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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Bills/Act/Laws

  • Ladakh clears new ‘nautor land’ regularisation rules, paves way for grant of proprietary rights

    Why in the News

    The Lieutenant Governor of Ladakh has approved the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (Nautor Regularisation) Rules, 2026. The Rules create a one time mechanism to grant proprietary rights over nautor land to the people already occupying it, across all seven districts of the Union Territory. Eligibility is pegged to possession taken before 27 October 2020, the date on which the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act, 1980 was repealed. The power to allot the land is vested in the elected Hill Councils rather than in the Union Territory administration. The stated aim is to balance the interests of genuine occupants against the protection of public and Council land from encroachment, which is the line the Rules must now hold in a territory where more than 60,000 acres sit in this single revenue category.

    What is nautor land?

    1. The category: Nautor land is barren land or wasteland owned by the government.
    2. How it came to be occupied: Such land was historically allotted to individuals for cultivation or other productive use.
    3. The scale in Ladakh: More than 60,000 acres in Ladakh is presently recorded in revenue records as nautor holdings.
    4. The gap the Rules address: Occupants held and worked the land without proprietary title over it.

    What do the 2026 Rules provide?

    1. A proprietary grant with a ceiling: Proprietary rights may be granted over up to 10 acres of eligible nautor land to the occupant.
    2. A leasehold route above the ceiling: Nautor land beyond the 10 acre limit may be allotted on a leasehold basis.
    3. A single cut off date: Regularisation is available only for land occupied before 27 October 2020, and any possession taken after that date is ineligible.
    4. Uniform application: The framework applies to occupants across all seven districts of Ladakh.
    5. A one time exercise: The mechanism is available once, and does not create a standing route to regularise later occupation.

    Where do the Hill Councils get the power to allot this land?

    1. Transfer of land to the Council: Under Section 42 of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997, land within a district stands transferred to the Council.
    2. Executive power over allotment: Clause (i) of Section 23 of the same Act vests executive powers in the Council in relation to the allotment, use and occupation of land vested in it.
    3. What this changes in practice: Title over former government wasteland is granted by an elected district body rather than by the Union Territory revenue administration.

    What changes for an occupant once title is granted?

    1. Legal certainty over possession: A recorded proprietary right replaces occupation that rested on an old allotment or on long use.
    2. The land becomes a financial asset: Titled land can be pledged, so an occupant can use it to avail bank loans.
    3. Two grades of right, not one: An occupant above the ceiling receives a lease rather than ownership, so the holding remains Council land.
    4. A boundary against fresh claims: The cut off is what separates a genuine holder from a claim raised after the repeal of the tenancy law.

    Challenges to the nautor regularisation framework

    1. Proving possession before a cut off date: Regularisation turns on documentary proof of occupation before a date five years past, in a territory where much land is recorded simply as government wasteland. Eg. Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, individual claims were rejected in large numbers across hill States for want of documentary proof of occupation before the statutory cut off.
      The Fix: Allow the Hill Council to accept community verified evidence of possession, including village records and dated satellite imagery of cultivation, in place of a title deed.
    2. Common grazing land can be enclosed as private holdings: High altitude pasture carries no individual title and is recorded in the same wasteland category the Rules open up. Eg. The Changpa herders of Changthang, who rear the goats that supply pashmina, depend on open rangeland held by no individual.
      The Fix: Exclude recorded grazing land and migratory routes from eligibility, and settle common pasture rights in the name of the village before individual titles issue.
    3. Cultivation expands where water does not: Bringing more barren land under the plough in a cold desert raises demand on streams that already run short at sowing time. Eg. Ice stupas were developed in Ladakh to store winter water precisely because glacier fed channels do not deliver water when spring sowing begins.
      The Fix: Condition regularisation of land held for cultivation on a water availability assessment by the district administration.
    4. A safeguard made by rule can be unmade by rule: The eligibility limits and the cut off sit in subordinate rules, so the same executive authority can revise them later. Eg. Ladakh’s demand for constitutional safeguards on land and employment has been under discussion with the Ministry of Home Affairs since 2023.
      The Fix: Carry the ceiling, the cut off and the exclusion of common land into primary legislation, so the terms of allotment are not alterable by executive rule making.

    Conclusion

    The Rules are approved and the allotment power now rests with the Hill Councils in every district of Ladakh. Notification settles the framework but not its outcome, since the exercise runs on claims that must be verified holding by holding. The markers to watch are the district level verification process the Councils adopt, and whether common pasture is fenced off from the exercise before individual titles begin to issue.

    Back2Basics: Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils

    1. What they are: Elected district councils exercising devolved powers over local development and land use in Ladakh.
    2. Their statutory basis: They function under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1997.
    3. Where they exist: The Leh Council was constituted in 1995 and the Kargil Council in 2003.
    4. Their composition: Each Council has 30 members, of whom 26 are directly elected and four are nominated, with a term of five years.

    [2023, GS3, 10 marks] State the objectives and measures of land reforms in India. Discuss how land ceiling policy on landholding can be considered as an effective reform under economic criteria”

  • Norms allowing e-comm cos to keep inventory notified by govt

    Why in the News

    The Department of Economic Affairs, in the Ministry of Finance, has amended the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 to let e-commerce entities hold inventory. The permission is confined to goods meant for export. Those goods must be manufactured or produced in India. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in inventory based e-commerce retailing remains barred, so a foreign funded platform still cannot own the stock it sells to Indian consumers. The change separates a platform’s right to own goods from its right to sell them in India.

    What is inventory based e-commerce, and how does it differ from the marketplace model?

    1. Inventory based model: The platform owns the goods it lists and sells them directly to the buyer.
    2. Marketplace model: The platform runs a digital facility connecting independent sellers to buyers. It does not own the stock it displays.
    3. The investment line between them: Foreign investment up to 100 percent under the automatic route is permitted in the marketplace model. Foreign investment in the inventory based model is not permitted.

    What has the amendment changed?

    1. A permission tied to export: An e-commerce entity may now maintain inventory where the goods are meant for export.
    2. A domestic origin condition: The goods so held must be manufactured or produced in India.
    3. The retail bar is untouched: Foreign investment in inventory based e-commerce retailing has not been permitted.
    4. The route taken: The Department of Economic Affairs inserted the provision into the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019, which is the instrument that carries India’s foreign investment conditions in law.

    Why does an export only carve out change what a foreign funded platform can do?

    1. Ownership of stock becomes lawful for one purpose: A foreign funded platform may buy, own and warehouse Indian made goods, provided the buyer sits outside India.
    2. The domestic retail rationale survives: The bar exists to stop a platform holding foreign capital from selling its own stock to Indian consumers at prices small retailers cannot match. An export sale does not enter that market.
    3. Exports gain an aggregator: A small manufacturer without overseas logistics can sell to a platform that takes title to the consignment and ships it out.
    4. The test shifts from ownership to destination: Compliance now turns on where a consignment ends up, which is a harder thing to observe than who owns it.

