■ 1.

JUDICIAL REVIEW (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)

■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2021: Discuss the significance of the right to constitutional remedies as a fundamental right. (10M)

PYQ 2018: How far can the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Courts under Article 226 go in judicially reviewing the policy decisions of the
State? (15M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Judicial Review refers to the power of the judiciary to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive actions. Unlike the
USA (Marbury v. Madison), India explicitly provides for it through Articles 13, 32, 226. SC has declared it part of the Basic Structure (Indira
Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 13 – Laws inconsistent with FRs are void; Art. 32/226 – SC/HC enforce FRs.
• Art. 245/246 – Courts ensure legislatures don't exceed jurisdiction (federal balance).
• Kesavananda Bharati (1973) – Basic Structure Doctrine; Parliament can't alter basic structure.
• Minerva Mills (1980) – Limited Parliament's amending power; reinforced judicial review.
• NJAC Case (2015) – SC struck down 99th Amendment; judicial independence reaffirmed.
• Significance: Supremacy of Constitution, protection of FRs, federal balance, check on arbitrary power.
• Criticism: Judicial overreach (NJAC); counter-majoritarian; lack of accountability; judicial subjectivity; delays.
■ CONCLUSION
Judicial Review is a cornerstone of Indian constitutionalism — part of the Basic Structure, it cannot be abrogated. However, its exercise must
remain balanced to preserve democratic legitimacy and separation of powers.

■ 2. RESERVATION IN INDIA (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)

■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2022: Critically examine the role of the Supreme Court in the evolution of reservation policy in India. (15M)

PYQ 2016: Do you think that India needs a fresh debate on reservation? Comment. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Reservation is an affirmative action policy to improve access to education and public employment for SC/ST/OBCs. It aims to correct historical
injustice. Constitutional basis: Art. 15(4), 16(4), 16(4A), 16(4B). Types: Vertical (SC/ST/OBC) and Horizontal (women, PwD, veterans).
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 15(4) – State can make special provisions for backward classes, SCs & STs.
• Art. 16(4) – Reservation in public employment for backward classes.
• Art. 330/332 – Reserved seats for SCs/STs in Lok Sabha and State Assemblies.
• Indra Sawhney v. UOI (1992) – 50% cap; creamy layer for OBCs; upheld OBC quota.
• M. Nagaraj (2006) – Reservation in promotions for SC/ST subject to conditions.
• Jarnail Singh (2018) – Removed requirement to prove backwardness for SC/ST promotions.
• Janhit Abhiyan (2022) – Upheld 10% EWS; 50% cap not applicable to EWS.
• State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) – SC validated sub-classification within SCs.
• Challenges: Breach of 50% ceiling; creamy layer debate; regional disparities (69% Tamil Nadu); efficiency vs equity.
■ CONCLUSION
Reservation is essential to address historical injustice and structural inequality. It must be complemented with data-driven targeting, stronger
creamy layer enforcement, and investment in quality education and skill development.

■ 3. EWS RESERVATION (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)

■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2023: The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introducing 10% EWS reservation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Examine its implications for
social justice. (15M)

PYQ 2019: Is there a case for introducing economic criterion for affirmative action? Critically examine. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment introduced 10% EWS reservation in education and public employment (Art. 15(6) and Art. 16(6)). Upheld by
SC in Janhit Abhiyan v. UOI (2022). Marks a shift from caste-based to economic criteria for affirmative action. Eligibility: Annual family income <
Rs. 8 lakh.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 15(6) – Up to 10% reservation for EWS in educational institutions (excl. minority).
• Art. 16(6) – Up to 10% reservation for EWS in initial government appointments.
• Rationale: Addresses educational/income inequality; recognises poor from general category.
• SC in Janhit Abhiyan – Economic criteria valid basis; exclusion of SC/ST/OBC not unconstitutional; 50% ceiling not absolute.
• Challenges: Rs. 8 lakh threshold too high; exclusion of EWS within SC/ST/OBC; breach of 50% ceiling; implementation & verification issues.
• Mandal Case had earlier struck down economic-only reservation; 103rd Amendment overturned this.
■ CONCLUSION
EWS reservation expands the idea of social justice to economic weakness. Its success depends on rationalising eligibility criteria, robust
verification, and periodic data-driven review to ensure benefits reach the truly poor.
 ■ 4. SUB-CLASSIFICATION OF SC/ST RESERVATION (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2025: The Supreme Court has permitted sub-classification within SC/ST categories. Examine its rationale and challenges. (15M)

