The Supreme Court rejected arguments that Aadhaar should be dropped from voter identity verification due to forgery risks. The Court noted that even passports, which are issued through private agencies, can be forged. Justice Bagchi clarified that while Aadhaar is a document of identity for 'good governance' and targeted delivery of subsidies under the 2016 Act, it is not proof of citizenship. The Court referred to Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which allows citizens to furnish Aadhaar numbers for establishing identity in electoral rolls during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise.
- Forgery risks are not sufficient grounds to exclude Aadhaar from the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.
- Aadhaar is established as a document of identity, not a proof of citizenship or domicile.
- Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, permits the use of Aadhaar for identity establishment.
President Droupadi Murmu addressed a joint sitting of Parliament, emphasizing the government's commitment to social justice for Dalits, Backward Classes, and tribal communities. She highlighted the expansion of social security schemes, which now reach 95 crore Indians compared to 25 crore in 2014. Murmu invoked leaders like Ambedkar and Gandhi, stressing that national unity is paramount. She mentioned the 'Viksit Bharat' goal for 2047 and the 'Reform Express' for economic growth. The speech also touched upon national security, citing 'Operation Sindoor' and the destruction of terror camps across the border as evidence of India's decisive action against terrorism.
- Social justice is defined as ensuring every citizen gets to exercise full rights without discrimination.
- The government aims to achieve 'Viksit Bharat' (Developed India) by the year 2047.
- Social security coverage has expanded significantly, currently covering approximately 95 crore citizens.
The Karnataka government has officially constituted the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers’ Welfare Development Board under the 2025 Act. This move aims to implement welfare measures for gig workers engaged with platforms like Zomato, Uber, and Amazon. Both workers and aggregators must register with the Board within 45 days. A welfare fee of 1% to 1.5% will be levied on aggregator platforms to fund social security benefits. The Board will include representatives from the government, labor unions, and aggregator platforms, with the Labour Minister serving as the ex-officio president.
- Karnataka is among the first states to create a dedicated welfare board and fund for gig workers.
- Aggregators are required to pay a welfare fee based on their turnover to support the fund.
- Registered gig workers will receive a unique identification number to access social security benefits.
The Election Commission of India (ECI) informed the Supreme Court that maintaining a place in the electoral roll is a 'qualified right' rather than an absolute one. During a hearing on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Bihar, the EC argued that voters must continuously fulfill essential conditions, such as Indian citizenship and age requirements, as laid out in Article 326 of the Constitution. The SIR is a verification exercise to ensure the integrity of the roll by weeding out duplicates and deceased voters, rather than a process to determine citizenship.
- Article 326 of the Constitution provides for adult suffrage but requires voters to be 18 years old and Indian citizens.
- The EC maintains that the fulfillment of these conditions is a continuous requirement to remain on the electoral roll.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is defended as a verification exercise to improve voter turnout and roll accuracy.
The article critiques the newly introduced Viksit Bharat - Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act (VB-GRAM G Act), which aims to replace or modify MGNREGA. While the government claims it enhances the employment guarantee to 125 days, critics argue that Section 5(1) allows the Centre to 'switch off' the guarantee in specific areas, undermining the 'right to work' principle. Furthermore, the shift toward 'normative funding' (budget caps) may lead to an inequitable distribution of funds across states, potentially disadvantaging poorer states like Bihar and Jharkhand that require higher MGNREGA employment.
- The VB-GRAM G Act introduces a discretionary 'switch-off' provision that allows the government to suspend the guarantee in specific areas.
- Normative funding replaces the demand-driven approach, potentially limiting funds for states with high poverty levels.
- The Act emphasizes digital technology for transparency, though critics point to past failures of such systems in MGNREGA.
Recent instances of Governors skipping or altering their addresses to State Legislatures have sparked constitutional debates. Articles 175 and 176 of the Constitution mandate the Governor to address the house, outlining the government's policies. Historically, this speech is prepared by the council of ministers and reflects the elected government's views, not the Governor's personal opinions. Conflicts often arise in Opposition-ruled states. Commissions like Sarkaria and Punchhi have recommended consulting Chief Ministers before appointing Governors to minimize friction. The underlying issue remains the perceived politicization of the Governor's office and its impact on federal structure.
- Article 176 makes it mandatory for the Governor to address the first session of the year.
- The Supreme Court in 'Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab' held that the Governor is a constitutional head acting on ministerial advice.
