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

Civilsdaily

Type: Bills/Act/Laws

  • Why are States divided over the mining amendment?

    Why in the News

    Taxing mineral rights and mineral-bearing land, which a nine-judge Constitution Bench held in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) to be largely a State power, now needs conditions set by the Union under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026. Mineral-rich States have split on challenging it, along lines of revenue dependence and political alignment.

    How does the Constitution divide power over minerals?

    1. Regulation: States regulate mines under State List Entry 23. Under Union List Entry 54, Parliament can take control in the public interest, like a master switch.
    2. Taxation: Separately, Entries 50 and 49 of the State List let States tax mineral rights (the right to extract minerals) and land.
    3. The takeaway: Regulation and taxation sit in different entries, so the dispute is whether a regulatory power can be used to cut a taxing power.

    What does the amendment change?

    1. Wider central control: The Act, passed by Parliament, extends the Centre’s regulatory power from mines and mineral development to mineral-bearing land.
    2. Tax bar: States may not impose fresh taxes on mineral rights or mineral-bearing land, except under conditions the Union government prescribes.
    3. Past dues cancelled: Mineral taxes that States imposed but had not fully collected before the Act took effect are cancelled.
    4. Clash with the ruling: The Court let Parliament limit State taxes on mineral rights, but held that Entry 54 cannot curtail their power to tax mineral-bearing land.
    5. From mining to fiscal autonomy: Using a regulatory power to limit State taxes makes this a question of the fiscal autonomy, or revenue freedom, of mineral-rich States.

    What is at stake for the Centre and the States?

    1. The Centre’s case: Uneven, multiple State levies raise domestic mineral costs, so industries turn to imports and the exchequer bears more.
    2. Lost revenue: Cancelling unrecovered dues removes a revenue source and narrows future mineral income for the major mineral-bearing States.
    3. Most dependent: Minerals supply 85% of non-tax revenue in Jharkhand and 80% in Odisha, so the curbs hit them hardest.
    4. Least dependent: The immediate impact is smaller in Telangana and Chhattisgarh.

    Why have States responded differently?

    1. Legal challenge: Karnataka, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh and Kerala plan to move the Supreme Court, saying the curbs undermine States’ fiscal powers and federalism.
    2. Kerala’s added objection: The new treatment of mineral-bearing land gives the Centre wider power over the State’s coastal and forest regions.
    3. Jharkhand’s warning: The Chief Minister warns that losing mineral taxes and past dues could hit social-security schemes benefiting millions.
    4. Odisha’s stand: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government rejected the Opposition’s call for a special Assembly session, saying mineral revenue will not suffer.
    5. Alignment over dependence: Low-dependence Telangana, ruled outside the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), joined the challenge. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh have not objected, so alignment decides who sues.

    How does the dispute fit India’s fiscal federalism?

    1. Asymmetric design: India’s fiscal federalism gives the Centre greater taxing powers and places greater spending duties on the States.
    2. Leverage over States: The Centre’s control of borrowing approvals and transfers limits States that depend on them.
    3. Recurring disputes: The amendment joins earlier Centre-State disputes over Goods and Services Tax compensation, Finance Commission mandates, the National Education Policy, the Citizenship Amendment Act and All-India Services rules.

    Challenges

    1. Ordinary law against a ruling: Parliament is doing by ordinary law what the Court’s reading of the State List ruled out.
    2. Retrospective loss: Cancelling dues already levied unsettles State budgets planned around them.
    3. No bargaining forum: No standing body reconciles uniform mineral costs with States’ room to tax. Eg. The Inter-State Council last met in 2016.

    Way Forward

    1. Consult on conditions: The Union should frame the prescribed conditions for State mineral taxes with States through the Inter-State Council.
    2. Transitional compensation: The Centre should compensate States for cancelled dues over a fixed transition period.
    3. Rate ceiling, not a bar: A ceiling on State mineral levies in place of Union approval would keep costs predictable.

    Conclusion

    The amendment answers industry’s cost complaint by moving taxing room from mineral-rich States to the Union, against the Court’s reading of where that power lies. Whether the Supreme Court lets a regulatory entry override a taxing entry will decide the States’ planned challenges.

    Key numbers

    1. Mineral share of non-tax revenue, Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh: 48% and 41%.
    2. Mineral share of non-tax revenue, Rajasthan: 39%.
    3. Least dependent States: Telangana 11%, Chhattisgarh 6%.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character? (a) The independence of the judiciary is safeguarded. (b) The Union Legislature has elected representatives from constituent units. (c) The Union Cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties. (d) The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by Courts of Law. ANSWER: (a)”

  • ECI must not force voters to lie. Solution may lie in a Form 6X

    Why in the News

    The Election Commission of India (ECI) has moved from deleting names in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) to re-enrolling the eligible voters it removed, but through Form 6, a form meant only for first-time voters. Its new instructions order a special enrolment drive in 20 States and Union Territories after about 13 crore names left the draft rolls.

    What is the ECI’s corrective drive?

