22 January 2026

• Supreme Court of India examined legality of Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls by Election Commission of India
• Issue: Procedural deviations during SIR affecting existing voters
• Legal framework involved:
  • Article 324
  • Section 21, Representation of the People Act, 1950
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960

Key Points

• EC has wide discretionary powers under Article 324
• Discretion not absolute; must follow:
  • Principles of natural justice
  • Equality before law (Article 14)  Statutory procedure
• Section 21(3), RP Act, 1950:
  • Allows special revision of electoral rolls
  • Does not permit bypassing statutory rules
• Rule 25(2), Registration of Electors Rules, 1960:
  • Intensive revision must follow Rules 4–23
• Court objected to:
  • Expansion of documentary proof beyond Form 6
  • Lack of procedural transparency
• Electoral roll revision affects civil rights of existing voters
• Administrative discretion subject to judicial review

Static Linkages

• Article 324: Superintendence, direction, control of elections
• Article 14: Equality before law
• Article 326: Universal adult suffrage
• RP Act, 1950: Electoral roll preparation and revision
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Procedural safeguards
• Natural justice applicable to administrative actions affecting rights

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Protects voter enfranchisement  
  • Reinforces rule of law
  • Prevents arbitrary deletion of voters 
  • Ensures procedural fairness
• Concerns
  • Over-expansive discretion risks voter exclusion  
  • Documentary rigidity affects migrants and urban poor
• Frequent intensive revisions cause administrative strain

Way Forward

• Strict adherence to Registration of Electors Rules
• Clear SOPs for Special Intensive Revision  
• Limit documentary proof to notified documents
• Ensure notice, hearing, and reasoned orders  
• Balance electoral purity with voter convenience

EXPERTS PANEL TO DEFINE ARAVALLIS

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

•  The Supreme Court of India found that an earlier definition of the Aravalli Range based mainly on height (100 metres or more) was ecologically unsafe.
• This definition would leave most Aravalli hills unprotected, allowing unregulated mining.
• Since the Aravallis are ancient geological formations, a narrow technical definition could cause irreversible environmental damage.

What problem did the earlier definition create?

• In Rajasthan, only 1,048 out of 12,081 hills met the 100-metre criterion.
• Remaining hills would lose protection despite being part of the same ecological and geological system.
• This created a regulatory vacuum (lacuna) in environmental protection.

Why did the Court stay its own judgment?

• To prevent irreversible ecological harm until a scientifically sound framework is evolved.
• To ensure status quo—no administrative or mining actions based on a flawed definition
• Demonstrates application of the Precautionary Principle.

Why a committee of domain experts?

• Mountains like the Aravallis are tectonic and continuous formations, not isolated hills.
• Experts can assess:
  • Geological continuity  Groundwater systems
  • Biodiversity and forests  
  • Impact of mining
• The committee will work under Supreme Court supervision, ensuring neutrality and credibility.

Why is mining restricted during this period?

• Mining causes:
  • Loss of forest cover
  • Groundwater depletion  
  • Desertification
• Court barred fresh or renewed mining leases to avoid fait accompli situations.

Why are the Aravallis important ?

• Among the oldest fold mountains in the world.  Act as a barrier to the eastward spread of the Thar Desert.
• Crucial groundwater recharge zone for north- western India.
• Loss of Aravallis → increased heat waves, dust storms, water scarcity.

Why did some argue against “defining” the Aravallis?

• Argument: Mountains cannot be strictly defined by height.
• Geological systems are sub-tectonic and continuous.
• Over-definition may lead to legal and ecological distortions.

Constitutional & Governance Significance

• Reflects judicial activism in environmental governance.
• Balances:
  • Development needs
  • Environmental protection
• Reinforces doctrines of:
  • Public Trust Doctrine
  • Inter-generational Equity

SC: FREEBIES NOT SAME AS WELFARE

• The Supreme Court of India distinguished between irrational freebies and legitimate welfare schemes.
• Observation made while considering petitions seeking to declare poll-time freebies as corrupt practice.
• Bench led by Surya Kant emphasised constitutional obligation of welfare.

Core Observations of the Court

• Distribution of largesse to individuals ≠ investment in public welfare.
• Welfare schemes for marginalised sections are constitutional obligations, not charity.
• State must prioritise healthcare and education for non-creamy layer.
• Concern over absence of dedicated revenue surplus for inclusive development.
• Judicial concern on fiscal stress due to unrestrained freebies.

Legal & Constitutional Aspects

• Welfare obligation flows from Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP).
• Article 38: Reduce inequalities.
• Article 39(b), 39(c): Equitable distribution of resources.
• Article 41: Right to work, education, public assistance.
• Article 47: Improvement of public health.  Article 282: Grants for public purposes by Union/States.
• Debate on Section 123, RPA 1951 (corrupt electoral practices).
• Earlier precedent: S. Subramaniam Balaji vs State of Tamil Nadu held manifesto promises not corrupt practice.

Issues Highlighted

• Fiscal sustainability vs populist politics.
• Risk of welfare turning into dependency (“parasitic existence”).
• Electoral distortion due to competitive freebies.
• Absence of objective criteria to define “irrational freebies”.

Governance & Policy Linkages

• Fiscal discipline under FRBM Act, 2003.  
• Election integrity and level playing field.  
• Accountability in public expenditure.
• Outcome-based welfare vs consumption- based transfers.