    Challenges to the export only inventory permission

    1. Diversion into the domestic market: Stock held under the export permission can be sold at home unless each consignment is matched to a foreign buyer. Eg. Duty free inputs meant for export production have repeatedly been the subject of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cases over domestic diversion.
      The Fix: Require the platform to reconcile inventory held under this permission against shipping bills filed with Customs, and treat an unreconciled balance as a contravention.
    2. No stated threshold for what counts as made in India: The condition turns on goods manufactured or produced in India, and a low value assembly operation meets that description. Eg. Domestic value addition has been a running dispute under the Production Linked Incentive scheme for electronics, where imported kits are assembled locally.
      The Fix: Attach a stated domestic value addition threshold to the permission, as the Production Linked Incentive schemes already do.
    3. Enforcement acts long after the sale: Contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 are penalised or compounded after the fact, so a breach is corrected once the goods have already moved. Eg. Proceedings against large foreign funded e-commerce platforms over foreign investment conditions have run for years without a settled outcome.
      The Fix: Require an annual statutory auditor’s certificate on compliance with the export condition, filed with the Reserve Bank of India.
    4. The marketplace disputes are left where they were: The standing complaints of small retailers concern preferential seller arrangements inside the marketplace model, which this permission does not touch. Eg. The Competition Commission of India’s investigation into preferred sellers and deep discounting on major platforms began in 2020.
      The Fix: Conclude the pending competition proceedings on preferential seller arrangements, so the marketplace conditions are enforced on their own terms.

    Conclusion

    India’s foreign investment rules now treat ownership of goods and sale of goods as two separate permissions. The carve out is drawn narrowly, so its practical worth depends entirely on how the export destination is verified rather than on the width of the wording. The marker to watch is whether operating conditions specifying that verification follow, and whether foreign funded platforms build export volumes large enough to make the permission material.

    Back2Basics: Foreign Exchange Management (Non-debt Instruments) Rules, 2019

    1. What they are: Rules made under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 governing investment by a person resident outside India in equity and other non-debt instruments.
    2. Who issues them: The Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance notifies them.
    3. What they carry: Sectoral caps, entry routes and the specific conditions attached to foreign investment in each sector.
    4. Why they matter: A change announced as foreign investment policy takes legal effect only when these Rules are amended.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020] With reference to Foreign Direct Investment in India, which one of the following is considered its major characteristic? (a) It is the investment through capital instruments essentially in a listed company. (b) It is a largely non-debt creating capital flow. (c) It is the investment which involves debt-servicing. (d) It is the investment made by foreign institutional investors in the Government securities. ANSWER: (b)”

  • Quality elementary teachers are vital to lives of children, nation-building: top court

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has added teacher education institutions and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) as the sixth and seventh duty bearers of the right to free and compulsory elementary education. A Division Bench held that free and compulsory education for children aged six to fourteen has attained the status of an enforceable fundamental right, and that teacher education has not been given the attention it deserves. The ruling came on an appeal against a Delhi High Court order of 13 March 2023, which had held the NCTE’s Public Notice of 22 September 2019 to be arbitrary and illegal. That notice requires every teacher education institution to file an annual Performance Appraisal Report. The contest was over the source of the power: the notice was challenged on the ground that only the Council itself, and not its Executive Committee, could issue and implement it.

    What is the National Council for Teacher Education?

    1. A statutory regulator of the teacher supply chain: It is constituted under the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 to achieve the planned and coordinated development of the teacher education system in the country.
    2. It regulates the institutions that train teachers: A teacher education institution is defined in Section 2(e) of that Act as an institution offering a course or training in teacher education.
    3. It sets the qualifications a teacher must hold: Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 makes it the academic authority for laying down the minimum qualifications for appointment as a teacher.

    Who are the duty bearers of the right to elementary education?

    1. Five were already recognised: Judicial precedent had identified the government, the local authority, the neighbourhood school, the parents or guardians, and the teacher.
    2. Teacher education institutions become the sixth: The institutions defined in Section 2(e) now carry a duty toward the right, rather than only a licensing relationship with their regulator.
    3. The Council becomes the seventh: It is required to ensure that those institutions function effectively and efficiently and conduct their affairs with integrity.
    4. The addition changes what is justiciable: A duty bearer’s failure is actionable, so a lapse in the training of teachers is now capable of being pleaded as a failure of the right itself.

    What did the Court hold on the power to demand appraisal reports?

    1. The Public Notice is legal and valid: The Court upheld the requirement that institutions upload an annual Performance Appraisal Report, and set aside the High Court order that had quashed it.
    2. The Executive Committee acted within jurisdiction: The Court found ample empowerment in both the Council and its Executive Committee to call for the report.
    3. The power is incidental and ancillary: A regulatory measure of this kind flows from the duties and functions of a regulator even without a specific empowerment in the statute.
    4. The regulator is itself appraised: The NCTE undergoes a performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), so requiring the same discipline from institutions it regulates follows from its own position.

    Why does the Court place teacher training at the centre of the right?

    1. No resource ranks higher than a student’s mind and character: The Court held that elementary school teachers carry the most important role in nation-building and are to be treated with respect and care.
    2. The entitlement is only as good as the person delivering it: A right to education delivered by an untrained teacher is formally satisfied and substantively empty, which is why the regulator of training is being read into the right.
    3. Accountability of institutions is the stated purpose: The Court recorded that it is necessary for the Council and its bodies to ensure accountability of educational institutions.

    Challenges to the National Council for Teacher Education

    1. Recognition ran ahead of capacity: Approval was granted to private institutions at a pace that outstripped any ability to verify what they actually taught. Eg. The Justice J.S. Verma Commission on Teacher Education reported in 2012 that a large number of private institutions were commercial rather than academic in character.
      The Fix: Tie continued recognition to a published appraisal score reviewed on a fixed cycle, so approval becomes renewable rather than permanent.
    2. Retrospective validation weakens the standard: Recognition granted after the fact rewards institutions that ran courses without approval. Eg. The National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2019 conferred retrospective recognition and permission on specified institutions.
      The Fix: Bar retrospective recognition outright and require approval to be in place before an academic session opens.
    3. Quality is measured only at the exit, and only by the State: The regulator holds no outcome data on the graduates its recognised institutions produce. Eg. Pass rates in teacher eligibility tests have generally stayed under a fifth of the candidates appearing.
      The Fix: Publish institution wise eligibility test pass rates, so the appraisal report carries an outcome measure rather than a compliance declaration.
    4. Enforcement rests on self reported filings: A report filed by the institution about itself carries no independent verification. Eg. The Council reaches institutions across every State through four regional committees.
      The Fix: Sample audit a fixed share of filed reports each year through State education departments, with recognition suspended on a false filing.

    Conclusion

    The Court has widened the set of actors who owe a duty under the right to elementary education. It has not created the instrument that measures whether that duty is being met. The appraisal report is now the only candidate for that role. Whether it becomes a published, comparable record of what an institution produces, or settles into an annual compliance filing, is what will decide whether the two new duty bearers carry a duty in substance.

    Back2Basics

    1. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 gives statutory effect to Article 21A, which was inserted by the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002.
    2. Section 12(1)(c) requires private unaided schools to reserve 25 percent of entry level seats for children from disadvantaged groups and weaker sections.
    3. It bars screening procedures and capitation fees at the point of admission.
    4. It requires a School Management Committee in every government and aided school, with three fourths of its members drawn from parents and guardians.

    “[2018] Consider the following statements:

    1. As per the Right to Education (RTE) Act, to be eligible for appointment as a teacher in a State, a person would be required to possess the minimum qualification laid down by the concerned State Council of Teacher Education.

    2. As per the RTE Act, for teaching primary classes, a candidate is required to pass a Teacher Eligibility Test conducted in accordance with the National Council of Teacher Education guidelines.

    3. In India, more than 90% of teacher education institutions are directly under the State Governments

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 1 and 3

    (d) 3 only

  • All Ladakh districts to have autonomous hill development councils

    Why in the News

    Ladakh’s Lieutenant Governor has approved the notification creating Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils (LAHDCs) for each district of the Union Territory. Elected hill councils existed only in Leh and Kargil, and the notification extends the framework to the five districts notified in April. The councils are the only elected tier of self government in Ladakh, which has had no legislature since it was constituted as a Union Territory without one. The Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) are in talks with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) for something the notification does not provide: a legislature, and protection for land and environment under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.

