The Sikkim High Court dismissed a petition seeking restrictions on media reporting of FIR contents and naming of accused persons.
The Court held that reporting based on an FIR does not amount to a violation of privacy, as an FIR is a public document accessible under law.
FIR as a Public Document
Legal Status
Under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, an FIR is treated as a public document open to inspection.
Access to Information
Any individual can obtain a copy of an FIR for legal remedies, public awareness, or reporting purposes.
Media Reporting
Media organisations are permitted to report FIR contents, including the identity of the accused, when based on official public records.
Right to Fair Trial
Constitutional Protection
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a fair trial.
Limits on Media Reporting
While reporting is permissible, media coverage should:
Avoid declaring the accused guilty before trial
Prevent media trials and sensationalism
Ensure judicial proceedings remain unbiased
Judicial Intervention
Courts may restrict reporting if:
It prejudices ongoing investigations or trials
Selective leaks are used to influence public opinion
Reporting becomes defamatory or violates due process
About FIR
Meaning
First Information Report (FIR) is the first official information recorded by police regarding a cognizable offence under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Purpose
It initiates criminal investigation and sets the legal process into motion.
Who Can File an FIR
An FIR may be filed by:
Victim
Witness
Any person aware of the offence
Cognizable Offence
Applicable only to cognizable offences where police can investigate without prior court approval.
Zero FIR
A Zero FIR can be filed at any police station irrespective of territorial jurisdiction and later transferred to the appropriate police station.
Key Issues Involved
Freedom of Press vs Fair Trial
Balancing media freedom under Article 19(1)(a) with the accused’s right to fair trial under Article 21 remains crucial.
Risk of Media Trial
Excessive or sensational reporting may influence public perception and judicial neutrality.
Privacy Concerns
Public disclosure of identities may affect reputation even before conviction.
Way Forward
Develop ethical media-reporting guidelines for criminal cases.
Ensure responsible journalism without compromising judicial fairness.
Strengthen safeguards against selective leaks and misinformation.
The Lok Sabha recently passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026, aimed at promoting “Ease of Doing Business” and “Ease of Living” by decriminalising minor and technical offences across multiple laws.
The Bill marks one of the largest legal reform exercises in independent India, amending 784 provisions across 79 Central Acts under 23 Ministries. It seeks to reduce unnecessary criminalisation, improve regulatory compliance, and create a more trust-based governance
framework.
The legislation reflects the government’s broader effort to modernise India’s legal and regulatory ecosystem and encourage entrepreneurship, investment, and administrative efficiency.
Background and Rationale
India’s regulatory framework has historically contained numerous criminal penalties for procedural and technical defaults.
Examples include:
Filing delays
Documentation errors
Licensing irregularities
Minor compliance lapses
Such criminal provisions often led to:
Regulatory burden
Fear of prosecution
Increased litigation
Delays in business operations
Harassment of individuals and enterprises
The Jan Vishwas reforms aim to replace excessive criminalisation with civil and administrative penalties.
Key Provisions of the Jan Vishwas Amendment Bill, 2026
Large-Scale Decriminalisation
The Bill decriminalises 717 provisions involving technical and procedural defaults.
Nature of Offences Covered
Minor procedural violations
Documentation-related lapses
Compliance delays
Non-fraudulent administrative defaults
The reform focuses on offences that do not involve:
Fraud
Public safety threats
Serious financial crimes
Environmental harm
Significance
Reduces burden on criminal justice system
Encourages voluntary compliance
Reduces fear among businesses and citizens
Improves investor confidence
Shift from Criminal Courts to Administrative Adjudication
Instead of criminal courts, designated Adjudicating Officers such as Deputy Commissioners and other officials will decide penalties for covered offences.
Powers of Adjudicating Officers
They may:
Conduct inquiries
Summon evidence
Examine documents
Impose penalties
This creates a faster and less adversarial dispute-resolution mechanism.
Benefits
Reduces court pendency
Faster disposal of cases
Lower compliance costs
Administrative efficiency
Administrative Empowerment of Ministries
The Bill authorises Central Ministries to appoint designated officers for implementation and enforcement.
This decentralised administrative framework allows ministries to:
Handle sector-specific compliance issues
Improve monitoring and enforcement
Reduce procedural delays
The reform strengthens executive capacity in governance and regulation.
Compounding of Offences
The Bill permits compounding for certain violations.
Meaning of Compounding
An individual or entity can settle specified offences by paying a prescribed amount instead of undergoing criminal prosecution or trial.
Importance
Saves time and legal expenses
Reduces litigation burden
Encourages quick dispute settlement
Improves ease of compliance
Compounding is widely used in taxation, corporate, and financial regulations.