- The 'Motion of Thanks' allows legislators to debate the policies mentioned in the Governor's address.
Addressing the nation on the eve of the 77th Republic Day, President Droupadi Murmu emphasized India's role as a messenger of peace amidst global conflicts. She highlighted the success of 'Operation Sindoor' in national security and the rise of 'Nari Shakti' as central to becoming a developed nation by 2047. The President noted significant progress in poverty alleviation through the principle of 'Antyodaya' and the achievement of making the Constitution available in all 22 Eighth Schedule languages, fostering 'constitutional nationalism'. She also celebrated India's digital leadership and the 150th anniversary of the composition of 'Vande Mataram'.
- India's defense preparedness was showcased through 'Operation Sindoor' which destroyed terror infrastructure.
- Women's empowerment is seen as a reshaper of the country, with 46% representation in Panchayati Raj institutions.
- The 'Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam' is expected to take political empowerment to unprecedented heights.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump formally established the 'Board of Peace' to oversee the reconstruction of war-devastated Gaza. The board is part of a 20-point plan focusing on demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction. It will be chaired by Trump and includes members like former British PM Tony Blair and World Bank President Ajay Banga. While over 50 countries were invited, many, including major European nations and China, have stayed away or expressed concerns about the board's potential to overshadow the United Nations.
- The Board of Peace aims to manage Gaza's transition to a 'New Gaza' with modern infrastructure and industrial zones.
- The initiative is separate from the UN and has faced criticism for lacking a clear role for international bodies.
- India has been invited to join the board but has yet to make a final decision.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has issued a blocking order for a viral video depicting the killing of a 29-year-old man in Manipur's Churachandpur. The order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, following a request from the Union Home Ministry. The Manipur administration argued before the High Court that the video's circulation was likely to disturb public order in the sensitive region. Social media intermediaries like YouTube, Meta, and Google were directed to remove the content. The court has issued notices to the Union government regarding the progress of the blocking order.
- The blocking order was issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, to prevent the disturbance of public order.
- The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 were invoked.
- The Manipur High Court is monitoring the implementation of the order and has scheduled a hearing for February 18.
Recent instances of Governors walking out of State Legislative Assembly sessions in opposition-ruled states have sparked a debate on constitutional propriety. Article 176(1) mandates that the Governor address the Assembly at the commencement of the first session each year. Legal experts and court rulings, including the Nabam Rebia case (2016) and Shamsher Singh case (1974), emphasize that the Governor must act on the 'aid and advice' of the Council of Ministers. The Governor's address is a statement of government policy, and selective reading or walkouts may overstep constitutional boundaries.
- Article 176(1) makes it mandatory for the Governor to address the first session of the year.
- The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Governor's discretionary powers are limited and clearly stated in the Constitution.
- The Governor's address is prepared by the State Cabinet and reflects the government's policy.
Former CEC S.Y. Quraishi discusses the upcoming delimitation process scheduled after the 2027 Census. Delimitation, the redrawing of electoral boundaries, has been frozen since 1976 to prevent penalizing states that successfully controlled population growth. The article highlights the potential shift in political power from southern and western states to northern states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar due to population disparities. It explores various options, such as increasing Lok Sabha seats to 750 or 888, and emphasizes the need for a transparent process to maintain federal spirit and fair representation.
- Delimitation is the process of redrawing electoral maps to reflect population changes.
- The 84th Amendment in 2001 extended the freeze on seat redistribution until the first census after 2026.
- Southern states fear losing political representation despite better performance in social and demographic indicators.
The Registrar-General and Census Commissioner of India (RG&CCI) has notified 33 questions for the first phase of Census 2027, scheduled from April 1 to September 30. This will be India's first digital census, allowing respondents to self-enumerate through a portal. Significantly, this census will include caste enumeration for the first time. The first phase focuses on house-listing and housing schedules, while the second phase (Population Enumeration) in February 2027 will record caste details. The notification splits questions on housing materials into three distinct categories to improve data accuracy.
- Census 2027 will be the first digital census in India's history.
- Caste enumeration will be conducted during the second phase in February 2027.
- The first phase includes 33 questions covering building details, household amenities, and assets.
A Supreme Court Bench recently delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988. Section 17A requires prior approval from the government before initiating an investigation into a public servant for acts related to their official duties. Proponents argue it protects honest officers from malicious prosecution, while critics claim it creates an unnecessary shield for the corrupt and violates Article 14 (equality before the law). The matter has been referred to a larger Bench for a final decision on whether such protections are constitutional.