PYQ 2024: Examine the constitutional validity of sub-categorisation within SC/ST reservation. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
A 7-judge SC bench (6:1) in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) permitted sub-classification within SC/ST categories, overturning E.V.
Chinnaiah v. State of AP (2004). States can create sub-quotas within existing SC (15%) and ST (7.5%) reservation to target the most backward
among the backward.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Overturns E.V. Chinnaiah (2004) – which had prohibited sub-classifications within SCs.
• Sub-classification must be based on empirical data and historical evidence of systemic discrimination.
• Creamy layer extended to SC/STs – affluent individuals within these groups to be excluded.
• Sub-classification decisions subject to judicial review to prevent political misuse.
• Generational limit – benefits should be limited to first generation of beneficiaries.
• Rationale: Unequal distribution (dominant sub-castes corner benefits); intra-group inequality; substantive equality (Art. 14); prevents elite
capture.
• Criticism: Difficult empirical data collection; political misuse; social tensions within communities; administrative burden.
• G. Rohini Commission model suggested for SC sub-categorisation.
■ CONCLUSION
Sub-classification advances substantive equality by targeting the most marginalised within SC/ST categories. However, states must rely on
robust empirical data and judicial oversight to prevent politically motivated sub-divisions.
 ■ 5. LOCAL RESERVATION IN PRIVATE JOBS (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2023: Critically examine the constitutional validity of reserving jobs for local candidates in private sector employment. (15M)

PYQ 2022: Sons of soil policy: Is it constitutional? Examine. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Several state governments (Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka) have attempted to legislate local reservation (75–80%) in private sector jobs
for domiciled residents. Haryana's 75% local reservation (2020) was struck down by Punjab & Haryana HC as unconstitutional. Karnataka
withheld similar bill (2024) due to industry resistance.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 16(4) – States claim authority for local reservation under this provision.
• Arguments For: Right to livelihood; solving local unemployment; redressal of local resentment; ends exploitation of migrant workers; global
precedents (US Civil Rights Act, Canada Employment Equity Act).
• Arguments Against: Negative effect on economy; discourages investment; hampers inclusive growth; threat to national unity ('sons of soil');
violates 50% reservation ceiling (Indira Sawhney); reduces private industry competitiveness.
• Art. 19(1)(g) – Right to practice any profession; Art. 19(1)(d) – Right to move freely – both violated.
• Judicial position: HC held domicile-based reservation in private sector unconstitutional.
• Industries like construction and MSMEs heavily depend on migrant labour.
■ CONCLUSION
Local reservation in private jobs is constitutionally dubious and economically counterproductive. A better approach involves targeted skill
development, employment exchanges, and improving local education infrastructure to improve local employability.
 ■ 6. CASTE CENSUS IN INDIA (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2024: Should India conduct a caste census? Critically examine its necessity and challenges. (15M)

PYQ 2023: Examine how data from a caste-based census can be used for designing social justice policies. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
A caste census involves enumeration of caste identities alongside the regular decennial census. The last comprehensive caste census was
conducted in 1931 under British India. The Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC) 2011 collected caste data but was not published in entirety.
Bihar (2023) and several states have conducted OBC surveys. Central government announced caste enumeration in Census 2025.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Historical context: 1931 was last caste census; SECC 2011 data withheld due to quality concerns.
• Bihar Caste Survey (2023) – Found OBCs + EBCs = ~63% of population; triggered demands for higher OBC quota.
• Arguments For: Evidence-based policy; accurate identification of backward classes; strengthens reservation jurisprudence; challenges 50% cap
with fresh data.
• Arguments Against: Reinforces caste identities; risk of data misuse for vote-bank politics; implementation complexity; social fragmentation.
• Constitutional link: Art. 340 – President can appoint a commission to investigate backward classes.
• Legal framework: Census Act 1948 governs census; caste data collection needs amendment or executive order.
• SC in Indra Sawhney – Adequate representation data is a pre-condition for reservation; caste census provides this.
■ CONCLUSION
A caste census, if conducted rigorously, can serve as a scientific foundation for India's affirmative action policies. The focus must be on
evidence-based policy design rather than political mobilisation, with independent oversight to ensure data integrity.
 ■ 7. SEDITION LAW IN INDIA (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2022: Critically examine the constitutional validity of Section 124A IPC (Sedition). Should it be retained or repealed? (15M)

