07 November 2025

• Supreme Court is examining a petition challenging Section 53(2) RPA, 1951 and related rules for uncontested elections.
• Petitioners: Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy & Association for Democratic Reforms.
• Issue: Candidates declared elected without a poll, denying voters the NOTA option.
• Centre: Distinguished ‘right to vote’ (statutory) from ‘freedom of voting’ (fundamental under Article 19(1)(a)).

Key Points

• Section 53(2): When candidates = seats, RO declares winners via Form 21/21B; no poll held.
• Petitioners argue this blocks expression via NOTA.
• Centre:
  • Right to vote = statutory; freedom of voting arises only during a poll.
  • NOTA is not a ‘candidate’ under Section 79(b) RPA.

• EC: Legislative changes needed to treat NOTA as a contesting candidate.
• Data: Only 9 uncontested elections in 20 General Elections (1951–2024

Static Linkages

• Article 19(1)(a) – Right to freedom of speech and expression.
• Section 62, 53, 79 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Forms 21 and 21B of Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961.
• Concept of NOTA introduced via Supreme Court directive (2013) in PUCL vs. Union of India.
• Principles of free and fair elections in the Constitution.

Critical Analysis

• Pros of Section 53(2) / Current Framework:
  • Avoids unnecessary elections when outcomes are predetermined.
  • Saves administrative costs and resources.
  • Ensures elections are conclusive, preventing legal and political uncertainty.
• Cons / Concerns:
  • Denies voters the ability to express dissent via NOTA.
  • Could undermine freedom of expression and participatory democracy.
  • Raises constitutional questions on whether statutory rights can override fundamental rights.
  • Limited instances of uncontested elections might still set a precedent affecting voter autonomy.
• Stakeholders:
  • Citizens / Voters: Right to express political dissent via NOTA restricted.
  • Government & EC: Need for clear statutory vs. constitutional boundaries.
  • Judiciary: Balancing administrative efficiency with constitutional freedoms

Way Forward

• Consider legislative amendments to include NOTA as a ‘contestable option’ even in uncontested elections.
• Explore hybrid mechanisms like electronic or postal voting for uncontested constituencies.
• Strengthen voter awareness and engagement in the electoral process.
• Judicial clarification on the scope of freedom of voting under Article 19(1)(a).

PUT UBI AT THE HEART OF WELFARE

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• India faces rising wealth inequality: top 1% hold 40% of wealth (World Inequality Database, 2023).
• Automation and tech advances threaten millions of informal jobs.
• Welfare schemes are fragmented, inefficient, and exclusionary.
• UBI pilots in India (SEWA MP 2011-13) and globally show improved nutrition, education, earnings, and mental health.

Key Points

• UBI: unconditional cash transfer to all citizens.
• Benefits: cushions job loss, supports unpaid care, ensures income security, reduces welfare leakage.
• GDP growth (8.4%, 2023-24) contrasts with low happiness rank (126/137).
• Estimated cost: minimal UBI ~5% of GDP; phased rollout can prioritize vulnerable groups.
• Requires strong digital infrastructure for inclusion.

Static Linkages

• Articles 39 & 41 (Directive Principles), Articles 21 & 41 (Social Security)
• PDS, MGNREGA
• Economic concepts: Gini coefficient, GDP vs.HDI
• PMJDY & DBT for financial inclusion

Critical Analysis

• Pros: reduces poverty, supports care work, streamlines welfare, empowers citizens.
• Cons: high fiscal cost, risk of benefiting affluent, doesn’t create jobs, requires tech access, potential inflation.
• Stakeholders: Citizens (security), Govt (fiscal challenge), Economists (inclusive growth).

Way Forward

• Phase-wise rollout, prioritize vulnerable groups.
• Integrate with PDS & MGNREGA.
• Strengthen digital and financial inclusion.
• Fiscal planning: subsidies rationalization, tax reforms.
• Monitor pilots and ensure awareness.

NEXT PHASE OF SIR :THE ASSAM CASE

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) has launched the second phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several States, following a pilot in Bihar.
• Opposition parties allege that this SIR is a “backdoor NRC” (National Register of Citizens), raising concerns over citizenship verification.
• On October 27, 2025, the ECI clarified that Assam would be excluded from the current SIR phase due to its unique legal and historical framework under the Citizenship Act, 1955, and the Supreme Court-monitored NRC.

