reasoned order requirement so that Collector level discretion is structured rather than open ended.
    2. Provide a departmental appeal: Create an appellate authority above the Collector for refusals, so that recourse does not begin at the High Court.
    3. Mandate speaking orders and time limits: Require every grant and refusal to record reasons and to be disposed of within a stated period, with the position published in aggregate.
    4. Publish disposal data: Release district wise data on applications received, granted and refused, so that variation between Collectors becomes visible and correctable.
    5. Train and support district staff: Provide dedicated staff and training on citizenship law to Collectorates in the eight jurisdictions, given the additional workload placed on an already loaded office.
    6. Enact a statelessness framework: Provide in domestic law for the status, rights and documentation of persons who are found to be citizens of no country, so that exclusion does not produce legal invisibility.
    7. Harmonise the tribal area carve out: Specify which authority decides applications from the excluded tribal areas of Assam and Tripura, so that no applicant falls between two regimes.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] With reference to India, consider the following statements: 1. There is only one citizenship and one domicile. 2. A citizen by birth only can become the Head of State. 3. A foreigner, once granted citizenship, cannot be deprived of it under any circumstances. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 (d) 2 and 3 Answer: (a)”

  • Draft rules under the SHANTI Act could favour Russia’s Rosatom in India’s nuclear opening

    Why in the News

    Draft rules issued by the Department of Atomic Energy under the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act require any foreign nuclear technology brought into India to be design certified by the regulator in its country of origin and already operational there or in another foreign country. Only two Small Modular Reactors are operational anywhere in the world, so a clause written as a safety filter narrows India’s field of eligible suppliers to the one country that already has an operating unit.

    Mentor’s Comment

    A proven technology test is the most defensible condition a regulator can write. It is also the condition that most reliably locks out every new entrant, because nothing can be operational before someone allows it to operate somewhere first.

    What is the SHANTI Act?

    1. Full name: The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, referred to as the SHANTI Act.
    2. Function: It is the statute under which India’s expansion of nuclear power generation is being governed, including the terms on which foreign nuclear technology may be sourced for an Indian plant or reactor.
    3. Rule making authority: The Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) frames the subordinate rules under the Act, and has now issued them in draft.
    4. Operative clause in the draft rules: Foreign nuclear technology sourced for a nuclear power plant or reactor in India must mandatorily carry design certification or approval from the regulatory body in its country of origin, and must already be operational there or in another foreign country.

    What is a Small Modular Reactor?

    1. Definition: A Small Modular Reactor (SMR) is an advanced nuclear reactor with about one third the generating capacity of a conventional large power reactor, built from factory made modules rather than site fabricated components.
    2. Intended use: SMRs are aimed at supplying clean electricity to remote regions with limited grid infrastructure and to individual industrial enterprises.
    3. India’s interest: India is examining SMRs for localised applications such as energy hungry data centres, and for scaling up baseload capacity quickly.

    What do the draft rules actually require of a foreign supplier?

    1. Home regulator certification: The design must be certified or approved by the regulatory body of the technology’s country of origin.
    2. Prior operating record: The technology must already be operational in that country or in another foreign country.
    3. Cumulative condition: Both tests must be met together, so a design certified but not yet built fails the rule, and a demonstration unit without home regulator certification also fails it.
    4. Practical filter: The clause screens out first of a kind designs, which is the entire category most SMR developers currently sit in.

    What does the global SMR field look like?

    1. Russia, Akademik Lomonosov: A floating power unit with two modules of 35 MWe that began commercial operation in May 2020. It is a non self propelled power barge docked at Pevek harbour, supplying heat to the Arctic port town and electricity to the regional grid, and is the world’s northernmost nuclear power plant.
    2. China, HTR-PM: A demonstration project grid connected in December 2021 that started commercial operations in December 2023, the second of the two SMRs operational globally.
    3. United States, Holtec International: The New Jersey based developer’s SMR is still in the design certification phase and is yet to be cleared by its domestic regulator.
    4. United Kingdom, Rolls-Royce SMR: Also in the design certification phase, with no operating unit anywhere.
    5. United States, GE-Hitachi BWRX-300: A boiling water reactor derived SMR, likewise awaiting domestic regulatory clearance.
    6. What the set demonstrates: Only Russia and China clear the operational test today, and Russia is the only country in the world with expertise in floating nuclear power solutions.

    What is Russia already positioned to supply in India?