PYQ 2021: Free speech and sedition: Examine the tension between the two in Indian constitutional law. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Section 124A IPC (now Section 152 BNS 2023) penalised words, signs, or representation that bring hatred or contempt, or excite disaffection
towards the Government established by law. Derived from British colonial law introduced in 1870. Used against leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak
and Mahatma Gandhi. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 replaced IPC; sedition retained in modified form under S.152 BNS.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962) – SC upheld sedition but limited it to incitement to violence or imminent public disorder.
• SC stayed all sedition cases in 2022 and directed Centre to reconsider the law.
• S.G. Vombatkere v. UOI (2022) – SC stayed Section 124A IPC pending review.
• BNS 2023, S.152 – Retained sedition-like provision (acts endangering sovereignty/unity); broader in scope.
• Arguments For Retention: National security; countering secessionism and anti-state movements; protect sovereignty.
• Arguments Against: Colonial legacy; chilling effect on free speech (Art. 19(1)(a)); misuse against journalists, activists, critics; vague and
overbroad.
• Reasonable restrictions on Art. 19(1)(a): Art. 19(2) – sovereignty, integrity of India, public order, incitement to offence.
• Romila Thapar case, Disha Ravi case – examples of alleged misuse.
■ CONCLUSION
The sedition law in its colonial form is incompatible with a mature democracy. The BNS 2023 reform is a step forward but requires stricter
procedural safeguards to prevent misuse against political dissent and journalistic freedom.
 ■ 8. DEFAMATION AND FREE SPEECH (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2016: Examine the constitutionality of criminal defamation in India in the context of free speech. (15M)

PYQ 2019: Is criminal defamation a disproportionate restriction on free speech? Comment. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Defamation involves injury to the reputation of a person through false statements. India has both civil defamation (tort) and criminal defamation
(Sections 499–500 IPC; now S. 356 BNS 2023). Criminal defamation is a non-cognizable, bailable offence. Subramanian Swamy v. UOI (2016) –
SC upheld constitutional validity of criminal defamation.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Civil defamation – tort; remedy is damages in civil court.
• Criminal defamation (S.499 IPC / S.356 BNS) – punishable up to 2 years imprisonment + fine.
• Exceptions to defamation: True statements in public interest; fair comment; privileged communication.
• Subramanian Swamy (2016) – SC held criminal defamation not violative of Art. 19(1)(a); right to reputation is part of Art. 21.
• Art. 19(2) – Defamation is a permissible restriction on free speech.
• Concerns: Criminal defamation used as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) against journalists; chilling effect on investigative
journalism.
• BNS 2023, S.356 – Retained criminal defamation with minor modifications.
■ CONCLUSION
Criminal defamation, though constitutional, must be applied proportionately. Reforms should focus on decriminalising defamation and
strengthening civil remedies to balance protection of reputation with freedom of expression.
 ■ 9. HATE SPEECH AND INTERNET SHUTDOWN (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2020: Examine the constitutional validity of internet shutdowns in India. Is access to the internet a fundamental right? (15M)

