28 November 2025

• SC directed the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to draft guidelines for regulating user-generated online content, citing rising obscene, defamatory, and harmful posts.
• Court proposed an autonomous vetting authority and highlighted issues of virality, minors’ exposure, and poor pre-upload safeguards.
• Suggested exploring age verification (incl. Aadhaar) while stressing protection of free speech under Article 19(1)(a).
• Concerns raised over vague terms like “anti- national” and risks of pre-censorship.

Key Points

• Current takedown time (~24 hrs) is inadequate to prevent reputational harm.
• Need for preventive yet non-censorial mechanisms, considering social media’s borderless spread.
• Platforms monetise content; hence stronger accountability needed.
• Public consultation essential before regulating speech.

Static Linkages

• Art. 19(2): Reasonable restrictions—decency, morality, defamation, public order.
• IT Act & IT Rules 2021: Due diligence, takedown norms, automated moderation.
• Puttaswamy (2017): Proportionality test; Aadhaar–privacy concerns.
• Shreya Singhal (2015): No takedown without court/government order; curbs prior restraint.
• Prior Restraint Doctrine: Avoids pre- censorship.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Protects individuals from instant, irreversible online harm.
  • Enhances platform accountability and strengthens age-control.
  • Helps curb misinformation and deepfakes.
• Challenges
  • Risk of prior restraint and overbroad restrictions.
  • Aadhaar-based verification may violate privacy and voluntariness.
  •  “Anti-national” undefined → potential misuse.
  • Weak regulatory independence may politicise content control.
  • Compliance burdens for small creators. Stakeholder Views
  • Govt: Needs control over harmful content.
  • Judiciary: Balance free speech with victim protection.
  • Civil society: Opposes vague terms & surveillance.
  • Platforms: Concerned about feasibility of pre- upload checks.

Way Forward

• Clear, narrow, rights-based guidelines aligned with Art. 19(2).
• Independent, multi-stakeholder oversight body.
• Privacy-preserving age verification (non- Aadhaar).
• Faster takedown systems + transparency audits.
• Stronger digital literacy and grievance redressal.
• Hybrid moderation: AI + human review.

IMF GIVES INDIA ‘C’ GRADE

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• The International Monetary Fund (IMF) released its Article IV Consultation Report evaluating India’s macroeconomic data quality.
• India’s national accounts statistics (GDP, GVA) received a ‘C’ grade, the second-lowest in the four-tier scale (A, B, C, D).
• The grade indicates methodological shortcomings that “somewhat hamper surveillance.”
• This comes ahead of the release of India’s Q2 national accounts data for the current financial year.
• The IMF has given India an overall ‘B’ grade across all statistical categories.
• India’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) received a ‘B’, mainly due to an outdated base year (2012).

Key Points

• IMF states national accounts have adequate frequency and granularity, but methodological weaknesses persist.
• Base year (2011–12) outdated for GDP and CPI * fails to capture evolving consumption patterns and structural changes.
• Use of Wholesale Price Index (WPI) as a proxy deflator due to incomplete Producer Price Index (PPI) system.
• Large discrepancies between production and expenditure approaches to GDP estimation.
• Informal sector undercoverage flagged as a major drawback, given its significant share in India’s economy.
• Lack of seasonal adjustment in quarterly GDP data reduces analytical clarity.
• CPI suffers from old basket & weights, limiting its representativeness for policy-making.

Static Linkages

• National income is measured through production, income, and expenditure approaches.
• GDP at constant prices uses price indices as deflators; the base year must be periodically revised (normally every 5 years).
• NSSO surveys, ASICS, and Household Consumption Expenditure Surveys form key inputs for national accounts.
• India’s statistical architecture: MOSPI → CSO + NSSO (merged into NSO).
• Informal sector estimation depends on benchmark-blowup method from periodic surveys.
• CPI base revision follows the Laspeyres index formula.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths:
  • Timely GDP and CPI data; broad coverage.
• Weaknesses:
  • Base year outdated; WPI-based deflators distort real estimates.
  • Informal sector inadequately captured.
  • No seasonal adjustment, reducing trend clarity.
• Stakeholder Views:
  • Govt: acknowledges need for base revision.  IMF/Economists: seek better methods, transparency.
  • Markets: rely on credible, comparable data.
• Challenges:
  • Limited household surveys;  High informality;
  • Need for stronger administrative datasets.

Way Forward

• Update base year for GDP and CPI.  Introduce complete PPI system.
• Publish seasonally adjusted GDP series.
• Better integration of GSTN, MCA21, RBI datasets.
• Improve informal sector measurement & methodological transparency..

BLOs CAN’T JUDGE CITIZENSHIP

• Petitioners in the Supreme Court have challenged the Election Commission’s (EC) move requiring schoolteachers acting as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls to verify voters’ citizenship.
• Senior advocates argue that EC has gone beyond statutory limits, turning the SIR into an en masse verification exercise across States.
• The petitioners highlighted that citizenship determination lies solely with the Ministry of Home Affairs, not BLOs.
• The Supreme Court has adjourned the matter to December 2.

