Constitution & Polity of India

Supreme Court Allows Direct Recruitment for District Judges

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has permitted serving judicial officers to apply for the post of District Judge through the direct recruitment channel. This ruling marks a significant reinterpretation of Article 233(2) of the Constitution, which deals with the appointment of District Judges.

image 24

Background:

Traditionally, District Judges have been appointed through two distinct routes:

  1. Direct recruitment from practising advocates (Bar quota), and
  2. Promotion from the subordinate judiciary.

The controversy arose after a Kerala judicial officer was disqualified from applying under the advocate quota based on the Supreme Court’s Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court of Delhi (2020) judgment. The Court had earlier held that a person serving as a judicial officer could not be considered an “advocate” under Article 233(2).

However, recognising the evolving nature of judicial service and the need to widen talent pools, a five-judge Constitution Bench revisited the issue to harmonise merit-based selection with judicial experience.

Key Directions Issued:

  • Eligibility Expansion: Serving judicial officers can now apply for District Judge posts under the direct recruitment quota.
  • Experience Requirement: Applicants must have a minimum of 7 years of continuous professional experience — either as an advocate, a judicial officer, or a combination of both.
  • Age Limit: Minimum 35 years of age is required for all candidates.
  • Eligibility Timeline: Eligibility shall be determined at the time of application, not at the time of appointment.

Significance of the Ruling:

  • Widened Talent Pool: Ensures merit and experience from both bar and bench can contribute to higher judicial positions.
  • Judicial Efficiency: Brings practical courtroom and administrative experience together.
  • Constitutional Clarity: Provides a definitive interpretation of Article 233(2), resolving ambiguity from earlier rulings.
  • Institutional Impact: Strengthens the independence and inclusiveness of the judiciary.

Way Forward:

The judgment paves the way for more transparent and inclusive recruitment in the higher judiciary. It aligns with the larger constitutional goal of ensuring efficiency, independence, and accessibility in India’s judicial system.

Secularism and the Mysuru Dasara Case

Context: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the Karnataka government’s decision to invite Booker Prize winner Banu Mushtaq, a Muslim, to inaugurate the Mysuru Dasara festivities. 

The Court reminded the petitioner of the Preamble, which enshrines secularism, liberty of thought and faith, equality, and fraternity as core ideals of the Indian Constitution.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Preamble, Article 25, landmark cases related to secularism.
Mains: Indian model of secularism.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

  • The Court noted that the inauguration was a State function and not a purely religious ritual, and hence no citizen could be excluded on the basis of religion. 
  • Denying participation on religious grounds violates the Preamble’s ideals of equality and fraternity.
  • The Court reaffirmed the M. Ismail Faruqui (1994) case judgment,“the State has no religion of its own and must act with neutrality”

Constitutional Position on Secularism

India follows a model of secularism that ensures respect for all religions while maintaining State neutrality.

  • The Preamble explicitly declares India to be a secular State (42nd Amendment, 1976).
  • Secularism has been upheld as part of the basic structure of the Constitution in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) and S.R. Bommai (1994).
  • Article 25 guarantees freedom of religion while allowing the State to regulate secular activities associated with religious practice. 
  • In R.C. Poudyal (1993), the Court observed that secularism means equal treatment of all religions without discrimination.
  • In Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India (2024), the Court held that secularism allows the State to intervene to eliminate practices that impede equality and development.

The Mysuru Dasara judgment underlines that Indian secularism is not about a rigid separation of religion from the State, but about principled equidistance and equal respect for all faiths. 

Also Read: What makes the Indian Constitution Secular? 

Climate-Health Vision with lessons from India

Context: The Global Conference on Climate and Health held in Brazil in July 2025 shaped the Belém Health Action Plan which will be launched at COP30.  The plan marks a global shift towards placing health at the centre of climate action. 

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Belém Health Action Plan; Major international climate agreements and action plans.