- Section 17A was inserted into the PCA in 2018 to ensure officers can make bold decisions without fear of wrongful prosecution.
- The Santhanam Committee (1962) was instrumental in the original formulation of anti-corruption laws in India.
- The Vineet Narain case (1998) previously struck down similar 'Single Directive' requirements for high-ranking officers.
The process for removing a Supreme Court or High Court judge, often referred to as 'impeachment,' is governed by Article 124(4) and the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. A judge can only be removed on grounds of 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity.' However, a significant loophole exists: the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or Chairman of the Rajya Sabha has the statutory power to admit or refuse a removal motion even if signed by the required number of MPs. This discretion can potentially thwart the constitutional process, especially if the government of the day opposes the motion.
- The Constitution uses the term 'removal' for judges; 'impeachment' is technically reserved for the President under Article 61.
- A removal motion requires signatures from 100 Lok Sabha members or 50 Rajya Sabha members to be initiated.
- The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, outlines the procedure for investigation by a high-level committee after a motion is admitted.
Recent actions by the Governors of Tamil Nadu and Kerala, who deviated from or skipped portions of their customary addresses to the State Assemblies, have sparked a constitutional debate. While Articles 87 and 176 require the President and Governors to make special addresses, constitutional convention dictates they read the text cleared by the Cabinet. Critics argue that treating these addresses as a 'meaningless formality' undermines the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. Some suggest constitutional amendments to scrap these mandatory addresses while retaining the right to address the legislature under Articles 86 and 175.
- Articles 87 and 176 mandate special addresses by the President and Governors at the start of the first session of the year.
- Conventionally, the Governor acts as a 'mouthpiece' for the elected government, reading a speech that outlines state policies.
- Deviations from the Cabinet-approved text are seen as violations of time-honoured constitutional norms and conventions.
The Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between 'irrational freebies' used by political parties to lure voters and legitimate 'welfare schemes' aimed at marginalized sections. The Court observed that while state largesse to individuals can be problematic, investing in health and education is a constitutional obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). The Bench expressed concern over the lack of dedicated revenue surplus for developmental purposes and rising national debt. It is considering whether such freebies constitute a 'corrupt practice' under the Representation of the People Act.
- The Court emphasized that launching welfare schemes is an obligation under the Directive Principles of State Policy.
- There is a legal debate on whether freebies should be classified as 'expenditure defrayable by the Union or State' under Article 282.
- The Court is shifting away from its 2013 judgment in the S. Subramaniam Balaji case regarding election manifesto promises.
The Supreme Court clarified that while the Election Commission (EC) possesses wide discretion under Article 324 and Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, its powers are not 'untrammelled.' During a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, the EC must adhere to principles of natural justice and prescribed procedures under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Court emphasized that any deviations from standard procedure must respect constitutional guarantees like equality before the law (Article 14) and ensure transparency to protect the civil rights of voters, as revisions can significantly impact voter eligibility.
- The EC's power to direct special revisions must be exercised within the framework of existing statutory rules and natural justice.
- Section 21(3) of the 1950 Act provides residuary power but does not allow the EC to bypass the procedural 'shackles' of Rule 25.
- Any deviation from prescribed norms during electoral roll revisions must be backed by fair, just, and recorded reasons.
Retired Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) officers have filed a contempt petition in the Supreme Court against the Union Home Secretary. The petition alleges non-implementation of a 2025 court ruling that directed a progressive reduction in the deputation of Indian Police Service (IPS) officers in CAPFs up to the rank of Inspector-General (IG). The court had previously ruled that Group A Executive Cadre officers of CAPFs are 'Organised Group A Services' (OGAS), which entitles them to specific promotional benefits and limits lateral entry from other services like the IPS.
- CAPF officers have long sought 'Organised Group A Service' status to ensure better career progression and promotional parity.
- The Supreme Court in 2025 ordered a two-year cut in IPS deputation and a comprehensive review of cadre and service rules.
- The Union Home Ministry's alleged failure to implement these changes has led to the current contempt plea.
The Congress party has urged the Union government to fully implement Article 15(5) of the Constitution, which empowers the state to provide reservations for SCs, STs, and OBCs in private educational institutions. This demand coincides with the 20th anniversary of the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. While the amendment enabled 27% reservation for OBCs in centrally funded higher education institutions (HEIs), the party argues that its application to private institutions remains incomplete. The Supreme Court upheld the validity of this provision in the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs Union of India judgment (2014).