    What is a Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council?

    1. It is a statutory district level body: The councils were created under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, first in 1995 and then in the 1997 Act that governs them.
    2. It is directly elected: The Act provides for 26 directly elected councillors in each council, who then elect a chief executive councillor from among themselves.
    3. Its functions are developmental and land related: Powers concerning allotment, use and occupation of land vested in the council by the government, formulation of the district’s development programmes, special measures for employment generation, public health and sanitation, and local road transport sit with it.
    4. Elections require a separate notification: Polls to the newly constituted councils will be held after a formal notification is issued under Section 8 of the 1997 Act.

    What has the notification changed?

    1. All seven districts get a council: Leh, Kargil, Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar and Drass will each have a hill council.
    2. Elected local government reaches beyond two districts: The framework was earlier confined to Leh and Kargil, the two long standing district headquarters and the most densely populated areas of the Union Territory.
    3. It completes a step begun in April: The Lieutenant Governor notified the creation of the new districts in April, and the councils follow for each of them.
    4. The stated purpose is district level planning: Seven councils are expected to decentralise governance and let local priorities enter district level planning and development directly.

    Why does the expansion not settle the Ladakh demand?

    1. The demand is constitutional, not administrative: The LAB and the KDA are seeking a legislature for Ladakh and Sixth Schedule protection for land and environment, neither of which a hill council can supply.
    2. Talks continue on a separate track: The MHA has fixed a meeting of its sub committee for 9 September, the previous meeting having been held on 22 May.
    3. One existing council is running without a mandate: The term of the Leh council ended in October 2025 and fresh elections have not been announced since, which is without precedent for that body. The Kargil council last went to the polls in October 2023.
    4. More bodies do not equal more powers: Extending a council with land allotment and development functions widens the number of devolved units, and leaves untouched the legislative and protective powers the two bodies are asking for.

    Challenges to the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils

    1. The councils hold no legislative power: They plan and execute within powers delegated by the administration, and cannot legislate on land, forest or inheritance the way an autonomous district council under the Sixth Schedule can. Eg. The Bodoland Territorial Council in Assam legislates on subjects transferred to it, which no Ladakh hill council can do.
      The Fix: Specify the subjects transferred to each council in a schedule to the Act, so its jurisdiction does not depend on an executive order.
    2. Finances flow through the Union Territory administration: A council’s plan depends on funds released by an administration it does not elect, so its priorities can be reordered upstream. Eg. Ladakh has no legislature to vote its budget, so the entire allocation is decided through the Union Territory’s administrative route.
      The Fix: Fix a formula based untied share of the Union Territory’s budget for each council, released on a published calendar.
    3. Elections can lapse without consequence: Nothing forces a poll when a council’s term ends, so an elected body can be replaced by administrative control by default. Eg. The Leh council has been without an elected body since its term ended in October 2025.
      The Fix: Make the election notification under Section 8 mandatory within a fixed period before the term expires, enforceable by the courts.
    4. The new districts are thinly populated and lightly staffed: Sham, Nubra, Changthang, Zanskar and Drass have small populations spread over long distances, so each new council needs an administrative apparatus that does not yet exist. Eg. Zanskar remains cut off by road for several months each winter, which limits both administration and service delivery.
      The Fix: Sanction a standard district cadre and a linked digital service delivery backbone for each new council before its first election.
    5. Two councils have historically pulled in different directions: Leh and Kargil have differed on statehood and on religious and political representation, and seven councils multiply the coordination problem. Eg. The LAB and the KDA came together only after 2020, having earlier taken opposing positions on the Union Territory demand.
      The Fix: Constitute a statutory Ladakh level council of chief executive councillors to settle inter district allocation and present a single position to the Centre.

    Conclusion

    Devolution has widened in Ladakh at the district level and has not deepened in the powers each district holds. The two claims now sit against each other: an administration that has multiplied elected bodies, and representative groups that are asking for a legislature and a constitutional shield that no number of councils can substitute for. The sub committee meeting on 9 September is the next point at which that gap either narrows or is confirmed. The more immediate test is whether the notification for the new councils is followed by a poll date for the one that has been without an elected body for nearly a year.

    Back2Basics: Sixth Schedule of the Constitution

    1. What it provides: The Sixth Schedule, read with Articles 244(2) and 275(1), provides for the administration of tribal areas through Autonomous District Councils and Regional Councils.
    2. Where it applies: It currently covers tribal areas in four States, namely Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Ladakh is not covered by it.
    3. What the councils can do: These councils can make laws on land, forest other than reserved forest, shifting cultivation, village administration, inheritance, marriage and social customs, subject to the Governor’s assent.
    4. What powers they hold beyond lawmaking: They may constitute village courts for disputes among Scheduled Tribes, and may levy specified taxes and collect land revenue within their areas.

    “[2022, GS2, 10 marks] To what extent, in your opinion, has the decentralisation of power in India changed the governance landscape at the grassroots ?

  • Bar Council has no power to punish students: SC

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has held that the Advocates Act, 1961 confers no power, expressly or impliedly, on the Bar Council of India (BCI) or the State Bar Councils to take disciplinary or punitive action against law students. A three judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India recorded that only the parent university or the competent authority under law holds disciplinary power over students. The holding answers the BCI’s letters of 13 August, which asked NALSAR, the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, to open an inquiry against students who had protested at their convocation, and asked the State Bar Councils to block their professional enrolment. The regulator withdrew those letters and argued that no cause of action survived. The Court fixed the boundary of the regulator’s jurisdiction anyway, to protect university space and the right to dissent against a repetition.

    What is the Bar Council of India and where does its authority begin?

    1. It is a statutory regulator of the legal profession: The BCI is constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the State Bar Councils are constituted under the same Act for each State.
    2. Its core functions are professional: It lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, safeguards their rights and privileges, and exercises disciplinary control over the profession.
    3. It also recognises law degrees: The Act gives it a role in promoting legal education and in recognising universities whose law degrees qualify a person for enrolment as an advocate.
    4. The roll of advocates is maintained by the States: A State Bar Council enrols an advocate and maintains the roll on which that advocate’s name appears.

    What did the Court actually hold?

    1. The statute contains no power over students: The Advocates Act, 1961 confers no express or implied power on the BCI or the State Bar Councils to discipline or punish law students.
    2. Jurisdiction begins at enrolment: The regulator’s disciplinary powers under the Act are limited to registered advocates, so it does not enter the picture before a student is enrolled.
    3. Disciplinary power over students is exclusive to the institution: Only the parent university or the competent authority under law can take action against a student.
    4. The letters were extinguished: The 13 August letters were declared obsolete, and the Indian Express account records them as being without authority of law and bad in law.
    5. The chairperson’s position was covered too: The BCI’s chairperson was held to lack jurisdiction over students in the same terms as the body itself.

    Why did the Court rule after the letters were withdrawn?

    1. The regulator sought closure: The BCI said the letters to NALSAR and the State Bar Councils had been withdrawn within an hour, and argued that the controversy should be given a quietus.
    2. A withdrawal leaves the power claim intact: A letter recalled without a finding on jurisdiction leaves the same body free to issue another one, which is what the Court’s boundary setting order forecloses.
    3. The petition alleged a chilling effect: Two former NALSAR graduates argued that the letters had created a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of association among students.
    4. The order is framed prospectively: It was designed to safeguard university space and students’ right to express dissent freely against future attempts to breach it.
    5. A parallel grievance was routed elsewhere: The same Bench allowed young lawyers to approach the Delhi High Court over an alleged mob assault at the BCI premises during a sit in demanding the chairperson’s resignation.

