Content

1. A Smarter Happiness Agenda
2. The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025

A Smarter Happiness Agenda

Why in News ?

• India ranked 118th in the 2025 World Happiness Report, prompting debate on why economic progress hasn’t translated into higher well-being.
• The article explores how India can build a smarter happiness agenda by focusing on social, psychological, and moral dimensions of well-being rather than GDP alone.

Relevance

• GS-1 (Society): Changing social values, cultural concept of happiness, individualism vs. community life.
• GS-2 (Governance): Role of the state in promoting mental health, social well-being, and inclusive policies.
• GS-4 (Ethics): Aristotle’s eudaimonia, Stoicism, and Indian ethical traditions (Sukha, mindfulness) in pursuit of moral happiness.

Practice Questions:

• “Economic growth alone cannot guarantee happiness.” Discuss in the context of India’s low ranking in the World Happiness Report.(250 Words)

Context and Core Argument

• GDP ≠ Happiness: Economic growth lifts people out of poverty but doesn’t ensure lasting happiness.
• Paradox of Progress: Despite higher incomes and living standards, people feel more anxious, lonely, and disconnected.
• The author calls for investing in the “architecture of a good life” — social, moral, and psychological systems that sustain happiness.

Philosophical & Psychological Roots

• Ancient Wisdom:
  • Aristotle’s eudaimonia – flourishing through virtue and purpose, not constant pleasure.
  • Stoics’ ataraxia – tranquility and equanimity amidst fortune’s ups and downs.
• Indian Traditions:
  • Sukha in Hindu thought = enduring joy through self-restraint and virtue.
  • Buddhist mindfulness = happiness from detachment, not indulgence.
• Modern Neuroscience: Confirms the hedonic treadmill — pleasure spikes fade, relationships and meaning provide durable well-being.

The Problem Today

• Hedonic treadmill: Rising income only briefly improves happiness.
• Digital addiction: Constant online stimulation drains focus and joy.
• Social isolation: Urban life reduces human connection and empathy.
• Work stress: Long hours and productivity obsession harm emotional health.

The Four-Part Framework for a Smarter Happiness Agenda

1. Measure What Matters:
   1. Go beyond GDP — track loneliness, social trust, mental health, and community participation.
   1. Make these part of official data and policy budgets.
2. Build Social Infrastructure:
   1. Develop “bonding capital”: libraries, parks, youth programs, cultural centers, intergenerational clubs.
   1. Encourage inclusive spaces that foster belonging.
3. Reframe Education:
   1. Teach life skills — empathy, resilience, teamwork.
   1. Integrate mental health learning and social-emotional training in schools.
4. Humanize Workplaces:
   1. Promote right-to-disconnect, flexible hours, and digital detox policies.
   1. Reward collaboration, purpose, and rest, not just productivity metrics.

Cultural & Ethical Dimensions

• India’s heritage valued moderation, gratitude, and community over materialism.
• Happiness in Indian philosophy = self-mastery, not self-indulgence.
• Utilitarian pursuit of constant pleasure betrays this civilizational memory.
• The goal is not escapism, but mindful re-engagement with life and society.

Policy Implications

• Develop National Well-being Indicators parallel to economic indicators.
• Integrate happiness goals into urban planning, education, and labour policy.
• Encourage cities that nurture families and civic engagement.
• Support mental health and social connection programs as core governance priorities.

Global Linkages

• Similar models exist:
  • Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index.
  • OECD’s Better Life Index.
  • UAE’s Ministry of Happiness.
• India can pioneer a model rooted in civilizational ethics and scientific psychology.

Key Takeaway

• True happiness requires relationships, purpose, and self-awareness, not mere consumption.
• India’s “Smarter Happiness Agenda” should blend ancient wisdom with modern policy, fostering a society that values love, gratitude, and human connection as much as GDP growth.

The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025

Why in News ?

• The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 was introduced in Parliament to amend Articles 75, 164, and 239AA.
• Objective: To provide for automatic removal of Union, State, and Delhi Ministers detained in custody for 30 consecutive days for an offence punishable with imprisonment of five years or more.
• The Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee amid strong Opposition criticism over misuse potential.

Relevance

• GS-2 (Polity & Governance):
  • Constitutional amendments (Articles 75, 164, 239AA); doctrine of pleasure; ministerial accountability; due process; federal implications.
• GS-2 (Judiciary & Executive):
  • Arrest discretion, bail jurisprudence, and rule of law principles.
• GS-4 (Ethics in Governance):
  • Constitutional morality, integrity in public office, ethical leadership vs. political vendetta.

