Polity

All (4049)Current Affairs (4038)Mains Practice (126)Mains PYQs by Subjects (40)

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Delhi Riots Bail Case

Context: Delhi High Court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and seven others charged as key conspirators of the February 2020 Delhi riots saying the riots were a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: UAPA 1967: Provisions and related issues.

The accused have been charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), including Section 16 which prescribes the death penalty for committing Terrorist Act.

What is Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967?

UAPA was enacted to give the state powers to deal with activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Initially, it targeted unlawful associations, but successive amendments expanded it into India’s principal anti-terror law.
Amendments in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 broadened its scope allowing the central government to designate not just organisations but also individuals as terrorists.

Key Provisions of UAPA:

Definition of Terrorist Act (Section 15): Covered acts intended to threaten India’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty, or to strike terror in people. Means can include bombs, explosives, firearms, or any other means.
Punishments (Section 16): Death penalty or life imprisonment for terrorist acts causing death.
Unlawful Activities: Criminalises acts supporting secession, cession of Indian territory, or disrupting sovereignty.
Designation of Terrorists (2019 amendment): Individuals can be listed as terrorists without judicial process, based on executive decision.
Bail Provisions: Bail is extremely restrictive. Bail cannot be granted if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true (effectively reverses the presumption of innocence).
Extended Detention: Police can seek 180 days of detention without filing a charge sheet (compared to 60-90 days under ordinary criminal law).

Delhi Riots Case:

In February 2020, large-scale communal violence broke out in North-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
The violence resulted in the death of 54 people and damage to more than 1500 properties.
The Delhi Police alleged that the riots were not spontaneous but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” involving activists and student leaders.
Based on this, several persons including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, apart from provisions of the IPC.
The prosecution argued that conspiracies were hatched through WhatsApp groups, secret meetings, and mobilisation of protest sites, including calls for a “chakka jam”, which allegedly escalated into riots.

Why Bail Was Denied in the Delhi Riots Case?

The court applied Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which bars bail if accusations appear prima facie true.
Testimonies of protected witnesses, who claimed that the accused discussed escalation of violence and setting Delhi on fire, were presumed true at this stage. Their credibility cannot be tested during bail.
The court emphasised that bail proceedings cannot turn into a detailed evaluation of evidence. Explanations offered by the accused could not be weighed against prosecution material at this stage.
The alleged plan to organise a chakka jam was treated as falling under the broad phrase “any other means” in Section 15, thereby qualifying as a terrorist act.
Although the accused have spent over five years in jail, the court held that delay alone cannot justify bail, and that an expedited trial conducted in undue haste may compromise fairness and due process.

Issues and Criticism of UAPA:

Stringent Bail Conditions: Almost amounts to “bail not jail” being reversed, as courts presume prosecution’s case true.
Prolonged Incarceration: Accused may remain in jail for years without trial, thus the process itself becomes punishment. E.g., In Delhi riots case, accused have spent 5 years without trial raising concerns of violation of Article 21.
Overbroad Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’: The phrase “any other means” under Section 15 expands the scope excessively, creating scope for misuse against peaceful protest and dissent. E.g., A chakka jam was classified as terrorism in the Delhi riots case.
Protected Witness System: Limits cross-examination, raises concerns of fair trial and natural justice.
Executive Overreach: Power to declare individuals as terrorists without judicial scrutiny undermines separation of powers.
Low Conviction Rate: NCRB data shows conviction rate under UAPA is below 30%, yet thousands spend years in pre-trial custody.

Broader Democratic Concerns

UAPA is criticised for blurring the line between legitimate dissent and terrorism.
It raises questions about Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, and association).
In a democracy, misuse of anti-terror laws against protesters risks a chilling effect on free speech.

Way Forward

Judicial Safeguard : Courts need to evolve stricter standards of evidence scrutiny at bail stage.
Timely Trials: Fast-track courts must ensure UAPA trials are not indefinitely delayed.
Narrowing Definitions: Parliament should reconsider vague terms like “any other means” under Section 15.
Balance between liberty and security: National security is vital, but so is constitutional liberty; laws must not criminalise dissent.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in K.A. Najeeb case (2021), “Courts cannot remain mute spectators when citizens languish in jails under stringent laws with little hope of trial concluding.” While the state must act against orchestrated violence, prolonged incarceration without trial risks turning the “process into punishment”.