    What was the underlying dispute?

    1. The protest was over a convocation invitation: Students objected to the Chief Justice of India being chief guest at their convocation, following oral comments in court comparing youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites”.
    2. The regulator’s response targeted enrolment: Its letters sought an inquiry against the protesting students and moved to block the entry of the 2026 batch into the profession.
    3. Enrolment is the leverage point: A threat to withhold enrolment reaches a student’s entire career rather than a single academic year, which is why the Court treated it as more than an internal disciplinary question.

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India’s regulatory role

    1. Its powers over legal education overlap with those of universities: The regulator prescribes curriculum and inspects institutions that are already regulated by the University Grants Commission and by their own statutes, which produces conflicting requirements. Eg. National Law Universities established by State Acts answer to their own governing bodies and to the BCI at the same time.
      The Fix: Confine the regulator to prescribing the outcomes a degree must meet for enrolment, and leave institutional governance to the university and its parent statute.
    2. Entry costs have been set beyond the statute: State Bar Councils charged enrolment fees far above the statutory ceiling, which priced first generation entrants out of the profession. Eg. In Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024), the Supreme Court held enrolment fees above the Rs 750 and Rs 125 limits in Section 24(1)(f) of the Advocates Act, 1961 to be illegal.
      The Fix: Route enrolment collections through a published statutory account audited annually, so any charge beyond the ceiling is visible at source.
    3. Disciplinary complaints against advocates stall: Complaints against advocates routinely outrun the one year period in which a State Bar Council must decide them, after which the case is transferred to the national body and slows further. Eg. Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 was inserted precisely because State level proceedings were not being completed.
      The Fix: Publish a disciplinary docket with case age for every State Bar Council, and make transfer automatic and reported rather than discretionary.
    4. The regulator is elected by those it regulates: Members are chosen by advocates on the rolls, which makes strong action against the profession’s own interests unlikely. Eg. Bar strikes have continued after the Supreme Court held in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2002) that lawyers have no right to strike.
      The Fix: Add non advocate members drawn from academia and the judiciary to the disciplinary committees, so professional discipline is not decided by peers alone.
    5. Its rulemaking has repeatedly been struck down for exceeding the Act: The body has issued rules on matters the statute does not cover, and courts have then had to read them down. Eg. Bar Council rules requiring a certification examination and restricting practice have been litigated repeatedly on the ground of statutory competence.
      The Fix: Require every new rule to cite the section of the Advocates Act, 1961 that authorises it, and to be laid before the Centre before it takes effect.

    Conclusion

    A regulator that cannot reach students has to be told so before it acts, not after it withdraws. The order converts an ad hoc retreat into a settled limit, which is the difference between a grievance resolved and a power denied. What remains unreconciled is the regulator’s continuing authority over legal education alongside a complete absence of authority over the people receiving it. The next test of that line will be whether the body confines itself to prescribing what a law degree must contain, or returns to acting on how students behave during the degree.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to India, consider the following statements : 1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates. 2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges. 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)”

  • Constitutional faultlines in FCRA Bill

    Constitutional faultlines in FCRA Bill

    Why in the News

    The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 creates a statutory framework for the vesting, supervision, management and disposal of foreign contributions and the assets built from them. Where an organisation’s certificate under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 is cancelled, surrendered or ceases to exist, including through non renewal, the Central government may appoint a Designated Authority in which those contributions and assets vest provisionally.

    What is the Designated Authority?

    1. It is appointed by the Central government: The appointment is triggered where an organisation’s FCRA certificate is cancelled, surrendered or ceases to exist, including due to non renewal.
    2. Assets vest in it provisionally: The foreign contribution and the assets created from it may vest in the authority on a provisional basis.
    3. It may take possession and manage those assets: The government may, through the authority, take possession of and manage assets created from foreign contributions.
    4. It may also run the organisation’s activities: Where considered necessary or expedient in the public interest, it may undertake the management of the concerned organisation’s activities.

    How far do the consequences of losing registration now travel?

    1. The existing consequences were financial and regulatory: Registrations could be withdrawn, cancellation could follow continuing non compliance, and penalties attached to the diversion or misappropriation of foreign contributions.
    2. A vesting provision already existed: The current law already contains a provision for vesting assets created from foreign funds upon cancellation.
    3. The Bill supplies the machinery that was missing: What is added is a detailed statutory framework for provisional vesting, possession, management, restoration and ultimately permanent vesting and disposal.
    4. The end point changes in kind, not in degree: What was previously limited to the loss of eligibility to receive foreign funds can now extend to provisional management and, where registration is not restored within the prescribed period, permanent vesting and disposal of assets.

    Why does management control matter more than formal ownership?

    1. The ownership and custody distinction has limited practical force: The legal separation between owning an asset and holding custody of it does not change the practical consequence for the institution.
    2. Institutions run on continuity of management: An entity whose success depends on continuous administration places greater weight on control than on ownership.
    3. The relationship with the state changes: Ownership may remain formally undisturbed, and a change in management control still alters the relationship between the institution and the state.
    4. The affected entities are operating institutions: A hospital, a school or a laboratory is not made effective by ownership alone, and depends on its independence to administer for charitable ends what it owns.

    Does the Bill satisfy constitutional proportionality?

    1. A legitimate objective is not sufficient by itself: The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the state pursuing a legitimate objective does not settle the constitutional question.
    2. The means must fit the end: The means adopted must bear a reasonable connection to that objective and must maintain an appropriate balance between the public purpose and the burden imposed on rights.
    3. A heavier consequence demands heavier safeguards: Where losing registration can lead to provisional vesting and government appointed management, the safeguards attending that transfer must be commensurately robust.
    4. The Bill does provide safeguards: It provides for the restoration of assets where registration is obtained, renewed or restored within the prescribed period, and for mechanisms of revision and judicial appeal.
    5. The open question is their quality: What remains contested is whether those safeguards are sufficiently clear, timely and effective, and what standards govern decisions on possession, management and permanent vesting.

    Why does the regulatory backdrop raise the stakes?

    1. Registrations have lapsed at scale: Over the past decade thousands of FCRA registrations have ceased to operate, for reasons ranging from non renewal to alleged statutory violations.
    2. An administrative lapse and a proven violation converge: Non renewal is not a finding of wrongdoing, and under the proposed framework it can attract the same asset consequence as a violation.
    3. The Bill has drawn parliamentary opposition: Opposition members of Parliament have protested in New Delhi demanding the withdrawal of the Bill.

