Content

1. A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business
2. Letter and spirit
3. Welfare at the mercy of the machine

A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business

Basics

• Context: SC heard Presidential Reference on Governor’s powers under Article 200 regarding assent to state Bills.
• Trigger: SC (Justice Pardiwala bench) fixed a 3-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills.
• Issue: Debate whether judiciary can set time limits when the Constitution itself does not.
• Relevant Articles:
  • Art. 200 → Governor’s options on Bills (assent, withhold, return, reserve).
  • Art. 201 → President’s power on reserved Bills.
  • Art. 163 → Governor bound by aid & advice of CoM (except specified discretion).
  • Art. 355 → Union’s duty to ensure governance in accordance with the Constitution.
• Key Cases:
  • Shamsher Singh (1974) → Governor bound by aid & advice, limited discretion.
  • Nabam Rebia (2016) → Reinforced limits on Governor’s powers.
  • Punjab Governor case (2023) → Governor cannot delay assent indefinitely.
  • Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) → No discretionary withholding of assent.

Relevance :

• GS2 (Polity & Governance): Federalism, separation of powers, role of Governor, judicial review.

Practice Questions :

• “The deliberate omission of ‘discretion’ from Article 200 signifies the supremacy of elected governments.” Discuss.(250 Words)

Author’s Core Argument

• Governors are ceremonial heads, must act on ministerial advice.
• Constitution-makers deliberately omitted “discretion” (present in 1935 Act) → Governors have no independent power under Art. 200.
• Court’s timeline is justified because Governors misused silence by sitting on Bills for years.
• Fixing a time limit upholds federalism and prevents legislative paralysis.
• Judicial innovation is not “amending the Constitution” but clarifying ambiguities (as seen with Art. 21 expansion).
• Union under Art. 355 could direct Governors, but since it hasn’t, SC’s intervention became necessary.

Counter Arguments

• Judicial Overreach: Constitution doesn’t prescribe time → SC is effectively legislating.
• Executive Concerns: President and Governors are high constitutional authorities, cannot be bound by judicially invented timelines.
• Federal Balance: Could undermine centre–state relations by constraining the Governor’s role.
• Rare Discretion Cases: Sarkaria Commission allowed discretionary withholding when a Bill is “patently unconstitutional”. SC’s blanket bar may limit safeguards.

Overview

• Polity/Constitutional:
  • Strengthens federalism and prevents “pocket veto” by Governors.
  • Reaffirms parliamentary system supremacy → elected CoM runs state, not unelected Governor.
• Political:
  • Prevents Governors (often politically appointed) from obstructing opposition-ruled states.
  • May reduce Centre-State confrontations (Punjab, TN, Kerala cases).
• Governance:
  • Timely assent ensures smoother legislative process.
  • Enhances accountability of constitutional offices.
• Judicial:
  • Reflects trend of judicial creativity to resolve constitutional silences.
  • Could trigger executive-judiciary friction.
• Comparative Perspective:
  • UK Monarch → No discretion; always acts on ministerial advice.
  • India borrowed same principle by dropping “in his discretion” from 1935 Act.

Way Forward

• Codify a reasonable timeline (e.g., 3–6 months) in Constitution or parliamentary law.
• Clarify limited discretionary scope (only for unconstitutional Bills).
• Use Art. 355 to direct Governors if they stall governance.
• Promote convention-based restraint instead of judicial compulsion.
• Strengthen legislative-judiciary dialogue for smooth federal functioning.

Letter and spirit

Basics

• Context: SC judgment (15 Sept 2025) on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, which amended the Waqf Act, 1995 governing Muslim religious endowments.
• Issue: Balancing religious autonomy vs. state regulation of vast waqf properties.
• Judgment outcome:
  • Court stayed some provisions → preserved autonomy concerns.
  • Court upheld others → validated state regulation powers.
• Key stakeholders:
  • Govt view → Amendments needed to curb misuse, corruption.
  • Critics (Opposition, community groups) → Arbitrary interference in Muslim affairs.

Relevance

• GS2 → Polity (Art. 25–30, minority rights, state regulation), governance, federalism.
• GS4 → Ethical dimension: balancing faith autonomy vs. accountability.

Practice Questions :

• “Regulation of religious endowments must be uniform and non-discriminatory.” Discuss in the context of the Waqf Act amendments.(250 Words)

Author’s Core Argument

• SC struck a balance: neither struck down entire Act nor upheld it fully.
• Valid provisions:
  • Removal of waqf-by-user recognition (with protection for pre-April 8, 2025 registrations).
  • Restrictions on waqf claims over protected monuments and tribal lands.
• Stayed provisions:
  • Only Muslims practising for 5 years can create waqf.
  • District Collectors as adjudicators of waqf disputes.
  • Overrepresentation of non-Muslims in Waqf Boards/Councils (capped).
• Broader point: Religious autonomy cannot justify misuse, but state regulation must be applied fairly across communities.
• Laws must be passed with wider consensus, else they risk delegitimising democracy.

Counter Arguments

• Judicial restraint concern: By not ruling decisively, SC left ambiguities that may prolong disputes.
• Autonomy worry: Even capped non-Muslim membership and Collector’s role may still be seen as undermining community self-governance.
• Selective regulation: If state targets Muslim religious endowments while leaving others untouched, it raises equal protection (Art. 14) concerns.
• Legislative process: Building “complete consensus” is aspirational but often impractical in India’s adversarial politics.