PYQ 2022: What is hate speech? Should there be a specific law on hate speech in India? Discuss. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Hate Speech refers to expression that incites discrimination, hostility, or violence against groups based on religion, caste, ethnicity, etc. Internet
shutdowns are government-ordered disruptions of internet services, typically under Section 144 CrPC / Sec. 5 Indian Telegraph Act, Rule 2 TSSR
2017. India leads globally in internet shutdowns.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Anuradha Bhasin v. UOI (2020) – SC held internet access is essential to exercise freedom of speech (Art. 19(1)(a)) and right to trade (Art.
19(1)(g)).
• Internet shutdown must pass proportionality test; must be time-bound, necessary, and subject to judicial review.
• Hate Speech provisions: S.153A (enmity between groups), S.295A (religious insult), S.505 IPC (public mischief); S.66A IT Act struck down in
Shreya Singhal case.
• Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) – S.66A IT Act struck down as vague and overbroad; violated Art. 19(1)(a).
• IT Rules 2021 – Social media intermediary liability; grievance redressal; significant social media intermediary (SSMI) obligations.
• Law Commission Report (2017) – Recommended specific hate speech laws; not yet enacted.
• Challenges: Thin line between hate speech and free speech; risk of state overreach; chilling effect on minority communities.
■ CONCLUSION
Hate speech laws and internet shutdowns require a proportionality framework. Both must be grounded in judicial oversight, clear definitions, and
procedural safeguards to prevent abuse while protecting constitutional rights.
 ■ 10. SECTION 66A IT ACT & ONLINE SPEECH (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2015: What was Section 66A of the IT Act? What were the grounds on which it was struck down? (10M)

PYQ 2022: How do IT Rules 2021 seek to regulate social media in India? Critically examine. (15M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Section 66A of the IT Act 2000 criminalised sending 'offensive' or 'menacing' messages online. Struck down in Shreya Singhal v. UOI (2015) as
unconstitutional for being vague, overbroad, and chilling free speech under Art. 19(1)(a). Despite the SC ruling, lower courts continued applying
Section 66A in hundreds of cases.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Shreya Singhal (2015) – S.66A violates Art. 19(1)(a); terms like 'offensive', 'menacing' undefined; fails proportionality test.
• Distinction: Discussion/Advocacy (protected) vs. Incitement (not protected) under Art. 19.
• PUCL v. UOI (2022) – SC expressed concern that Section 66A was still being invoked by police despite being struck down.
• IT Rules 2021 – Three categories: Social Media Intermediaries (SMI), Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMI), OTT platforms.
• SSMI obligations: Appoint Nodal Officer, Compliance Officer, Grievance Officer; monthly compliance reports; traceability of first originator of
messages.
• IT (Amendment) Rules 2023 – Fact Check Unit (FCU) for Centre to flag 'fake news' about government – challenged in SC; Bombay HC partially
stayed.
• DPDP Act 2023 – Data protection framework; impacts online speech regulation.
■ CONCLUSION
Free speech online requires a calibrated regulatory framework that distinguishes incitement from discussion. IT Rules 2021, while enhancing
accountability, need stronger judicial oversight to prevent misuse by the State.
 ■ 11. ARTICLE 21: RIGHT TO LIFE AND PERSONAL LIBERTY (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2019: The Supreme Court has progressively expanded the scope of Article 21. Critically examine. (15M)

PYQ 2017: Can the right to live with dignity be read into Article 21? Comment with reference to relevant case laws. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Maneka
Gandhi v. UOI (1978) transformed Art. 21 by reading 'due process' into it. SC has expanded it to include right to dignity, livelihood, health,
education, privacy, and clean environment.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Maneka Gandhi (1978) – 'Procedure established by law' must be fair, just, and reasonable; linked Art. 21 with Art. 14 and 19.
• Olga Tellis (1985) – Right to livelihood is part of Art. 21.
• Francis Coralie (1981) – Right to live with basic human dignity; includes right to food, shelter, clothing.
• Puttaswamy (2017) – Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Art. 21.
• Aruna Shanbaug (2011) – Passive euthanasia (withdrawal of life support) permitted; right to die with dignity.
• Common Cause (2018) – Advance Medical Directive (Living Will) recognized; passive euthanasia upheld under Art. 21.
• Right to health (Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity); right to clean environment (Subhash Kumar v. Bihar).
• Art. 21A (86th Amendment) – Right to Education added (free compulsory education, 6–14 years).
■ CONCLUSION
Article 21 is the most expansive fundamental right in Indian jurisprudence. Its progressive interpretation has made the Constitution a living
document, protecting not merely the right to exist but the right to live with dignity.
 ■ 12. RIGHT TO PRIVACY (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2018: Discuss the significance of the Supreme Court's judgment in the Puttaswamy case for the protection of individual liberty in India. (15M)