    Challenges to the FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026

    1. Renewal is a recurring administrative cliff: FCRA registration must be renewed every five years, and a delay in deciding a renewal application would now carry asset consequences rather than only a pause in funding. Eg. The Ministry of Home Affairs has repeatedly issued blanket extensions of FCRA validity as renewal deadlines approached, which shows the decision backlog is routine rather than exceptional.
      The Fix: Provide by statute that registration continues in force until a renewal application is decided, so a pending file cannot trigger vesting.
    2. The receiving channel is already a single point of failure: The 2020 amendment required every recipient to receive foreign contribution only in a designated account at one specified bank branch in New Delhi. Eg. Organisations working in every State had to open and operate that one account irrespective of where they function.
      The Fix: Allow any scheduled bank branch to host the designated account with the same automated reporting feed to the Ministry.
    3. The bar on onward granting cuts off the smallest organisations: The 2020 amendment prohibited the transfer of foreign contribution to any other person, ending the model in which a registered body funded unregistered grassroots groups. Eg. Community organisations that never held registration of their own lost their funding route entirely.
      The Fix: Restore sub granting to registered entities under a reporting requirement rather than a blanket prohibition.
    4. The administrative expense cap squeezes research and advocacy work: The 2020 amendment cut the share of foreign contribution usable for administrative expenses from 50 percent to 20 percent, and staff salaries are the principal cost of such work. Eg. A research institute’s main expenditure is staff time, which the cap treats as overhead rather than as programme cost.
      The Fix: Define programme staff costs as programme expenditure rather than as administrative expenditure.
    5. Remedies move slower than an operating institution can survive: Restoration and appeal run through the Ministry and then the courts, and a hospital or school under government appointed management cannot suspend operations while that runs. Eg. Writ challenges to FCRA cancellations have taken years to reach a hearing on merits.
      The Fix: Fix an outer statutory time limit for deciding restoration, with automatic revesting in the organisation once that limit expires.
    6. Freedom of association is engaged, not only property: Article 19(1)(c) protects the right to form associations, and control over an association’s assets and management directly affects its capacity to function. Eg. In Noel Harper v. Union of India (2022) the Supreme Court upheld the 2020 amendments and held that receiving foreign contribution is not an absolute right, which leaves the associational effect of asset control unsettled.
      The Fix: Write into the Bill an express requirement that the least restrictive measure available be recorded in writing before management is assumed.

    Conclusion

    The Bill moves FCRA from policing money to holding institutions. That shift is not by itself unconstitutional, and it is what makes the safeguards the whole of the question. The unresolved tension is that the trigger for the heaviest consequence can be an expired file rather than a proved diversion, and the remedy for a wrong trigger runs slower than the institution it applies to. Whether the Bill survives a proportionality challenge will turn on how tightly Parliament defines the Designated Authority’s discretion, and on how fast restoration actually works in practice.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it regulates: The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 governs the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution and foreign hospitality by individuals, associations and companies in India.
    2. Who administers it: It is administered by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and it replaced the earlier Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.
    3. How access is granted: An association must hold either registration, valid for five years and renewable, or prior permission tied to a specific purpose and a specific foreign source.
    4. Who is barred outright: Election candidates, judges, government servants, members of the legislature, journalists and political parties are prohibited from accepting foreign contribution.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] Examine critically the recent changes in the rules governing foreign funding of NGOs under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 1976.”

  • All animals need equal consideration

    All animals need equal consideration

    Why in the News

    A division Bench of the Supreme Court has ordered the Keralam government to take custody of Raman, Keralam’s tallest elephant, in Jayakrishna Menon vs. Krishnankutty & Ors. The Bench observed that the court cannot remain a mute spectator in matters concerning animals and that their wellbeing is of “paramount importance”. It held that it would fail in its duty towards “voiceless animals” if it ignored the elephant’s continued use for temple activities after its own prohibition. The order stands in contrast with Re: City Hounded by Strays, Kids Pay Price (2026). There a three judge Bench adopted a much narrower interpretation of the law. That reading led to the removal of large numbers of dogs from public institutions. The divergence raises the question whether Indian animal law grades animals by their value to humans rather than by their capacity to suffer.

    What is equal consideration?

    1. The principle: Framed by moral philosopher Peter Singer, equal consideration holds that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires that the interests of each being be weighed equally.
    2. Who qualifies: Every being that has interests, some subjective awareness, or the capacity to feel pleasure or pain.
    3. Different treatment can follow: Equal consideration for different beings can lead to different treatment and different rights, because their needs differ.

    What questions does the differential treatment of two animals raise?

    1. The court’s own premise: The elephant order implicitly acknowledges an animal’s propensity to suffer and the need to ensure its wellbeing.
    2. One elephant against lakhs of dogs: Why one elephant’s wellbeing is of paramount importance and the welfare of lakhs of street dogs is disregarded.
    3. One institution, two approaches: How the same institution adopts two contrasting, if not contradictory, approaches to issues involving similar moral considerations.
    4. Whether courts should decide at all: Whether the judiciary is the best positioned institution to decide cases that seal the fate of animals, for better or for worse.

    Do the differences between the two animals justify different consideration?

    1. The elephant’s legal standing: The Indian elephant is a charismatic animal, listed as Endangered on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and explicitly protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
    2. The street dog’s legal standing: The street dog is legally perceived as a problem that needs to be tackled.
    3. Different relationships with humans: One is expected to live in the wild away from human habitation. The other shares public spaces, requiring humans to learn to coexist in shared spaces.
    4. The test: Whether these differences are significant enough to attract completely different moral and legal considerations.
    5. What is actually missing: In the two judgments the absence of equal consideration itself drives the differential treatment. Equal consideration would require an assessment of the needs of each animal and then the determination of a course of action.

    Why does the remedy lie with Parliament rather than the courts?

    1. Anthropocentric bias in both statutes: The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for elephants and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 for street dogs evaluate the worth of animals by their value to humans. That valuation determines the nature and level of protection each animal receives.
    2. A gap in legislative guidance: Two cases involving different animals produced contrasting approaches from the same court. That exposes the absence of a legislative standard for animal well-being across legal categories.
    3. The Swiss model, cited in passing: The Swiss Constitution ensures the well-being of animals and also protects animal dignity, granting animals an inherent worth.
    4. Parliament’s responsibility: Parliament should extend protection to every being worthy of moral consideration, through a legislative foundation that provides moral consideration to all animals and pathways for ethical coexistence.

    Challenges to an equal consideration standard in Indian animal law

    1. Fragmented statutes: The same act of harm is governed by different laws depending on the animal’s legal category, so no single test of suffering applies. Eg. Street dogs fall under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 made under the cruelty law, and elephants fall under Schedule I of the wildlife law.
      The Fix: Enact a single animal welfare code with a sentience-based standard that applies across categories, with the wildlife schedules layered on top for conservation purposes.
    2. Nominal penalties: Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 punishes a first cruelty offence with a fine of Rs 10 to Rs 50, unchanged since enactment. Eg. The draft Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Amendment) Bill, 2022 proposed fines up to Rs 75,000 and imprisonment for gruesome cruelty and has not been introduced in Parliament.
      The Fix: Introduce the amendment Bill with graded penalties and a statutory definition of sentience.
    3. Unsettled legal status of animals: High Courts and the Supreme Court have taken different positions on whether animals are legal persons, so lower courts have no stable rule. Eg. The Uttarakhand High Court in Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India (2018) and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) declared animals legal persons, a status no Supreme Court ruling has endorsed.
      The Fix: Settle the legal status of animals in statute rather than leaving it to divergent judicial declarations.
    4. No enforcement arm: The Animal Welfare Board of India is advisory, and district level societies exist on paper. Eg. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 require a society in every district, and many districts have none.
      The Fix: Fund district societies from State budgets with mandated veterinary and inspector staffing and a reporting line to the State Animal Welfare Board.

    Conclusion

    The two rulings leave a tension unresolved. Indian animal law protects by category, endangered species on one side and nuisance animals on the other, and the capacity to suffer sits on neither side of that line. A court can decide the case before it; it cannot write a standard that applies to every animal. The thing to watch is whether Parliament takes up the pending amendment to the cruelty law and whether it writes sentience, rather than human utility, into the test.