Way Forward (Exam-Focused)

• Define objective parameters to distinguish welfare from freebies.
• Mandatory fiscal impact statement in election manifestos.
• Strengthen role of Election Commission of India in regulating promises.
• Link welfare schemes with human capital creation.
• Ensure welfare spending aligns with long-term development goals.

Prelims Pointers

•  DPSPs are non-justiciable but fundamental in governance.
• Article 282 does not imply unlimited discretionary spending.
• Corrupt practice under RPA requires statutory interpretation, not mere political morality.

Mains Value Addition

• Reflects tension between constitutional morality and electoral populism.
• Judiciary increasingly asserting role in fiscal constitutionalism.
• Reinforces concept of inclusive but responsible welfare state.

• December 2025: 107 Lok Sabha MPs submitted a notice seeking removal of a Madras High Court judge on grounds of alleged misbehaviour.
• The notice was submitted to the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per statutory procedure.

Constitutional Provisions

• The Constitution uses the term “removal”, not impeachment, for judges.
• Article 124(4) & 124(5): Removal of Supreme Court judges.
• Articles 217(1)(b) & 218: Apply the same procedure to High Court judges.
• Impeachment term is used only for the President of India (Article 61).

Grounds for Removal

• Proved misbehaviour, or  
• Incapacity
• Misbehaviour is not defined in the Constitution.

Judicial Interpretation of Misbehaviour

• Includes:
  • Wilful misconduct  Corruption
  • Lack of integrity  Moral turpitude
  • Wilful abuse of judicial office
• Errors of judgment or negligence alone do not constitute misbehaviour.
• Presence of mens rea is essential.

Statutory Framework

• Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 enacted under Article 124(5).  
• Regulates:
  • Investigation of charges
  • Presentation of address to the President

Initiation of Motion

• Minimum signatories:
  • 100 Lok Sabha MPs, or  
  • 50 Rajya Sabha MPs
• Motion is submitted to:
  • Speaker (Lok Sabha), or  
  • Chairman (Rajya Sabha)

Role of Speaker/Chairman

• Acts as a statutory authority, not as Presiding Officer of the House.
• Has discretion to:
  • Admit, or
  • Disallow the motion
• The Act does not specify admissibility criteria.

Critical Procedural Issue

• If the motion is disallowed at the threshold:
  • No inquiry is conducted
  • Motion lapses permanently
• No requirement to:
  • Assign reasons explicitly
• Decision is justiciable (can be challenged in court).

Post-Admission Procedure

• A three-member Inquiry Committee is constituted:
  • One Supreme Court Judge
  • One Chief Justice of a High Court  
  • One distinguished jurist
• Committee conducts detailed investigation and submits a report.

Final Removal Process

• Each House must pass an address with:
  • Majority of total membership, and
  • Two-thirds of members present and voting
• Address sent to the President, who issues the removal order.

Key Concerns

• Excessive discretion of Speaker/Chairman at admission stage.
• Absence of objective standards → risk of arbitrariness.  
• Executive influence may block judicial accountability.
• Contradiction with the spirit of Article 124(5), which emphasises investigation.

Way Forward

• Define clear admissibility criteria in law.  
• Mandate reasoned orders for rejection.   
• Reduce discretionary veto at threshold.
• Balance judicial independence with constitutional accountability.

LOWERING JUVENILE AGE IS REGRESSIVE

Context of the News

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 introduced the transfer system for 16–18 year olds accused of heinous offences.
• Private Member’s Bill (Dec 2025) proposes lowering transfer age to 14 years.
• Heinous offences: Minimum punishment ≥ 7 years.
• Proposal allows 14–15 year olds to face adult criminal trials.

Key Facts

• Transfer decision made by Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) via preliminary assessment.
• Assessment includes:
  • Mental capacity
  • Ability to understand consequences
  • Circumstances of offence
• Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015): Opposed transfer system.
• No scientific tools to assess adult-like criminal capacity in children.

Data

• National Crime Records Bureau (Crime in India 2023):
  • CICL cases: 0.5% of total crimes.  
  • 79% CICLs aged 16–18.
  • Only 21% aged 12–16.
• Data contradicts claim of crime surge among 14–16 age group.

Conceptual Issues

• Shifts juvenile justice from reformative to retributive.
• Introduces subjectivity and arbitrariness in assessments.
• Creates artificial classification within childhood.
• Focus moves from developmental vulnerability to blameworthiness.

Static Linkages

• Article 15(3) – Special protection for children.
• Article 39(e), 39(f) – Protection from abuse and neglect.
• Parens Patriae doctrine – State as guardian.
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – Child-specific justice.
• Beijing Rules / Havana Rules – Against adult trials of juveniles.

Implications

• Exposure to adult justice system leads to:
  • Educational disruption
  • Psychological trauma  
  • Social stigma
  • Higher recidivism
• Ignores structural causes:
  • Poverty
  • Neglect
  • Lack of welfare support

Critical Analysis

• Deterrence argument lacks empirical backing.
• Punitive approach does not reduce crime.  
• Systemic failures shifted onto children.
• Undermines best interests of the child principle.

Way Forward

• Retain 18 years as absolute age threshold.  
• Review or repeal transfer system.
• Strengthen:
  • JJBs and Child Welfare Committees  
  • Observation and Special Homes
• Focus on:
  • Early intervention
  • Mental health support
  • Family and community-based care  
• Ensure strict compliance with child protection safeguards.