11 December 2025

• Intense exchanges occurred in Lok Sabha during a debate on electoral reforms and the EC’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• Home Minister Amit Shah countered LoP Rahul Gandhi’s allegations of “vote theft” and concerns over the 2023 EC appointment law.
• Opposition accused the government of avoiding questions and staged a walkout.
• The Home Minister reiterated the government’s policy to remove illegal immigrants from electoral rolls.

Key Points

• SIR Objective: Remove duplicates, deceased voters, and illegal migrant entries to clean electoral rolls.
• Government Stand: No “infiltrator” will be allowed on voter lists; Opposition accused of protecting such entries.
• Opposition Concerns: EC immunity, alleged electoral manipulation, lack of transparency in SIR.
• Historical Context: SIR practiced since 1952; no earlier objections recorded.
• Institutional Debate: Opposition demands CJI’s inclusion in EC selection panel; government cites past practice without any law for decades.

Static Linkages

• Art. 324: EC’s powers over elections.
• Art. 326: Adult suffrage basis for electoral rolls.  RP Act 1950: Electoral roll preparation; citizenship not proven by registration.
• Foreigners Act 1946 & Citizenship Act 1955: Legal basis for identifying and deporting illegal migrants.
• SC Position: Free and fair elections = basic structure of the Constitution.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Enhances electoral integrity and public trust.
  • Aligns with constitutional mandate for accurate voter rolls.
  • Encourages debate on EC transparency and appointments.
• Concerns
  •  Risk of wrongful deletion of genuine voters, especially vulnerable groups.
  • High political rhetoric may erode trust in EC.
  • Immunity for EC members may reduce accountability.
  • “Detect, delete, deport” approach demands strong due-process safeguards.
• Stakeholders
  • Government: National security, voter roll purity.
  • Opposition: Protecting voter rights, preventing misuse.
  • EC: Constitutional duty to maintain updated rolls.
  • Citizens: Expect transparency and fairness.

Way Forward

• Bipartisan oversight of SIR processes.
• Tech-enabled verification with privacy safeguards.
• Revisit EC appointment mechanism for greater balance.
• Strengthen due-process norms on illegal migration.
• Increase voter awareness to counter misinformation.

OPPOSITION QUESTIONS CJI EXIT

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Lok Sabha held the second day of debate on electoral reforms.
• Opposition questioned the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls and the new EC appointment law.
• Issues raised: voter deletions, EC neutrality, and BLO suicides.
• Treasury benches defended EVMs and the new selection procedure.

Key Points

• Congress MP K.C. Venugopal:
• Removal of CJI from EC selection panel undermines independence.
• EC failed to stop Bihar govt’s cash transfers during elections.
• SIR data shows abnormal voter deletions, especially younger voters.
• Highlighted BLO suicides due to pressure.
• BJP MP Ravi Shankar Prasad:
  • Venugopal should not comment as a petitioner in the SIR case.
  • PM-led panel for EC appointments is legitimate.
  • Returning to ballot papers revives booth capturing.
• AIMIM MP Owaisi: SIR is a “backdoor NRC”, selectively disenfranchising communities.

Static Linkages

• Article 324: ECI’s powers.
• SC 2023 (Anoop Baranwal case): Interim PM– CJI–LoP selection committee.
• RPA 1950: Electoral roll preparation & revisions.
• EVMs/VVPAT: Introduced to prevent booth capturing.
• State Election Commissions: Rolls for local bodies.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • New EC law provides legislative clarity.
  • SIR aims to remove duplicates and improve roll accuracy.
  • EVMs strengthen electoral security.
• Concerns
  • Reduced perceived independence of ECI without CJI.
  • Risk of mass disenfranchisement under SIR.
  • BLOs face workload and welfare issues.
  • Allegations of selective deletions heighten trust deficit.
• Ethical Dimensions
  • Need for impartial electoral institutions.
  • Administrative accountability towards BLOs.

Way Forward

•  Consider a bipartisan EC appointment committee.
• Increase transparency in SIR deletions with audit trails.
• Improve BLO working conditions and grievance redress.
• Use tech-enabled verification with proper safeguards.
• Strengthen public trust through better communication.