PYQ 2020: Is the right to privacy an absolute right? Discuss with reference to Aadhaar and surveillance laws. (15M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Right to Privacy was recognised as a fundamental right under Art. 21 by a 9-judge SC bench in K.S. Puttaswamy v. UOI (2017). The verdict
settled the debate sparked by the government's Aadhaar argument that privacy was not a fundamental right (based on M.P. Sharma, 1954 and
Kharak Singh, 1963). Privacy includes autonomy over body, information, choices, and identity.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Puttaswamy (2017) – 9-judge bench unanimously held privacy is a fundamental right (Art. 14, 19, 21); overruled M.P. Sharma and Kharak
Singh.
• Three-part test for restriction on privacy: Legality (law must exist); Legitimate aim; Proportionality.
• Aadhaar case (2018) – Aadhaar upheld for welfare benefits but mandatory linking with bank accounts/mobile phones struck down; Section 57
struck down.
• Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP) 2023 – Data fiduciary obligations; rights of data principals; Data Protection Board.
• Surveillance concerns: UAPA; NATGRID; Pegasus spyware controversy (2021).
• Right to be forgotten – emerging right under privacy; not yet explicitly recognized in Indian law.
• Informational privacy vs. bodily privacy vs. decisional autonomy – all sub-categories under Puttaswamy.
■ CONCLUSION
Right to Privacy, though not absolute, is a cornerstone of individual liberty in a digital age. India's evolving data protection law (DPDP Act 2023)
must be strengthened with an independent regulator and robust enforcement to make privacy meaningful.
 ■ 13. RIGHT TO DIE WITH DIGNITY / EUTHANASIA (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2020: Discuss the legal and ethical dimensions of euthanasia in India. (15M)

PYQ 2018: Should passive euthanasia and living wills be legalised in India? Examine. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Euthanasia refers to deliberately ending a person's life to relieve suffering. India's SC has recognised passive euthanasia (withdrawal of
life-sustaining treatment) as part of the right to die with dignity under Art. 21. Active euthanasia (administering lethal drugs) remains illegal under
S.302/304 IPC.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Aruna Shanbaug v. UOI (2011) – Passive euthanasia permitted under strict judicial guidelines; active euthanasia not allowed.
• Common Cause v. UOI (2018) – 5-judge bench upheld passive euthanasia and recognised Advance Medical Directive (Living Will/AMD).
• AMD allows individuals to pre-specify their wishes about withdrawal of treatment when terminally ill.
• Types: Active euthanasia (direct act to end life – illegal); Passive euthanasia (withdrawal of treatment – legal); Voluntary (patient's consent);
Involuntary (without consent – illegal).
• Right to die with dignity is part of right to life with dignity under Art. 21.
• Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) – Not recognised in India.
• Ethical concerns: Slippery slope; misuse by family/doctors; vulnerability of elderly/disabled; palliative care as alternative.
• Global comparison: Netherlands, Belgium, Canada permit active euthanasia; India, UK allow only passive.
■ CONCLUSION
India's balanced approach — allowing passive euthanasia with judicial oversight while prohibiting active euthanasia — reflects a careful balance
between individual autonomy and societal ethics. Strengthening palliative care infrastructure is equally critical.
 ■ 14. RIGHT TO EDUCATION ACT 2009 (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2023: Critically assess the implementation of the Right to Education Act 2009. What reforms are needed? (15M)

PYQ 2019: Examine whether the RTE Act has succeeded in improving the quality of education in India. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Art. 21A (86th Amendment, 2002) – Free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years. RTE Act 2009 operationalised this right. India
was one of the last countries to make education a fundamental right. The Act mandates 25% seats in private schools for economically weaker
sections (EWS).
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Key provisions: Neighbourhood school concept; 25% seats in private schools for EWS; no detention policy (now amended after NEP); ban on
corporal punishment and screening tests.
• Infrastructure norms: Pupil-Teacher Ratio (PTR); minimum classrooms; toilets; drinking water.
• Achievements: Near-universal enrolment (GER ~100% primary); reduced gender gap; improved infrastructure.
• Challenges: Learning outcomes – ASER reports show poor reading/arithmetic levels; teacher vacancies; poor implementation of 25% EWS
quota; urban-rural digital divide.
• No Detention Policy (NDP) – Abolished after NEP 2020; students now held back at Grade 5 and 8 if failing.
• Society for Unaided Private Schools v. UOI (2012) – SC upheld RTE Act; 25% reservation in private schools is constitutional.
• Pramati Educational Society (2014) – RTE Act does not apply to minority institutions (Art. 30 protection).
• NEP 2020 – Extends foundational learning focus; introduces 5+3+3+4 structure; emphasises FLN (Foundational Literacy and Numeracy).
■ CONCLUSION
RTE Act transformed education from a directive principle to an enforceable right. Moving forward, the focus must shift from access to quality —
through teacher training, learning outcome benchmarks, and bridging the digital divide in rural India.
 ■ 15. DOCTRINE OF ESSENTIAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2024: Critically examine the 'essential religious practices' doctrine evolved by the Supreme Court. Is it a judicial overreach? (15M)