Belém Health Action Plan

The Belém Health Action Plan aims to become a global reference for strengthening climate-resilient health systems. The draft plan is structured around three main pillars:

  • Surveillance and Monitoring: Aims to strengthen health surveillance systems to effectively respond to climate-related threats, such as vector-borne disease outbreaks and mental health impacts from extreme weather events.
  • Evidence-Based Policy Strategy: Seeks to accelerate the implementation of proven solutions by fostering cooperation among governments, academic institutions, civil society, and other key actors.
  • Innovation and Production: Proposes investments in research and technology to develop solutions tailored to the specific needs of the most vulnerable populations.

Why does the Climate-Health link matter?

  • Climate change exacerbates malnutrition, heat stress, respiratory ailments and vector-borne diseases. This makes it imperative to frame climate action not as a distant environmental agenda but as an immediate public health priority.

Insights from India’s Welfare Experience: 

India’s welfare policies demonstrate how non-health interventions can generate substantial health and climate co-benefits. For example: 

  • The PM POSHAN scheme has simultaneously improved child nutrition, strengthened education outcomes, promoted agricultural diversification, and built climate-resilient food systems through the use of millets.
  • The Swachh Bharat Mission has tackled sanitation, dignity, and public health while mobilising communities through cultural symbolism rooted in Gandhian ideals.
  • The MNREGA programme has improved rural livelihoods while restoring degraded ecosystems through water conservation and afforestation works.
  • The PM Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) has reduced household air pollution and carbon emissions by providing clean cooking fuel to rural households.

These initiatives demonstrate that intentional, intersectoral action can multiply impacts across health, environment, and development.

From this experience, three insights emerge for integrated climate-health governance: 

  • Strong political leadership ensures inter-ministerial cooperation and elevates climate action as a public health and empowerment issue rather than a technocratic agenda. 
  • Community engagement enhances legitimacy when policies are anchored in local culture and participatory structures, as seen in parent–teacher committees under PM POSHAN or mass mobilisation under Swachh Bharat.
  • Embedding climate goals within existing delivery systems such as ASHAs, self-help groups and panchayats ensures sustainability without creating parallel structures.

Challenges in Implementation: 

Despite these successes, certain barriers persist :

  • Administrative silos reduce effectiveness when multiple departments are involved.
  • Economic barriers such as high LPG refill costs in PMUY hinder access for poor households.
  • Social and cultural practices limit adoption unless supported by long-term behavioural change.
  • Monitoring remains focused on outputs (E.g., toilets built) rather than real outcomes like improved health.

Way Forward

To overcome these challenges and build effective climate-health governance, India’s experience points towards a three-pillar framework: 

  • Strategic Prioritisation: Reframe climate policies as immediate health imperatives.
  • Procedural Integration: Mandate health impact assessments across all climate-relevant policies.
  • Participatory Implementation: Mobilise communities around tangible health gains like clean air, safe water, and nutritious food.

India can provide a model for the Global South, promoting a whole-of-society response to climate and health challenges. 

Queer Couples’ Rights in India 

Context: Recently, a same-sex couple moved the Bombay High Court challenging the discriminatory levy of gift tax under the Income Tax Act.

Relevance of the Topic : Mains: Evolution of Rights of Transgenders/ Queer Couples’ and related issues. 

Under the Income Tax Act, no such tax on gifts is levied on heterosexual couples. No such exemption exists for queer couples, which violates Articles 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.

The case highlights the persistent problem of how to operationalise queer rights recognised in court verdicts and government advisories without a legal framework of relationship recognition.

Who are Queer Couples?

  • Queer couples are partners where one or both identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or other non-heteronormative identities.
  • Such couples do not fall within the conventional legal framework of marriage in India, as the marriage laws (like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Special Marriage Act, 1954) recognise only heterosexual unions.
  • They may cohabit, share financial and emotional responsibilities, and live as families, but the state does not currently grant them the same legal status and protections as heterosexual couples.