Mains Practice Question:

Q. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been criticised for reversing the principle of ‘bail not jail’. Critically analyse in the context of recent bail rulings in the Delhi riots case.

Should Reservations Exceed the 50% Cap?

Context: The opposition leader in Bihar has pledged to raise the quota limit to 85% if voted to power. At the same time, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking the introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ system for SCs and STs.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Should reservations exceed the 50 % cap ?

Reservation in the Indian Constitution is envisaged as a corrective mechanism to redress historical injustices and ensure substantive equality. Mere formal equality could not dismantle entrenched social hierarchies in India, and thus reservation empowered the State to adopt affirmative action for disadvantaged groups.

What are the Constitutional Provisions?

Article 15(4) and 15(5) empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, particularly in educational institutions.
Article 16(4) allows the State to provide reservations in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented in services.
Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), inserted through constitutional amendments, permit reservation in promotions for SCs and STs and allow the carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.
Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs.

The reservation in the Centre at present stands as follows: OBCs (27%), SCs (15%), STs (7.5%) and for the Economically Weaker Section (10%), resulting in a total reservation of 59.5%.

Important Court Rulings in this Context:

In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962), the SC held that reservations should remain within reasonable limits and should not exceed 50%.
In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), the SC observed that reservation is not an exception to equality, but a facet of equality of opportunity under Article 16; though it did not rule on the 50% ceiling.
In Indra Sawhney (1992), the SC upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, and introduced the concept of a creamy layer within OBCs. The court laid down the 50% ceiling rule, subject to extraordinary circumstances.
In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the SC upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the validity of 10% EWS quota. It clarified that the 50% limit applies only to backward class reservations, and not to the EWS category.
In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), the SC upheld the power of states to make sub-classification within SCs/STs.

Arguments for Exceeding the 50% Cap:

Proportional Representation: Backward classes form a majority of the population, and proportional representation requires a higher quota share.
Substantive equality demands going beyond formal equality, as historical injustices and deep-rooted discrimination cannot be addressed with a 50% limit.

Address persistent underrepresentation of SCs, STs, and OBCs which still continues, with many reserved posts remaining unfilled.
States with higher percentages of marginalised populations argue that a rigid 50% ceiling undermines their autonomy to design policies that reflect their demographic realities.

Arguments against Exceeding the 50% Cap:

Critics argue that excessively high quotas (such as 85%) would violate the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity.
Judicial precedents have consistently upheld the 50% ceiling as a safeguard against excessive reservations that may harm merit-based selection.
Large numbers of reserved vacancies remain unfilled, suggesting that higher quotas alone may not ensure representation and could worsen backlog vacancies. In the absence of creamy layer exclusion for SCs/STs, benefits get concentrated among advanced sub-groups, leaving the most deprived behind.

Way Forward

Policymaking on reservation should be based on empirical evidence from the 2027 Census, which is expected to include caste enumeration.
Implement the Rohini Commission’s sub-categorisation to distribute OBC benefits more equitably.
Introduce a two-tier system for SCs/STs prioritising the most marginalised sections.
Efforts on complementary measures such as skill development, access to quality education, and inclusion of marginalized groups in the private sector.

India needs a consensus-driven solution which balances equality of opportunity with the demands of social justice.

Under Representation of Women in Judiciary

Context: Indian Courts have been male-dominated institutions. Presently, there is just one woman judge out of the full strength of 34 judges in the Supreme Court. In order to implement inclusive policies, it is necessary to employ a female perspective into the institution.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Essay; Under Representation of Women in Judiciary: Reasons and Way Forward.

Introduction

Over the past century, women in law have made significant progress in India. The first woman lawyer, Cornelia Sorabji, was entitled to practice in 1924. Since then, women have entered the legal profession in increasing numbers, attained the rank of Senior Advocates, and served as judges in the lower judiciary.
Despite these advancements, women’s representation in the higher judiciary remains alarmingly low, which highlights deep-rooted systemic inequality.

Issue of Glass Ceiling in the Higher Judiciary

Women’s representation in the higher judiciary continues to be minimal.

Only 13.4% of High Court judges are women.
- In eight High Courts— Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, Odisha, Tripura, and Uttarakhand— there is either no woman judges or just one.
- Allahabad High Court, the largest in the country, has only three women judges out of 79 (2%).
- Only one High Court, the Gujarat High Court, currently has a woman Chief Justice.
Women judges are appointed at a later age than men, with an average appointment age of 53 years compared to 51.8 years for men. This delay prevents them from reaching senior positions.

