PRESIDENTIAL REFERENCE AND FEDERALISM IN INDIA
TOPIC: (GS2) INDIAN POLITY: THE HINDU
The Supreme Court recently gave its opinion on a Presidential reference regarding the powers of Governors and the President, especially related to the delay in granting assent to State Bills.
The ruling has triggered debate on whether it weakens India’s federal structure and democratic balance.
Federalism in the Indian Constitution
- Federalism means division of power between the Union and the States.
- India follows a quasi-federal model, where both levels function as partners.
- Federalism has been declared part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution by the Supreme Court.
- States have exclusive powers in areas such as police, land, agriculture, and public order.
Issue of Delay by Governors
- Article 200 gives the Governor power to either: Give assent, Withhold assent, Return the Bill, Reserve it for the President
- No time limit is mentioned in the Constitution. This loophole allows Governors to keep Bills pending indefinitely.
- This undermines the authority of elected State Assemblies.
Supreme Court’s Opinion on Presidential Reference
- The Court spoke of “limited direction” over Governor’s actions.
- Critics argue this gives excessive discretionary power to Governors.
- No clear deadlines were imposed.
- This may result in unelected officials overriding elected governments.
Impact on Democracy and Federal Balance
- When a Governor blocks a State law, it: Weakens democratic choice, Reduces State autonomy, Encourages political influence from the Centre
- This may convert States into bodies with nominal authority only.
Judicial Review and Accountability
- Judicial review is part of the Basic Structure.
- No authority is above review — including the President or Governor.
- If their actions escape scrutiny, governance becomes arbitrary.
- Rule of law must apply equally to constitutional authorities.
Wider Policy Centralisation
- The challenge to federalism is not restricted only to the functioning of Governors but reflects a wider pattern of increasing centralisation of power in recent years.
- Many States have experienced delays in receiving GST compensation, which has affected their financial stability and ability to manage welfare programmes independently.
- The Fund transfers recommended by the Finance Commission have either been reduced or postponed, thereby weakening the fiscal autonomy of States.
- Several welfare schemes are now designed and controlled by the Union government, which limits the decision-making power of State governments in public service delivery.
Way Forward
- A clear and definite time limit must be prescribed for Governors to act on Bills passed by State Legislatures to prevent unnecessary delays.
- The scope of Judicial Review should be strengthened to ensure that the actions of Governors and the President are not arbitrary or politically influenced.
- The idea of cooperative federalism must be restored through continuous dialogue and coordination between the Union and State governments.
- Governors should function strictly as constitutional heads and must remain free from party politics.
The authority of elected legislatures must be upheld at all times as the foundation of a democratic system.
Conclusion
Federalism protects India’s diversity and democratic spirit. Any weakening of State autonomy threatens the balance of the Constitution and must be urgently corrected.
RUPEE DEPRECIATION & INDIA’S OIL DEPENDENCE
TOPIC: (GS3) ECONOMY: THE HINDU
The Indian rupee has weakened sharply in recent months due to global economic pressures and rising oil import costs. This has renewed focus on reducing oil dependence to protect India’s currency stability and external balance.
Recent Movement of the Rupee
- The rupee weakened by about 7% over the last few months against the US dollar.
- Such depreciation is not new; similar currency stress was seen in 2018–19 during global financial volatility.
- A fall in the rupee makes imports costlier and adds pressure on foreign exchange reserves.
Global Factors Behind the Weak Rupee
- Strong US dollar due to higher American interest rates.
- Trade tensions and uncertain global market conditions have reduced capital flows to emerging markets.
- Rising imports of gold and crude oil have widened India’s current account deficit.
- Exporters face difficulties due to high foreign tariffs and weaker global demand.
RBI’s Response Measures
- Currency-Swap Operations: The RBI conducted dollar-rupee swap auctions to add liquidity. In 2025, a major $10 billion swap operation was done to protect banking liquidity.
- Forex Market Intervention: RBI sold nearly $50 billion from reserves to reduce excess volatility. However, under a floating exchange-rate system, RBI can only manage fluctuations, not control rates fully.
- Foreign Exchange Reserves: India’s forex reserves remain strong at nearly $693 billion, providing a safety cushion.
India’s Structural Weakness: Oil Imports
- Crude oil forms over 20% of India’s import bill.
- Recent shift towards higher-priced oil imports increases pressure on external payments.
- A weaker rupee makes oil even costlier, raising inflation risk.
Inflation and Policy
- Retail inflation fell sharply, giving RBI flexibility in interest rates.
- Moderate currency weakening is being tolerated to protect growth and exports.
Policy Challenges Beyond Monetary Tools
- Currency management alone cannot solve the problem.
- India’s vulnerability lies in energy dependence and trade imbalance.
- Recent trade agreements have not improved India’s export performance significantly.
Way Forward
- Accelerate electric vehicle adoption and renewable energy use.
- Reduce crude imports through domestic alternatives.
- Improve export competitiveness with better trade strategy.
- Strengthen manufacturing and value-added exports.
Conclusion
Rupee stability requires more than RBI intervention — it demands structural reforms in energy and trade policy. Reducing oil dependence is essential for protecting India’s economy from external shocks.