Evolution of Queer Rights in India: 

  • Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): The SC decriminalised consensual same-sex relations by striking down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.
  • Deepika Singh v. Central Administrative Tribunal (2022): The SC expanded the definition of family beyond marital ties to include non-traditional households. ​​The legal understanding of “family” may include manifestations like queer families as well as single parents.
  • Supriya Chakraborty v. Union of India (2023): The SC upheld the validity of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, and held that the right to marry is not a fundamental right for queer persons. There is no unqualified fundamental right to marry under the Constitution. But it unanimously recognised that queer persons have the right to relationship, cohabitation, and choice of partner. The SC also directed the Union Government to set up a Cabinet Secretary-led committee to identify entitlements of queer couples in the absence of marriage recognition.

Right To Marry in India:

  • As per Article 21 of Indian Constitution, Marriage is an element of the Right to Life. Article 21 guarantees the Right to Marry the person of one's choice.
  • For Queers: The government has already acknowledged the right to love, right to cohabit, right to choose one’s partner, right to one’s sexual orientation as fundamental rights under Article 21.

Policy Measures after the 2023 Verdict

  • The Department of Food and Public Distribution issued an advisory directing states to treat queer partners as members of the same household for ration cards.
  • The Department of Financial Services issued an advisory clarifying that queer persons can open joint bank accounts and nominate their partners.
  • The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare issued guidelines prohibiting discrimination in hospitals and allowing queer partners to claim the body of a deceased partner.

These measures are steps forward, but they remain limited to advisories and face challenges in practical implementation.

Challenges in Realising Queer Rights: 

  • Even if courts or government issue favourable orders, queer couples require a recognised mechanism to prove that they are in a partnership.
  • Departments and authorities lack a uniform way to identify queer couples who should receive entitlements.
  • Without a recognised proof of association, advisories and court verdicts risk remaining ineffective in practice.

The Bombay High Court admitted the petition of the same-sex couple challenging discriminatory taxation of gifts. A favourable ruling could extend equality in tax treatment to queer couples. However, implementation of such a verdict will still require a credible method to verify who qualifies as a partner in a queer relationship.

The Deed of Familial Association (DoFA) as a Possible Solution

  • In 2023, Justice N. Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court suggested that the Tamil Nadu government should consider recognising a Deed of Familial Association (DoFA).
  • A DoFA would allow queer partners to submit affidavits of their free will to a District Magistrate or other authorised officer to register their association.
  • The issuance of a DoFA would give official proof of a queer relationship that could be presented before departments or institutions.
  • It could help operationalise court orders, advisories, and government circulars by creating a uniform recognition of queer partnerships.

Such a mechanism would reduce arbitrariness, help protect rights, and ensure that entitlements already granted are actually accessible.

Also Read: Embracing Diversity: Paving the Way for Transgender Inclusivity and Equality 

Issues with Sikh Marriage Registration

Context: The Supreme Court has directed 17 States and 8 Union Territories to frame rules for the registration of Sikh marriages under the Anand Marriage Act, 1909, within four months. 

Till then, Sikh couples can register their marriages under existing laws. This ensures legal recognition of Anand Karaj marriages, but it does not solve deeper problems with the Act.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Anand Marriage Act. 

What is Anand Karaj?

  • Anand Karaj, literally “blissful union”, is the prescribed form of marriage in the Sikh faith. 
  • The ceremony is conducted in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of the Sikhs. 

Anand Marriage Act 1909: 

  • In the early 20th century, efforts by the Sikh community for legal recognition of their distinct marriage ceremony (specifically to differentiate it from Hindu rituals) led to the enactment of the Anand Marriage Act in 1909. 
  • The Act legally sanctifies all marriages solemnised through the Anand Karaj ceremony. However, the original Act did not include provisions for the registration of these marriages. This gap was addressed over a century later with the Anand Marriage (Amendment) Act, 2012. 

Anand Marriage (Amendment) Act, 2012: 

  • The Amendment introduced Section 6, which directed state governments to create rules for the registration of Anand Karaj marriages. 
  • Once registered under the Act, a couple would not need to register their marriage under any other law.