    1. What it is: A drive restoring eligible voters that the SIR, a door-to-door re-check of voters, wrongly removed. It is like fixing a register that dropped real members.
    2. How it works: Officials compare pre-SIR and post-SIR rolls, visit missing voters at home and help them enrol. Political parties may assist.
    3. When ordered: Instructions issued on September 29 were reinforced at an October 1 meeting with Chief Electoral Officers, the ECI’s top officer in each State.
    4. Two target groups: The drive targets young voters left unenrolled and long-registered voters deleted from the rolls.
    5. The takeaway: The ECI has in effect admitted wrongful deletions, so the legal route back now matters.

    Why must the ECI account for young voters?

    1. Long-standing commitment: The ECI long urged every new adult to register at once. The Union Cabinet’s 2011 decision to mark 25 January as National Voters’ Day reflected this.
    2. Four qualifying dates: A 2022 reform allowed enrolment on four qualifying dates a year, one per quarter, each a date on which eligibility is counted. Seventeen-year-olds could apply in advance.
    3. The 2024 lapse: The ECI must explain how many young people eligible from 2024 stayed unenrolled, and why. A corrective drive is no substitute for that explanation.

    Why is Form 6 the wrong route for deleted voters?

    1. A form for new voters: Form 6 is the “Application Form for New Voters”. Its declaration reads, “I am applying for inclusion in Electoral Roll for the first time.”
    2. A false statement: Someone who has voted for 20 or 30 years cannot sign this honestly, yet a first-time applicants’ form is being used to restore them.
    3. Penalty for voters: Under Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, a false declaration is punishable with up to a year in prison, a fine, or both.
    4. Risk for officials: Under Sections 45 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), knowingly prompting or helping an offence is abetment, punishable like the offence itself.
    5. Voters who objected: Some registered voters reportedly protested but were made to file Form 6 anyway.

    How would a restoration form work?

    1. Restoration, not registration: First-time voters would register through Form 6. Wrongly deleted voters would be restored through a new Form 6X.
    2. What it would ask: The voter gives the old Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number, the voter ID, and earlier roll details.
    3. Checks before restoring: Officials verify whether the person is still eligible, has shifted, is registered elsewhere or has become disqualified.
    4. No litigation needed: The electoral machinery already holds these records, so voters should not have to go to court to recover their vote.

    Challenges

    1. Weak legal footing: An entry restored on a false declaration is open to later challenge.
    2. Burden on the wronged: The ECI deleted the names, yet each deleted voter must apply again.
    3. Field capacity: Home visits depend on Booth Level Officers (BLOs) already stretched by the SIR.

    Way Forward

    1. Notify Form 6X: The Law Ministry should amend the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, a change the author says takes a few hours.
    2. Quarterly enrolment data: The ECI should publish applications, enrolments, rejections and pendency each quarter, and account for young citizens who missed elections.
    3. Accountability: The ECI should publish the drive’s results, explain the failures behind it, and hold obstructing officials to account.

    Conclusion

    The ECI has conceded wrongful deletions but routes the remedy through a declaration that is untrue for every voter it serves. Whether a separate restoration route is created before the drive closes will decide if restored voters carry legal risk.

    Electoral roll revision in India

    1. Special Intensive Revision: A time-bound, door-to-door enumeration in which BLOs physically verify every entry, unlike the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Purpose: It removes deceased, duplicate or shifted entries and adds newly eligible citizens.
    3. Constitutional basis: Article 324 gives the ECI superintendence, direction and control over preparing electoral rolls.
    4. History: The first intensive revisions ran from 1952 to 1956, and about 14 have been held in all.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • The tussle over top posts in Central Armed Police Forces and IPS deputation

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court’s 2025 direction to progressively reduce Indian Police Service (IPS) deputation in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) now runs against a new law that keeps most top posts for deputationists. Contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with that judgment will now be heard alongside the challenge to the Central Armed Police Forces (General Administration) Act, 2026.

    What are the CAPFs, and why are their top posts contested?

    1. Five forces: The CAPFs are the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB).
    2. Cadre officers: Each force has its own cadre of Group A executive officers, generally recruited as Assistant Commandants, who can rise to senior command posts.
    3. Deputation route: IPS officers are also lent to the forces, like managers sent from head office. Earlier rules filled 20% of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) and 50% of Inspector General (IG) posts this way.
    4. Cadre grievance: With few posts at the top, every deputation slot cuts promotion chances for career officers of the forces.
    5. The takeaway: The dispute is about who commands the forces: career insiders or IPS officers on deputation.

    Why did stagnation persist after court rulings?

    1. Non-Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU): NFFU pays a higher grade’s salary when no promotion vacancy exists. The Delhi High Court granted it in 2015, and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2019.
    2. Partial relief: NFFU follows the existing Recruitment Rules, which require a fixed number of years in each rank. The count for the next upgrade restarts only on an actual promotion, so stagnation continues.
    3. Officers’ demand: Cadre officers want Service Rules that base their progression on total qualifying service, not on years spent in each rank.
    4. 2025 judgment: In May 2025 the Supreme Court ruled on cadre career progression and directed a progressive reduction of IPS deputation.
    5. Alleged non-compliance: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has since brought 46 IPS officers into the forces, which the contempt petitions challenge.