Inflation-Based Penalty Revision
To preserve the deterrent value of penalties, fines will automatically increase by:
10% of the prescribed minimum amount every three years
Purpose
Prevents penalties from becoming ineffective over time
Ensures penalties remain economically relevant
Reduces need for repeated legislative amendments This introduces a dynamic and modern penalty structure.
Warning Mechanism for Minor Infractions
The Bill introduces warning notices for:
First-time offenders
Minor procedural lapses
Before imposing financial penalties, authorities may issue warnings to encourage voluntary correction.
Benefits
Promotes trust-based governance
Reduces harassment
Encourages compliance culture
Supports small businesses and startups
Significance of the Bill
Improving Ease of Doing Business
The Bill reduces criminal liability for businesses and entrepreneurs, making India’s regulatory environment more investment-friendly.
This can:
Encourage entrepreneurship
Improve investor confidence
Reduce compliance burden
Support MSMEs and startups
Strengthening Ease of Living
Citizens often face legal complications for minor procedural errors.
The Bill simplifies compliance and reduces unnecessary criminal prosecution for ordinary citizens.
Reducing Judicial Burden
India’s courts face massive pendency of cases.
By shifting minor violations to administrative adjudication, the Bill can:
Reduce burden on courts
Speed up justice delivery
Improve judicial efficiency
Promoting Trust-Based Governance
The reform reflects a transition from:
“Punitive governance” to “facilitative governance”
The government aims to build a regulatory ecosystem based on trust, transparency, and voluntary compliance.
Supporting Economic Growth
Simplified regulations and reduced legal uncertainty can enhance:
Domestic investment
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
Business expansion
Economic competitiveness
Concerns and Challenges
Despite its benefits, certain concerns remain.
Risk of Administrative Overreach
Giving extensive powers to adjudicating officers may lead to:
Arbitrary decision-making
Lack of accountability
Excessive executive discretion
Reduced Judicial Oversight
Replacing courts with administrative mechanisms could weaken procedural safeguards and independent scrutiny.
Need for Capacity Building
Effective implementation requires:
Proper training of adjudicating officers
Digital systems for transparency
Standard operating procedures
Ensuring Fairness and Transparency
Administrative adjudication must ensure:
Natural justice
Transparency
Appeal mechanisms
Non-discriminatory enforcement
Way Forward
To ensure successful implementation, the government should:
Develop transparent digital adjudication systems
Establish clear appellate mechanisms
Ensure periodic review of decriminalised provisions
Strengthen accountability of adjudicating officers
Promote awareness among businesses and citizens
Balanced implementation is essential to prevent misuse while improving compliance.
Conclusion
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2026 represents a major reform in India’s regulatory and governance framework. By decriminalising minor offences, introducing administrative adjudication, and promoting trust-based governance, the Bill seeks to create a more efficient, business-friendly, and citizen-centric legal system.
If implemented effectively, the reforms can significantly improve India’s ease of doing business, reduce judicial burden, and strengthen economic growth while ensuring better governance and regulatory compliance.
Maternal mortality remains a critical public health and governance challenge in India. Although the country has achieved one of the world’s largest declines in Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR), progress has slowed in recent years. A study published in The Lancet highlights that India still faces major challenges in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) target of reducing MMR below 70 by 2030.
MMR refers to the number of maternal deaths per one lakh live births due to pregnancy-related causes. India contributes nearly 10% of global maternal deaths, underlining the need for sustained policy intervention.
Status of Maternal Mortality in India
India’s MMR has declined significantly from 508 in 1990 to around 116 in 2023, reflecting improvements in maternal healthcare infrastructure, institutional deliveries, and public
health interventions.
According to the Sample Registration System (SRS), MMR reduced from 122 during 2015–17 to 88 during 2021–23. However, differences remain between national and UN estimates, with UN estimates placing India’s MMR at around 80. Such data gaps create challenges in accurate policy assessment and monitoring.
Despite overall progress, interstate disparities remain severe. States such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu have achieved relatively low MMR levels due to better healthcare systems and higher institutional deliveries. In contrast, states like Assam and Uttar Pradesh continue to report high maternal mortality, reflecting inequalities in healthcare access, nutrition, and infrastructure.
Further, the pace of reduction in maternal deaths has slowed, making the SDG target increasingly difficult to achieve within the remaining timeframe.
Causes of High Maternal Mortality
Haemorrhage
Severe bleeding during or after childbirth remains the leading cause of maternal deaths in India. Delayed emergency obstetric care significantly increases fatalities.
Sepsis and Infections
Poor hygiene during delivery and delayed treatment of infections contribute to maternal mortality, especially in rural and underserved regions.