    1. Existing build: Russia is already constructing conventional nuclear projects in India and holds a lead in the nascent SMR field.
    2. Kudankulam: The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KKNPP) in Tamil Nadu is India’s largest nuclear power station and the flagship project of Russian and Indian energy cooperation. Units 1 and 2 use Russia’s earlier VVER-1000 light water reactors, where water cools the reactor, and are connected to the national grid supplying south India.
    3. Serial construction pitch: A key negotiating point from the Russian side is serial construction of high capacity units of Russian design in India based on the new generation VVER-1200 reactor models, with technical specifications being proposed by Russia.
    4. SMR pitch: Rosatom State Corporation has made a strong pitch for deploying its SMRs for targeted applications in India, and construction of SMRs of Russian design in India is under discussion.
    5. Floating solutions: In April 2024, Rosatom presented its Indian partners with information on its floating nuclear power solutions.
    6. Bilateral track: Progress on Kudankulam and the SMR proposal was reviewed at a working meeting in Mumbai on 10 November between the Chairman of the Department of Atomic Energy and the Director General of Rosatom.

    Why does cost also point the same way?

    1. Indigenous benchmark: India’s indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) cost about Rs 18 crore per MW-electric.
    2. Russian comparison: Russian reactors are estimated at about Rs 34 crore per MW-electric, which industry insiders describe as only marginally more expensive.
    3. Western comparison: Light water reactors offered by French and United States companies are significantly more expensive than India’s indigenous PHWRs.
    4. Where the cost sits: Fuel accounts for a relatively small share of the overall cost of nuclear generation, so the capital number dominates.
    5. Financing and time: High upfront capital cost remains the key challenge for new projects, and financing costs and the length of the construction period are critical determinants of the final cost of nuclear power.

    What are the other major changes in India’s nuclear framework?

    1. Change to an existing monopoly: The reform track opens nuclear power generation beyond the exclusive preserve of state owned entities, which the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 had reserved for the government.
    2. Change to an existing liability regime: The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, whose Section 17(b) gives the operator a right of recourse against the supplier, is part of the same reform track because that provision is the standing deterrent for foreign vendors.
    3. New institutional target: A Nuclear Energy Mission for Viksit Bharat carries an outlay of Rs 20,000 crore for research and development on Small Modular Reactors, with at least five indigenously designed SMRs targeted to be operational by 2033.
    4. New capacity goal: A national target of 100 GW of nuclear capacity by 2047 anchors the entire framework, against present installed capacity of under 9 GW.
    5. New subordinate rules: The draft rules now released are the first set of subordinate legislation under the SHANTI Act governing sourcing of foreign nuclear technology.

    Does a proven technology test buy safety at the cost of competition?

    1. The case for the clause: A design already certified and operating abroad carries demonstrated safety performance, which is the strongest assurance a regulator can demand before a first Indian deployment.
    2. The cost of the clause: Almost every SMR developer is in the design certification phase, so a rule keyed to operating status excludes the field rather than ranking it.
    3. Competition effect: With Holtec, Rolls-Royce SMR and the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 all outside the gate, price discovery for Indian projects narrows to one supplier’s quotation.
    4. Reciprocity problem: India’s own first of a kind designs have no operating record either, so a mirror clause applied abroad would keep Indian reactors out of foreign markets.
    5. Strategic dependence: Serial construction of VVER-1200 units plus SMR supply from the same country deepens a single supplier relationship in a sector with sixty year asset lives.

    Challenges to the design certification and prior operation clause

    1. The eligible field collapses to two countries: Only Russia and China have an operating SMR, e.g. Akademik Lomonosov since May 2020 and HTR-PM since December 2023, so every other developer is excluded until its home regulator acts.
    2. First of a kind Indian designs get no reciprocal entry: An indigenous SMR has no operating unit anywhere, e.g. the Bharat Small Modular Reactor of about 200 MWe exists only on paper, so a comparable foreign rule would bar it abroad.
    3. Supplier liability still deters western vendors independently of this clause: Section 17(b) of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010 has kept projects frozen, e.g. the Jaitapur project with French supply has been under negotiation since 2010 without a single unit built.
    4. Construction period risk dominates project cost: Long build times inflate financing cost, e.g. Kudankulam Unit 1 was sanctioned in 1988 and reached criticality only in 2013.
    5. Fuel supply remains external for safeguarded reactors: Imported uranium underpins the light water fleet, e.g. India sources uranium from Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia and Canada under Nuclear Suppliers Group waiver arrangements.
    6. Local acceptance and land acquisition delay siting: Public opposition has stalled commissioning, e.g. protests at Kudankulam through 2011 and 2012 delayed the first unit by over a year.
    7. SMR economics depend on serial factory production: A handful of units cannot amortise a module factory, e.g. Pevek’s barge served a single Arctic town, which is not a template for grid scale Indian demand.