Key Points

• Assam Exception: Assam has a separate citizenship regime under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, introduced as part of the Assam Accord, with distinct cut-off dates for detecting illegal immigrants.
• NRC in Assam:
  • Final NRC published on 31 August 2019 under Supreme Court supervision.
  • Total applicants: 3.30 crore; applications processed: 68.38 lakh.
  • Outcome: 3,11,21,004 included, 19,06,657 excluded.
  • Exercise cost: over ₹1,600 crore with involvement of 52,000 officials.
• Legal Standing: Supreme Court in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act (October 2024) upheld Section 6A, reaffirming Assam’s unique citizenship framework.
• ECI Jurisdiction: ECI’s mandate is limited to electoral roll maintenance; citizenship verification falls under the Citizenship Act authorities.
• Conducting SIR in Assam akin to NRC would overstep this mandate.
• Potential Implications: Conducting a parallel citizenship verification in Assam may:
• Undermine trust in institutions.  Disturb Assam’s social fabric.
• Lead to legal and administrative challenges.

Static Linkages

• Constitution of India: Articles 324 (ECI functions), Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 21 (Right to Life).
• Citizenship Act, 1955: Section 6A for Assam.
• Assam Accord, 1985: Historical framework for Assam’s citizenship and illegal immigrant detection.
• Electoral Processes: ECI guidelines on electoral roll maintenance and Special Intensive Revision.

Critical Analysis

• Pros of ECI’s current approach
  • Maintains ECI’s core mandate of free and fair elections.
  • Avoids duplicating the NRC exercise in Assam, respecting Supreme Court monitoring.
  • Prevents unnecessary legal and administrative complications in Assam.
• Cons / Challenges
  • Opposition perceives SIR as a tool to exclude voters.
  • Confusion among public on citizenship verification versus voter verification.
  • Risk of politicization of electoral rolls.
• Stakeholder Perspectives
  • ECI: Focused on clean electoral rolls, respects Assam’s NRC process.
  • Opposition: Suspicious of backdoor NRC.
  • Citizens of Assam: Likely concerned about repetition of verification process and uncertainty.

Way Forward

• ECI should explicitly rely on NRC data for Assam, avoiding separate citizenship checks.
• Ensure public communication and transparency to counter misinformation.
• Strengthen coordination with State authorities to maintain electoral roll accuracy.
• Monitor potential legal challenges in light of Supreme Court precedents

• A petition challenges Section 4(iii)(C)(II) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021, which prohibits couples with a surviving child from accessing surrogacy.
• The couple faces secondary infertility (unable to conceive despite previously giving birth) and seeks surrogacy for a second child.
• The Government argues surrogacy involves another woman’s body and is not a fundamental right.
• The Court has indicated that the restriction may be “reasonable” but will examine if it violates reproductive choice and privacy.
• Earlier, the Court relaxed age restrictions for couples with frozen embryos, showing willingness to interpret the law flexibly in line with ART.

Key Points

• The Act permits altruistic surrogacy only; commercial surrogacy is prohibited.
• Eligibility: legally married Indian couples; wife 23–50 years, husband 26–55 years; no surviving child except if the child has a serious physical/mental disorder.
• Surrogate mother must be married, 25–35 years, and have at least one child; she can serve as a surrogate only once.
• Objective: prevent exploitation of women, curb commercialisation, and regulate fertility clinics.
• Current issue: couples with secondary infertility are excluded despite medical need, raising questions on privacy and reproductive autonomy.
• India has no law restricting the number of children, though some states incentivise a two-child norm.

Static Linkages

• Right to privacy and reproductive autonomy (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017).
• Articles 21 (life and personal liberty) and 14 (equality) govern state interference in reproductive choices.
• Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 regulates fertility clinics and ART procedures.
• State two-child norms as incentives for benefits or jobs.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Protects surrogate mothers from exploitation and commercialisation.
  • Clear eligibility norms provide legal certainty and welfare safeguards.
• Cons / Challenges:
  • Excludes couples with secondary infertility arbitrarily.
  • Discriminates against unmarried individuals, same- sex couples, and single men.
  • May push surrogacy into unregulated channels.
  • Restriction may not align with medical realities of infertility.
• Stakeholder perspectives:
  • Couples: reproductive autonomy should allow access despite secondary infertility.
  • Surrogates: regulation protects welfare but may limit agency.
  • Government: aims to prevent exploitation and commercialisation.
• Constitutional / Moral Dimensions:
  • Whether the restriction violates Articles 14 and 21.
  • Whether classification between childless vs. having surviving child is reasonable.
  • Ethical balance: surrogate autonomy vs. intending parents’ rights.