NATIONAL SONG DEBATE DEEPENS

• Parliament saw renewed debate over Vande Mataram, with accusations that Congress “muted” parts of the song in 1937.
• The PM indirectly criticised the 1937 CWC resolution that adopted only two stanzas for public functions due to communal sensitivities.
• Concerns now arise over proposals to give Vande Mataram equal status to the National Anthem or add a new Fundamental Duty.
• Questions raised about attempts to alter national symbols without constitutional amendment.

KEY POINTS

• 1937 CWC Resolution: Led by Nehru; moved by Rajendra Prasad, seconded by Patel. Only first two stanzas approved; Tagore’s tune recommended.
• Rationale: Address objections from Muslim groups, ensure wider acceptance in government functions.
• Constituent Assembly: Considered Vande Mataram, Sare Jahan Se Achha, Jana Gana Mana; chose Jana Gana Mana as Anthem; recognised Vande Mataram as National Song (not in Constitution).

Legal Position:

• Constitution does not mention National Song.
• 1971 Act penalises disrespect only to the Anthem.
• Bijoe Emmanuel protects freedom to not sing if no disrespect occurs.
• Recent Developments: HC orders on compulsory singing; Centre earlier opposed granting legal parity to Vande Mataram.

STATIC LINKAGES

• National symbols derive from resolutions, not constitutional articles.
• Fundamental Duties added by 42nd Amendment (1976).
• Art. 368 amendment not needed to change anthem unless Constitution explicitly mentions it.
• Role of national symbols in Indian nationalism (Swadeshi Movement, INC sessions, Tagore’s adoption).

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Pros
  • Clarifies national symbolism and promotes unity.
  • Revisits historical decisions for contemporary relevance.
• Cons
  • Politicisation of a settled question; potential communal tension.
  • Legal complications—National Song lacks statutory protection.
  • Risks symbolic constitutional changes without consensus.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Govt: Seeks uniform respect for national symbols.  
  • Opposition: Sees political revisionism.
  • Minorities: Sensitive to religious references.
  • Judiciary: Limits intervention due to statutory constraints.

WAY FORWARD (CRISP)

• Build broad political consensus before altering national symbolism.
• Strengthen civic education instead of compulsion.
• Issue clear official protocol for the National Song via executive guidelines.
• Uphold inclusive nationalism and constitutional morality.

• SC in the 16th Presidential Reference held that courts cannot prescribe timelines for constitutional authorities where the Constitution is silent.
• The decision impacts delays by Governors (Article 200) and Speakers (Tenth Schedule).
• Critics argue this weakens checks on misuse of office and ignores constitutional morality.

Key Points

• No constitutional timelines exist for actions of Governors, Speakers, President.
• Delay in defection rulings lets members complete full tenure without facing consequences.
• Governors withholding Bills indefinitely obstructs the legislative mandate.
• SC says constitutional silence is intentional, and courts cannot insert words into the Constitution.
• Critics argue it encourages constitutional perversion and undermines federalism.

Static Linkages

• Article 200: Governor’s options—assent, return, withhold, reserve.
• Tenth Schedule: Anti-defection; Speaker as quasi-judicial authority.
• Judicial Review: Courts strike down ultra vires actions, not rewrite provisions.
• Basic Structure: Democracy, federalism, separation of powers.
• Constitutional Morality: Ambedkar’s principle guiding institutional conduct.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Upholds separation of powers.
  • Avoids judicial overreach.
  • Respects the framers’ deliberate constitutional design.
• Cons
  • Enables misuse of discretionary powers.  
  • Weakens anti-defection outcomes.
  • Allows Governors to stall State Bills.
  • Ignores constitutional morality used in other major judgments.
• Stakeholder Views
  • States: Fear central interference via Governors.
  • Opposition: Sees legislative obstruction.  
  • Judiciary: Prioritises textual fidelity.
  • Scholars: Split between restraint vs. abdication.

Way Forward

• Amend Article 200 for clear timelines.
• Statutory time limits for defection rulings.  
• Implement federal reforms (Punchhi Commission).
• Independent tribunals for defection disputes.
• Evolve guidelines on constitutional morality and misuse of office.

AI MUST PAY

Context of the News

• DPIIT released a working paper proposing mandatory licensing for AI developers using Indian copyrighted content for model training.
• Rapid growth of LLMs has intensified conflict between AI firms seeking unrestricted data and publishers demanding consent and compensation.
• Global litigation offers no uniform legal clarity; India risks a regulatory vacuum.
• Proposal aims to balance innovation needs with fair remuneration for content creators.