Practice Questions:

• Critically examine whether the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 upholds or undermines the doctrine of constitutional morality.(250 Words)

Key Provisions of the Bill

• Articles amended:
  • Article 75 (Union Ministers) – Removal by President on PM’s advice if detained for 30 days.
  • Article 164 (State Ministers) – Removal by Governor on CM’s advice.
  • Article 239AA (Delhi) – Applies to Ministers of Delhi government.
• Prime Minister/Chief Minister Clause: Must resign by the 31st day of detention, or automatically cease to hold office.
• Purpose: To uphold constitutional morality and ministerial integrity by preventing prolonged detention of Ministers accused of serious crimes.

Constitutional Rationale

• Aims to strengthen ethical governance, public trust, and accountability in executive office.
• Reflects Article 75(1) principle — Ministers hold office “during the pleasure of the President” (or Governor).
• Prevents governance paralysis and reputational damage from Ministers facing prolonged custody.

Opposition Concerns

(a) Discretionary Nature of Arrest

• Arrest = discretionary, not mandatory (as per CrPC/BNSS and multiple court rulings).
• Fear: Enforcement agencies could target political opponents using selective arrests.
• Key judicial precedents:
  • Deenan vs Jayalalithaa (1989, Madras HC): Arrest is discretionary under Section 41 CrPC.
  • Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. (1994, SC): Arrest must be justified; not automatic.
  • Amarawati vs State of U.P. (2004, Allahabad HC): Arrest is not mandatory in cognisable offences.
  • Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar (2014, SC): Police must record reasons for arrest.
  • Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022, SC): Strict compliance with arrest provisions under CrPC.
• Risk: Arrests may be used as a political weapon to disqualify Opposition Ministers.

(b) Detention for 30 Consecutive Days

• The 30-day custody rule is seen as arbitrary and disproportionate:
  • Default bail under CrPC (Sec. 167(2)) or BNSS (Sec. 187): granted after 60–90 days if investigation not completed.
  • Thus, the 30-day cut-off is shorter than statutory detention norms, leading to premature disqualification.

(c) Application under Special Laws

• The phrase “offence under any law for the time being in force” covers special statutes like:
  • PMLA, NDPS, UAPA — all have twin bail conditions (reverse burden of proof).
• Under such laws, bail is extremely difficult, making automatic removal inevitable.
  • Example: Manish Sisodia’s 17-month custody under PMLA — illustrates real-world risk of political misuse.

(d) Subjectivity in Bail Decisions

• Bail decisions often depend on judicial discretion and perceived risk of influence.
• Ministers may face a Hobson’s choice — remain in office and risk bail denial, or resign to facilitate bail.
• Leads to constitutional instability and executive vulnerability.

Constitutional and Legal Tensions

• Article 21 (Right to Liberty) — undermined if prolonged custody results in automatic disqualification without conviction.
• Presumption of Innocence — removal based on mere custody (not guilt) challenges due process.
• Separation of Powers — allows executive interference through arrest, undermining judicial independence.
• Federalism Risk — central agencies’ power of arrest can impact state governments’ political autonomy.

Ethical and Governance Dimension

• Supporters argue: Upholds probity in public life, prevents tainted Ministers from continuing.
• Critics argue: Enables political weaponization of law enforcement and weakens democratic opposition.
• Constitutional morality requires balancing ethical governance with rule of law and fairness.

Expert Viewpoint (Authors’ Perspective)

• R.K. Vij (Former IPS) & Shivani Vij (Lawyer):
  • Agree on need for clean politics, but caution against misuse of discretionary arrest powers.
  • Call for stronger procedural safeguards and judicial oversight before removal.
  • Suggest redefining custody duration or linking disqualification only to judicial findings (e.g., framing of charges).

Broader Implications

• May redefine standards of political accountability.
• Could influence Centre-State political relations, especially in opposition-ruled states.
• Adds urgency to police reforms and codification of arrest procedures.
• Highlights tension between clean governance and political misuse of coercive instruments.

Way Forward

• Ensure parliamentary scrutiny and JPC consultations for balanced reform.
• Introduce safeguards: judicial certification of “valid custody,” or limitation to serious offences post-charge framing.
• Harmonise with BNSS and default bail provisions to prevent arbitrary disqualification.
• Strengthen institutional independence of investigative agencies.