Content:

1. Double trouble
2. Little has changed in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025

Double Trouble

Context : Concerns Over Electoral Integrity

• Public Confidence: The credibility of India’s electoral system is crucial for both voters and political parties.
• ECI Under Scrutiny: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has faced criticism from various stakeholders, including political parties and civil society groups.
• Voter Registration Discrepancies: The recent surge in voter numbers in some states, such as Maharashtra (48 lakh new voters in six months), has raised suspicions.
• Opposition Concerns: Parties like Congress and Trinamool Congress have questioned the voter registration process, highlighting inconsistencies in electoral rolls.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Elections)

Practice Question :Discuss the challenges posed by duplicate EPIC numbers in India’s electoral system and evaluate the feasibility of Aadhaar-based voter deduplication as a solution. Suggest alternative reforms to ensure electoral integrity. (250 words)

EPIC Number Issues and Potential for Duplicate Voting

• Duplicate EPIC Numbers: The ECI acknowledged that some voters share the same Electors Photo Identification Card (EPIC) number.
• Migrant Voter Challenge: A voter could potentially be registered in multiple states due to delays in de-duplication, leading to voting in multiple locations.
• Impact on Electoral Fairness: If elections in different states occur in quick succession, a voter might cast ballots in multiple constituencies, raising questions about election integrity.

 Aadhaar as a Solution – Strengths and Limitations

• Aadhaar-Based Deduplication: Linking Aadhaar to voter registration can help restrict a voter to one polling location.
• Citizenship vs. Residency Issue: Aadhaar identifies residents, not necessarily citizens, making it insufficient as the sole proof of voting eligibility.
• Data Privacy Concerns: Linking Aadhaar to voter rolls could lead to misuse, such as profiling of voters, raising privacy and surveillance risks.
• Need for Supplementary Proofs: Biometric verification alone is not foolproof and must be backed by alternative identity verification to prevent exclusion due to technological failures.

Potential Electoral Reforms

• Unique Voter ID System: ECI must ensure that each voter has only one EPIC number linked to a single constituency.
• Regular Voter Database Updates: Frequent and transparent updates to electoral rolls can minimize duplicate registrations.
• Alternative Identity Verification: Alongside Aadhaar-based deduplication, other proofs of citizenship should be mandated to prevent voter exclusion.
• Transparent Process: The ECI should maintain transparency in its de-duplication process and communicate effectively with political stakeholders.

Conclusion

• Ensuring Electoral Integrity: While Aadhaar linking can help restrict a voter to one polling location, it should not be the sole method of verification.
• Balanced Approach Needed: Electoral roll de-duplication must balance security, privacy, and inclusion to ensure no eligible voter is disenfranchised.
• ECI’s Responsibility: A robust verification mechanism, supplemented by clear and fair policies, is necessary to maintain trust in India’s electoral process.

Little has changed in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025

Objective and Structural Changes

• The Income-Tax Bill, 2025, aims to replace the Income-Tax Act, 1961, to simplify taxation.
• The government claims it will enhance clarity, reduce litigation, and create a fairer tax system.
• The existing law (1961) is considered complex, unwieldy, and filled with provisos and exceptions.
• However, a close reading reveals that the changes are largely cosmetic, without substantial reforms.

Relevance :GS 2(Governance) , GS 3(Indian Economy)

Practice Question:Critically analyze whether the Income-Tax Bill, 2025, simplifies taxation or merely restructures the existing law. (250 words)

Lack of Simplification in Legal Language

• Global best practices promote plain language drafting to make laws accessible to common citizens.
• While some argue that legal precision requires complexity, global examples show that clear laws improve compliance and reduce litigation.
• The Bill fails to simplify legal language, maintaining dense and convoluted phrasing.
• Example:
  • Replacing “notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary” with “irrespective of anything to the contrary” does little to improve accessibility.
• The fundamental taxation approach remains unchanged, making the Bill more of a restructuring exercise than a reform.

Limited Substantive Changes

• The Bill removes some redundant provisions and consolidates compliance rules into tables and schedules.
• However, this could have been achieved through amendments rather than a complete overhaul.
• Cross-referencing to existing laws continues, making interpretation cumbersome and litigation-prone.
• Example:
  • The definition of income under Section 2(49) refers to Section 2(24) of the 1961 law, defeating the purpose of drafting a new statute.
• Courts have already provided interpretations for many provisions; new changes may reopen settled debates, leading to increased litigation and legal uncertainty.

Persisting Litigation and Compliance Burdens

• The Bill fails to address core issues that lead to high litigation in taxation matters.
• Reopening of completed assessments:
  • Earlier, authorities needed “reason to believe” income had escaped taxation.
  • Post-April 2021, this was changed to “information” suggesting escaped income, relying on undefined risk management strategies.
  • The Bill retains these ambiguities, continuing the scope for arbitrary tax reassessments.

Expanded Search and Seizure Powers

• Most controversial aspect: Bill grants tax authorities excessive powers to conduct search and seizure operations.
• Fundamental concerns post-Puttaswamy judgment (2017):
  • The Supreme Court affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
  • Existing search and seizure powers already face constitutional scrutiny.
• Instead of limiting these powers, the Bill expands them to digital spaces:
  • Officials can inspect any electronic device, emails, social media accounts, and cloud storage.
  • If a taxpayer denies access, authorities can override access codes to retrieve data.
• No judicial oversight on these expanded powers, increasing risks of government overreach and misuse.
• This legalizes digital intrusions, raising serious privacy and constitutional concerns.

Key Takeaways and Recommendations

• The Bill does not fundamentally alter tax policy, instead offering a restructured version of the old law.
• Legal complexity and litigation risks remain, making compliance difficult for taxpayers.
• Expanded search powers risk violating privacy rights, necessitating urgent reconsideration.
• A piecemeal approach to reform through targeted amendments would be more effective than repealing and reenacting the entire law.
• The Select Committee should review and reconsider the need for this Bill, especially its draconian enforcement provisions.