    Animal Welfare Law in India

    1. What it covers: Statutory protection of animals from cruelty and of wild species from harm, spread across a cruelty statute, a wildlife statute and subordinate rules for specific uses such as transport, slaughter, performance and experiments.
    2. Two regimes: The cruelty law applies to any animal, domestic, captive or stray. The wildlife law protects species by schedule, and the Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2022 reduced the schedules from six to four.
    3. Institutions: The Animal Welfare Board of India (statutory since 1962), the Committee for Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals for laboratory use, and the National Board for Wildlife for protected species.
    4. Scale: India holds about 60 percent of the world’s Asian elephants, with 29,964 counted in the 2017 synchronised census, and the 20th Livestock Census (2019) counted 1.53 crore stray dogs.

    Challenges in Animal Welfare

    1. Rabies from an unmanaged stray population: Sterilisation and vaccination have not reached the coverage that stops transmission. Eg. India accounts for about 36 percent of global rabies deaths as per the World Health Organization.
      The Fix: Fund local bodies to reach 70 percent vaccination coverage of the dog population in each ward, since transmission breaks at that threshold.
    2. Captive elephants at festivals: Parading in heat, crowds and noise causes injury and deaths of animals and people. Eg. The Kerala High Court’s 2024 guidelines on distance and rest norms for parading elephants were contested before the Supreme Court by festival organisers.
      The Fix: Enforce microchip registration and the 2024 transfer rules so that every captive elephant has a traceable owner accountable for its welfare.
    3. Culture against welfare: Traditional events with animals are permitted by State amendments to the cruelty law. Eg. A five judge Bench in Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India (2023) upheld Tamil Nadu’s Jallikattu amendment.
      The Fix: Codify measurable welfare conditions for each permitted event under the Performing Animals rules, with veterinary supervision as a licence condition.
    4. Regulation of livestock trade: Welfare rules for animal markets have collapsed under political contest. Eg. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 were stayed by the Supreme Court and withdrawn in 2018.
      The Fix: Re-notify market rules confined to welfare conditions such as water, shade and transport limits, without conditions on the purpose of sale.

    “[2022] Which one of the following has been constituted under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ?

    (a) Central Water Commission

    (b) Central Ground Water Board

    (c) Central Ground Water Authority

    (d) National Water Development Agency

  • Statistical Institute Bill referred to standing committee

    Why in the News

    The Lok Sabha Speaker has referred the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026 to the Department-Related Standing Committee on Finance for examination. The Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha during the Monsoon Session. It seeks to repeal the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 and to incorporate the institute as a “body corporate” with a Board of Governors accountable to the Central government. The referral follows protests by the institute’s faculty and an Opposition demand that the Bill go to a standing committee. The tension is between a governance overhaul the government says the 1959 Act cannot deliver and a faculty that protested the Bill before it reached a committee.

    What does the Bill propose for the institute?

    1. Incorporation as a body corporate: The institute is to be incorporated to strengthen governance, promote academic excellence and research, and serve emerging needs in statistics and allied fields.
    2. The President as Visitor: The Bill makes the President the Visitor of the institute.
    3. A Board of Governors answerable to the Centre: The board is the principal policy executive body, headed by a chairperson drawn from academia, industry, education, public policy or statistical sciences. The Bill makes the board accountable to the Central government.
    4. An Academic Council under the director: The council is the principal academic body, headed by the institute’s director, with every full time professor and full time faculty member on it.
    5. A talent pipeline as the stated purpose: The Bill says the reform will build an ecosystem to train a new generation of high quality data scientists and statisticians and close the talent gap in India’s technology and financial sectors.

    Why does the government say the 1959 Act must go?

    1. The 1959 Act fixed status and one degree power: The Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959 declared the institute an institution of national importance and let it grant degrees and diplomas in statistics.
    2. The 1995 amendment widened degrees, not governance: It added mathematics, quantitative economics, computer science and other subjects related to statistics as the institute determines from time to time.
    3. Five areas are called inadequate: The Bill says the Act has limited provisions on governance, administration, finance, accountability and functioning, and cannot respond to an evolving academic and research environment.
    4. Repeal rather than a second amendment: The government chose to repeal the 1959 Act and replace it with a comprehensive incorporation law.

    Challenges to the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026

    1. A Centre accountable board reverses the founding design: The institute has run since 1932 as a registered society governed by its own council, and a statutory board answerable to the Central government moves the final say outside the institute. Eg. The Indian Institutes of Management (Amendment) Act, 2023 made the President the Visitor of the IIMs with power to appoint and remove directors, six years after the 2017 Act had handed those powers to their boards.
      The Fix: Write the board’s autonomy in academic and appointment matters into the Bill as a statutory guarantee, with the Centre’s role limited to audit and financial accountability.
    2. Statistical credibility rests on perceived independence: The institute’s faculty design methods used in national statistics, and executive control over its board invites doubt about the numbers at a time of live disputes over GDP methodology. Eg. In January 2019 two members of the National Statistical Commission, including its acting chairman, resigned after release of the Periodic Labour Force Survey for 2017-18 was withheld.
      The Fix: Fix the institute’s faculty and external statisticians as a majority on the board so the Centre’s nominees cannot outvote them.
    3. Faculty consent was not built into the process: The Bill reached introduction over faculty protest, and a governance law imposed on an academic community produces sustained non-cooperation. Eg. Delhi University’s Four Year Undergraduate Programme, introduced in 2013 without faculty consensus, was rolled back in 2014 on the University Grants Commission’s direction after sustained teacher opposition.
      The Fix: Have the standing committee take evidence from the faculty and the institute’s council before the Bill returns to the House.

    Conclusion

    The Bill’s stage is referral to the Department-Related Standing Committee on Finance after introduction in the Lok Sabha. The committee’s report is due within three months, and the Bill waits in the House until it comes. The committee’s treatment of the board’s accountability clause is what decides whether the faculty’s objection is answered or overridden.

    Back2Basics: Department-Related Standing Committees

    1. Origin: Parliament set up 17 Department-Related Standing Committees in 1993 and expanded them to 24 in 2004, each covering a set of ministries.
    2. Composition: Each has 31 members, 21 from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, nominated by the Speaker and the Chairman, and a minister cannot be a member.
    3. Control: Sixteen committees, including Finance, work under the Lok Sabha Speaker and eight under the Rajya Sabha Chairman.
    4. Output: Their reports on Bills, demands for grants and policy are recommendatory, and the government tables an action taken report on them.

    “[2026] Consider the following statements about the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of the Parliament of India:

    1. Although members of this Committee are elected from both Houses of Parliament, the Chairperson of this Committee is appointed by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

    2. Twenty members are elected by the Rajya Sabha and ten members by the Lok Sabha.

    3. No Minister, except for the Union Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment, is eligible to be a member of this Committee.

    4. Members are elected for a fixed term of two years from the date they enter their office.

    Which one of the following conclusions based on the above statements is correct?

    (a) There are four correct statements

    (b) There is only one correct statement, that is statement 2

    (c) There are two correct statements, that include statement 1

    (d) There is no correct statement

  • Jharkhand SIR faceoff: BJP agents seek to delete voters, BLOs raise red flag

    Why in the News

    Booth Level Officers (BLOs) in at least four booths of Jharkhand’s Godda district have refused stacks of Form 7 applications seeking deletion of voters from the draft electoral roll, flagging them as not genuine or not procedurally sound. The applications were brought by Booth Level Agents (BLAs) of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and most of the names on them are from the minority community. The draft roll was published under the State’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR), and the claims and objections round on it is still open. The BJP has complained that the BLOs are at fault for refusing the forms. BLOs are State government employees, and the State is governed by a Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM)-Congress alliance, so the standoff has acquired a party colour and has reached the Chief Electoral Officer (CEO). The tension is that Form 7 requires no evidence and has no filing cap, so the only safeguard against targeted bulk deletion is the inquiry after intake, and the CEO and the local Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) disagree on whether a BLO may refuse a form at all.