Unsafe Abortions
Limited access to safe abortion services often forces women to undergo unsafe procedures, resulting in serious complications and deaths.
Anaemia and Malnutrition
Iron deficiency, undernutrition, and poor maternal health weaken women during pregnancy, increasing vulnerability to complications during childbirth.
Hypertensive Disorders
Conditions such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia can cause seizures, organ failure, and maternal death if not diagnosed and treated on time.
Delays in Healthcare Access
The “three delays” model remains a major challenge:
Delay in deciding to seek care
Delay in reaching healthcare facilities
Delay in receiving timely treatment
These delays are often linked to poverty, poor transport infrastructure, and weak healthcare systems.
Government Initiatives
India has launched several schemes to improve maternal healthcare:
Janani Suraksha Yojana promotes institutional deliveries through conditional cash transfers.
Janani Shishu Suraksha Karyakram provides free delivery, medicines, diagnostics, transport, and food for pregnant women.
Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan ensures free antenatal check-ups and early
detection of high-risk pregnancies.
Surakshit Matritva Aashwasan guarantees respectful and quality maternal healthcare services.
LaQshya Programme focuses on improving labour room and maternity care quality.
Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana provides maternity benefits to support nutrition and healthcare needs.
Way Forward
Improving maternal health requires strengthening primary healthcare systems, especially antenatal, institutional delivery, and postnatal services in rural and high-burden states.
Special attention must be given to states such as Assam and Uttar Pradesh through better infrastructure, trained medical staff, and continuous monitoring.
Preventing major causes of maternal deaths requires timely management of haemorrhage, hypertension, and infections through emergency obstetric care and skilled birth attendants.
Further, improving maternal nutrition, promoting family planning, and increasing awareness regarding reproductive health can significantly reduce maternal risks and early pregnancies.
Conclusion
Reducing maternal mortality is essential for achieving gender justice, public health, and sustainable development goals. While India has made substantial progress, regional disparities, healthcare gaps, and slowing improvements remain serious concerns. A comprehensive approach focused on quality healthcare, nutrition, awareness, and equitable access is crucial to ensure safe motherhood for every woman in India.
The Government e-Marketplace (GeM) has achieved a Gross Merchandise Value (GMV) of
₹18.4 lakh crore, including ₹5 lakh crore procurement in FY 2025–26. The platform has emerged as a major pillar of India’s digital governance and public procurement reforms.
About GeM
Launch and Administration
Launched in 2016 by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Operated by the GeM Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV).
Replaced the earlier Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals (DGS&D) system.
Objective
GeM aims to ensure:
Transparency in procurement
Competitive pricing
Efficient bidding
Timely delivery of goods and services
Legal Basis
Procurement through GeM is mandated under the amended General Financial Rules (GFRs) for government departments.
Key Highlights
Rising Procurement Volume
GeM has crossed ₹18.4 lakh crore GMV.
Procurement worth ₹5 lakh crore was recorded in FY 2025–26 alone.
MSME Participation
MSMEs account for nearly 68% of total orders.
They contribute around 47.1% of total GMV.
More than 11 lakh MSMEs are registered on the platform.
Increasing State Participation
Procurement by States and Union Territories increased by 38.3%, indicating wider adoption.
Inclusive Growth
Participation of women-led enterprises, startups, and SC/ST entrepreneurs has significantly increased.
Technology Integration
GeM uses:
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Machine Learning (ML)
Data analytics These tools help in:
Fraud detection
Price monitoring
Efficient bidding and vendor assessment
Significance
Promotes Transparent Governance
Reduces human discretion and corruption in procurement processes.
Enhances accountability and auditability.
Boost to MSMEs and Startups
Provides direct market access to small businesses.
Encourages formalisation and digital inclusion.
Fiscal Efficiency
Competitive bidding lowers procurement costs and improves value for public money.
Strengthening Digital Governance
Supports India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) ecosystem through paperless and cashless procurement.
Challenges
Digital literacy gaps among small vendors.
Cybersecurity and data privacy concerns.
Need for faster dispute resolution and grievance redressal.
Way Forward
Expand digital awareness among rural enterprises.
Strengthen cybersecurity architecture.
Improve logistics integration and vendor support systems.
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) are moving towards intelligence-led action against doping supply chains in India.
The initiative shifts the focus from merely testing athletes to dismantling organised networks involved in the production, trafficking, and distribution of performance-enhancing drugs.
Operation Upstream
About
Operation Upstream is a global intelligence-driven anti-doping initiative led by WADA in collaboration with agencies such as:
CBI
INTERPOL
EUROPOL
Objective
To target the entire doping ecosystem rather than only penalising athletes.
