The Supreme Court ruled that removing a voter's name during the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) cancels local voting rights but does not revoke Indian citizenship. Only the Home Ministry can legally determine citizenship through established due process.
Click to View MoreThe One Nation, One Election proposal synchronizes national and state polls to curb expenditure and policy paralysis. However, critics warn it centralizes power, overshadows regional issues, and threatens federalism, necessitating broad political consensus and careful constitutional safeguards before implementation.
Click to View MoreThe right to a fair and speedy trial is a fundamental guarantee under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Despite robust legal frameworks, systemic delays, limited legal aid, and an overwhelming undertrial population severely threaten justice, requiring urgent technological and procedural reforms.
Click to View MoreLegal frameworks empower police to conduct further investigations post-final report. Recent Supreme Court rulings clarify differences between reinvestigation and further investigation, emphasizing the necessity of judicial oversight under BNSS.
Click to View MoreDespite rising numbers in lower courts, women remain severely underrepresented in India's higher judiciary due to opaque Collegium processes and structural biases, Breaking this persistent glass ceiling demands transparent appointments, systemic reforms, and mandatory gender quotas to achieve constitutional equality.
Click to View MoreThe Lok Sabha Speaker, as presiding officer, maintains decorum, regulates proceedings, and interprets parliamentary rules. Elected by MPs, the Speaker holds constitutional authority, including certifying money bills, presiding over joint sittings, and ruling on member disqualifications. They act as the impartial guardian of parliamentary privileges.
Click to View MoreThe Ministry of Home Affairs revised Look Out Circulars guidelines, requiring statutory bodies like National Human Rights Commission and National Commission for Women to route law-enforcement agencies, preventing misuse and protecting the Article 21-based right to travel abroad.requests through
Click to View MoreParliamentary privileges under Articles 105 and 194 protect legislators’ independence. However, their uncodified nature creates ambiguity and potential conflict with fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, overruling the P.V. Narasimha Rao case, held privileges subject to judicial review, stressing the need for codification to ensure accountability.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court termed tribunals a “mess,” citing executive control, vacancies, and weak accountability. Created under Articles 323A and 323B for speedy justice, they face backlogs and compromised independence. Establishing an independent National Tribunals Commission is crucial for credibility and efficiency.
Click to View MoreThe Union Cabinet approved renaming Kerala as “Keralam,” reflecting Malayalam roots and the Aikya Kerala movement. Under Article 3, Parliament can change state names by simple majority, with state views consultative per the Babulal Parate case. The move raises administrative, economic, and federalism considerations.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court flagged India’s freebies culture, citing fiscal stress in Tamil Nadu from universal schemes like free electricity. It distinguished merit goods from populist handouts, noting debt risks and power sector strain in TANGEDCO. Referring to the S. Subramaniam Balaji case, it urged targeted subsidies and fiscal discipline.
Click to View MoreThe Supreme Court’s airfare intervention revives the activism versus overreach debate. While judicial activism filled governance gaps, overreach in cases like NJAC and 2G diluted democratic accountability. Preserving separation of powers needs judicial restraint, effective executive action, and legislative responsibility to sustain constitutional balance.
Click to View More
© 2026 iasgyan. All right reserved