    What does the CAPF Act, 2026 change?

    1. Umbrella framework: The Act, introduced as a Bill in March, creates one framework for Group A officers of all five CAPFs. The Centre frames rules on recruitment, promotion and service conditions.
    2. Override clause: This rule-making power operates notwithstanding any inconsistent judgment, decree or order of a court, so the rules stand even against a contrary court ruling. They also prevail over inconsistent rules or government orders.
    3. Deputation quotas: The Act reserves 50% of IG and at least 67% of Additional Director General (ADG) posts for deputation.
    4. Top posts: All Special Director General and Director General posts go to deputationists.
    5. Opposition objection: Opposition MPs argued that the law sets aside the Supreme Court’s judgment in effect.

    What is the Centre’s case, and why is the hearing itself disputed?

    1. Operational role: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) argues that CAPFs, given their operational role, cannot be treated on a par with civilian Group A services.
    2. Centre-State link: IPS officers, the MHA says, connect the Centre with State police when the forces deploy in States.
    3. Deputation paradox: The Centre itself struggles to fill IPS-reserved posts because States are reluctant to release officers on central deputation.
    4. Listing controversy: The contempt cases were listed before Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and A S Chandurkar, then struck off. They went to a special Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Bhuyan after the Centre asked the Chief Justice of India to club the two cases.
    5. Officers’ objection: CAPF officers’ lawyers argued that the two cases are distinct.

    Challenges

    1. Legislative override: Parliament may change the law a judgment rests on but cannot simply overrule the judgment, so the override clause invites a court challenge.
    2. Blocked promotions: Fixed top-level quotas keep cadre officers stagnating in middle ranks, hurting morale.
    3. Listing transparency: Striking a listed case off without stated reasons weakens confidence in the Registry.

    Way Forward

    1. Cadre review: The MHA should run a time-bound cadre review to add senior posts.
    2. Service-based progression: Frame Service Rules linking financial upgrades to total qualifying service, as cadre officers seek.
    3. Calibrated deputation: Restrict deputation to posts needing Centre-State coordination, with a published reduction schedule.
    4. Reasoned listing orders: The Registry should record reasons whenever a listed case is removed or a Bench reconstituted.

    Conclusion

    The contest has moved from service rules to whether Parliament can legislate around a judicial direction on who commands the forces. The joint hearing before one Bench will decide whether the Court’s earlier judgment survives.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 15 marks] What are the internal security challenges being faced by India? Give out the role of Central Intelligence and Investigative Agencies tasked to counter such threats.”

  • How regulation stifles HEIs

    Why in the News

    The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025, now under legislative review, seeks to overhaul how Higher Educational Institutions (HEIs) are regulated in India. The live question is whether a new overarching regulator will harm the quality it claims to protect, since India’s best institutions already work outside the regulators.

    What is the VBSA Bill, and why is it being questioned?

    1. What it is: The VBSA Bill, 2025 proposes a single, overarching regulatory apparatus for higher education, replacing today’s set of separate regulators. It works like one licensing office for all colleges and universities.
    2. Why it was proposed: The Bill’s stated aims are to ensure quality and accountability, enforce minimum standards, and prevent malpractice.
    3. What the critique says: The problem is regulation’s “governmentality”, the habit of governing through external supervision. When supervision replaces an institution’s own internal integrity, HEIs ask only what minimum must be shown on paper.
    4. The takeaway: A stronger regulator can produce better files without producing better teaching, which is the risk the Bill must avoid.

    How does the regulatory culture hurt teaching?

    1. Fear of the regulator: HEIs optimise academic work for the inspector, not for teaching. Teachers document evidence for annual self-assessment reports instead of asking what makes a class worthwhile.
    2. Rankings over learning: University authorities track ranking and accreditation scores, not how a teacher builds students’ intellectual engagement.
    3. ‘Paper blizzard’: Institutions now produce an evidence blizzard, a flood of digital documents made for inspection. A college can meet every norm and keep perfect files, yet its students stay disengaged.
    4. Contradictory rules: The University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulation (2018) sets norms that do not match each other:
      • it expects a 40-hour working week;
      • it requires teachers on campus for only five hours a day;
      • clarifications issued to fix such mismatches create fresh irregularities.
    5. Trust deficit and risk aversion: Constant surveillance and an assembly line model of work, which treats teaching like factory output, erode trust. Institutions then avoid risk, so innovation stalls and conventional mediocrity becomes the safest option.

    What do India’s autonomous institutions show?

    1. Outside the architecture: India’s top institutions are not bound by the regulators’ uniform formulas:
      • the Indian Institute of Science (IISc);
      • the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs);
      • the National Institutes of Technology (NITs) and Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs).
    2. Own rules: They set curricula at their own pace, recruit through their own process and direct resources by their own strategy.
    3. Counter-evidence: If intensive regulation were the engine of quality, the most tightly regulated universities would outperform these institutions. They do not, so the regulatory logic misreads what quality higher education requires.
    4. Risk of a new casualty: Bringing these institutions under the VBSA framework would extend the same constraints to the sector’s best performers.

    Can quality be secured without the inspection model?