Issues with Anand Marriage Act

  • The Act only provides for recognition and registration of marriages but does not cover divorce, custody, or other matrimonial disputes.
  • Sikh couples seeking divorce must still rely on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which undermines the distinct identity of Sikh personal law.
  • Most States and Union Territories have still not framed rules for the registration of Anand Karaj marriages, despite the 2012 amendment.
  • The failure to notify rules has denied Sikh couples a statutory facility and created uneven access to their legal rights.
  • Without a marriage certificate, Sikh couples face hurdles in matters of residence, maintenance, inheritance, and succession.
  • This inaction has effectively disenfranchised a large section of the Sikh community from the benefits of a central law.

The SC recently addressed this gap and issued a comprehensive set of directions to all States and Union Territories to frame rules for registration of Anand Karaj marriages within four months and held that no application can be refused in the meantime.

Limitations of Supreme Court recent directions:  

  • The order only addresses the problem of registration and does not resolve deeper legal gaps such as provisions for divorce, custody, or other matrimonial disputes.

As a result, Sikh couples must still rely on the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for matters beyond registration, leaving the larger demand for a comprehensive Sikh Marriage Code unaddressed. 

Judicial Experimentalism versus the Right to Justice

Context: In Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025), the Supreme Court endorsed the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines mandating a two-month cooling period and referral to Family Welfare Committees in Section 498A/85 BNS cases. This raises concerns of judicial experimentalism and delay in justice.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Basic idea of Judicial experimentalism and issues related to it.

Section 498A of the IPC

  • Section 498A (now Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) was inserted in the Indian Penal Code to punish cruelty by the husband or his relatives towards a married woman.
  • Cruelty includes physical or mental abuse, harassment for dowry, or conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide or harm her health.
  • The offence is cognisable, allowing the police to register a case and investigate without prior approval of a magistrate.
  • The offence is non-bailable, meaning bail is subject to judicial discretion and not a matter of right. 
  • The offence is non-compoundable, which means once a complaint is filed, it cannot be withdrawn by compromise between the parties.
  • The punishment under Section 498A is imprisonment up to three years and a fine.

Safeguards to prevent misuse of Section 498A: 

Over the years, courts have expressed concern about the increasing misuse of Section 498A, through false or exaggerated complaints, often leading to unnecessary arrests of husbands and their relatives. To address this, several measures were introduced: 

  • In the Lalita Kumari (2013) case, the Supreme Court placed matrimonial disputes in the category of preliminary inquiry before registration of an FIR.
  • The recent criminal law reforms have also required that cases of cruelty by the husband undergo a preliminary inquiry before an FIR is registered.
  • To check misuse through arbitrary arrests, the CrPC amendment of 2008 introduced the principle of necessity, mandating that arrests should only be made when justified.
  • In the Arnesh Kumar (2014) case, the Supreme Court restricted unbridled police powers by mandating a checklist for arrest and introducing the practice of issuing a notice of appearance.
  • In the Satender Kumar Antil (2022) case, the Court strengthened safeguards further by directing that bail should be granted if an arrest was made in violation of the Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

Recently in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025), the Supreme Court endorsed the guidelines by the Allahabad High Court to prevent the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 

The Allahabad High Court had introduced

  • A two-month ‘cooling period’ for any coercive action after the registration of a first information report (FIR) or complaint to the magistrate.
  • During the ‘cooling period’, the matter will be referred to a Family Welfare Committee (FWC).

Associated Concerns: 

This ruling is a form of judicial experimentalism as it:  

  • Creates a new dispute-resolution mechanism (FWCs) and procedural bar (cooling period) outside the statutory framework.
  • It interferes with the functional autonomy of police and magistrates.
  • Delays the victim’s right to timely justice, and introduces quasi-judicial bodies without legislative sanction.

What is Judicial Experimentalism?

  • Judicial experimentalism means the courts create rules or mechanisms not explicitly given in law, often to fill gaps or deal with pressing social concerns.
  • It can sometimes be helpful, as seen in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997) where the Court laid down guidelines on workplace sexual harassment in the absence of a law. These guidelines later became the POSH Act, 2013.
  • But it can also be problematic, as in the Shivangi Bansal case (2025) where such experiments weaken victims' access to justice and undermine statutory authorities.