At Supreme Court level

The situation in the Supreme Court is even more dire:

Since 2021, 28 judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court, but none of them are women.
In the past 75 years, nine men have been elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court, while only one woman has received the same elevation.
Only 11 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court till date (August 2025), which is a mere 3.8% of total judges appointed since its inception in 1950.
There is total absence of caste diversity among women judges in the Supreme Court due to non-appointment of women judges from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The delayed age of appointment for women results in women judges not making it to the Collegium or as Chief Justice of India. The first woman CJI will be Justice B. V. Nagarathna, who is scheduled to be appointed for only 36 days (in 2027).

Reasons for under-representation of women in Judiciary:

1. Barriers to Women’s inclusion:

Heightened Scrutiny: Women face greater scrutiny when being considered for elevation, with their merit being questioned more rigorously than their male counterparts.
Entry-level barriers: The Judicial Service Rules in many states require continuous legal practice, which can be challenging for women who need career breaks due to family responsibilities. This restricts their chances of elevation to the Bench.
Retention challenges: Even when women enter the judiciary, career progression is hampered by rigid transfer policies and lack of support structures, discouraging their long-term participation.
Infrastructure deficiencies: Many courts lack basic facilities such as separate washrooms, crèches, and family-friendly spaces. A 2019 survey by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found that nearly 100 district courts lack dedicated washrooms for women, making their daily work environment difficult.

2. Collegium System and alleged gender bias:

No clearly defined criteria: There are no clearly defined criteria for eligibility, merit, or the selection process.
Composition: Collegiums, predominantly composed of men, rarely make a concerted effort to identify and elevate qualified women candidates.
Rejection by the government: Even when women’s names are recommended, they are disproportionately rejected by the government. Since 2020, nine women’s names were recommended for High Court appointments, but five were rejected outright.

Way Forward

1. Transparent Appointment Process:

Collegium should establish a clear and transparent selection process based on merit.
Time-bound approvals for collegium recommendations (A timeframe of 90 days is proposed).

2. Gender diversity as a stated objective:

Gender diversity should be an explicit criterion in judicial appointments, ensuring that at least one-third of judges in the High Courts and Supreme Court are women.
Adopt Kerala's model of 50% reservation for women in lower judiciary.
Establish gender diversity targets (33-50%) in higher judiciary appointments.

3. Inclusive infrastructure and policy-level changes:

Judicial policies should account for women’s specific needs, including maternity benefits and flexible transfer policies.
Courts must prioritise gender-friendly infrastructure, including sanitary facilities, feeding rooms, and crèches.
Inclusion of women in the High Court and Supreme Court committees on infrastructure and policy-making to ensure gender-sensitive decision-making.

4. Encouraging women in the legal profession:

Law firms, bar councils, and judiciary bodies should actively mentor and support women lawyers to build a strong pipeline of candidates for judicial roles.

Carole Pateman’s theory of the “public-private divide” aptly explains how traditionally male-dominated institutions fail to adapt to the inclusion of women. A female-centric gaze in judicial policy-making is necessary to ensure that infrastructure, recruitment, and retention policies are designed with women’s lived realities in mind.

All Buildings to be Geo-Tagged in Census 2027

Context: The central government plans to geo-tag all buildings (residential and non-residential) in the Census 2027.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Concept of geo-tagging, Geo-tagging and governance.

What is Geo-Tagging ?

Geo-tagging is the process of assigning precise latitude and longitude coordinates to a physical asset, building, or location and linking it to a Geographical Information System (GIS) map.
It digitally pins a structure or object to its exact place on a map allowing it to be identified, verified, and monitored in real time.

Historical Context and Present Use in India:

In India, geo-tagging has been used in government schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY), MGNREGA assets, and other development programmes to ensure transparency and accountability in asset creation.
For the first time in Census 2027 the government plans to geo-tag all residential and non-residential buildings across the country.

Geo-Tagging in Census 2027:

Enumerators will geo-tag each building within its Houselisting Block (HLB) using a Digital Layout Mapping (DLM) system. This is a departure from earlier censuses, where hand-drawn notional maps were prepared. Now, layout maps will be automatically generated from geo-tagged building data.
Census 2027 will be India’s first fully digital census using mobile applications, self-enumeration options, and real-time monitoring through the Census Monitoring & Management System (CMMS).