    How is a Form 7 deletion supposed to work?

    1. The statutory power sits with the ERO: Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the ERO correct or delete an entry on its own motion or on an application. In each case the ERO must hold an inquiry, give the elector time to respond and then pass an order.
    2. Only three grounds justify deletion: The ERO can remove an entry where the person has died, is no longer ordinarily resident in the constituency, or is ineligible because they are not a citizen or are under 18.
    3. Form 7 is the objection instrument: Under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, Form 7 carries an objection to a proposed inclusion or a deletion of a name in an existing roll. Any elector may use it to delete their own name or to object to another elector in the same constituency.
    4. The applicant proves nothing but signs a declaration: The form asks for one of five reasons, death, under age, absent or permanently shifted, already enrolled, or not Indian citizen, and needs no evidence. The applicant signs a declaration that a statement known to be false is punishable.

    Where does the online filing system leave the safeguard?

    1. Filing has moved online: The form can be downloaded from the voters’ portal and handed to the BLO, or filed on the portal or the ECINet app after the applicant links a phone number to their Electors Photo Identity Card (EPIC) number. Only a person registered in the same constituency can object to a name in it.
    2. The form identifies both parties: It carries the applicant’s name, EPIC number and phone number, and the name, EPIC number if available and address of the person objected to.
    3. Processing was centralised in 2018 but decisions were not: ERONet replaced the States’ own applications with one portal for EROs, and in 2025 the Election Commission of India (ECI) folded about 40 apps and portals into ECINet. Each form is still decided by the ERO concerned, not centrally.
    4. The portal verifies nothing at filing: No proof is required, and the system does not check that the EPIC number and phone number belong to the applicant.
    5. The inquiry is the safeguard, per the ECI: The ERO must issue a notice to the elector, allow seven days to respond, hold a hearing and pass an order, and the BLO must verify by a field visit. ECI officials say a deletion happens only after this ground inquiry.

    What did the investigation find in Godda’s booths?

    1. One BLA, 25 forms in one booth: At Booth No. 9 of Maheshtikri village a single BJP BLA filed Form 7s against 25 voters.
    2. The forms were not the official ones: The Maheshtikri BLO said the BLA brought forms that were not original, described them as covering voters absent from the village, and promised 50 more. Every form named a Muslim voter.
    3. She accepted the first batch and refused the rest: The BLO took the 25 forms, then declined further forms after the Block Development Officer (BDO) instructed BLOs that such documents were not official forms.
    4. A neighbouring BLA burned 75 forms: At Pachua Kita the BLO was handed around 75 Form 7s that differed from the forms the block office had issued. The BLA said he had been told they were for adding names, and he burned all of them when questioned.
    5. Almost every objected name was Muslim: At Pachua Kita almost all the names on the 75 forms were of Muslims, and at Maheshtikri all the forms carried Muslim voters.
    6. Complaints reached the ERO from four booths: The Basantrai BDO, acting as ERO, received complaints from Maheshtikri, Pachua Kita, Lochni and Baghakol. Villagers of Maheshtikri filed their own complaint against the mass objections in Booth No. 9.

    Why do the targeted voters say the objections cannot stand?

    1. The 2003 roll should protect them: Many of the targeted voters are verified in the 2003 intensive revision, and under the ECI’s own rules this eases their inclusion in the ongoing SIR. The BLOs said every objected voter at Maheshtikri and most at Pachua Kita were mapped to the 2003 roll.
    2. Residence runs back generations: The voters trace their families in the village across generations and hold the khatian, the land record used as proof of being Jharkhandi, along with Aadhaar cards and addresses in the State.
    3. Migration for work is the likely trigger: Several are labourers who work in Delhi, Ghaziabad or outside the State and return to vote in Jharkhand. One learned of the objection against him only from an anganwadi worker.
    4. The fear is benefits and citizenship, not only the vote: Eight voters spoken to feared disenfranchisement, loss of government scheme entitlements or being treated as non-citizens, and several said they were not educated enough to understand the consequences.
    5. Preliminary checks support them: The ERO said preliminary information shows some voters sought to be deleted are living at their registered addresses, and every deletion request will be field verified.

    How does the BJP defend the bulk filings?

    1. Objections are the BLA’s job: The former BJP MLA for Godda said filing objections is part of a BLA’s responsibility. BLAs are trained in Form 6 for new voters, Form 7 for objections and Form 8 for shifting or correction of entries.
    2. Duplicate registration is the stated ground: The party’s position is that a BLA can seek deletion where a name appears at two places, and that verifying the objection is the election authorities’ job.
    3. No cap exists on filings: There is no prescribed limit on the number of applications a BLA can submit, so a single BLA filing dozens breaks no rule.
    4. The BLO breached confidentiality, per the party: A BLO must keep the details of the objected person and of the BLA confidential, and disclosure can amount to a violation of the Representation of the People Act. The BJP says the Booth No. 9 BLO’s disclosure of its BLA’s identity caused pressure and threats against him.
    5. The complaint went to the Additional CEO: The BJP’s Jharkhand SIR convenor submitted a memorandum on discrepancies in the SIR, particularly in Sahibganj and Godda districts, accusing BLOs of two booths of refusing Form 7s from its BLAs.
    6. The BLAs describe a top down supply of forms: The Maheshtikri BLA said the former MLA gave him around 25 forms with the instruction to bring them back if the BLO refused, and some came back. The Pachua Kita BLA said he got the forms from party cadres, barely knew what they were, and thought they added names.

    Why have the ERO and the CEO split on what a BLO may do?

    1. The ERO told BLOs not to act: The BDO said BLOs were instructed not to act on the forms because the source of the forms was unknown, and that an inquiry report will follow field verification.
    2. The ERO wants a complaint route instead: In his view the BLAs should first have filed a written complaint with the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) or the ERO asking for an investigation. Any objection should come from the family concerned or carry solid evidence.
    3. The CEO found no illegality: After speaking to the Godda Assistant ERO and the Deputy Commissioner, the Jharkhand CEO said objections were filed through Form 7 and can be submitted in bulk.
    4. The CEO holds that filing itself is legitimate: A BLA who believes a voter is registered in multiple States can object, and there is nothing wrong in filing objections.
    5. The CEO says BLOs cannot reject: The BLO must first inform the Assistant ERO (AERO), who decides what is to be done, and the BLO then records a recommendation in the observation report.

    Why has a roll revision become a party contest?

    1. The revision is large and the window is short: The SIR began in Jharkhand on June 30, and the draft roll published on August 5 removed 16.48 percent of voters, around 43 lakh. The claims and objections round closes on September 4.
    2. BLOs answer to a State government of the other side: The BJP frames the refusals as partisan because the BLOs are employees of a State run by its rivals.
    3. Godda is a marginal seat: The BJP candidate lost Godda in the 2024 Assembly election to the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) by more than 20,000 votes after winning it in 2020 by around 4,500.
    4. The ruling alliance calls it targeted deletion: The JMM’s local block president called the forms a BJP conspiracy to remove Muslim voters, and the Congress general secretary said the party is monitoring Form 7 deletions across the State. The RJD MLA for Godda said the BDO told him action is being taken.