Criticism of Judicial Experimentalism: 

  • It breaches separation of powers by encroaching upon the legislative and executive domain.
  • It dilutes rule of law by introducing mechanisms beyond statutory mandate.
  • It delays justice and erodes institutional autonomy of police and magistrates.
  • It risks judicial overreach, where courts move from interpreting law to making policy, weakening democratic accountability.

The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling on Section 498A reflects judicial experimentalism that goes beyond legislative intent. While misuse of the law has been addressed through existing safeguards, the introduction of cooling periods and Family Welfare Committees delays justice and undermines institutional autonomy. 

Anticipatory Bail under the SC/ST Act 1989

Context: The Supreme Court in Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain quashed the Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail to an accused of caste atrocities reaffirming the statutory bar under the Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Anticipatory bail and SC/ST Act 1989.

What is Anticipatory Bail?

  • Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal safeguard provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 482 of BNSS) allowing a person to seek bail in anticipation of arrest for a non-bailable offence. 
  • It is preventive in nature and distinct from regular bail, which is sought after arrest.
  • It was recommended by the Law Commission of India to protect citizens against arbitrary or mala fide arrests. 

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 explicitly excludes the application of Section 482 of BNSS which provides for anticipatory bail. 

Why is Anticipatory Bail barred under SC/ST Act 1989? 

  • Parliament introduced this bar to protect victims from intimidation, harassment, and coercion by accused persons after registration of cases.
  • The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of this bar in multiple judgments, holding that it does not violate Article 14 (equality before law) or Article 21 (right to life and liberty).
  • Offences under the Act are treated as a distinct class because they are rooted in systemic untouchability, caste oppression, and social exclusion.

In Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain (2025): 

  • The Supreme Court quashed anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court terming it a manifest error and jurisdictional illegality. 
  • It held that courts cannot conduct a mini-trial at the bail stage and must only check for a prima facie case. 
  • The ruling reinforced that the SC/ST Act is a substantive shield to protect dignity and security of vulnerable groups. 

Judicial Precedents: 

  • State of M.P. vs Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), the SC upheld the validity of Section 18 emphasising the need for strong deterrent measures.
  • Vilas Pandurang Pawar vs State of Maharashtra (2012), the Court reiterated that anticipatory bail is statutorily barred when a prima facie case under the Act exists.
  • Prathvi Raj Chauhan vs Union of India (2020), the Court clarified that anticipatory bail may be considered only if no prima facie offence under the Act is made out, but not otherwise. 
image 48

What is Kolhan’s Manki-Munda System?

Context: Adivasis from the Ho tribe staged a protest in Jharkhand’s West Singhbhum district against the Deputy Commissioner (DC) accusing him of interfering with their traditional self-governance system known as Manki-Munda system.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About the Manki-Munda system. 

What is the Manki-Munda system?

  • Traditional self-governance mechanism of the Ho tribe in the Kolhan region of Jharkhand. 
  • It is a decentralised system that has existed for centuries, and continues to function alongside the formal administrative apparatus of the state.
  • The Manki-Munda system involves:
    • Hereditary village heads (Mundas) who resolve social and political disputes at a village level. 
    • Higher-level chief (Manki): A cluster of 8-15 villages (called a pir) is headed by a Manki who deals with cases which were unresolved by Mundas.
  • Before colonial times, the Manki and Munda had no responsibilities for revenue or land-related issues. 

British Intervention: 

  • After the Permanent Settlement Act of 1793, zamindars began seizing Ho lands to meet revenue demands. 
  • This led to major tribal uprisings such as the Ho revolt (1821-22) and the Kol revolt (1831-32).
  • Unable to suppress the Ho people militarily, the British decided to co-opt their system of governance.