Achievements
Operation Upstream has resulted in:
250+ raids
1.8 billion doses seized
88 illegal laboratories shut down across 20 countries
Anti-Doping Framework in India
Existing Legal Position
Doping is treated mainly as a disciplinary offence under rules aligned with the WADA Code.
It is not currently classified as a specific criminal offence.
National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA)
National Anti-Doping Agency is responsible for:
Testing athletes
Conducting investigations
Imposing sanctions and suspensions
National Anti-Doping Act, 2022
Provides statutory backing to anti-doping mechanisms in India.
Establishes NADA as a statutory authority.
Current Sanctions
Penalties presently include:
Suspension
Disqualification of results
Monetary fines
However, imprisonment provisions are absent.
Key Concerns
Gap in Criminal Law
Existing laws do not specifically punish:
Suppliers
Traffickers
Coaches and support staff involved in doping
Organised Crime Dimension
Doping networks increasingly involve illegal laboratories, financial transactions, and international trafficking chains.
Threat to Sports Integrity
Doping undermines fair competition, athlete health, and India’s sporting credibility.
Proposed WADA–CBI Collaboration
Joint Investigations
WADA and CBI will collaborate to investigate organised doping networks.
Intelligence-Based Enforcement
Focus areas include:
Financial tracking
Surveillance
Intelligence sharing
Coordinated raids
Targeting Support Ecosystem
Coaches, physiotherapists, trainers, and suppliers involved in doping activities may face investigation and penalties.
Legal Reforms
Proposed reforms under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) may criminalise doping-related activities and strengthen enforcement.
About WADA
Establishment
WADA was established in 1999 to promote clean sport globally.
Functions
Issues the World Anti-Doping Code
Accredits testing laboratories
Oversees testing, monitoring, and compliance
Conducts intelligence-led investigations
Emerging Role
Increasing focus on treating doping as organised transnational crime.
Way Forward
Introduce clear criminal provisions against doping supply networks.
Strengthen coordination between sports bodies and law-enforcement agencies.
Promote athlete awareness and ethical sports culture.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has introduced major curriculum reforms for secondary education to implement the vision of the National Education Policy. The reforms aim to transform India’s education system from rote memorisation toward multidisciplinary, competency-based, and skill-oriented learning.
The new curriculum emphasises multilingualism, vocational education, digital literacy, and flexible subject choices, aligning school education with 21st-century requirements.
Key Features of the New Curriculum
Three-Language Formula
Under the new framework:
A third language will become compulsory from Class 6.
It will be included in Class 10 board examinations by 2031.
Students must study at least two Indian languages.
English will be treated as a foreign language rather than the primary medium of identity.
CBSE will offer all 22 languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, promoting linguistic diversity and cultural inclusion.
Vocational Education
Vocational education will become compulsory for Classes 9 and 10 from the 2027–28 academic session.
Students will be assessed through:
Board examinations, or
Annual evaluation systems.
The reform seeks to bridge the gap between education and employability by introducing practical and industry-relevant skills at an early stage.
Two-Level Subjects
Mathematics and Science will be offered at:
Standard level, and
Advanced level.
This flexibility allows students to choose subjects according to their aptitude, reducing academic pressure while encouraging deeper learning for interested students.
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Skills
AI and computational thinking will be introduced from Classes 3–8 and gradually expanded. By 2029:
AI will become a compulsory board subject in Class 10.
The curriculum also promotes coding, problem-solving, and digital literacy to prepare students for emerging technological demands.
Phased Implementation
CBSE has adopted a phased roadmap extending up to 2031 for complete implementation of NEP-aligned reforms.
The gradual transition aims to:
Train teachers,
Develop infrastructure,
Revise textbooks and assessment methods,
Ensure smooth adaptation across schools.
Significance of the Reforms
The reforms are significant because they:
Promote holistic and multidisciplinary education,
Encourage experiential and skill-based learning,
Strengthen linguistic diversity,
Improve employability and digital readiness,
Reduce dependency on rote learning.
They also align with India’s objective of building a knowledge-based economy and preparing students for global competitiveness.
Challenges
However, implementation challenges remain:
Teacher training and availability,
Infrastructure gaps in rural schools,
Language-related political concerns,
Unequal digital access,
Need for updated assessment systems.
Conclusion
The CBSE curriculum reforms represent a major step toward transforming India’s education system in line with NEP 2020. Successful implementation will require coordinated efforts among governments, schools, teachers, and parents to ensure inclusive, flexible, and future-ready education for all students.
The reported move of seven out of ten AAP Rajya Sabha members to merge with the BJP has reignited debate on the Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as the Anti-Defection Law. The issue raises critical questions about whether such a shift qualifies as a legitimate “merger” or attracts disqualification.