Key Points

• BLOs deployed during SIR have been asked to verify citizenship status of voters—termed “dangerous and unreasonable” by petitioners.
•  Advocates argue that Section 21(3) of ROPA, 1950, allows special revision only for a constituency or part of it, not countrywide.
• Aadhaar can verify age and residence, but not citizenship, which is not an Aadhaar-linked parameter.
• Petitioners alleged EC has “supplanted” the statutory process by introducing new forms and shifting burden of proof to citizens.
• The move is alleged to be driven by assumptions of a large-scale influx of illegal immigrants, without statutory backing.
• Citizenship verification should only occur after an objection, not suo motu by EC.
• Citizenship and illegal immigration are governed by Citizenship Act, 1955 and Foreigners Act, 1946, not electoral law.

Static Linkages

• Article 324: Vests EC with superintendence, direction, and control of elections—but not power to determine citizenship.
• ROPA 1950:
  • Section 19: Eligibility for registration — 18+ years, ordinarily resident.
  • Section 21: Provision for general and special revisions of electoral rolls.
• Citizenship Act, 1955: Governs acquisition & termination of citizenship; determination is an executive function (MHA).
• Foreigners Act, 1946: Burden of proof of citizenship status lies on the person only when proceedings under the Act are initiated.
• BLOs: Primarily assist in updating rolls; not empowered to make legal determinations on citizenship.
• Principle of Natural Justice: “Audi alteram partem”—burden of proof cannot be arbitrarily shifted without due process.
• NRC vs Electoral Roll: NRC is a citizenship register; electoral roll is not.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • May strengthen roll accuracy.
  • Addresses concerns of demographic pressure in border regions.
• Cons
  • EC’s actions may be ultra vires Article 324 & ROPA.
  • BLOs lack training/authority for citizenship assessment.
  • Risk of wrongful exclusion of genuine citizens.
  • En masse verification undermines trust and due process.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Petitioners: Illegal, arbitrary, exclusionary.
  • EC: Ensuring clean electoral rolls.
  • Citizens: Risk of harassment, especially vulnerable groups.

Way Forward

• Judicial clarity on limits of Article 324.
• Restrict SIR to evidence-based, localized reviews.
• Strengthen EC–MHA coordination for disputed cases.
• Ensure SOPs, training, and due process safeguards.
• Use technology for age and residence verification.

• Lieutenant Samuel Kamalesan was dismissed for refusing to enter the sanctum of his regiment’s temple/gurdwara during mandatory ceremonial parades.
• The Delhi High Court upheld the dismissal; the Supreme Court declined to interfere.
• The Court justified its stance on grounds of military discipline, Article 33, and the doctrine of deference to military judgment.
• The issue raises larger questions on religious freedom, reasonable accommodation, and the balance between personal conscience and institutional cohesion.

Key Points

• The officer attended all parades, complied with rituals, and maintained respect but abstained from entering the sanctum due to Protestant belief.
• The Army viewed this as non-participation in a mandatory regimental custom, affecting command acceptance in a fixed-class unit.
• Article 33 empowers Parliament to restrict fundamental rights for armed forces personnel in the interest of discipline and duty.
• Courts treated this as disobedience of a lawful command, not a case of religious liberty.
• Judiciary traditionally defers to military decisions but has intervened earlier in issues like women officers, pensions, and equality norms.
• The case raises concerns for minority soldiers regarding limits of religious accommodation.

Static Linkages

• Article 25: Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
• Article 33: Parliament may modify rights under Part III for armed forces to ensure discipline.
• Doctrine of Proportionality: Applied by courts to ascertain whether a restriction on rights is reasonable (e.g., Puttaswamy 2017).
• Bijoe Emmanuel (1986): Protection of sincere religious belief—students excused from singing national anthem if they stand respectfully.
• Armed Forces (Special Powers) and Discipline Framework: High threshold for judicial interference in military matters.
• Reasonable Accommodation: Recognised globally as a tool to harmonise diversity with institutional needs (ILO, UNHR norms).
• Civil-Military Relations Principle: Judiciary exercises limited review, especially in operational or disciplinary domains.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths of the Army/Court View
  • Cohesion in fixed-class units requires uniform rituals.
  • Judicial restraint prevents interference in operational discipline.
  • Article 33 offers broad space for restricting rights to maintain order.
• Concerns
  • A minimal accommodation could have preserved both conscience and discipline.
  • Risk of alienating minority personnel.
  • Proportionality analysis and Bijoe Emmanuel principles underused.
  • Rigid adherence to ritual can slide into exclusion. Stakeholder Perspectives
  • Army: Unity and predictability in leadership.
  • Soldiers of minority faiths: Fear of crossing doctrinal limits.
  • Judiciary: Balancing rights with discipline.
  • Society: Expectation of secular, inclusive institutions.