Wilkinson’s Rules (1833):  

  • The British appointed Captain Thomas Wilkinson as their Political Agent in the Kolhan Government Estate (KGE), an administrative unit created in 1837 to control the Ho-dominated region.
  • Wilkinson codified the Manki-Munda system into 31 rules, which became known as Wilkinson’s Rules. This was the first formal codification of any tribal self-governance system in India.
  • The rules recognised Mundas and Mankis as community leaders but turned them into agents of colonial administration.This codification facilitated the integration of Kolhan into British India and allowed the entry of non-tribal settlers (dikkus).
  • It also introduced private property, pattas, and the designation of Ho people as raiyats (tenants).

Post Independence developments:  

  • After 1947, the Kolhan Government Estate was dissolved, but Wilkinson’s Rules continued to operate. Indian courts recognised these rules as customs, even though they were not treated as formal law.
  • In 2021, the Jharkhand government recognised the traditional judicial system known as the Nyaya Panch to work on revenue related activities such as tax collection and reporting of land purchase and sale, maintaining law & order and settlement of disputes.

Issues with the Manki-Munda System

  • Hereditary Succession: The posts of Munda and Manki are hereditary, usually passed from father to son. This restricts opportunities for capable individuals.
  • Lack of Formal Education: Many traditional leaders lack literacy and training needed to manage land records, documents, and modern governance tasks.
  • Absentee Leadership: In several cases, Mundas stay away from villages for long periods, preventing villagers from accessing basic services.
  • Tensions with Non-Tribal Communities: Non-tribal groups such as Scheduled Castes and OBCs residing in Ho-dominated villages have complained of discrimination and restrictions on their livelihoods.
  • Vacant Posts: Out of around 1,850 sanctioned posts of Mankis and Mundas in West Singhbhum, nearly 200 are vacant, which hampers effective governance at the grassroots level.
  • Limited Understanding of Rules: Most leaders do not fully understand Wilkinson’s Rules or the 1837 Hukuknama, which complicates dispute resolution.
  • Dependence on state officials: Villagers often bypass Mankis and Mundas and approach the Deputy Commissioner, reducing the authority of the system.

There is a section of the Ho community, especially the youth, who want reforms to the Manki-Munda system.

The current conflict

  • In response to the complaints against Mundas and Manki, the district administration issued a nine-point directive reminding Mundas of their duties under the 1837 Hukuknama.
  • However, this was misinterpreted as interference which sparked rumours and protests. The officials have clarified that customary laws remain untouched.

What do SC guidelines say on DNA?

Context: The Supreme Court has issued uniform guidelines to ensure the integrity of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) samples in criminal cases. 

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about SC guidelines say on DNA; Applications of DNA profiling. 

Importance of DNA evidence in criminal cases: 

  • DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. It can be obtained from biological materials, such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, or skin.
  • Generally, when the DNA profile of a sample found at a crime scene matches the DNA profile of a suspect, it can be concluded that both samples have the same biological origin. However, it is not substantive evidence in criminal cases. 
image 46

What do SC guidelines say on DNA?

The SC in Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu has issued four guidelines for cases where DNA evidence is involved. 

  • Collection and documentation: DNA samples must be collected with due care, appropriately packed and labelled (FIR number and date, sections and statutes involved, details of the investigating officer, police station). The document must include the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, investigating officer, and independent witnesses.
  • Transportation: The investigating officer must ensure that the samples reach the concerned Forensic Science Lab within 48 hours of collection. The reasons for delay (if any) must be recorded, and samples should be preserved.
  • Storage: No package shall be opened, altered, or resealed without express authorisation from the trial court.
  • Chain of Custody Register (logbook that tracks DNA sample till the case ends) must be maintained. The investigating officer is responsible for explaining any lapses in compliance.

Need to issue the directions:

  • Though some guidelines have been issued by various bodies, there is neither uniformity nor a common procedure to be followed by all investigating authorities.  
  • ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ are subjects mentioned in the State List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, but the SC deemed it necessary to issue these guidelines to have uniformity of procedure.
  • Past rulings show that lapses in handling have led to DNA reports being rejected, making both proper collection and quality control essential. 
  • Unexplained delays in sending DNA samples to the Forensic Laboratory (FSL) can risk the possibility of sample contamination.  