The Anti-Defection Law: Background
The Anti-Defection Law was introduced through the 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1985 to curb the growing trend of “Aya Ram, Gaya Ram” politics—frequent party-
switching by legislators for personal or political gains. Under the law, a legislator can be disqualified if they:
Voluntarily give up membership of their political party, or
Vote or abstain from voting against party directions (whip)
The decision on disqualification is made by the Speaker (Legislative Assembly) or Chairman (Parliament).
Exceptions to Disqualification
Split Exception (Removed)
Earlier under Paragraph 3
Allowed protection if one-third members defected together
Removed by the 91st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2003 due to rampant misuse
Merger Exception (Existing)
Provided under Paragraph 4
Protects legislators from disqualification if their party merges with another
Two key conditions:
Paragraph 4(1): The original political party must merge
Paragraph 4(2): At least two-thirds of the legislature party
must support the merger
Intended to safeguard genuine ideological realignments Core Legal Issue: Interpretation of “Merger”
The present controversy hinges on how Paragraph 4 is interpreted:
Conjunctive Interpretation
Requires BOTH:
A formal merger at the national party level, and
Support of at least two-thirds legislators
Ensures party-level legitimacy
Disjunctive Interpretation
Requires ONLY:
Two-thirds support of legislators
Creates a “deemed merger” even without central party approval
This difference significantly affects the legality of recent defections.
Judicial Precedents
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swamy Prasad Maurya (2007):
The Supreme Court supported a conjunctive approach, stating that legislative splits must reflect actual party splits.
Goa Congress Merger Case (2019–2022):
The Bombay High Court upheld the merger of Congress MLAs into BJP using a disjunctive interpretation, ruling that two-thirds support alone is sufficient.
Expert Opinions
P.D.T. Achary (Former Lok Sabha Secretary-General): Supports the conjunctive view, arguing that without national-level merger approval, defections should attract
disqualification.
Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy:
Accepts the possibility of a deemed merger, but highlights structural flaws—especially in Rajya Sabha representation.
Key Challenges
Ambiguity in drafting: Paragraph 4 allows multiple interpretations
Potential misuse: Opportunistic defections may be disguised as mergers
Structural anomaly:
Rajya Sabha MPs change parties
MLAs who elected them remain in original party
Weakens representative accountability
Institutional concerns: Neutrality of Speaker/Chairman often questioned
Way Forward
Supreme Court intervention to settle interpretation disputes
Constitutional amendment to clearly define merger
conditions
Institutional reforms:
Transfer adjudication powers to an independent tribunal
Strengthen impartiality in decision-making
These reforms have been recommended by bodies such as the Election Commission, Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), and Law Commission (1999).
Conclusion
The ongoing controversy is more than a political development
—it is a constitutional stress test for India’s anti-defection framework. The merger exception, originally designed to protect ideological shifts, risks becoming a loophole for political opportunism. Without judicial clarity and legislative
reform, the Anti-Defection Law remains vulnerable to the very practices it sought to eliminate.
Justice Surya Kant highlighted major gaps in justice delivery while inaugurating Phase III of the e-Courts Project, emphasising the need for a citizen-centric digital judiciary.
He stressed that despite constitutional guarantees, a significant gap remains between legal entitlements and citizens’ lived realities.
Issues with Access to Justice in India
Triple Barrier
Access to justice is hindered by:
Distance,
Delay,
Implementation gaps.
Massive Case Pendency
Over 5 crore cases are pending across Indian courts, with nearly 85% pending in subordinate courts.
Judicial Vacancies
According to the India Justice Report 2025:
More than 5,600 judicial vacancies exist,
Around 33% vacancies are in High Courts.
Low Judge-to-Population Ratio
15 judges per 10 lakh population15\ judges\ per\ 10\ lakh\ population15 judges per 10 lakh population
India has only around 15 judges per 10 lakh population, far below the Law Commission’s recommended 50 judges.
Undertrial Crisis
Nearly 76% of prisoners in India are undertrials, reflecting delays in criminal justice delivery.
Procedural Delays
Frequent adjournments, complex legal procedures, and weak case management systems slow adjudication.
Courts Project
The e-Courts Project is a flagship initiative launched in 2005 under the National e-Governance Plan to modernise the judiciary.
Objectives
Improve access to justice,
Reduce delays,
Increase transparency through technology.
Key Features
e-Filing,
Virtual hearings,
Online case tracking,
National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG),
Integration with e-Prisons and police systems.
eSewa Kendras
These centres help digitally excluded citizens access court services.
Other Important Initiatives
Legal Aid & Outreach
National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)
Tele-Law Programme
Nyaya Bandhu
Speedy Justice
Fast Track Courts,
Lok Adalats,
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
Transparency Measures
Live streaming of proceedings,
National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG),
Recognition of electronic evidence under BNS, BNSS, and BSA, 2023.