    1. Case for autonomy: Regulation built on force and fear ignores the moral base of society, as economist Alan Greenspan observed. Quality rises from internal integrity, not from compliance alone.
    2. The real test: The Bill succeeds only if it makes HEIs bolder hubs of teaching and inquiry, not portals that are updated for inspection.

    Challenges

    1. Compliance burden: Documentation demands take teachers’ time away from teaching and research.
    2. Metric capture: Accreditation and ranking scores reward visible outputs over classroom quality. Eg. Publication counts chased for rankings.
    3. Autonomy at risk: Folding autonomous institutions into one framework could dilute the model that works best.

    Way Forward

    1. Graded autonomy: Give more self-governance to institutions with a proven record, under a “light but tight” approach.
    2. Outcome-based inspection: Replace document checks with assessment of teaching quality and student learning.
    3. Consistent regulations: Audit UGC rules for contradictions before carrying them forward.

    Conclusion

    India’s higher education problem is less a shortage of rules than a shortage of trust in institutions to govern themselves. Whether the Bill widens autonomy or deepens inspection is the decision to watch.

    Higher education regulation in India

    1. Scale: India runs the world’s second-largest higher education system, with about 4.65 crore students enrolled in 2026 (All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE) and NITI Aayog).
    2. Apex regulators: The UGC funds universities and sets standards. The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regulates technical education, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) regulates teacher training.
    3. Accreditation bodies: The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) grades HEIs. The National Board of Accreditation (NBA) assesses technical and professional programmes.
    4. Fragmentation: Overlapping bodies issue conflicting guidelines, delaying institutional autonomy.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”

  • Subhash Chandra’s IBC deal: ED probe focuses on big haircuts, proxy bidders

    Why in the News

    The insolvency law was meant to take failed companies away from their promoters, but investigators allege promoters are using the process itself to buy back their companies at deep discounts. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has made such frauds its first operational priority, after Zee founder Subhash Chandra settled bank claims of over ₹22,000 crore for ₹6.5 crore.

    How is the insolvency process meant to work?

    1. What it is: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 gives creditors a time-bound process to rescue or sell a defaulting company. It works like a court-supervised auction of a failed business.
    2. Who decides: In the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), a resolution professional (RP) replaces management. A Committee of Creditors (CoC) approves a resolution plan by a 66% vote.
    3. Haircut: A haircut is the share of admitted claims creditors give up under a plan. A 94% haircut returns ₹6 per ₹100 owed.
    4. The takeaway: A process designed to end promoter control can become a cheap route back to it.

    What has the ED flagged?

    1. New priority: At an internal conference in Bengaluru, ED officers named “unearthing frauds under IBC and PMLA” the agency’s first operational thrust area. PMLA is the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.
    2. Specific target: The ED will examine “collusive resolution cases involving disproportionately large haircuts through which promoters re-acquire assets”.
    3. Earlier probes: Over two years, the ED has probed about a dozen cases alleging five forms of manipulation:
      • promoter-linked entities dominating creditor committees;
      • proxy bidders used to regain companies;
      • compromised resolution professionals;
      • assets moved out before or during the CIRP;
      • bids allegedly suppressed.

    How do promoters allegedly regain control?

    1. Alchemist: A group firm allegedly held 97% of CoC votes and the RP was a former group employee. The ED alleged the aim was immunity from past offences under Section 32A.
    2. Tribunal finding: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) held the Alchemist CIRP vitiated by “fraud and collusion”. The Calcutta High Court later ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe.
    3. Sunstar Overseas: The company allegedly financed its own takeover through Umaiza Infracon LLP, a shell with no funds of its own, at an almost 85% haircut.
    4. Richa Industries: Saariga Constructions, allegedly set up by promoters through a former employee acting as a benamidar (front holder), bought CoC votes. Banks took a haircut of about 94%.

    How are assets allegedly stripped before or during insolvency?

    1. Amtek Auto: Fifteen group companies with claims over ₹34,000 crore were resolved at an average haircut of about 81%.
    2. Shell network: In Amtek, the ED identified about 500 shell companies allegedly holding properties bought with siphoned funds.
    3. Undervalued sales: In Angle Infrastructure, two acres were allegedly sold for ₹31 crore against a valuation of ₹160 crore. The RP denied it.
    4. Assets moved out: In Bhasin Infotech, 384 commercial units were allegedly shifted beyond the CIRP through “sham” and “backdated” agreements.

    Challenges

    1. Proxy loophole: Section 29A bars defaulting promoters from bidding, but benami fronts and shells evade it.
    2. Immunity risk: Section 32A’s protection for approved plans can shield a collusive buyer if fraud surfaces late.
    3. RP independence: Resolution professionals with links to promoters face weak checks before appointment.

    Way Forward

    1. Beneficial ownership checks: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) should require resolution applicants to disclose ultimate owners.
    2. Haircut trigger: Mandate an independent forensic audit when a haircut crosses a set threshold.
    3. RP vetting: The IBBI should screen RPs for prior links with the debtor group.
    4. Agency coordination: Set an information-sharing protocol between the ED, the IBBI and the NCLT.

