Content

1. Gen Z Revolts: Mobilisation Power vs Governance Weakness
2. Reaffirming Constitutional Morality in Legislative Assent

Gen Z Revolts: Mobilisation Power vs Governance Weakness

Why is it in news?

• Fresh youth-led mass protests in Mexico have drawn global attention due to their scale, generational character, and political impact.
• These protests are now seen as part of a wider global pattern of Gen Z political mobilisation, also observed in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and parts of Europe.
• The article frames these protests as evidence that a new political generation has emerged—digitally fluent, anti-corruption focused, but lacking formal political pathways to convert agitation into lasting reform.

Relevance

GS 1 – Society

• Youth movements, social change, demographic aspirations
• Changing civic culture, political consciousness

GS 2 – Polity & Governance

• Political participation, legitimacy crisis
• State response: surveillance, shutdowns, misinformation
• Civil liberties, freedom of assembly
• Role of digital platforms in governance

Practice Question 

• “Youth-led digital movements are effective in mobilisation but ineffective in delivering lasting political reform.” Analyse with global examples.(250 Words)

What are youth-led protests?

• Movements where young people (largely Gen Z) dominate mobilisation, communication, slogans, and political framing.
• Organised through decentralised digital networks rather than traditional leaders or organisations.
• Triggered by corruption, unemployment, democratic decline, injustice or governance failures.
• Use of memes, TikTok, Discord groups, hashtags as political vocabulary and protest tools.

Context

• Globally rising youth dissatisfaction with:
  • Corruption and political unresponsiveness
  • Joblessness and inequality
  • Democratic backsliding
  • High cost of living
• Protests since 2010s: Arab Spring → Hong Kong → Chile → Sri Lanka 2022 → Indonesia 2021–22 → Nepal youth movements → now Mexico 2025.

Article Argument

• A new political generation is emerging that:
  • Understands how to topple governments, but
  • Does not yet know how to rebuild institutions sustainably.
• Their movements are leaderless, which makes them democratic but also institutionally fragile.
• Governments increasingly use digital surveillance, shutdowns, misinformation, intimidation to quickly neutralise protests.
• Movements often gain momentum but fade without organisational depth.

Overview

Drivers of Youth Mobilisation

• Economic distress: unemployment, underemployment, precarity.
• Political cynicism: distrust of parties, institutions, elites.
• Digital empowerment: cheap smartphones + viral communication.
• Identity & expression: Gen Z political language shaped by pop culture, internet humour, sarcasm.
• Global cross-learning: protesters borrow tactics from Chile, Hong Kong, Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc.

Tactics of Modern Youth Movements

• Decentralised, rapid mobilisation
• Messaging via memes, reels, TikTok, Discord
• Protest formats: flash mobs, symbolic marches, viral hashtags
• Live-streaming police actions to resist repression
• “Borrowed repertoire“: slogans, visuals, formats from global protests

Strengths

• Speed & scale: mobilisation within hours.
• Collective creativity: meme-based persuasion.
• Low coordination cost: no central leadership needed.
• Cross-border solidarity through online networks.

Weaknesses

• Lack of formal leaders → difficult negotiations.
• Movements dissipate quickly.
• Vulnerability to:
  • digital crackdowns
  • disinformation
  • infiltration
• Failure to convert protest energy into:
  • institutional reform
  • political organisation
  • policy outcomes

Comparative Examples in Article

• Bangladesh: Youth celebrated Yunus as caretaker PM but were later sidelined.
• Nepal: “Hamro Nepal” youth group active earlier but now sidelined.
• Myanmar: 2021 protests violently suppressed.
• Indonesia: Protests contained through intimidation and messaging control.
• Sri Lanka (2022): Youth-driven protest toppled Rajapaksas but couldn’t sustain political change.

Conclusion

• Youth uprisings worldwide—from Mexico to South Asia—reflect a digitally empowered generation that can destabilise political establishments but still lacks robust pathways to achieve durable democratic reform.

Reaffirming Constitutional Morality in Legislative Assent

Why is it in news ?

• The Supreme Court has given a unanimous opinion on a Presidential Reference regarding the Governor’s role in granting assent to Bills.
• The key query: Can courts prescribe time-lines for Governors and the President to act on Bills?
• This comes amid several States accusing Governors of delaying or withholding assent, causing legislative paralysis.
• The judgment reasserts constitutional boundaries, clarifies limits of judicial intervention, and stabilises Centre–State dynamics.

Relevance

GS 2 – Polity & Governance

• Governor’s discretionary powers
• Legislative process under Articles 200–201
• Separation of powers and constitutional boundaries
• Federal tensions and gubernatorial conduct
• Constitutional conventions vs textual interpretation

GS 2 – Judiciary

• Presidential Reference (Article 143)
• Judicial restraint doctrine
• Review of mala fide inaction
• Non-justiciability of merits of executive decisions

Practice Question

• “Discuss how the recent Supreme Court opinion on the Governor’s assent power strengthens constitutional governance and clarifies the limits of judicial intervention.”(250 Words)

Governor’s Roles

• Article 200: Governor may
  • assent,
  • withhold assent,
  • return (non-Money Bills),
  • reserve for President.
• Article 201: President’s options on reserved Bills.
• No explicit constitutional time-limit for action.

Constitutional Question ?

• Can courts force the Governor to decide within a fixed time (e.g., 3 months)?
• Can delay be treated as “deemed assent”?
• Can judiciary review prolonged delays?
• Where is the line between judicial review and executive constitutional discretion?

Supreme Court Findings

1. Courts cannot impose time-limits

• Prescribing deadlines amounts to judicial legislation.
• Constitution deliberately avoids specifying timelines.

2. Yet Governors must follow an “appropriate standard”

• While no strict deadlines exist, indefinite delay is unconstitutional.
• Court discourages misuse of inaction as a political tool.

3. “Deemed assent” is unconstitutional

• Automatic approval due to passage of time cannot be read into Articles 200/201.
• This would distort the structural design of the Constitution.

4. Judicial review remains limited

• Courts cannot examine the merits of Governor’s decisions.
• They can intervene if delay is prolonged, unexplained, arbitrary, or mala fide.

5. President’s advisory jurisdiction reaffirmed

• President is not obligated to seek Supreme Court’s advisory opinion under Article 143 whenever a Governor reserves a Bill.
• Protects executive autonomy and avoids converting judicial advice into mandatory control.

6. Reinforces separation of powers

• Judiciary preserves its limits.
• Executive retains discretionary judgment.
• Legislature’s supremacy in law-making remains unharmed.

Overview

A. Constitutional Architecture

• The verdict reaffirms two constitutional pillars:
  • Deliberative design of law-making,
  • Autonomy of constitutional authorities.

B. Prevents governance paralysis

• States have complained that Governors block Bills by simply doing nothing.
• Court’s clarification: inaction cannot be a tool for constitutional subversion.

C. Stability in Centre–State relations

• Avoids judicial overreach but prevents gubernatorial overreach.
• Maintains balanced federal functioning.

D. Clarifies judicial boundaries

• Courts cannot rewrite Articles 200/201.
• Courts can only ensure constitutional good faith, not micromanage timelines.

E. Protects constitutional morality

• Governor’s discretion must be exercised with transparency, reason, and constitutional purpose.
• Substantive executive decisions stay outside judicial domain unless mala fide or procedurally irregular.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot impose timelines for Governor’s assent, but Governors cannot indefinitely delay Bills either—ensuring constitutional balance, preventing misuse of office, and preserving federal stability.