    Conclusion

    The rules under the SHANTI Act are at the stage of a draft released by the Department of Atomic Energy for public comment, and the operative clause requires foreign nuclear technology to be design certified in its country of origin and already operational there or abroad. The next milestone is the close of the comment window on 4 September 2026, after which the rules are to be finalised and notified. As drafted, the clause leaves Rosatom as effectively the only qualifying SMR supplier, with Holtec International, Rolls-Royce SMR and the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 all still in design certification.

  • A secular republic’s sacrilege problem and the legal price of criticising holy writ

    Why in the News

    Punjab’s Governor assented in April 2026 to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, which provides punishment up to life imprisonment for sacrilege. The Act also covers words, signs, visible representations and electronic means, raising debate over the boundary between sacrilege and blasphemy.

    What is the Act?

    • Applies to wilful and deliberate desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib.
    • Covers physical acts such as damage, defacement, burning, tearing and theft of Saroop.
    • Also covers certain spoken/written words, signs, visual representations and electronic acts.
    • Emerged against the backdrop of the 2015 Bargari and Burj Jawahar Singh Wala incidents.

    Key Legal Provisions

    Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)

    • Replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860 from July 2024.
    • Section 298: Offences involving injury/defilement of places of worship.
    • Section 299: Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings, including through electronic means.
    • Section 299 carries forward the substance of former Section 295A, IPC.

    Constitutional Provisions

    • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions, including for public order.
    • Article 25: Freedom of conscience and religion, subject to public order, morality and health.
    • Article 14: Equality before law.
    • Article 51A(e): Promotes harmony and common brotherhood.
    • Article 51A(h): Promotes scientific temper, inquiry and reform.
    • Secularism: Part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

    Sacrilege vs Blasphemy

    • Sacrilege: Physical or conduct-based desecration of something sacred.
    • Blasphemy: Expressive acts showing contempt or irreverence towards religious beliefs.
    • Concern: Punjab’s law potentially merges the two by treating certain expressive acts as sacrilege.

    Historical Background of Section 295A

    • Rangila Rasul pamphlet triggered controversy in Lahore in 1924.
    • Section 295A IPC was enacted in 1927 to criminalise deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
    • The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957) under the Article 19(2) public order exception.

    Key Concerns

    • Chilling effect on speech, scholarship and satire.
    • Subjective interpretation of religious hurt.
    • Potential misuse by organised complainants.
    • Risk of vigilante violence despite criminalisation.
    • Digital communication expands the potential reach of the offence.
    • Different States may prescribe different levels of punishment.

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 makes obstructing Vande Mataram an offence

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 in the recently concluded Monsoon Session, making it an offence to attempt to stop or prevent the singing or playing of Vande Mataram. The amendment lands on a live political dispute over whether public rendition may be confined to the first two stanzas, a practice the principal Opposition party traces to a 1937 Congress Working Committee resolution and the ruling party contests against the Constituent Assembly declaration of 24 January 1950. A statute now attaches criminal liability to conduct around a symbol whose status rests on a Presidential declaration in the Constituent Assembly rather than on any article of the Constitution.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. Purpose: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 penalises insults to India’s national symbols, and is the parent statute the 2026 amendment modifies.
    2. Protection of the Flag and the Constitution: Section 2 penalises burning, mutilating, defacing, defiling, disfiguring, destroying or showing contempt to the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India.
    3. Protection of the National Anthem: Section 3 penalises intentionally preventing the singing of the National Anthem or causing disturbance to any assembly engaged in singing it.
    4. Punishment: Contravention attracts imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both.
    5. Disqualification for repeat offenders: Section 3A provides for disqualification from contesting elections to Parliament and State legislatures for a specified period on a second or subsequent conviction.
    6. Earlier amendments: The Act has been amended previously, including in 2003 to extend the prohibition on improper use of the Flag and in 2005 to permit specified respectful uses.

    What does the 2026 Amendment change?