    Conclusion

    Deep haircuts now draw scrutiny as possible fraud, not only as the cost of failure. Whether the IBBI tightens checks on bidder ownership and RP independence will decide if promoters can still buy back what they lost.

    Key numbers

    1. Richa Industries recovery: ₹40.29 crore against admitted claims of ₹696 crore (October 2025).
    2. Sunstar Overseas sale: ₹196 crore against admitted claims of ₹1,274.14 crore.

    Back2Basics: Section 32A of the IBC

    1. What it does: It ends a company’s liability for offences committed before the CIRP once the NCLT approves a resolution plan.
    2. Asset protection: The company’s property cannot then be attached for those earlier offences.
    3. Condition: The protection applies only where control passes to a new owner who is not a promoter, related party or abettor of the offence.
    4. Origin: Inserted in 2020, it gives genuine buyers a clean start; offenders stay personally liable.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024] Consider the following statements: Statement-I: Syndicated lending spreads the risk of borrower default across multiple lenders. Statement-II: The syndicated loan can be a fixed amount/lump sum of funds, but cannot be a credit line. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I (c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect* (d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct ANSWER:”

  • Centre to resume appraising post facto green clearance cases after top court ruling

    Why in the News

    Post facto environmental clearance proposals that were stalled, rejected, returned or de-listed because of the Supreme Court’s interim orders will now be processed again to a logical conclusion. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) issued the direction to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India (2026).

    What is post facto clearance, and why was it introduced?

    1. What it is: A post facto environmental clearance (EC) is approval given after a project began work, expanded or modernised without the legally required prior clearance, like a building permit sought after the house is built.
    2. The 2017 amnesty: The Centre first offered it in 2017 as an amnesty, a one time six month window for “violations” cases, projects that had started without clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
    3. Stated purpose: The aim was to limit damage from such projects by bringing them under environmental impact scrutiny.
    4. The 2021 Office Memorandum: In 2021 the Ministry issued an Office Memorandum (OM), an executive instruction, laying down a standard operating procedure for violations cases, so the one time window became a continuing route.
    5. The takeaway: A route meant to close past violations became a standing way to regularise them, which is why it reached the Supreme Court.

    How did the legal challenge unfold?

    1. Petitions against the regime: Petitions, including one by the Mumbai based non profit Vanashakti, challenged this after the fact clearance route. Several developers had already benefited, but many proposals stayed stuck.
    2. Stay in 2021: The Supreme Court stayed, meaning paused, the 2021 OM in the same year it was issued.
    3. Quashed in May 2025: The Court then struck down the entire mechanism, calling it illegal.
    4. Review and recall: On a review petition by the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Associations of India (CREDAI), the Court recalled, meaning withdrew, its May 2025 order and heard the matter afresh.

    What did the Vanashakti judgment hold?

    1. The Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi ruled on July 29, 2026.
    2. 2021 OM quashed: The Court struck down the 2021 OM that had made violations cases a routine procedure.
    3. Past approvals protected: Post facto approvals already granted remain valid. Applications pending under the mechanism must be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.
    4. Prior clearance mandatory: The prior clearance regime under the 2006 Notification is mandatory unless amended.
    5. 2017 window upheld: The Court upheld the 2017 notification because it was narrowly tailored and time bound.

    What has the Ministry now ordered?

    1. Bodies directed: On September 30, two months after the ruling, the Ministry told the project appraisal bodies to resume processing: Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) at the Centre, State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs) and pollution control boards.
    2. No fresh proposals: The direction carries a caveat that no fresh proposal will be accepted, so the route is closed to new violators.

    Challenges

    1. Rewarding violation: Clearing projects after construction weakens the incentive to seek approval first. Eg. Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020) rejected ex post facto clearance.
    2. No baseline left: Appraisal needs a site’s original condition, which construction has already erased.
    3. Thin appraisal capacity: Lapsed or non functional SEIAAs already stall routine clearances, and the revived backlog adds load.

    Way Forward

    1. Damage recovery first: Appraisal bodies should levy the cost of environmental damage under the polluter pays principle before granting any clearance.
    2. Change only by amendment: Any standing violations route should come only through an amended EIA Notification after public consultation.
    3. Deadline for the backlog: MoEFCC should fix a date by which every pending case is decided.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry has reopened only the pipeline of pending violation cases. No date is set for disposing of these cases, and whether the Centre amends the Notification to create a permanent violations route is the next thing to watch.

    Back2Basics: EIA Notification, 2006

    1. About: EIA predicts and seeks to mitigate a project’s environmental effects before approval. It became statutory under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and was consolidated in 2006.
    2. Category A projects: These are appraised centrally by the MoEFCC through an EAC.
    3. Category B projects: These are appraised by the SEIAA with a State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). Category B1 needs a full EIA study and public hearing; B2 is exempt from both.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] What role do environmental NGOs and activists play in influencing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) outcomes for major projects in India? Cite four examples with all important details.”

  • Centre frames rules to standardise recruitment to various tribunal posts

    Why in the News

    Appointments to 16 tribunals and appellate bodies will move from separate arrangements to one uniform set of recruitment and eligibility rules, run by an independent National Tribunals Commission (NTC). The Union Law Ministry has issued the National Tribunals Commission and Qualification, Selection and Conditions of Service of Chairperson and Members of Tribunals Rules, 2026.