Key Points

• Mandatory Licensing Model:
  • AI firms may scrape all publicly available data, but must pay royalties.
  • A non-profit copyright society-like body would manage royalty collection and distribution.
•  Rationale:
  • Opt-out mechanisms are impractical for millions of content creators.
  • AI training is seen as transformative processing, not reproduction.
• Concerns:
  • Royalty formula may undervalue small publishers.
  • Attribution of value from Indian content to AI revenues remains complex.
• Industry Split:
  • Tech firms fear increased compliance burdens; creators support economic rights protection.
• Static Linkages
  • Copyright Act, 1957 – rights of reproduction & exceptions.
  • Compulsory Licensing (Patents Act) – comparable model of use without consent but with royalty.
  • Constitutional Basis – Art. 19(1)(g), Art. 300A (IP as property).
  • WIPO Internet Treaties – digital rights framework.
  • NITI Aayog’s Data Governance Principles – data as a public good.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Protects economic interests of Indian publishers.
  • Reduces legal uncertainty; encourages responsible AI innovation.
  • Prevents dominance of AI hyperscalers exploiting content for free.
• Challenges
  • Designing a fair royalty formula.
  • Possible cost barriers for Indian AI startups.
  • Oversight and transparency of the collection body.
  • Aligning with data privacy norms under DPDP Act, 2023.

Stakeholders

• • AI firms: Want broad data access, minimal licensing costs.
  • Publishers: Seek monetisation and protection of IP.
  • Government: Balances innovation with creator rights.
  • Civil Society: Ensures privacy and ethical scraping.

Way Forward

• Develop tiered royalty weights based on quality, originality, and scale.
• Create an AI regulatory sandbox for startups.
• Harmonise scraping rules with DPDP Act compliance.
• Establish transparent governance standards for the licensing body.
• Promote negotiated licensing (dataset partnerships) alongside mandatory licensing.

TRUCE IN TATTERS

Context of the News

• Hostilities reignited on December 7, 2025, ending the July ceasefire mediated by Malaysia with U.S. support.
• Tensions began in May after a Cambodian soldier was killed; Cambodia responded with trade bans and border closures.
• July landmine blast injured Thai soldiers; Thailand accused Cambodia and downgraded ties.
• Five days of clashes killed ~48 and displaced 3 lakh people.
• Thailand suspended the ceasefire in November after another blast, leading to new fighting and alleged airstrikes.

Key Points

• Dispute centres on the undemarcated Dângrêk range and Preah Vihear temple.
• Roots lie in 1904–07 Franco–Siamese treaties with weak ground demarcation.
• ICJ (1962) granted Cambodia sovereignty over the temple but left surrounding areas unclear.
• Escalation strains ASEAN already stretched by the Myanmar crisis.
• Economic impact on tourism, border trade, and investor sentiment.

Static Linkages

• Boundary disputes often arise from colonial cartography gaps.
• ICJ rulings: binding but reliant on state compliance.
• UNESCO status doesn’t affect sovereignty but intensifies symbolic claims.
• ASEAN’s consensus model limits strong diplomatic intervention.
• Tools: joint demarcation, buffer zones, CBMs, demining programmes.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Ceasefire attempts highlight continuing regional diplomacy potential.
  • ICJ ruling provides a legal basis for talks.
• Challenges
  • Deep trust deficit; recurring landmine allegations.
  • Colonial-era maps fuel competing narratives.
  • ASEAN’s non-interference limits effective crisis management.
  • Large-scale displacement and economic disruption.
• Stakeholders
  • Thailand: demands security, clearer demarcation.
  •  Cambodia: cites ICJ sovereignty.
  • ASEAN: fears reputational damage.
  • Local populations: face displacement and landmine risks.

Way Forward

• Restore ceasefire through ASEAN/UN facilitation.
• Create a Joint Boundary Commission with modern mapping.
• Consider a demilitarised zone around Preah Vihear.
• Launch joint demining operations.
• Institutionalise CBMs and border hotlines.
• Reopen border markets to ease civilian distress.
• Strengthen ASEAN’s preventive diplomacy framework.