Way Forward

• Codify reasonable accommodation for non- operational rituals.
• Set up internal mediation cells for faith-based concerns.
• Clarify which rituals are mandatory duty vs optional faith practices.
• CO-level discretion to allow harmless accommodations.
• Periodic review of Article 33 limits to ensure proportionality.
• Sensitisation on diversity and pluralism.

MODERN, FUTURE -READY LABOUR

Context of the News

• On 21 November 2025, the Government of India notified all four Labour Codes, bringing them into effect nationwide.
• These include:
  • Code on Wages, 2019
  • Industrial Relations Code, 2020
  • Code on Social Security, 2020
  • OSH (Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions) Code, 2020
• The reforms consolidate 29 central labour laws into 4 streamlined codes following recommendations of the Second National Commission on Labour (2002).
• Aim: Create a modern, simplified, future-ready labour regulatory architecture supporting formalisation, worker protection and enterprise competitiveness.

Key Points

• India has 643 million workers; 16.83 crore jobs added (2017–24); unemployment fell to 3.2%.
• Universal minimum wage, national floor wage, 48-hour week, appointment letters, timely wages.
• OSH Code: safety committees, health check- ups, higher workplace standards.
• Social Security Code: universal ESIC, simplified EPF, National Social Security Fund, construction cess reform.
• Gig/platform workers included for social protection.
• Single registration/licence/return, uniform wage definition, decriminalisation of minor offences, algorithm-based inspections.
• Women: night-shift with safeguards, better maternity norms, expanded social security.

Static Linkages

• Directive Principles:
  • Article 39 (equal pay), Article 41 (right to work, education, public assistance), Article 42 (just & humane work conditions, maternity relief), Article 43A (workers’ participation).
• Concurrent List (List III) enables both Centre and State to legislate on labour (Entry 22–24).
• ILO Core Conventions and Decent Work Agenda (fair wages, social protection).
• Second National Commission on Labour (2002) → consolidation of laws into 4–5 codes.
• Ease of Doing Business reforms: compliance simplification.
• Social Security → aligned with India Year Book and EPFO/ESIC statutory mandates.
• Formalisation → linked to Economic Survey chapters on labour reforms.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Simplifies fragmented laws; boosts formalisation.
  • Clear rules → lower disputes, better compliance.
  • Stronger worker welfare & safety.
  • Supports MSMEs and ease of doing business.
  • Future-ready: covers gig workers.
  • Encourages women’s labour participation. Challenges
  • State-level readiness uneven.
  • Labour unions fear dilution of job security.
  • Implementation for gig/unorganised workers complex.
  • Digital compliance tough for small informal units.
  • Risk of weak enforcement if oversight is lax.

Way Forward

• Uniform state implementation; capacity building.
• Clear social security funding for gig workers.
• Strong digital grievance systems.
• Awareness for unorganised workers/MSMEs.
• Periodic audits of OSH compliance.
• Gender-friendly workplace infrastructure.

BURDEN OF PROOF

Context of the News

• ECI is conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in 12 States/UTs, requiring voters to verify details using forms matched with 2002–2005 rolls.
• The Bihar model is under Supreme Court scrutiny, yet being replicated elsewhere.
• Ground reports show document confusion, short supply of forms, and poor BLO outreach.
• Bihar witnessed a sharp fall in female voter ratio, raising fears of exclusion.
• SIR reverses the earlier presumption that adult residents are valid voters, shifting the burden on citizens.

KEY POINTS

• Citizens must prove eligibility using old records, risking large-scale disenfranchisement, especially of women and migrants.
• BLO household visits remain largely paper directives.
• Courts earlier presumed residency unless disproved (Dr. Manmohan Singh, 1999).
• SC hearings have focused on logistics, not the constitutionality of the methodology.
• ECI preference for “purifying” rolls undermines universal inclusion.

STATIC LINKAGES

• Constitutional provision: Article 326 – Universal Adult Suffrage; reduced from 21 to 18 by 61st Constitutional Amendment Act (1988).
• Representation of the People Act, 1950 governs electoral roll preparation and residency criteria.
• Role of Election Commission under Article 324: Superintendence, direction, and control of elections.
• Principle of natural justice: Burden of proof typically lies on the authority imposing restrictions.
• Electoral roll integrity is essential for free and fair elections — part of basic structure (as per Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975).
• Urban migration trends (NSSO data) complicate residency-based voter identification.
• Gender gap in electoral participation is a key theme in political sociology.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Positives
  • Aims at removing duplicate/invalid entries.
  • Attempts to modernize voter roll verification.
• Concerns
  • Burden shift violates the spirit of Art. 326 and procedural fairness.
  • Implementation gaps → errors and confusion.
  • Women, migrants, and the urban poor face risk of exclusion.
  • Lack of judicial clarity on the methodology’s constitutionality.

WAY FORWARD

• Restore state responsibility for accurate rolls.
• Genuine door-to-door verification with adequate staffing.
• Technology-backed deduplication with safeguards.
• Clear, multilingual documentation guidelines.  
• Targeted support for vulnerable groups.
• SC clarification on “ordinary residence.