Benefits of Geo-Tagging:

Accuracy in Enumeration: Geo-tagging will ensure that all buildings are mapped and counted, reducing the chances of omission or duplication.
Transparency and Accountability: Digitally tagged assets reduce the possibility of ghost entries and fraudulent claims.
Policy Formulation: Real-time and location-specific data on housing, amenities, and population distribution will strengthen evidence-based policymaking.
Disaster Management and Urban Planning: A geo-tagged housing database can aid in evacuation, rehabilitation, and planning for infrastructure and civic services.
Integration with Other Digital Initiatives: Geo-tagging complements initiatives like Digital India, GIS-based governance, and the Smart Cities Mission creating a unified digital governance framework.

Challenges in Geo-Tagging:

Privacy Concerns: Citizens may have apprehensions about the government mapping and digitally storing the exact location of their homes.
Digital Divide: Rural and remote areas with weak internet and digital infrastructure may face difficulties in real-time geo-tagging.
Data Security: Protecting sensitive location data from cyber threats is a major challenge.

Geo-tagging is a crucial step towards e-governance and evidence-based administration in India. It will help bridge gaps between planning and implementation by providing precise, location-linked, and real-time data.

RTE Exemption to Minority Institutions should be Revised: SC

Context: The Supreme Court has questioned the validity of the blanket exemption granted to minority institutions from the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The SC has called for reconsideration of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India (2014) judgment by a larger bench.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Article 21A; Article 30(1)

Mains: Conflict between the Right to Education (Article 21A) and the Rights of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (Article 30(1)).

Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) Case

The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted to guarantee free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution.

In the case, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that applying the RTE Act to minority institutions (aided or unaided) was unconstitutionalas it violated Article 30(1).
- Article 30(1) guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
As a result, minority institutions were granted a blanket exemption from RTE provisions, including the 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c).

Supreme Court’s Recent Observations (2025)

The SC expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) ruling that gave minority institutions blanket exemption from the RTE Act.
The SC held that the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions (aided or unaided) without eroding their minority character under Article 30(1).
The bench clarified that Article 21A and Article 30(1) are not in conflict; they can and must co-exist mutually.
Section 12(1)(c), mandating 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups was described as serving the broader purpose of social inclusion and universalisation of education. Section 12(1)(c) does not alter school demographics to compromise minority identity and comes with a reimbursement mechanism ensuring financial neutrality.
Any conflict can be reconciled by admitting minority children who also belong to weaker sections or disadvantaged groups under the quota.
On the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), the SC reaffirmed it as a minimum qualification under the RTE Act binding on minority institutions as well.

Issue of Restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir

Context: The Supreme Court has recently sought a detailed response from the Centre on the issue of restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Concept of Federalism, Constitutional Framework for Creation of States.

Mains: Issue of Restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.

Abrogation of Article 370

The abrogation of Article 370 and enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 bifurcated the State into two Union Territories:
- Jammu & Kashmir (with legislative assembly)
- Ladakh (without legislative assembly).
The Supreme Court in 2023 upheld the abrogation, but it also directed the Union Government to restore statehood and conduct Assembly elections.

Constitutional Framework for Creation of States

The Constitution of India provides three processes for creating States: admission, establishment, and formation.

Admission requires an organised political unit and is guided by international law, as was the case with Jammu and Kashmir’s accession in 1947 through the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh.
Establishment involves acquisition of new territories, such as the cases of Goa and Sikkim.
Formation refers to reorganisation of existing States under Article 3, which has expanded India’s map from 14 States in 1956 to 29 States before the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

Article 3 empowers Parliament to form, alter, or rename States, but it does not authorise converting a State into a Union Territory on a permanent basis. Thus, continuing to keep Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory is against the spirit of federalism embedded in the Constitution.

Implications of Non-Restoration:

Denial of statehood leads to a democratic deficit, since a Union Territory places overriding powers in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor rather than the elected government.
It also dilutes citizens’ rights to self-governance, which is central to India’s democratic framework.
Continued Union control risks alienating the people of Jammu and Kashmir and may undermine long-term stability and integration.
From a constitutional perspective, it sets a dangerous precedent where any State could potentially be downgraded to a Union Territory, eroding the spirit of federalism.

Why Restoration of Statehood is Imperative?