PYQ 2018: Discuss the Sabarimala judgment in the context of constitutional morality vs religious morality. (15M)

■ INTRODUCTION
The Essential Religious Practices (ERP) doctrine was evolved by SC in the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thrith Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954). Art. 25–28 guarantee freedom of religion. SC determines what constitutes 'essential'
practice — protecting only those integral to the religion, not merely prevalent or popular.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 25 – Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion (subject to public order, morality, health, and FRs).
• Art. 26 – Freedom to manage religious affairs; establish institutions; own property.
• Shirur Mutt Case (1954) – SC arrogated to itself the right to determine 'essential' religious practice.
• Sri Venkataramana Devaru (1958) – SC held restrictions on temple entry for certain sections unconstitutional.
• Ismail Faruqui (1994) – Offering prayers in mosque not an essential practice of Islam.
• Sabarimala Case (2018) – SC lifted ban on women (10–50 years) entering Ayyappa shrine; held it violates Art. 14 and 15; constitutional morality
> religious morality.
• Sabarimala Review (2020) – Referred to 9-judge bench; pending decision.
• Criticism: Judges determining religious 'essentials' is theologically inappropriate; judicial overreach; inconsistent application.
■ CONCLUSION
The ERP doctrine, though intended to protect genuine religious freedoms, has been inconsistently applied. A clearer jurisprudential framework —
distinguishing between religious doctrine and discriminatory social practice — is needed.
 ■ 16. MINORITY INSTITUTIONS AND ARTICLE 30 (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2023: Examine the scope and limitations of the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 30. (15M)

PYQ 2025: Does AMU's minority status set a precedent for all central universities? Discuss. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Art. 30(1) – Religious and linguistic minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Art. 30(2) – State
shall not, in granting aid, discriminate on grounds of religion/language. These rights are meant to protect minority identity and culture.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• TMA Pai Foundation (2002) – 11-judge bench; minorities have the right to establish and administer institutions; but can be regulated.
• PA Inamdar (2005) – State cannot impose reservation on unaided minority/non-minority institutions.
• RTE Act applicability – Does not apply to minority institutions (Pramati 2014); Art. 30 shields minority schools from 25% EWS quota.
• AMU Minority Status case (2024) – 7-judge SC bench held AMU is a minority institution; overturned Azeez Basha (1967); a minority-established
institution retains minority character even if set up by statute.
• Key test for minority institution: (a) established by minority; (b) administered by minority.
• Secular subjects regulation vs. internal administration – State can regulate curriculum, not administration.
• Art. 29 – Right to conserve distinct language, script, and culture (available to citizens in general, not just minorities).
■ CONCLUSION
Article 30 is a vital safeguard for minority identity but must be balanced with the broader constitutional vision of equality and non-discrimination.
The AMU verdict (2024) provides an important precedent for minority educational autonomy.
 ■ 17. UNIFORM CIVIL CODE (UCC) (FR–DPSP–FD | GS2-003)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2023: What is a Uniform Civil Code? Examine the arguments for and against its implementation in India. (15M)

PYQ 2020: Should India implement a Uniform Civil Code? Critically examine with reference to constitutional provisions. (15M)