    1. New offence created: The amendment makes it an offence to attempt to stop or prevent the singing or playing of Vande Mataram.
    2. Extension of the Section 3 principle to the national song: The parent Act protected the National Anthem from obstruction, and the amendment extends comparable protection to the national song.
    3. Trigger for the amendment: The controversy over the national song began after Parliament passed the amendment in the recently concluded Monsoon Session.
    4. The conduct targeted is obstruction, not abstention: The offence attaches to attempts to stop or prevent rendition, which distinguishes it from a duty to sing.

    What other provisions of the parent framework does the amendment sit alongside?

    1. The Flag Code of India, 2002: Governs display and use of the National Flag, and was amended in 2021 to permit polyester and machine made flags and in 2022 to permit display by night.
    2. The Orders relating to the National Anthem of India: Issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, they specify the occasions for the full and short versions and the playing time of 52 seconds.
    3. The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950: Bars improper commercial and professional use of specified names and emblems, including the National Flag.
    4. The State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act, 2005: Regulates use of the State Emblem, adapted from the Lion Capital of Ashoka at Sarnath.
    5. No parallel protection exists for the national song in the parent Act: Before this amendment, the 1971 Act protected the Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem, but not Vande Mataram.

    Why does the two stanza convention exist?

    1. The 1937 resolution: The Congress Working Committee passed a resolution in 1937 on the public rendition of the national song.
    2. The stated reason: Leading figures of the freedom movement, including Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, backed limiting public rendition to the first two stanzas to avoid verses containing specific religious imagery.
    3. Continuity claimed: The Congress president stated that the version sung was the same one sung by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.
    4. The 90 year framing: The party position is that it has continued a practice in place for 90 years, and that a governing party’s preference does not by itself set a national standard.
    5. State units following the same line: The Karnataka unit stated that only the first two stanzas would be sung at its programmes, in keeping with existing practice.
    6. The counter allegation: The ruling party alleged that the Congress entered into a pact with the Muslim League in 1936-37, under whose pressure only two stanzas were to be sung.

    What did the Constituent Assembly decide on 24 January 1950?

    1. The declaration: Dr Rajendra Prasad, as President of the Constituent Assembly, declared on 24 January 1950 that Jana Gana Mana would be the National Anthem and Vande Mataram the national song.
    2. Equal honour, unequal legal treatment: The declaration accorded the national song honour equal to the anthem, without conferring on it the same statutory protection the anthem later received in 1971.
    3. The source of authority: The status of both symbols rests on this declaration and subsequent executive practice, not on any article of the Constitution.
    4. Historical lineage invoked: The contributions of Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Rabindranath Tagore and Bal Gangadhar Tilak were recalled, with the song described as a major source of inspiration during the freedom struggle.
    5. The political point pressed: The ruling party emphasised that the person who made the declaration was himself a Congress member and later the President of India.
    6. The broader charge: The Congress was accused of compromising national symbols and the core values of its own freedom movement.

    Why does criminalising obstruction of a national song raise a free speech question?

    1. The anthem precedent cuts both ways: Section 3 of the 1971 Act penalises preventing the singing of the anthem, and the Supreme Court has separately held that respectful silence is not an offence.
    2. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986: The Court held that expelling students who stood respectfully but did not sing the anthem violated Article 19(1)(a) and Article 25.
    3. The definitional problem of attempt: An offence framed around an attempt to stop or prevent rendition turns on intention, which is inferred from conduct at a charged political event.
    4. Partial rendition is not obstruction: Singing two stanzas of a five stanza song is a choice about what to sing, distinct from preventing others from singing.
    5. Article 19(2) is the test: Any restriction must fall within the enumerated grounds, and the sustainability of this offence depends on locating it within public order or decency.
    6. The unresolved consequence: The dispute has moved from a convention about rendition into a question about who can be prosecuted at a public event, without the constitutional status of the national song itself being settled.