Restoring statehood is imperative to uphold federalism, which the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held to be part of the Basic Structure.
The Rajya Sabha under Article 83(1) ensures continuous representation of States in national decision-making , and denial of statehood disrupts this equilibrium and weakens India’s cooperative federalism.
It empowers the elected government and restores the principle of self-rule, thereby addressing the democratic aspirations of the people.
It reinforces the separation of powers by complying with the Supreme Court’s directions.
It helps maintain national unity with federal balance, preventing over-centralisation that could erode trust among States.

While temporary Union control may be justified on grounds of security, its prolonged continuation undermines both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir is not merely a political demand but a constitutional obligation essential for safeguarding India’s federal design.

Bail Provisions in USA and India

Context: The US President recently signed an executive order cutting federal funding for jurisdictions that allow cashless bail claiming that it leads to a rise in crime.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Concept of Bail, Cashless Bail, Bail Provisions in India.

Mains: Issues in India’s Bail Provisions and the Urgent Need for Reforms.

What is Bail?

Bail is the conditional release of an accused person from custody while awaiting trial. It is based on the principle of presumption of innocence ensuring that a person is not punished before conviction.
The court’s concern in granting bail is that the accused:
- does not abscond or evade trial,
- does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and
- remains available to face justice.
Hence, courts require a monetary deposit or surety as a guarantee of compliance. If the accused fails to appear, the money is forfeited. This makes bail both a safeguard of liberty and a mechanism of accountability.

What is Cashless Bail?

Cashless bail refers to the release of an accused without depositing cash upfront. Instead, the accused may sign a personal recognisance (PR) bond, be placed under community supervision, or offer other non-monetary assurances.
The rationale is to ensure that liberty before conviction does not depend on financial capacity.

Bail Provisions in the USA:

In the US, bail traditionally required cash deposits. Failure to pay meant remaining in custody, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Later many US states introduced cashless bail for relatively minor non-violent offences.

Bail Provisions in India:

Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the process for releasing a person on bail. Among the conditions for bail is the furnishing of a bond or a bail bond.

Bond:

By signing a bond an accused agrees to their bail terms and assures the court they will remain present for the trial. This is usually accompanied by a cash deposit, with the amount depending on the nature of the crime and the economic condition of the accused.
This deposit can be forfeited if bail conditions are violated, and is refunded at the conclusion of the trial regardless of the outcome.
If an accused does not have the means to furnish cash, courts may consider releasing them on a personal recognisance bond (PR bond). This requires the accused to arrange for the cash within a specific time after being released on bail.

Bail bond:

A bail bond is a guarantee given by another person (family member, friend, or employer) to ensure that the accused complies with bail conditions and appears for trial. The surety may also be required to deposit a specified sum, which can be forfeited if the accused absconds.
Courts conduct verification of the surety’s documents, financial standing, and personal background to establish credibility.
Certain courts insist that the surety must possess financial assets, permanent residence, or be a local resident of the district.
In cities like Mumbai, a solvency certificate issued by a revenue officer is mandatory, often causing delays of several days or even weeks in the grant of bail.

Issues in Bail Provisions in India:

Economic Discrimination: 268th Law Commission Report (2017) held that financial surety-based bail is contrary to constitutional ethos, as it discriminates against the poor.
Undertrial Overcrowding: National Crime Records Bureau (2022) shows that over 75% of India’s prison population are undertrials, many detained only due to inability to furnish bail.
Procedural Delays: Mulla Committee on Prison Reforms (1983) flagged that cumbersome verification processes, such as solvency certificates, prolong custody even after bail is granted.
Judicial Hesitancy on PR Bonds: Despite the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (1979) emphasising bail as a right, trial courts remain reluctant to release accused on personal recognisance bonds.
Constitutional Concerns: The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022) observed that denial of bail for inability to pay surety violates Article 21 (Right to Liberty).

Need for Bail Reforms in India:

Risk-Based Assessment: The Law Commission (268th Report) recommended shifting from monetary sureties to risk-based evaluation of absconding or tampering.
Greater Use of PR Bonds: Justice Krishna Iyer Committee on Prison Reforms (1987) stressed non-monetary bail to avoid criminalising poverty.
Strengthened Legal Aid: NALSA Report (2023) revealed 5000 undertrials in jail despite bail orders, highlighting the need for proactive legal services intervention.
Prison Decongestion: Supreme Court (2023) directed that undertrials not released within a week of bail must be reported to District Legal Services Authorities.
Systemic Reform: National Police Commission (1977-81) called for liberalised bail policies to ensure speedy justice and reduce undertrial population.