Overview

• Polity/Constitutional:
  • Article 26 → Freedom to manage religious institutions.
  • State regulation allowed for public order, morality, health.
  • Presumption of constitutionality upheld.
• Social Justice:
  • Prevents mismanagement of community assets.
  • Addresses intra-community accountability.
• Federalism:
  • Collector’s adjudicatory role shifts control from community boards to state bureaucracy.
• Governance:
  • Brings waqf properties into greater transparency and state oversight.
• Political:
  • Risks deepening communal mistrust if perceived as discriminatory regulation.
  • Opposition may use as evidence of state overreach.
• Comparative Perspective:
  • Other religious endowments (e.g., Hindu temples under state boards, Christian trusts) also regulated → issue is consistency, not uniqueness.

Way Forward

• Ensure uniform principles of regulation for all religious endowments → equality before law.
• Establish independent tribunals (instead of District Collectors) for waqf disputes.
• Increase community participation while ensuring transparency.
• Build parliamentary consensus through dialogue with Opposition & affected communities.
• Regular audit and accountability mechanisms without curbing autonomy.

Welfare at the mercy of the machine

Basics

• Context: Govt mandated Facial Recognition Software (FRS) integration in Anganwadis via Poshan Tracker app (July 2025).
• Background:
  • Anganwadis (est. 1975 under ICDS) → tackle child malnutrition, preschool education, maternal care.
  • 14.02 lakh centres; each with 1 Anganwadi worker (AWW) + 1 helper.
  • Legal mandate under NFSA, 2013 → Take Home Rations (THR) for children under 3 and pregnant/lactating women.
• Government’s stated aim:
  • Prevent fake beneficiaries.
  • Prevent diversion/theft by AWWs.

Relevance

• GS2: Governance, rights-based welfare, NFSA, child nutrition, cooperative federalism (Centre schemes vs. State delivery).
• GS3: Tech in welfare, leakage vs. exclusion trade-off.
• GS4: Ethics of surveillance, dignity, natural justice.

Practice Questions

• “In digital governance, the challenge is not technology, but the ethics of its application.” Discuss with reference to welfare delivery in India.(250 Words)

Author’s Core Argument

• Vonnegut metaphor: Welfare delivery turning into an “engineer’s paradise” where frontline workers and poor are at mercy of tech tools.
• Problems with FRS:
  • OTP/e-KYC hurdles (phones not available, numbers outdated).
  • Frequent app errors, poor connectivity, low phone capacity.
  • AWWs know beneficiaries personally but cannot override app failures.
  • Presumes guilt (“fake” women/children) rather than innocence.
• Mismatch of priorities:
  • Main THR issues = poor quality, irregular supply, low budget (₹8/day since 2018), corruption, centralisation.
  • FRS solves a non-problem (fake beneficiaries).
• Dehumanisation risk: Women and children treated as potential criminals.
• Lack of consultation: AWWs excluded from design/decision-making.
• Better alternative: Community monitoring and decentralisation via SHGs/mahila mandals.

Counter Arguments

• Govt defence:
  • Digital verification ensures transparency, accountability, leakage prevention.
  • FRS integration aligns with Digital India & JAM trinity.
  • Past welfare leakages (e.g., PDS ghost beneficiaries) justify pre-emptive controls.
• Tech optimism:
  • App-based systems build data for nutrition monitoring, enabling better policymaking.
  • Future improvements in FRS may reduce errors.
• Implementation gap vs. design flaw: Problems may reflect execution weaknesses (training, connectivity, device upgrades), not tech itself.

Overview

• Polity & Rights:
  • NFSA, 2013 → legal right to food; tech cannot obstruct this.
  • Principles of natural justice violated (innocent until proven guilty).
  • Right to dignity (Art. 21) undermined.
• Governance:
  • Over-centralisation through apps vs. decentralisation ordered by SC (2004).
  • Weakens frontline discretion and trust-based community relations.
• Technology:
  • FRS = invasive, error-prone, high-cost.
  • International precedent: San Francisco banned FRS due to privacy/accuracy concerns.
• Social Justice:
  • Vulnerable women/children bear brunt of tech failures.
  • Anganwadi workers face hostility without authority.
• Economy/Policy:
  • ₹8/day ration budget since 2018 = grossly inadequate.
  • Focus should be on funding, supply-chain reform, local production, not surveillance tools.
• Ethics:
  • Welfare as rights vs. welfare as conditional benefits.
  • Risks dehumanisation, dignity erosion.

Way Forward

• Re-prioritise core THR issues: quality, funding revision, decentralisation, supply regularity.
• Transparency: Publish data if large-scale fraud exists; justify FRS publicly.
• Participatory governance: Consult AWWs, SHGs, communities before rollout.
• Tech redesign:
  • Use simpler verification (QR cards, community attestations).
  • Enable offline access for poor-connectivity areas.
• Rights-first approach: Guarantee entitlements irrespective of app performance → “No denial due to tech failure.”
• Legal safeguard: Build accountability for exclusion errors in welfare digitisation.