Way Forward

• Amend Act to recognise secondary infertility and allow access even with prior child.
• Make eligibility based on medical need rather than rigid “no surviving child” bar.
• Strengthen oversight of clinics, insurance, and surrogate welfare.
• Include protections for under-represented groups.
• Periodic review with stakeholders to align policy with science and social realities.

JUSTICE IN FOOD

Context of the News

• The EAT-Lancet Commission released a report on healthy, sustainable, and just food systems.
• It highlights that food production drives five of six breached planetary boundaries and contributes ~30% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
• The report underscores the centrality of food systems in the overlapping crises of climate, biodiversity, water, and pollution.
• It provides country-specific insights, including implications for India’s cereal-heavy diet and the need for dietary diversification.

Key Points

• Animal foods → most GHG emissions; grains → nitrogen, phosphorus, water use.
• Global nitrogen surplus > 2× safe limit.
• Efficiency gains alone may increase output, negating environmental benefits.
• India: More vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes needed → could raise prices; affordability sensitive.
• Policy options: cut harmful inputs, fiscal incentives for minimally processed foods, regionally adapted diets, supply-side reforms, groundwater management.
• Address market concentration, labor rights, corporate influence.

Static Linkages

• Soil & water management, fertilizer use – NCERT Class 12 “Agriculture”.
• GHGs & climate – India’s NDCs, State of Forest Report.
• Food security – NFSA, Midday Meal Scheme, MSP.
• GDP growth vs sustainability – Economic Survey.

Critical Analysis

• Pros: Integrates diet, production, environment; considers cultural realities.
• Cons: Unrealistic GDP assumptions; dietary change may raise costs; behavioral and market barriers.
• Stakeholders: Consumers (affordability), Farmers (incentives), Government (policy coherence), Private sector (sustainability).

Way Forward

• Regulate fertilizers & water; promote regionally adapted, affordable diets.
• Sustainable supply chains (cold storage, energy).
• Encourage collective bargaining for small producers.
• Align GDP growth with climate resilience.

FROM ALLAHABAD TO NYC: NEHRU’S ARC

Context of the News

• Zohran Mamdani, an Indian-origin U.S. legislator, in his victory speech invoked Eugene V.Debs and Jawaharlal Nehru, reviving links between American socialism and India’s anti- colonial civil liberties tradition.
• The reference recalls the early 20th-century network of leaders — Debs, Nehru, and Roger Baldwin (ACLU founder) — who connected socialism, anti-racism, and freedom movements across continents.

Key Points

• Roger Baldwin, close to Nehru, shaped his American engagement and shared ideals on liberty and socialism.
• Eugene Debs viewed racism and capitalism as tools of exploitation and saw workers as global unifiers.
• Nehru’s Allahabad municipal work reflected welfare-oriented socialism — housing for all, taxing the rich, and civic inclusion.
• Amrit Singh, Manmohan Singh’s daughter, continues the Nehru–Baldwin legacy at the ACLU.
• The moment symbolises a forgotten era where civil liberties, socialism, and decolonisation were seen as one emancipatory cause.

Static Linkages

• India’s freedom struggle had global socialist links (e.g., League Against Imperialism, 1927).
• Nehru’s ideals shaped DPSPs and India’s constitutional socialism.
• Civil liberties evolved through groups like PUCL, inspired by Nehruvian liberalism
• The Vienna housing model influenced Nehru’s ideas on inclusive urban policy.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Revives India’s global role in civil rights and liberty thought.
  • Promotes ethical and inclusive local governance.
• Challenges:
  • Modern politics separates liberty from equality.
  • Urban bodies remain weak and underfunded.
  • Left–liberal thought losing institutional strength.

Way Forward

• Reintroduce historical global linkages in civic education.
• Strengthen independent civil liberties institutions.
• Empower urban local bodies for inclusive growth.
• Rebuild plural, Nehruvian cosmopolitanism in cities