■ INTRODUCTION
UCC refers to a set of common civil laws (governing marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption) applicable to all citizens irrespective of religion.
Enshrined as DPSP under Art. 44 ('State shall endeavour to secure for citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of India'). Currently,
personal laws differ by religion (Hindu Marriage Act, Muslim Personal Law, etc.). Uttarakhand enacted UCC in 2024 — first state to do so.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Art. 44 – DPSP; not justiciable but fundamental to governance.
• Shah Bano Case (1985) – SC directed Parliament to implement UCC; Parliament overturned verdict via Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on
Divorce) Act 1986.
• Sarla Mudgal (1995) – SC reiterated need for UCC to prevent fraudulent conversions for second marriages.
• Shayara Bano (2017) – SC declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional (Art. 14 violation); enacted Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage)
Act 2019.
• Arguments For UCC: Gender justice; national integration; Art. 14 equality; reducing forum shopping; simplification of laws.
• Arguments Against UCC: Threat to minority rights (Art. 25, 29, 30); imposition of majority culture; diversity of India; Art. 26; law commission
(2018) said UCC 'neither necessary nor desirable'.
• 22nd Law Commission (2023) – Consulted stakeholders; favoured reform of personal laws within each religion before UCC.
• Goa – Only state with a common civil code (Portuguese Civil Code) since 1961.
■ CONCLUSION
UCC must be built through consensus, not imposition. The focus should be on eliminating discriminatory practices within personal laws —
especially against women — before pursuing comprehensive uniformity across all communities.
 ■ 18. CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT ACT 2019 (Citizenship Issues | GS2-002)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2020: Examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019. Does it violate Article 14? (15M)

PYQ 2024: What are the key provisions of the CAA Rules 2024? How do they ease the citizenship process? (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
CAA 2019 grants Indian citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, and Christian communities who fled religious persecution from Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Afghanistan, and entered India before December 31, 2014. Amends Citizenship Act 1955. Reduces naturalization period from
11 years to 5 years for these communities. CAA Rules notified in March 2024.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Provisions: Six minority communities from three Islamic-majority countries; cut-off December 31, 2014; exempts from Foreigners Act
deportation.
• Exceptions: Inner Line Permit (ILP) states; Sixth Schedule areas (tribal areas).
• CAA Rules 2024: No valid passport required; any 20 listed documents as proof of entry; no visa requirement; state has limited role (empowered
committee headed by Census Director).
• Arguments For: Humanitarian protection; rectification of partition wrongs; consistent with India's civilizational ethos of refuge.
• Arguments Against: Violates Art. 14 (religious filter); undermines secularism (basic feature); excludes Rohingya/Ahmadiyya/Hazara; violates
Assam Accord.
• North-East protests – Fear of demographic change; cultural identity threat.
• SC hearing – 200+ petitions challenging constitutional validity; still pending.
• Combined NRC+CAA concern: Non-Muslim illegal immigrants get citizenship via CAA; Muslims face deportation.
■ CONCLUSION
CAA reflects Parliament's sovereign power over citizenship. Its constitutional validity — particularly its compliance with Art. 14's reasonable
classification test — awaits Supreme Court pronouncement, which will be a defining moment for India's secular constitutional framework.
 ■ 19. SECTION 6A OF CITIZENSHIP ACT (ASSAM ACCORD) (Citizenship Issues | GS2-002)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2024: The Supreme Court has upheld Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. Examine its implications for citizenship law. (15M)

PYQ 2020: Discuss the Assam Accord and its codification under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
Assam Accord (1985) — agreement between Rajiv Gandhi government and AASU — fixed March 24, 1971 as cut-off for detection of illegal
migrants. Section 6A codified this: migrants of Indian origin who entered Assam between January 1, 1966 and March 25, 1971 can apply for
citizenship. SC upheld Section 6A in a 4:1 verdict (2024).
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Section 6A: Base date January 1, 1966 for identification of foreigners; citizenship for migrants entering 1966–1971; IMDT Act 1983 linked.
• SC Verdict (2024): Art. 6 and 7 apply only to 1950; Section 6A deals with later migrants — not inconsistent.
• Right to equality not violated — Assam's unique demographic situation justifies special treatment.
• Cut-off date of March 24, 1971 (Operation Searchlight day) endorsed by SC.
• Cultural rights (Art. 29) — demographic change does not automatically infringe cultural rights.
• Section 6A vs Section 6B (CAA 2024) clash: Section 6B provides citizenship to non-Muslims who entered before Dec 31, 2014 — conflicts with
1971 cut-off.
• Unresolved: Ineffective implementation of Section 6A; lack of citizenship-granting mechanism for 1966–1971 migrants.
• First comprehensive judicial examination of citizenship provisions in India.
■ CONCLUSION
The SC's verdict upholds the 1971 cut-off and endorses an inclusive, plural interpretation of citizenship rooted in fraternity. Outstanding
implementation gaps and the Section 6A–6B conflict will require legislative clarity.
 ■ 20. NATIONAL REGISTER OF CITIZENS (NRC) (Citizenship Issues | GS2-002)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2020: Should NRC be extended nationally? Critically examine its need, challenges, and constitutional safeguards. (15M)