Measures to Improve Access to Justice
Strengthening Judicial Capacity
Increase judge strength and fill vacancies to reduce pendency.
Digital Transformation
Expand e-filing, virtual hearings, and digital infrastructure in rural areas.
ADR Mechanisms
Promote mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats to reduce court burden.
Legal Aid Expansion
Strengthen NALSA and legal awareness programmes for vulnerable groups.
Judicial Infrastructure
Improve court infrastructure and expand Gram Nyayalayas.
Conclusion
Ensuring access to justice is essential for strengthening the rule of law and constitutional democracy in India. Judicial reforms, technological integration, and inclusive legal aid mechanisms are critical for delivering timely, affordable, and equitable justice to all citizens.
Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana – Gramin (PMAY-G) has emerged as one of India’s largest rural welfare programmes since its launch in 2016. Implemented by the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD), the scheme aims to provide pucca houses with basic amenities to homeless and deprived rural households under the broader vision of “Housing for All”.
PMAY-G replaced the earlier Indira Awaas Yojana and introduced major reforms in beneficiary identification, financial transparency, digital monitoring, and convergence with other welfare schemes. Over the last decade, it has significantly improved rural housing conditions, women’s empowerment, and livelihood generation.
About PMAY-G
PMAY-G is a flagship rural housing scheme designed to provide affordable and durable housing to poor households living in kutcha or dilapidated houses.
Objectives
The scheme seeks to:
Eliminate rural homelessness
Improve living standards in villages
Promote dignity and social security
Ensure access to basic amenities
Support inclusive rural development
Key Features of PMAY-G
Expanded Housing Target
Initially, the scheme targeted the construction of 2.95 crore rural houses by 2024.
The programme has now been extended till FY 2028–29, with an enhanced target of 4.95 crore houses.
This expansion reflects the government’s commitment to universal rural housing coverage.
Targeted Beneficiary Approach
PMAY-G prioritises the most vulnerable sections of rural society.
Major Beneficiaries
Landless households
Homeless families
Families living in kutcha houses
Scheduled Castes (SCs)
Scheduled Tribes (STs)
At least 60% of the targets are allocated to SC/ST households, ensuring social inclusion and equity.
Beneficiary Identification Process
Beneficiaries are identified through:
Socio-Economic and Caste Census (SECC) 2011 housing deprivation criteria
Awaas+ surveys
Gram Sabha verification
This process ensures transparency, local participation, and reduced exclusion errors.
Financial Assistance
Under PMAY-G, financial support is directly transferred to beneficiaries through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
Assistance Amount
₹1.20 lakh in plain areas
₹1.30 lakh in hilly, difficult, and North-Eastern states
The DBT mechanism reduces leakages and enhances accountability.
Cost Sharing Formula
The scheme follows different Centre-State funding ratios:
60:40 in plain states
90:10 in North-Eastern and Himalayan states
100% Central funding for Union Territories (except Jammu & Kashmir)
This flexible structure supports financially weaker and geographically difficult regions.
Housing Standards
Each PMAY-G house must have:
Minimum area of 25 square metres
Hygienic cooking space
Basic living facilities
The scheme focuses on quality housing rather than mere shelter provision.
Women-Centric Ownership
A major reform under PMAY-G is prioritising women in house ownership. Houses are generally registered:
In the name of the female head, or
Jointly with the spouse
This has strengthened women’s economic security and social empowerment.
Convergence with Other Schemes
PMAY-G integrates with multiple rural welfare schemes for holistic development.
Major Convergences
MGNREGA
Provides 90–95 days of wage employment during house construction. Swachh Bharat Mission – Gramin
Provides ₹12,000 assistance for toilet construction. Other Support
Beneficiaries may also receive support under:
Ujjwala Yojana
Saubhagya Scheme
Jal Jeevan Mission
This convergence improves overall rural living conditions.
Digital Governance and Monitoring
PMAY-G has adopted technology-driven implementation mechanisms.
AwaasSoft Platform
Construction stages are digitally monitored through:
Time-stamped photographs
Geo-tagging
Aadhaar-based face authentication
AI-based anomaly detection These features enhance:
Transparency
Real-time monitoring
Accountability
Reduction in corruption
The use of digital governance has made PMAY-G one of India’s most technology-enabled welfare schemes.
Major Achievements of PMAY-G
Large-Scale Housing Construction
Around 76.6% of sanctioned houses have already been completed.
More than ₹4,03,886 crore has been directly transferred to beneficiaries. This demonstrates efficient fund utilisation and implementation.