    Challenges to enforcing the amended Act

    1. Proving intention to obstruct: Distinguishing deliberate obstruction from ordinary disorder at a crowded event is evidentially difficult, e.g. complaints under Section 3 of the 1971 Act arising from cinema hall incidents have frequently collapsed for want of proof of intent.
    2. Risk of politically motivated complaints: A criminal provision attached to a contested symbol invites first information reports as a campaign instrument, e.g. the current dispute arose from rendition at an Independence Day event at a party headquarters and a subsequent event in Goa.
    3. Conflict with the respectful silence doctrine: Enforcement can slide from obstruction into compelled participation, e.g. Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala, 1986 protected students who declined to sing while standing in respect.
    4. No settled authoritative text or duration: Unlike the anthem, the national song has no notified official version or playing time, e.g. the Orders relating to the National Anthem fix a playing time of 52 seconds with no counterpart for Vande Mataram.
    5. Judicial reversal risk from over enforcement: Courts have withdrawn mandatory rendition directions when enforcement produced harassment, e.g. the 2016 direction making the anthem compulsory in cinema halls was made optional in 2018.
    6. Federal enforcement variation: Police being a State subject, prosecution practice will differ across States, e.g. identical conduct at party events in different States can attract different responses.

    Conclusion

    The amendment converts a ninety year old convention about how much of a national song is sung in public into a matter capable of criminal prosecution, without resolving the underlying question of what legal status the national song holds. The 1971 Act protected the Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem because each has a notified form, and the national song has none, so the offence rests on a symbol defined only by the Constituent Assembly declaration of 24 January 1950. The stage reached is that Parliament passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2026 in the recently concluded Monsoon Session. The source names no commencement date, rules or further milestone, so the next step on the record is notification bringing the amendment into force.

  • Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 creates National Tribunals Commission after a decade-long tussle with the Supreme Court

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, which creates a National Tribunals Commission, fixes member tenure at five years and repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021. The measure ends a decade in which the Centre re-enacted provisions the Supreme Court had struck down, most recently in November 2025 when a Bench called the 2021 re-enactment an impermissible legislative override. It concedes the institution the Court had demanded while retaining the appointment, funding and rule making levers that produced the dispute.

    What is the National Tribunals Commission?

    1. An independent oversight body for tribunals: The National Tribunals Commission is created to sever the dependence of tribunals on their parent government ministries for administrative and financial needs.
    2. Composition: It will be headed by a former Supreme Court judge or a former Chief Justice of a High Court, with two judicial members and two technical members.
    3. Qualification for technical members: Technical members must have at least 25 years of experience in fields such as public administration, finance or law.
    4. Core functions: The Commission will conduct the selection process for vacancies, review the performance of tribunals and oversee inquiries into complaints against members.
    5. Data function: It will maintain a National Tribunals Data Grid.
    6. Executive appointment retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members, with the chairperson and judicial members appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India.

    What is the National Tribunals Data Grid?

    1. A central case data repository: The National Tribunals Data Grid is the consolidated database of tribunal case and disposal data to be maintained by the Commission.
    2. Purpose: It supplies the performance data on which the Commission’s review of tribunal functioning will rest, mirroring the role the National Judicial Data Grid performs for courts.

    What is an impermissible legislative override?

    1. Re-enacting a struck down provision: A legislative override is impermissible when a legislature re-enacts the same provision a court has declared unconstitutional, without removing the defect the court identified.
    2. The settled distinction: A legislature may cure the basis of a judgment by changing the underlying law, but it cannot simply nullify the judgment by restoring the identical text.

    Why did the Centre and the Supreme Court end up in a decade long confrontation?

    1. Finance Act, 2017: The statute empowered the Centre to frame rules for tribunals, transferring service conditions and qualifications to executive rule making.
    2. Constitution Bench ruling, 2019: A Constitution Bench struck down those rules for undermining judicial independence.
    3. New rules and a judicial recommendation, 2020: The Centre notified fresh rules, and the Court recommended several modifications, including a five year tenure for members.
    4. Ordinance, April 2021: Instead of incorporating those suggestions, the Centre promulgated an Ordinance fixing tenure at four years, setting a minimum appointment age of 50, and requiring selection committees to recommend a panel of two names.
    5. Provisions struck down as arbitrary: The Court struck down those provisions.
    6. Tribunals Reforms Act, August 2021: Parliament then passed an Act re-enacting the exact provisions the Court had just declared unconstitutional.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in November 2025?

    1. Re-enactment condemned: A two judge Bench struck down provisions of the 2021 Act, calling the re-enactment an impermissible legislative override of earlier judgments.
    2. Criticism of persistent non compliance: The Court criticised the government for its persistent refusal to adhere to its pronouncements.
    3. Four year tenure held anti merit: The Court ruled that a short four year tenure is anti-merit and increases interference by the executive, jeopardising the independence of the judiciary.
    4. Panel of two names rejected: It held that the government could not demand a panel of two names, since this gave the executive undue discretion in appointments.
    5. Direction to create the Commission: It reiterated the need for a National Tribunals Commission and directed the Centre to establish one within four months.
    6. Transitional protection: It protected certain existing appointments and selections while the new framework was being put in place.