The principle that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” must guide criminal justice in spirit and practice. Without systemic reforms like wider PR bonds, simplified procedures and robust legal aid, bail will remain a privilege of the rich rather than a right of all.

Article 21 and Indefinite Detention of Non-Citizens in India

Context: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a Bangladeshi woman accused of forgery, cheating, and staying in India without valid documents, holding that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners too.

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Article 21.
Mains: Right to Personal Liberty: Evolution and threats to personal liberty.

Recent Verdict by Punjab and Haryana High Court:

The High Court has granted regular bail to a Bangladeshi woman accused of forgery, cheating, and staying in India without valid documents, holding that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 applies to foreigners too.
The court held that prolonged pre-trial custody, especially for an undocumented migrant unable to arrange sureties, would amount to irreversible injustice.

Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty:

Article 21 states that: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law.
The word ‘person’ in Article 21 is wide enough to cover not only citizens but also foreigners. The State has an obligation to protect the liberty of such foreigners and ensure that their liberty is not deprived except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Rajubala Das v. Union of India Case (2020):

The Rajubala Das v. Union of India case challenged the legality of indefinite detention of non-citizens in India.
The SC ruled that prolonged and indefinite detention, in the absence of any real possibility of deportation, amounted to a gross violation of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Also Read: Foreigners Tribunals: Detaining Non-Citizens and Rule of Law

Adi Karmayogi Initiative

Context: The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has launched the Adi Karmayogi Initiative under the Dharti Aba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyaan to improve last-mile scheme delivery in tribal villages.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key features for Adi Karmayogi initiative.

Adi Karmayogi Initiative

Adi Karmayogi Abhiyan is a national movement to build a decentralised tribal leadership and governance ecosystem.
Nodal Ministry : Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Aim: To empower tribal communities, strengthen responsive governance, and create local leadership opportunities across the country.
The initiative emphasises Sewa (service), Sankalp (Resolve), and Samarpan (Dedication) reflecting the guiding principle of “Sabka Saath, Saka Vikas, Saka Prayas, Sabka Vishwas.”

Objectives:

To promote responsive, people-centric governance at village and community levels.
To conduct multi-departmental Governance Lab Workshops / Process Labs from state to district, block, and village levels for capacity Building of state, District, and Block Master Trainers.
To co-create development plans where tribal communities and government officers jointly formulate the 1 Lakh Tribal Villages-Vision 2030, including detailed action plans and investment strategies.
To build a network of 20 lakh change leaders across 550 districts and 30 States/UTs to implement grassroots development initiatives.
To ensure 100% saturation of welfare schemes in tribal villages.

Key Features of Adi Karmayogi Initiative

The programme aims to build a cadre of 20 lakh trained grassroots change leaders across 550 districts in 30 States/UTs to foster responsive governance in tribal communities. Under this model, 240 state-level master trainers, 2750 district-level trainers, and 15,000 block-level trainers will be prepared, who will eventually train around 20 lakh tribal participants.
The initiative follows a cascade model of training, where knowledge flows from master trainers to district and block-level trainers and finally to village-level participants. The training methodology is participatory and activity-based.
- Activities such as candle-lighting, fishbowl discussions, knot-tying tasks, cognitive group exercises, and role-playing are used to deliver leadership and problem-solving lessons.
- Each village-level training session will include 15 volunteers, ensuring local participation and direct engagement with community members.
Villagers and officers will co-create the Tribal Village Vision 2030, aligned with national and international commitments towards sustainable development goals and inclusive development. These Village Vision documents will be displayed as public murals, serving both as community pledges and as aspirational blueprints for State machinery to follow.
The initiative actively involves community volunteers to strengthen outreach:
- Adi Sahyogis (teachers, doctors, and other professionals)
- Adi Saathis (SHG members, tribal elders, youth, and local leaders) — to strengthen outreach.
The Ministry plans to establish one lakh Adi Seva Kendras across tribal villages. These centres will function as single-window service hubs where villagers can access information and benefits of all welfare schemes.

Also Read: Tribal Welfare Outreach Campaign Launched Across 500+ Districts in India

AI in Judiciary: Promise and Challenges

Context: In July 2025, the Kerala High Court issued India’s first policy on the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the district judiciary, highlighting both its potential to tackle the backlog of over 5 crore cases and the risks of errors, bias, and accountability gaps.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Use of AI in Judiciary: Promises and Challenges.