Associated Court rulings: 

  • In Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014): The SC observed that a DNA profile is valid and reliable, but this depends on quality control and procedure in the laboratory. 
  • Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): The SC rejected a DNA report on the ground that recovery was made from an open area and the likelihood of its contamination cannot be ruled out. The blood stains found on the articles were disintegrated, and the quantity was insufficient to run any classification test.
  • Rahul v. State of Delhi (2022): The DNA evidence was rejected because it remained in the Police Malkhana for two months and during such time, the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out.
  • Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025): The SC  stated that DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case. Therefore, DNA evidence must be proved scientifically and legally. 

The investigating agency needs to ensure that samples are collected properly, without contamination, and sent to the FSL without delay. 

Also Read: DNA Profling 

Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act 

Context: Recently, a sitting legislator (MLA) in Jammu and Kashmir was detained under the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA) for one year. 

Relevance of the Topic : Prelims: Key features of PSA; Preventive Detention; Article 22

About Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act: 

  • The Public Safety Act was enacted in 1978 by the J&K Legislative Assembly to curb timber smuggling in the state.
  • Over time, the Act has become a tool for preventive detention of political opponents, dissenters, journalists, and protesters. E.g., On the eve of Article 370’s abrogation, hundreds, including former Chief Ministers, were detained under PSA.

After the abrogation of Article 370, the PSA is now deemed a law passed by the Indian Parliament.

Key Provisions of the Public Safety Act: 

  • Preventive Detention: The Act authorises detention without trial for up to 2 years, if individuals are considered a threat to the security of the state. Allows detention up to 1 year if they are deemed a threat to public order.
  • Grounds of Detention: Individuals can be detained if the administration is satisfied that they might act in a manner prejudicial to security or public order. The power is based on “subjective satisfaction” of the executive authorities (District Magistrates/Divisional Commissioners).
  • Communication of Grounds: Grounds of detention must be conveyed to the detainee. However, Section 13(2) allows the government to withhold grounds if disclosure is deemed against “public interest.”
  • Advisory Board Review: Detention orders must be reviewed by an Advisory Board (of High Court judges). 
  • Restrictions on Legal Remedies: Individuals cannot directly represent themselves before the Advisory Board. Courts often avoid probing into the merits of detention if the executive claims satisfaction.

Concerns associated with J&K Public Safety Act: 

The Act has been repeatedly flagged by UN Human Rights bodies as a “lawless law” because it:

  • permits prolonged preventive detention without trial
  • relies on vague definitions like public order
  • restricts legal remedies
  • undermines rights guaranteed under both the Indian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). 

Also Read: Preventive Detention laws in India: How preventive detention works?

West Bengal demands Indo-Bhutan River Commission 

Context: The Chief Minister of Bengal reiterated her demand for the establishment of an Indo-Bhutan River Commission with West Bengal as one of its members.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Issues in Centre-State relations. 

image 37

Need for Indo-Bhutan River Commission

  • In north Bengal, especially in the districts Jalpaiguri and Alipurduar, around 72 rivers and streams descend from Bhutan. They include some prominent rivers like Jaldhaka, Torsha, Raidak and Sankosh. 
  • During the monsoons these rivers spill over the banks and cause flood like situation in Bengal, particularly if it rains in the upper catchments of these rivers in Bhutan.
    • The rivers flood and erode tea estates, forests, and human habitats. 
    • Huge sediments are deposited on the banks of these rivers, which compound the problems in these districts. 
  • Bengal has low-lying deltaic plains surrounded by rivers which resembles a “boat-like basin”. The Ganga river in Bengal remains swollen due to inflows from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, thus limiting the water absorption capacity and aggravating the situation.