Women’s Empowerment
Approximately 74% of sanctioned houses are owned by women either solely or jointly. This has improved:
Financial inclusion
Household decision-making
Social status of rural women
Employment Generation
The scheme has generated nearly 568 crore person-days of employment through convergence with MGNREGA.
PMAY-G has therefore contributed significantly to rural livelihoods and economic activity.
Skill Development
Nearly 3 lakh rural masons have received training in disaster-resilient construction techniques.
This has:
Improved construction quality
Created rural employment opportunities
Enhanced local technical capacity
Support for Landless Families
About 2,68,480 landless beneficiaries have received land or financial assistance for housing support.
This promotes social justice and inclusion.
Significance of PMAY-G
The scheme is important because it:
Reduces rural poverty and homelessness
Improves health and sanitation outcomes
Strengthens women’s empowerment
Generates rural employment
Promotes financial inclusion through DBT
Supports inclusive and sustainable rural development
PMAY-G also contributes to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), especially:
SDG 1 (No Poverty)
SDG 5 (Gender Equality)
SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities)
Challenges
Despite significant progress, some challenges remain:
Delays in land availability
Rising construction costs
Regional disparities in implementation
Quality concerns in some areas
Digital literacy and connectivity gaps
Addressing these issues is essential for achieving universal rural housing coverage.
Conclusion
Over the last decade, PMAY-G has transformed rural housing in India by providing millions of poor households with dignified and durable homes. Through transparent beneficiary selection, women-centric ownership, digital monitoring, and convergence with welfare schemes, PMAY-G has become a model of technology-driven and inclusive governance.
As India moves toward the goal of universal housing, PMAY-G will continue to play a critical role in improving rural living standards, empowering vulnerable communities, and promoting equitable socio-economic development.
The Gujarat Legislative Assembly passed the Uniform Civil Code (UCC) Bill, 2026, becoming the second Indian state after Uttarakhand to implement a state-level UCC.
What is the Uniform Civil Code (UCC)?
The Uniform Civil Code refers to a common set of civil laws governing matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption, and maintenance for all citizens irrespective of religion.
Article 44Article\ 44Article 44
Article 44 of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP) directs the State to endeavour towards securing a Uniform Civil Code across India.
Key Features of the Gujarat UCC Bill, 2026
Standardised Civil Framework
The Bill replaces religion-based personal laws with uniform civil procedures related to marriage, divorce, and inheritance.
Gender Equality in Inheritance
Sons and daughters are granted equal inheritance rights over all forms of property, strengthening constitutional equality.
Mandatory Registration
Marriages must be registered within 60 days.
Live-in relationships must be registered within 30 days.
Monogamy for All
The law prohibits polygamy and bigamy across all communities and enforces a one-spouse system.
Civil Court Jurisdiction
All divorces and separations must be processed through civil courts, abolishing customary or extra-judicial divorce practices.
Tribal Exemption
Scheduled Tribes have been exempted to preserve their customary traditions and cultural identity.
The UCC debate largely concerns balancing religious freedom with gender justice and equality.
The Supreme Court, in cases such as Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, has repeatedly highlighted the need for a uniform civil framework to ensure justice and national integration.
Arguments in Favour of UCC
Promotes gender justice and equal rights.
Strengthens secularism and national unity.
Simplifies complex personal laws.
Reduces legal discrimination based on religion.
Concerns Associated with UCC
Fear of erosion of religious and cultural autonomy.
Concerns among minority communities regarding uniformity.
Challenges in balancing diversity with legal uniformity.
Conclusion
The Gujarat UCC Bill, 2026 marks a significant development in India’s governance and legal reform landscape. While it advances the principles of equality, secularism, and gender justice, its long-term success will depend upon balancing constitutional morality with India’s cultural diversity.
Context: Supreme Court in the Sita Soren vs Union of India judgement has overruled its 1998 judgement in P V Narsimha Rao Vs State (CBI/SPE) which granted immunity to the legislators in context of votes made in parliament and legislative assemblies.
Background of the Issue (P V Narsimha vs State (CBI/SPE) Case)
Article 105(2) of the Constitution of India grants immunity to Members of Parliament (‘MPs’) against prosecution in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee. Article 194(2) of the Constitution grants similar immunity to the members of Legislative Assembly.
PV Narsimha Rao case, Constitution Bench of 5 judges upheld the above immunity to the MPs as per Article 105(2) which included the speech or vote made in furtherance of receiving illegal gratification or bribe.
Privileges provided by the Constitution of India:
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and its Members, Article 105(2) reads:
No member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
In context of Powers, Privileges and Immunities of State Legislatures and their Members, Article 194(2) reads:
No member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature or any committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication by or under the authority of a House of such a Legislature of any report, paper, votes, or proceedings.