AI in Judiciary

The judiciary faces longstanding challenges such as case backlogs, language barriers, and the need for digital modernisation.

AI in Judiciary including Machine Learning (ML), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Optical Character Recognition (OCR), and Predictive Analytics are being leveraged to automate administrative tasks, improve case tracking, and enhance crime prevention.
Initiatives like e-Courts Project Phase III, AI-assisted legal translation, predictive policing, and AI-driven legal chatbots are reshaping the legal landscape, making processes faster, smarter, and more transparent.
The Kerala High Court’s July 2025 guidelines on AI use in district judiciary marked the first official policy in India addressing AI adoption in courts.

Promise of AI in Judiciary:

Speed and Efficiency:
- Translation of documents into regional languages can help judges and litigants overcome language barriers.
- Automated transcription of oral arguments and witness depositions saves manual effort.
- Defect identification in filings ensures faster case listing and reduces delays.
Enhanced Legal Research: AI enables quick scanning of vast legal databases, saving time and supporting more focused, substantive legal analysis.
Improved Accessibility: AI-based tools can simplify judgments into easy-to-read summaries for litigants. Translation features enhance access to justice in regional languages.
Administrative Support: AI can assist registries in case classification, docket management, and scheduling, helps reduce the burden on court staff and ensures smoother case flow.
Potential Cost Reduction: By saving time and resources in transcription, research, and filing checks, AI can lower litigation costs, making justice more affordable.

Problems with AI in Judiciary

While AI promises efficiency and accessibility, its deployment in the judiciary raises serious legal, ethical, and technical concerns.

Translation and Transcription Errors: E.g., “Leave granted” translated as “holiday approved” in Hindi. In Noel Anthony Clarke vs Guardian News & Media Ltd. (2025), the claimant’s name “Noel” was repeatedly transcribed as “no.” Such errors, though small, can distort meaning and impact case outcomes.
AI Hallucinations: A study published in theJournal of Empirical Legal Studies found that legal Large Language Models (LLM) can make up case laws and cite incorrect sources to substantiate claims. E.g., OpenAI’s Whisper has been reported to “hallucinate” entire phrases or sentences, especially when speakers pause during speech.
Search Engine Bias: AI-powered legal research may reflect user behaviour patterns, not objective comprehensiveness. Risk of “invisibilising” important precedents, skewing legal arguments and judgments.
Loss of Human Nuance: Judicial decision-making requires context, empathy, and balancing of equities. Over-reliance on AI risks reducing adjudication to mechanical rule-based inferences.
Data Privacy and Security: Use of sensitive, non-public, or personal data in AI systems lacks a clear framework. Risk of data leaks, misuse, or surveillance by private vendors supplying AI tools.
Infrastructure Deficits: Many courts in India still rely heavily on paper-based processes. Weak internet connectivity, lack of digitisation, and poor hardware are major obstacles to AI deployment.

Courts are not just service providers; they are custodians of justice. Over-reliance on AI risks undermining fairness, transparency, and human judgment. Hence, AI must be adopted with caution, transparency and safeguards.

No Nod to Riverbed Mining without study on Sand Replenishment: SC

Context: In a major decision to curb environmental damage from sand mining, the Supreme Court ruled that no approval for riverbed mining can be granted without a scientific replenishment study.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Legal Framework for Sand Mining in India.

Background:

The ruling came in the backdrop of a case concerning sand and gravel extraction from the Shaliganga Nallah in Jammu & Kashmir, where mining was permitted to supply raw material for the construction of a four-lane Srinagar bypass project.
The J&K Expert Appraisal Committee had initially rejected the proposal citing over-exploitation and absence of replenishment data in the District Survey Report (DSR). However, environmental clearance was later granted despite these deficiencies, subject to shallow mining restrictions.
This clearance was challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) by environmental activists who argued that the approval violated the Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines.
The NGT in 2022 quashed the clearance, holding it to be environmentally unsound and procedurally defective.
The Union Territory of J&K, NHAI, and the private project proponent appealed against this order, but the Supreme Court upheld the NGT’s decision, affirming that replenishment studies are a mandatory requirement for granting mining approvals.

What is Replenishment Study?

A replenishment study is a scientific assessment of the rate at which sand, gravel, and other riverbed materials are naturally replaced in a given stretch of a river or stream.