    What is the National Tribunals Commission, and why was it created?

    1. What it is: The NTC selects and oversees the people who run tribunals, specialised bodies deciding disputes outside regular courts. It works like a common recruitment board for all of them.
    2. Court trigger: The Supreme Court struck down parts of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 for violating separation of powers and judicial independence. Parliament then created the independent, expert commission it ordered through the Tribunals Reforms Bill in August.
    3. Its aim: The NTC seeks efficient appointments that are free of executive pressure (independence), open (transparency) and the same across tribunals (uniformity).
    4. Composition: Headquartered in Delhi, it has four members, half judicial and half technical, under a chairperson who is a retired Supreme Court judge or retired High Court Chief Justice.
    5. The takeaway: Choosing tribunal heads and members now rests with the independent commission the Court itself demanded.

    What do the 2026 Rules standardise?

    1. Uniform eligibility: The rules set common recruitment and eligibility standards for tribunal posts in place of separate arrangements.
    2. Service conditions: They prescribe service conditions and remuneration for commission and tribunal office-holders.
    3. Commission pay: The NTC chairperson gets ₹2.5 lakh a month and each member ₹2.25 lakh.
    4. Tribunal parity: Tribunal chairpersons and members get similar pay, with specified exceptions.

    How do the rules handle vacancies, selection and misconduct?

    1. Advance filling: Recruitment for a vacancy must begin at least six months before it arises, so tribunals do not sit empty.
    2. Selection method: Search-cum-selection committees, panels that shortlist and pick candidates, will assess candidates through expert evaluation, personal interaction and, where needed, writing exercises.
    3. Misconduct inquiry: A formal inquiry mechanism will handle complaints of misconduct against members.

    Challenges

    1. Ministry-framed rules: The executive that litigates before tribunals has written their service rules, which keeps independence concerns alive.
    2. Litigation history: Earlier tenure and age rules were repeatedly struck down. Eg. Madras Bar Association vs Union of India (2021).
    3. Parent-ministry dependence: Tribunals still rely on sponsoring ministries for budgets and staff, which weakens their autonomy.
    4. Chronic vacancies: Tribunals have long worked with unfilled posts, and a deadline alone does not guarantee timely selection.

    Way Forward

    1. Financial autonomy: Give the NTC its own budget and secretariat, as L. Chandra Kumar (1997) envisaged a single supervising agency.
    2. Public vacancy tracker: The NTC should publish vacancies and selection timelines for every tribunal.
    3. Annual report: Require the NTC to report yearly to Parliament on appointments and inquiries.
    4. Stable tenure: Fix tenures long enough to attract serving judges and experts.

    Conclusion

    The Rules are now issued, but no date is set for the commission’s first appointments. Whether the NTC fills tribunal vacancies on time without ministry interference will decide if this reform succeeds where earlier ones failed.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2009] Consider the following statements : 1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up during the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri. 2. The Members for CAT are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: B”

  • Should the EC take action against those filing forms for mass deletions?

    Why in the News

    Form 7, meant for an elector to object to a voter’s entry and seek its deletion, is being filed in bulk, with more than 4,000 in Karnataka. The surge has come in Phase 3 of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Similar cases in Rajasthan and Gujarat raise whether the Election Commission (EC) should act against the filers.

    What is Form 7, and what safeguards do the Rules provide?

    1. What it is: Form 7 lets an elector object to another person’s name on the roll. The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set out the steps for registration, deletion and amendment.
    2. Public notice: The Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) must display each objection on a notice board, then serve a specific notice on the person objected to.
    3. Formal inquiry: If an inquiry is demanded, the ERO must hold one before deciding, and may summon both sides and make the objector testify under oath.
    4. Penalty for false claims: Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1950 punishes false declarations with imprisonment, and objectors are warned of it.
    5. The takeaway: The Rules intend that no name is deleted without the voter getting a fair chance to respond.

    How are bulk Form 7 filings being misused?

    1. Few filers, many objections: In Karnataka’s Babaleshwar, 1,363 objections came from just 10 electors, many reportedly targeting Muslim names.
    2. Filings in an official’s name: About 3,500 objections in one Uttarakhand constituency were filed in the ERO’s name near the deadline; the Haridwar Rural ERO says he filed none.
    3. Automated appeals: An Election Commissioner flagged that an automated method produced appeals for exclusion before West Bengal’s appellate tribunals.
    4. Earlier precedent: In Karnataka last year, the EC found only about 28 of some 2,000 objections correct.

    What does the West Bengal data show?

    1. Disclosure lapse: Totals for Form 6 (inclusion), Form 7 (deletion) and Form 8 (correction) must be published after each revision. Most States, especially West Bengal, have not.
    2. Inclusion claims: Of 34 lakh claims to add names, 7,26,000 were rejected, about one in five.
    3. Deletion objections: Of 6,39,000 deletion objections, high for the State’s size, 5,72,000 were accepted.
    4. Skewed acceptance: Accepting almost 90% of deletion objections is a glaring anomaly, argues the West Bengal petitioner before the Supreme Court.