Observations in Sita Soren vs Union of India
Nature of Privileges in India:
Privileges not absolute: Unlike the House of Commons in the UK, India does not have ‘ancient and undoubted’ privileges which were vested after a struggle between Parliament and the King. Privileges in pre-independence India were governed by statute in the face of a reluctant colonial government. The statutory privilege transitioned to a constitutional privilege after the commencement of the Constitution.
Individual Member's Claim of Privilege: An individual member of the legislature cannot claim privilege to seek immunity from prosecution under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution for charges of bribery related to their votes or speeches in the legislature.
Such claim of immunity fails to meet the twofold test which involves examining whether such action is (1) connected to the collective functioning of the legislative house and (2) the action has a functional relationship "to the discharge of the essential duties of a legislator."
Purpose of Articles 105 and 194: Articles 105 and 194 aim to create an environment conducive to debate and deliberation within the legislature.
This purpose gets undermined when a member is influenced to vote or speak in a particular manner due to bribery.
Interpretation of Expressions: The expressions "anything" and "any" in Articles 105(2) and 194(2) must be interpreted in the context of the accompanying expressions.
The phrase "in respect of" means 'arising out of' or 'bearing a clear relation to' and cannot be construed to include anything remotely connected to the speech or vote given by a legislator.
Bribe as a crime:
Bribery and Immunity under Articles 105(2) and 194: Bribery is not immune under Article 105(2) and its corresponding provision in Article 194 because it constitutes a crime that is not essential to the casting of a vote or the ability to decide how a vote should be cast.
The same principle applies to bribery in connection with a speech in the House or a Committee.
Corruption and bribery by members of the legislatures undermine probity in public life.
Misuse and Immunity:
The potential for misuse against individual members of the legislature is neither increased nor decreased by recognizing the court's jurisdiction to prosecute a legislator alleged to have engaged in bribery.
Completion of Bribery Offense: The offense of bribery is completed at the moment when the legislator accepts the bribe, regardless of whether the agreed action is performed or not.
The majority interpretation in the PV Narasimha Rao case created a paradox. While accepting a bribe and voting as promised granted immunity, whereas voting independently or contrary led to prosecution. This situation has been corrected by the present case.
Conclusion:
By committing an act of bribery, the immunity of speech or action without fear or favour is taken away when a member votes in a certain way not because of their belief or position on an issue but because of a bribe taken by the member.
Corruption and bribery of members of the legislature erode the foundation of Indian Parliamentary democracy. It is destructive of the aspirational and deliberative ideals of the Constitution and creates a polity which deprives citizens of a responsible, responsive, and representative democracy.
Context:SC stays Lok Sabha privileges panel proceedings on West Bengal BJP MP’s ‘injury complaint’.
Parliamentary privileges
Each House of Parliament and its Committees collectively and members of each House individually enjoy certain rights, privileges and immunities without which they cannot perform their functions efficiently and effectively.
The object of parliamentary privilege is to safeguard the freedom, the authority and the dignity of Parliament.
They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House collectively for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
The Constitution has also extended the parliamentary privileges to those persons who are entitled to speak and take part in the proceedings of the house i.e. attorney general of India and Union Ministers.
Collective Privileges
Individual privileges
Enjoyed by each house of the parliament collectively
Enjoyed by the members of each house individually
Right to publish its reports, debates and proceedings
MPs cannot be arrested during the session of Parliament and 40 days before the beginning and 40 days after the end of a session.
Exclude strangers from its proceeding for secret sittings
Freedom of speech in parliament (article 105) and freedom of speech in state assembly (article 194).
Make rules to regulate its own procedure and conduct of business
Exempted from jury service, can refuse to give evidence, and appear as a witness in a case pending in a court when parliament is in session
Punish members as well as outsiders for breach of its privileges or its contempt
Right to receive immediate information of the arrest, detention, conviction, imprisonment, and release of a member
Institute inquiries and order the attendance of witnesses
Courts are prohibited to inquire into the proceedings of a house or its committees
No legal process can be served within the precincts of the House without the permission of the presiding officer
Committee of Privileges
Examines the cases of breach of privileges of the house and its members and recommend appropriate action.
Members: 15 members in Lok Sabha and 10 members in Rajya Sabha respectively.
The speaker refers the issue of disqualification under the anti-defection rules to this committee for enquiry.
can summon relevant individuals for examination and study pertinent documents.
After reviewing the incidents or cases brought before it, the Parliament Privileges Committee makes recommendations "as it may deem fit”.
The privilege committee of the Rajya Sabha is chaired by the Deputy Chairperson but in Lok Sabha, there is no such rule.