It determines how much sand is deposited annually by the natural processes of erosion, weathering, sediment transport, and deposition.
It determines the maximum permissible extraction limits so that mining does not exceed natural recovery.

Recent Ruling of Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court has described replenishment study as a mandatory requirement before giving clearance for sand mining.
The court stated- "Just as forest conservation requires assessment of tree growth rate before permitting timber harvesting, a replenishment study enables us to take an informed decision as to whether sand mining can be permitted without degrading the river’s natural balance.”
The absence of replenishment studies makes a District Survey Report (which identifies potential areas for sustainable mining of minor minerals like sand, gravel, and stones ) as fundamentally defective.

Legal Framework for Sand Mining in India

Constitutional Provisions:
- Union List (Seventh Schedule) empowers Parliament to regulate mines and mineral development.
- State List allows states to regulate mines and minerals, subject to Union control.
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act 1957 (MMDR Act):
- Provides the overarching legislative framework for mineral development in India.
- Section 15 empowers state governments to frame rules for minor minerals, which include sand.
Environment Protection Act 1986 (EPA): Provides the basis for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notifications regulating sand mining activities.
EIA Notification 2006 and Amendments:
- Made prior environmental clearance mandatory for all mining projects.
- The Supreme Court in Deepak Kumar v. State of Haryana (2012) clarified that this requirement applies even to minor minerals irrespective of lease size.
- The 2016 Amendment introduced the concept of District Survey Reports (DSRs) for scientific identification of mining sites, making them mandatory before granting ECs.
Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines 2016:
- Issued under the EPA, these guidelines were the first comprehensive attempt to regulate sand mining sustainably.
- They mandate the calculation of the annual rate of replenishment before any clearance is issued.
- They also recommend restrictions on mining during monsoon season, cluster-based approaches for small leases, and the promotion of alternatives such as manufactured sand (M-sand).
Enforcement and Monitoring Guidelines for Sand Mining, 2020
- These guidelines focus on strengthening compliance and monitoring. They recommend IT-enabled systems such as e-challans, GPS tracking of vehicles, drone surveillance, and satellite monitoring.
- They direct states to constitute dedicated task forces and involve district-level authorities in enforcement.

Gender Disparity in Organ Transplants in India

Context: The National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) recently issued a direction stating that women patients and relatives of deceased donors will receive priority in organ allocation. This is part of a 10-point advisory aimed at addressing gender disparity in organ transplants and encouraging donations.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: State of Organ Donation in India and world.Mains: Gender Disparity in Organ Transplants in India.

India’s Organ Transplant Paradox

A study in the British Medical Journal titled “India’s organ transplant paradox: women donate the most and receive the least” highlighted striking imbalances:

Between 2019 and 2023, 63.8% of all living organ donors in India were women. In the same period, men accounted for 69.8% of all organ recipients, showing a stark gender gap.
Out of 56,509 living organ donations made in the last five years, 36,038 donations came from women. However, only 17,041 transplants were performed on women, while 39,447 transplants went to men.

This indicates that women form the majority of donors but remain a minority among recipients.

Legal Framework for Organ Donation in India:

The Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA) 1994 provides the basic legal framework for organ donation and transplantation in India.
The Act permits organ donation by both living donors and deceased (brain-stem dead) donors, subject to strict medical and ethical conditions.
It prohibits commercial trade in human organs, making buying or selling of organs a punishable offence with stringent financial and judicial penalties.
An amendment in 2011 expanded the scope of the law to include the donation of human tissues.

The Act has established the National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO) as the apex body to oversee Organ donation. All hospitals engaged in organ retrieval or transplantation be registered and linked with NOTTO.

Status of Organ Donation:

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO) around 1,30,000 solid organ transplants are performed worldwide each year, but this meets only about 10% of the global demand.
Countries with streamlined donor systems and higher public awareness, such as Spain and the U.S., have achieved much better organ donation rates.
In India, the demand-supply gap is severe. Every year, nearly 1.8 lakh people develop end-stage kidney disease, but only around 12,000 kidney transplants are performed. Due to this shortage, a large number of patients are forced to remain on dialysis or face premature death.
An organ donor can save up to eight lives through organ donation and can help many more through tissue donation such as corneas, skin, and bones.

However, lack of awareness, cultural myths, and hesitation to discuss organ donation within families remain the biggest obstacles in organ donation.