    Why have existing safeguards failed to deter misuse?

    1. Narrow penalty: Section 31 punishes false information; it cannot be invoked merely for filing bulk forms.
    2. Penalty unused: The EC has no known prosecution for a false declaration, so the provision has lost its deterrent force.
    3. FIRs not pursued: The EC files First Information Reports (FIRs) but leaves follow-up to police, who treat such cases lightly.
    4. EC filing caps: EC instructions cap filings at five or six forms per person. Booths with over 2% additions or deletions get greater scrutiny.

    Is the system broken, or only poorly enforced?

    1. Misuse, not failure: A former Election Commissioner says an ERO cannot file objections, and calls central manipulation unproven. He wants the Chief Electoral Officer and the EC to investigate.
    2. Institutional breakdown: The West Bengal petitioner argues that when part of the institution meant to uphold the law violates it, the system breaks down.
    3. Outdated law: The RPA and its forms predate online submission, so the petitioner seeks legal reform and judicial intervention.

    Challenges

    1. Unverified online filing: Objections can be submitted online without proof that the named filer sent them.
    2. Opaque data: Without booth-level disclosure, parties and courts cannot detect targeted deletions in time.
    3. Burden on the voter: A migrant voter may miss a notice and, once deleted, must reapply.

    Way Forward

    1. Separate crime data: The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) should publish a separate dataset on election-related crimes.
    2. Digital-era rules: Parliament should amend the RPA and the Rules to authenticate online objections against the filer’s identity.
    3. Mandatory disclosure: The EC should publish booth-wise data on all three forms at the end of each revision.

    Conclusion

    Deletion safeguards exist on paper, but false objections go unpunished, so mass filings cost their authors nothing. Whether the Supreme Court orders full disclosure in the West Bengal case will show if deterrence returns.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision?

    1. About: SIR is a time-bound house-to-house check of every voter entry by Booth Level Officers (BLOs), unlike the routine annual summary revision.
    2. Legal basis: Article 324 gives the EC control of electoral rolls. Section 21 of the RPA allows a special revision for recorded reasons.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • When Congress loses an election, it blames the democratic system

    Why in the News

    A mature democracy must separate electoral disappointment from institutional illegitimacy, argues a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national spokesperson, replying to Congress attacks on the Election Commission of India (ECI). The writer holds that the Congress’s concern for ECI independence sits uneasily with its own history.

    What separates losing an election from an illegitimate one?

    1. Two different claims: Disappointment is a normal result of political competition. Illegitimacy is a grave constitutional allegation and must rest on evidence.
    2. Accepting defeat: The writer’s party lost the Bankipur by-poll without blaming the ECI, the rolls or electronic voting machines. Sometimes the voter wanted something else.
    3. Scrutiny is legitimate: Roll revisions, scheduling and Model Code of Conduct enforcement should stay open to scrutiny.
    4. Proper channels: These include representations before the Commission, judicial review and statutory remedies.
    5. The takeaway: Treating every defeat as fraud weakens the institutions through which citizens exercise sovereign choice.

    Why does the writer say Congress’s history weakens its criticism?

    1. Shah Commission findings: The Justice J C Shah Commission on Emergency excesses made severe findings on Navin Chawla’s conduct as a Delhi administrator.
    2. Chawla’s appointment: The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance still made him Election Commissioner in 2005 and Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) in 2009.
    3. M S Gill: CEC from 1996 to 2001, he later entered Parliament on a Congress ticket and served as a Union Minister.
    4. T N Seshan: The CEC who redefined the ECI’s powers later contested a Lok Sabha election for the Congress. The writer concedes none of this proves misconduct in office.
    5. Emergency precedent: After the Allahabad High Court set aside Indira Gandhi’s election, the Emergency followed, with opponents jailed and civil liberties curtailed.

    What evidence does the writer cite for the ECI’s standing?

    1. Judicial backing: In a May 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the legal basis of Bihar’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Justice Surya Kant stressed correcting discrepancies in the rolls.
    2. Global role: The ECI is a founding member and former chair of the Association of World Election Bodies.
    3. Training capacity: Its India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management has trained election officials from scores of countries.
    4. Observer programmes: Foreign delegations join India’s Election Visitors’ programmes, though this is not a certificate of infallibility.

    Does the selection law answer the independence concern?

    1. Opposition’s formal role: The Leader of the Opposition now has a formal place in selecting Election Commissioners.
    2. How it came about: The role followed Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) and Parliament’s Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023.
    3. Contested design: The writer accepts that the law’s design can be debated and remains under judicial scrutiny.
    4. Invitation, not accusation: The Congress should take evidence-backed grievances to the Commission and courts, not turn every disagreement into a referendum on democracy.

    Challenges

    1. Government majority on the panel: Two of three panel members are from the government side, so the Leader of the Opposition can be outvoted.
    2. Post-retirement roles: No law bars former commissioners from joining parties, which feeds suspicion of partisanship.
    3. Perception of neutrality: Partisan links of past commissioners hurt trust even without misconduct.
    4. Slow remedies: Judicial review often ends after the poll, too late for the affected election.