PYQ 2019: Discuss the legal framework for preparation and updation of the NRC in India. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
NRC is an official register to identify genuine Indian citizens and detect illegal migrants. Legal basis: Citizenship Act 1955, Foreigners Act 1946,
Passport Act 1920. First nationwide NRC: 1951. Currently, only Assam has an updated NRC (2019) under SC supervision. Nodal authority:
Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• Assam NRC (2019) – Final list excluded ~19 lakh applicants; significant humanitarian, legal, administrative concern.
• Legal basis: Section 14A, Citizenship Act 1955; Citizenship (Registration of Citizens) Rules 2003.
• Need for NRC: Sovereign duty to distinguish citizens; national security; protect indigenous communities; fair welfare distribution; electoral
integrity.
• Challenges: Exclusion of genuine citizens (documentation errors); risk of discrimination against Muslims; high cost (Assam: ■1,200 crore+, 10
years); marginalised groups lack documents; 52% birth registration (UNICEF).
• Assam NRC outcome – SC Public Works v. UOI mandated SC-supervised NRC in Assam.
• Constitutional safeguards required: Art. 14 (equality); Art. 21 (due process); natural justice principles; judicial oversight.
• Foreigners' Tribunals – Quasi-judicial bodies; adjudicate on citizenship disputes; heavily criticised for procedure.
■ CONCLUSION
A nationwide NRC is a double-edged instrument. While sovereign documentation of citizens is legitimate, its implementation must be anchored in
constitutional safeguards, digital infrastructure, and judicial oversight to prevent statelessness and discrimination.
 ■ 21. NATIONAL POPULATION REGISTER (NPR) (Citizenship Issues | GS2-002)
■ PREVIOUS YEAR QUESTIONS (UPSC Mains)
PYQ 2020: Examine the difference between NPR and NRC. Is the opposition to NPR constitutionally justified? (10M)

PYQ 2021: Discuss the significance of the National Population Register in governance and welfare delivery. (10M)

■ INTRODUCTION
NPR is a record of all usual residents of India (citizens + non-citizens who have lived/intend to live for 6+ months). Introduced under Citizenship
Act 1955 and Citizenship Rules 2003. Maintained by Registrar General of India under Ministry of Home Affairs. First collected in 2010 (before
Census 2011); updated in 2015. NPR is not NRC — NPR does not require citizenship proof.
■ KEY POINTS / BODY
• NPR vs NRC: NPR records all usual residents (no citizenship proof needed); NRC identifies only citizens (citizenship proof mandatory); NPR is
national, NRC currently only Assam.
• Legal basis: Rules 3 and 4 of Citizenship (Registration of Citizens) Rules 2003.
• Significance: Comprehensive resident database; evidence-based governance and welfare delivery; identity fraud prevention; one identity card
concept (Aadhaar integration).
• Challenges: Privacy concerns (data misuse); perceived NPR–NRC linkage causes anxiety among minorities; state opposition (Kerala, WB);
Aadhaar duplication; federal tensions (Art. 131).
• NPR funded from Consolidated Fund of India.
• Puttaswamy (2017) – Any NPR/NRC process must align with constitutional right to privacy.
• Way forward: Clear NPR–NRC distinction; DPDP Act compliance; minimise administrative overlap with Aadhaar.
■ CONCLUSION
NPR is a vital administrative exercise for evidence-based governance. Its success requires transparent communication distinguishing it from
NRC, strong data protection safeguards (aligned with DPDP Act 2023), and inclusive documentation support for vulnerable groups.