Stand of Central Government

  • The Union Ministry of Jal Shakti has clarified that there are no plans to constitute a joint river commission with Bhutan. 
  • Bilateral mechanisms between India and Bhutan already exist to address flood-related concerns.
    • Joint teams and groups have been formed for flood management and forecasting of floods caused by the rivers which enter India from Bhutan.
    • There are 36 hydro-meteorological stations in Bhutan at the catchments of the trans-border rivers, and the central water commission gets regular data for flood forecasting.

The issue reflects the larger Centre-State tension in India’s federal framework, where the state perceives political bias in the distribution of central resources for disaster relief and infrastructure. 

Vice President of India

Context: Mr. CP Radhakrishnan has been elected as the 15th Vice President of India. 

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about the office of Vice President of India. 

Vice President of India

  • The Vice-President occupies the second highest office in the country (next the President of India). This office is modelled on the lines of the American Vice-President.
  • Article 63 provides that there shall be a Vice-President of India. 
  • Tenure: Five years. He can be re-elected any number of times.

Election of Vice President: 

  • The Vice-President is elected by the method of indirect election. He is elected by the members of an electoral college consisting of the members of both Houses of Parliament.
  • This electoral college:
    • Consists of both elected and nominated members of the Parliament (in the case of the President, only elected members).
    • Does not include the members of the state legislative assemblies (in the case of the President, the elected members of the state legislative assemblies are included).

Qualifications for Election as Vice-President: 

The candidate should fulfil the following qualifications:

  1. He should be a citizen of India.
  2. He should have completed 35 years of age.
  3. He should be qualified for election as a member of the Rajya Sabha.
  4. He should not hold any office of profit under the Union government or any state government or any local authority or any other public authority.

Conditions of Office:

  • He should not be a member of either House of Parliament or a House of the state legislature.
  • He should not hold any other office of profit.

Note: A sitting President or Vice-President of the Union, Governor of any state and a Minister for the Union or any State is not deemed to hold any office of profit, and hence qualified for being a candidate for Vice-President. 

Method of Voting

  • The nomination of a candidate for election to the office of Vice-President must be subscribed by at least 20 electors as proposers and 20 electors as seconders.
  • Voting is held in Parliament House in New Delhi by secret ballot, using the system of proportional representation with a single transferable vote.
    • Each Member of Parliament (MP) casts a vote by ranking candidates in order of preference. All votes carry equal value.
    • To be declared elected, a candidate must reach a required minimum number of votes- called the quota. This is calculated by dividing the total number of valid votes by two and adding one (fractions, if any, are ignored). 
  • If no candidate crosses the quota in the first round, the one with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and their votes are transferred to the remaining candidates based on second preferences. The process continues until one candidate crosses the quota.

Removal of Vice President

  • Resignation: He can resign from his office by addressing the resignation to the President. 
  • Removal before completion of his term: Formal impeachment is not required for his removal. He can be removed by a resolution passed by a majority of all the then members of the Rajya Sabha and agreed to by the Lok Sabha.
    • The resolution should be passed in the Rajya Sabha by an effective majority and in the Lok Sabha by a simple majority. 
    • The resolution can be introduced only in the Rajya Sabha and not in the Lok Sabha.
    • No such resolution can be moved unless at least 14 days' advance notice has been given. 
    • No ground has been mentioned in the Constitution for his/her removal.

Powers and Functions of the Vice-President

  • He acts as the ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha. In this capacity, his powers and functions are similar to those of the Speaker of Lok Sabha. 
  • He acts as President when a vacancy occurs in the office of the President due to his resignation, impeachment, death or otherwise.
    • He can act as President only for a maximum period of 6 months within which a new President has to be elected.
    • While discharging the functions of President, the Vice-President does not perform the duties of the office of the chairman of Rajya Sabha.

Also Read: Discuss the role of the Vice-President of India as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. 

Trending now

State of India’s Environment 2026: Rising Climate Risks and the Need for Resilience
Karnataka Announces Ban on Social Media for Children Under-16
India–France “Special Global Strategic Partnership”: A New Indo-Pacific Anchor
Front-of-Package Labelling: A Preventive Strategy to Address India’s Rising Lifestyle Diseases