    Challenges to the Form 7 objection mechanism

    1. The burden shifts to the objected elector: A voter must answer a notice within a week and attend a hearing, and a migrant worker away from home routinely misses both. Eg. In Lal Babu Hussein v Electoral Registration Officer (1995) the Supreme Court set aside deletions in Bombay where names had been struck off on suspicion of foreign nationality without a proper opportunity to be heard.
      The Fix: Serve the notice on the phone number linked to the elector’s EPIC and allow a response through the portal or a family member at the hearing.
    2. The objector’s identity is unverified: An objection can be filed under someone else’s EPIC number and phone number since nothing checks that they belong to the applicant. Eg. In Bengaluru in 2022, staff of a private firm, Chilume Enterprises, posed as Booth Level Officers and collected voter data door to door, showing how easily the intake layer is impersonated.
      The Fix: Require a one time password on the phone registered against the objector’s EPIC before the portal accepts a Form 7.
    3. False declarations carry no practical cost: Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 makes a false declaration punishable with imprisonment of up to one year, but prosecutions of objectors are rare, so bulk filing is free. Eg. In the Bihar SIR of 2025 the Supreme Court had to direct the ECI to publish booth wise lists of the about 65 lakh excluded names with reasons before any individual could contest an exclusion.
      The Fix: Track every rejected objection to its filer and prosecute repeat filers under Section 31.
    4. Party appointed agents drive the objection pipeline: BLAs are nominated by political parties, so the volume and targeting of objections follow party incentive rather than roll accuracy. Eg. The Bihar SIR of 2025 let each BLA submit up to 50 certified enumeration forms a day, formally placing party agents inside the roll’s verification chain.
      The Fix: Require the ERO to publish booth wise counts of objections by filer during the claims window so bulk targeting is visible before the roll is finalised.

    Conclusion

    The Godda dispute is about where the safeguard against targeted deletion sits, at the BLO’s counter or in the ERO’s inquiry. The CEO has ruled that intake cannot be refused, so every objection now goes to field verification. The marker to watch is the Basantrai ERO’s inquiry report and how many of the objections it upholds once the claims window closes.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    1. Legal basis: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the Election Commission of India direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any constituency, in addition to the annual summary revision.
    2. What makes it intensive: BLOs visit every household with enumeration forms and the roll is rebuilt from those forms, rather than corrected entry by entry as in a summary revision.
    3. The current cycle: The nationwide exercise began with Bihar in June 2025 and has proceeded State by State in phases since.

    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?”

  • SC seeks Centre’s response on use of ‘totalisers’ in EVM vote counting

    SC seeks Centre’s response on use of ‘totalisers’ in EVM vote counting

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has sought the Centre’s response on the use of “totalisers”, machines that consolidate and count votes from multiple electronic voting machine (EVM) control units at once without revealing booth-wise voting trends, as a “fall-back option”. The order came on a petition arguing that totalisers would protect voters’ privacy by concealing booth-wise voting patterns and shield them from reprisals. The Election Commission (EC) had warned the Court against the move, saying that introducing a new and unregulated mechanism at a time when the integrity of EVMs is itself under frequent public questioning could give rise to fresh allegations and controversy. The tension is between the voter’s privacy at the booth level and the booth-wise, machine-wise trail that the EC calls the backbone of a self-verifying count.

    What is a totaliser?

    1. What it does: A totaliser consolidates and counts votes from multiple EVM control units simultaneously, so the result is declared for the group rather than for each booth.
    2. How it connects: It links a cluster of 14 control units, from 14 polling stations, via a cable.
    3. What it outputs: It provides a consolidated result for each candidate across that group of EVMs, with no booth-wise breakdown.

    Why does the petitioner want totalisers?

    1. Privacy of the individual voter: Booth-wise results reveal how a locality voted, and the petitioner argued that totalisers would safeguard the privacy of individual voters.
    2. Protection from reprisals: Political parties victimise voters at the local level after identifying voting patterns in particular polling booths, and concealing the pattern removes the target.
    3. A fall-back, not a replacement: The Court framed the question to the Centre as one of a “fall-back option”, not a wholesale change in counting.

    On what legal and political grounds does the Election Commission object?

    1. The climate is wrong: The EC told the Court that the functioning and integrity of EVMs are still a subject of frequent public questioning, and that a new and as yet unregulated mechanism would further complicate public confidence in an already sensitive area.
    2. There is no law for it: Neither the Representation of the People Act, 1951 nor the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 nor any allied enactment contains a provision recognising, regulating or governing the use of a totaliser in counting.
    3. Amendments would be needed: Substantive amendments and a revision of the statutory procedure governing the counting of votes would have to be made to include totalisers.
    4. Parties have said no: Three of six national parties and 18 of 29 State parties opposed the idea, and only the Law Commission of India, in its 255th report, suggested their selective use.

    Why does the Election Commission say totalisers would reduce transparency?

    1. Counting is witnessed booth by booth: Polling and counting are conducted in the presence of candidates and their agents.
    2. Form 17C is the reconciliation tool: Candidates and agents use Form 17C to match the vote count at the end of polling and again after counting at every polling station, and those comparisons are used in adjudications before election tribunals and courts.
    3. The trail is the backbone: The one-to-one, booth-wise and EVM-wise correspondence under Form 17C is what the EC calls the backbone of the self-verifying and transparent character of counting, and that transparency gives credence to the outcome.
    4. Parties use the pattern legitimately: Knowledge of booth-level voting lets parties improve outreach in booths where they underperformed and make corrective organisational decisions.
    5. Aggregation hides faults: Totalisers would mask technical malfunction and human error in individual EVMs, since clubbed machines stand concealed within the aggregate figure and cannot be identified or independently verified by any party.
    6. The main worry: The EC’s chief concern is that totalisers would become fodder for further misapprehension about EVMs.

    Challenges to introducing totalisers

    1. Machine-level verification would lose its anchor: The Court-ordered paper trail check works per machine, and an aggregated result has no machine to check against. Eg. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Election Commission of India (2024) required Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) slips to be counted for five randomly selected EVMs per Assembly segment.
      The Fix: Keep the machine-wise VVPAT count and Form 17C reconciliation internal to the counting hall, and publish only the aggregated result.
    2. Small clusters still reveal patterns: In sparsely populated segments a cluster of 14 booths can map onto one or two villages, so aggregation does not conceal the locality’s vote. Eg. Hill and tribal constituencies routinely have polling stations serving a few hundred electors each.
      The Fix: Set the cluster size by elector count rather than by a fixed number of machines.
    3. The EC’s own position has moved: The Commission proposed totalisers to the Law Ministry in 2008 and the Law Commission endorsed selective use in 2015, so its present opposition invites the charge of inconsistency. Eg. The 255th report on electoral reforms cited the EC’s proposal when recommending the change.
      The Fix: Publish a reasoned position paper setting out what changed between the 2008 proposal and the present affidavit.

    Conclusion

    The Court has kept the question open and asked the Centre rather than deciding it. The next step is the Centre’s reply, and the source gives no date for it. The marker to watch is whether the Centre is willing to amend the election rules, since without that amendment the EC’s legal objection stands whatever the Court thinks of the privacy claim.

    Back2Basics: Form 17C

    1. What it is: The “Account of Votes Recorded” prepared by the presiding officer of each polling station under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
    2. Part I: Records the identification numbers of the EVMs used, the total electors, the votes recorded in the machine and the number of tendered votes, and a copy goes to each polling agent at the close of poll.
    3. Part II: Records the result of counting for that machine, filled in at the counting centre and signed by the counting supervisor and candidates’ agents.
    4. Why it matters: It is the only document that lets a candidate compare votes polled at a booth with votes counted from that booth.

    [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?”