- Article 15(5) was added via the 93rd Constitutional Amendment to enable reservations in both public and private educational institutions.
- The provision excludes minority educational institutions referred to in Article 30(1).
- The Congress suggests that any new regulator for higher education must oversee the implementation of these reservations.
The Supreme Court is examining petitions from Tamil Nadu and Kerala questioning whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is a 'juristic person' with the right to approach High Courts under Article 226. The states argue that the ED is a statutory creation, not a 'person' or 'body corporate,' and thus lacks the legal standing to sue or be sued like a natural person. This legal challenge follows the ED's attempts to block state-led investigations into its officials. The Supreme Court's decision will clarify the legal status and litigation powers of central investigative agencies.
- A 'juristic person' is a legal fiction recognized as having rights and duties, similar to a corporation.
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu contend that the ED, being a statutory agency, cannot exercise powers not specifically conferred by its governing statute.
- The case arose after the ED challenged a Kerala government notification setting up a Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against ED officials.
The Election Commission of India's (ECI) Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process is under fire for allegedly deleting genuine voters while attempting to 'clean' electoral rolls. In Bihar, the process showed an egregious anomaly with the deletion of significantly more women electors than men. In Tamil Nadu, deletion rates in some booths reportedly exceeded the number of voters in the 2024 elections. Furthermore, a mismatch exists between State Election Commission counts for rural polls and ECI counts in Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court has intervened, directing the ECI to ease the verification process for millions of electors facing notices.
- The ECI's 'mapping' and software glitches have led to the wrongful removal of genuine electors across 12 states.
- There is a significant discrepancy between ECI data and State Election Commission data in states like Uttar Pradesh.
- The insistence on re-registering as 'fresh electors' using Form 6 prevents an audit of why voters were removed initially.
Recent incidents in Tamil Nadu and Kerala have highlighted growing tensions between State Governments and Governors regarding the 'customary address' under Article 176. In Tamil Nadu, Governor R.N. Ravi declined to read the prepared speech, citing 'misleading statements,' leading the DMK to propose a constitutional amendment to abolish the practice. Simultaneously, Kerala's Governor Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar reportedly altered the Cabinet-approved text, omitting criticisms of the Union government. These actions raise significant questions about the Governor's discretionary powers versus their constitutional obligation to act as the mouthpiece of the State Cabinet, potentially undermining federal principles and legislative precedents.
- Article 176 mandates the Governor to address the Legislative Assembly at the commencement of the first session each year.
- The address is traditionally prepared by the State Cabinet and represents the government's policy and program for the year.
- Governors in TN and Kerala have recently deviated from or refused to read the approved text, leading to procedural standoffs.
The Himachal Pradesh Cabinet has approved an ordinance to levy a dedicated 'orphan and widow cess' on the sale of petrol and high-speed diesel within the state. The revenue generated from this cess will be used to fund welfare schemes for orphans and widows. The government stated that the cess would be 'non-burdensome' to consumers while ensuring adequate financial resources for social welfare. Additionally, the Cabinet approved a national policy on geothermal energy and designated the Directorate of Energy as the nodal agency for its implementation in the state.
- The cess is aimed at creating a dedicated fund for the effective implementation of welfare schemes for vulnerable groups.
- The Cabinet also focused on energy diversification by adopting a policy for geothermal energy exploration.
- Four new laboratories will be established for nutritional profiling to strengthen the food testing ecosystem in the state.
The article discusses the polarizing nature of illegal immigration in Indian politics, particularly following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. It argues that while the Opposition often dismisses concerns about undocumented immigrants as xenophobic, national security concerns are legitimate and should not be ignored. The author suggests a 'centrist' approach that acknowledges the complexity of the issue, focusing on legal work authorizations and tech-driven regulation. Drawing parallels with global trends in Europe and the U.S., the piece notes that ignoring public anxiety over immigration can lead to the rise of populist, anti-immigration parties.
- The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) omitted nearly 6.5 crore electors from draft rolls across nine States and three Union Territories.
- The Immigration and Foreigners Bill, passed in June 2025, aims to regulate entry and stay using a tech-driven, time-bound approach.
- Centrist politics must reconcile emotive issues like national identity with humanitarian concerns to prevent political polarization.