    What are the other major changes proposed?

    1. Repeal of the 2021 Act (change to an existing provision): The 2026 Bill repeals the Tribunals Reforms Act of August 2021 in its entirety.
    2. Tenure fixed at five years (change to an existing provision): Chairpersons and members will hold office for a term of five years, replacing the contested four year tenure.
    3. Age ceilings specified (change to an existing provision): The maximum age limit is set at 70 years for chairpersons and 67 years for members.
    4. Reappointment permitted (new provision): Chairpersons and members can be considered for reappointment.
    5. Search cum selection committee restructured (new provision): The committee for members will be headed by a judicial member of the Commission and will include a retired High Court judge, a government secretary, a technical member and experts.
    6. One name per vacancy (change to an existing provision): The committee will recommend one suitable candidate for each vacancy, with one additional name kept on a waiting list, replacing the panel of two.
    7. Appointment deadline imposed (new provision): The government must make the appointment within three months of receiving the recommendation.
    8. Stated legislative intent: The Statement of Objects and Reasons says the Bill is introduced in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court, to improve efficiency and ensure independence, transparency and uniformity in the functioning of tribunals.

    Why does the Bill not fully sever executive control?

    1. Appointment power retained: The Centre appoints the chairperson and members of the Commission itself, so the body meant to insulate tribunals is constituted by the executive.
    2. Consultation is not concurrence: The chairperson and judicial members are appointed after consulting the Chief Justice of India, a formulation that does not bind the government to the advice.
    3. Secretariat under the Centre: The Centre appoints the Commission’s secretary, which places the administrative machinery of the oversight body within executive reach.
    4. Financial dependence continues: The Centre provides grants to the Commission, reproducing at one remove the funding dependence the Court objected to.
    5. Rule making powers preserved: The Centre retains rule making powers over several aspects of tribunal members’ qualifications and service conditions.
    6. Reappointment as a pressure point: Permitting reappointment gives the appointing authority a continuing hold over a serving member’s prospects.

    Challenges to the National Tribunals Commission

    1. Vacancies outlast reform statutes: Tribunal benches sit without presiding officers for long periods, e.g. the National Green Tribunal has functioned with single member or non functional zonal benches for extended stretches.
    2. Parent ministry conflict of interest persists in adjudication: A tribunal often decides cases against the very ministry that shapes its service rules, e.g. the Armed Forces Tribunal adjudicates disputes against the Ministry of Defence.
    3. Appeal architecture keeps burdening the Supreme Court: Several statutes provide a direct appeal from a tribunal to the Supreme Court, e.g. appeals from the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal go straight to the Supreme Court, bypassing the High Courts.
    4. Technical member dominance dilutes judicial character: Benches weighted toward administrative expertise weaken the adjudicatory function, e.g. the Court in the Madras Bar Association line of cases repeatedly objected to bench composition tilted against judicial members.
    5. Uneven infrastructure and geographic access: Litigants travel long distances because benches are concentrated in a few cities, e.g. the abolition of appellate bodies in the 2021 rationalisation pushed those appeals to High Courts already carrying large backlogs.
    6. Rationalisation without capacity transfer: Abolishing a tribunal shifts its docket to courts without a matching increase in judicial strength, e.g. the 2021 rationalisation abolished nine appellate tribunals including the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and moved their work to High Courts.
    7. Non compliance with judicial directions: The record of the last decade shows directions being met with re-enactment rather than implementation, e.g. the 2021 Act reproduced the very four year tenure the Court had struck down months earlier.

    Conclusion

    A decade of contest between the legislature and the Court has ended with the Centre conceding the institution, since the Bill creates the National Tribunals Commission the Court had demanded and restores the five year tenure the Court recommended in 2020. The concession stops short of independence, because the Centre still appoints the Commission’s chairperson, members and secretary, funds it through grants and retains rule making powers over qualifications and service conditions. The measure has reached the stage of passage by both Houses of Parliament as the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026, and awaits Presidential assent and notification before it can take effect. The next milestone named in the record is the constitution of the National Tribunals Commission, which the Supreme Court’s November 2025 judgment directed the Centre to complete within four months.