    Way Forward

    1. Cooling-off period: Bar former commissioners from government or political roles for two years.
    2. Consensus in selection: The panel should select by consensus, or include a member from outside the executive.
    3. Evidence-led grievances: Parties should file specific, booth level objections with the ECI.
    4. Time bound review: Courts should decide roll related petitions before polls.

    Conclusion

    Separating defeat from illegitimacy protects elections, but trust in a referee also needs rules that keep it beyond the reach of whoever holds power. Judicial scrutiny of the selection law will decide whether the Opposition’s place in it is real or nominal.

    How independent is the Election Commission by design?

    1. CEC’s tenure protection: The CEC can be removed only in the manner and on the grounds applying to a Supreme Court judge.
    2. Weaker cover for Election Commissioners: Other Election Commissioners can be removed on the CEC’s recommendation. The Tarkunde (1975) and Goswami (1990) Committees suggested they get the CEC’s protection.
    3. Financial dependence: Unlike the Comptroller and Auditor General, the ECI’s budget is not “charged” on the Consolidated Fund of India, so it needs Parliament’s vote. The Law Commission’s 255th Report recommended charging it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Pause SIR and conduct an audit of voter deletions

    Why in the News

    Opposition demands to remove Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) Gyanesh Kumar have run into a legal framework that makes involuntary removal nearly impossible without government backing. A Congress Member of Parliament (MP) argues that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls should be paused and its voter deletions independently audited.

    How can a Chief Election Commissioner be removed?

    1. What the rule is: Removal of a CEC is modelled on the impeachment of a Supreme Court judge. Parliament’s presiding officers must first admit a removal petition. Both Houses must then pass it by majority.
    2. Why it exists: The high bar shields an election referee from a government displeased with its decisions.
    3. What went wrong: Earlier removal notices alleging partiality were declined by the presiding officers of both Houses. The Congress and INDIA bloc allies are preparing fresh ones.
    4. Voluntary exit only: Under Section 11 of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners Act, 2023, a commissioner may resign by writing to the President.
    5. The takeaway: A shield built for independence can become an insurmountable barrier to accountability.

    Why has political pressure not moved the CEC?

    1. Street protests: The Congress held some 930 protest agitations against the CEC in one week.
    2. Opposition demands: Opposition leaders seek the CEC’s immediate resignation and criminal proceedings over alleged bias favouring the ruling party.
    3. Coalition allies: Some partners the government depends on have sought transparency on the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) internal decisions, weakening the executive’s protection of the CEC.
    4. Government’s refusal: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will not yield to protests. A resignation would be claimed as an Opposition victory and cast doubt on past electoral outcomes.

    What is now before the Supreme Court?

    1. Unilateral decisions: One petition challenges policies and software modifications allegedly made without the unanimous consensus of the three-member ECI.
    2. Selection panel: A second petition challenges the Act’s selection panel. The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India with a Union Cabinet Minister, giving the executive a two-to-one majority.
    3. Immunity clause: Section 16 of the Act grants serving and former commissioners immunity from civil or criminal proceedings for acts done in official duty.
    4. Immunity under review: If the Court strikes the clause down, the writer says, the CEC could face dismissal and criminal prosecution.

    Why does the writer want the SIR paused and audited?

    1. Lost global standing: The ECI was once a model for the world, sought by the United Nations to advise emerging democracies.
    2. Scale of deletions: The writer claims the ECI has deleted “a global record 130 million voters” and reduced one polling booth to a single voter.
    3. Neutrality at risk: The CEC’s continued tenure threatens the ECI’s perceived neutrality, on which electoral credibility rests.
    4. Three demands: Pause the disputed SIR, disclose the ECI’s decision-making record, and back an independent audit of deletions and software changes.
    5. Cost of inaction: Until then, each election risks deepening the crisis of democracy it should resolve.

    Challenges

    1. Near immune office: A CEC the government backs faces no effective removal threat.
    2. Unaudited software: No independent body has reviewed the software changes behind deletions.
    3. Collective body in name: A multi-member design does not by itself ensure collective decisions.
    4. Partisan framing: Opposition-led protests let the government dismiss accountability demands as politics.

    Way Forward

    1. Independent sample audit: A panel outside the ECI should audit a sample of SIR deletions.
    2. Recorded decisions: The ECI should publish each commissioner’s position on major SIR decisions.
    3. Software disclosure: The rules driving deletions should be open to expert scrutiny.
    4. Selection reform: Parliament should add a member from outside the executive to the selection panel.

    Conclusion

    The design shields an election referee from the government but gives voters no route to hold it to account. The Supreme Court’s rulings on the selection panel and the immunity clause are where that balance can be reset.

    What is a Special Intensive Revision?

    1. Door to door check: An SIR is a time bound, house-to-house count. Booth Level Officers (BLOs) physically verify every voter entry, unlike the annual Summary Revision.
    2. Legal basis: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 allows a special revision at any time, for recorded reasons.
    3. Procedure: The Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 set how the revision is carried out.
    4. Past rounds: Intensive revisions have been held about 14 times, including in 2002 and the current cycle.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”