REVIVAL OF NJAC VS COLLEGIUM SYSTEM
TOPIC: (GS2) INDIAN POLITY: INDIAN EXPRESS
The Chief Justice of India recently stated that the Supreme Court may examine a petition seeking to revive the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) and end the Collegium system.
What is NJAC?
- NJAC was created through the 99th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2014 and the NJAC Act, 2014.
- It aimed to change how judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts are appointed.
- Composition included:
- Chief Justice of India
- Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
- Union Law Minister
- Two eminent persons (nominated by a committee including PM, CJI and Leader of Opposition)
Objective
- To make appointments more transparent
- To involve the executive and civil society
- To reduce alleged insider control by judges
What is the Collegium System?
- A system evolved through Supreme Court judgments (not written in the Constitution).
- The Chief Justice of India and senior judges recommend names for appointment and transfer of judges.
- The government can return recommendations, but repeated recommendations are binding.
2015 Supreme Court Judgment
- In 2015, the Supreme Court struck down NJAC as unconstitutional.
- Reason: It violated the independence of the judiciary. Gave excessive role to the executive in judicial appointments.
- As a result, the Collegium system was restored.
About the Current Plea
- NJAC judgment replaced “people’s will” with “judges’ opinion”.
- Collegium promotes nepotism and favoritism.
- Appointments lack transparency and accountability.
- Parliament’s authority was undermined by the court’s decision.
Key Concerns Raised Against Collegium:
- No written procedure and No public disclosure of reasons
- Perception of bias and lack of diversity and No role for elected representatives
- Threat to judicial independence and Political interference is possible
Importance of the Issue
- Affects: Separation of powers, Judicial independence, Public trust in courts
- Raises debate between: Accountability vs autonomy, People’s representatives vs judges
Way Forward (Suggested Reforms)
- Create a balanced appointment body with checks and safeguards.
- Ensure: Transparency, Fixed criteria for selection, Public disclosure of reasons
- Reform Collegium through: Clear rules, Institutional accountability, Diversity in representation
COLLEGIUM SYSTEM
What is the Collegium System?
- The Collegium System is a method used in India to appoint and transfer judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- It is not written in the Constitution, but has developed through Supreme Court judgments.
Who are in the Collegium?
For Supreme Court:
- Chief Justice of India (CJI)
- Four senior-most judges of the Supreme Court
For High Courts:
- Chief Justice of India
- Two senior-most Supreme Court judges
- Concerned High Court Chief Justice and senior judges
Conclusion
This debate reflects a deeper constitutional tension between democracy and institutional independence. A reformed system must protect judicial freedom while also ensuring fairness and openness in appointments.
HIGHER EDUCATION COMMISSION OF INDIA (HECI) BILL, 2025
TOPIC: (GS2) INDIAN POLITY: THE HINDU
The government is preparing to introduce the Higher Education Commission of India Bill, 2025 in Parliament. The Bill proposes to replace multiple education regulators with a single national authority as recommended under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
Background
- India’s higher education is currently regulated by:
- University Grants Commission (UGC)
- All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
- National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
- NEP 2020 recommended a single regulator to reduce overlap, improve transparency and increase accountability.
- The HECI Bill 2025 is the second attempt after the 2018 draft was dropped.
What is HECI?
- HECI is proposed as a centralised national regulator for higher education.
- It will supervise universities, colleges and institutions (except medical and legal education).
- It will work as an umbrella authority with four specialised bodies (verticals).
Four Vertical Bodies under HECI
- National Higher Education Regulatory Council (NHERC): Regulates academic institutions and compliance.
- National Accreditation Council (NAC): Conducts accreditation and quality rating of institutions.
- General Education Council (GEC): Develops academic standards and learning outcomes.
- Higher Education Grants Council (HEGC): Handles grants and funding (final control may remain with the government).
Objectives of the Bill
- End regulatory duplication.
- Increase institutional autonomy.
- Improve education standards.
- Promote self-governed institution model.
- Encourage innovation and multidisciplinary education.
Concerns Raised
- Centralisation of Power: Decision-making may become heavily controlled by the Union government.
- Reduced Institutional Independence: Fear that funding control by the Centre could influence academic freedom.
- State Autonomy at Risk: States worry about losing control over universities.
- Representation Issues: Lack of inclusion of: Women, SC/ST/OBC, Minorities, Persons with disabilities
- Federalism Concerns: Education is a concurrent subject — excessive centralisation may weaken cooperative federalism.
Conclusion
The HECI Bill aims to simplify higher education regulation but raises serious concerns about central control and institutional freedom. A balance between efficiency, autonomy, and federal rights is essential for successful reform.
THE WAY TO RECONCILIATION IN JAMMU & KASHMIR
TOPIC: (GS2) INDIAN POLITY: THE HINDU
A recent terrorist attack in New Delhi has once again raised questions about how India should respond to terrorism without harming innocent communities.
Violence and Collective Blame
- Terror attacks are crimes against humanity and must be strongly condemned.
- However, blaming an entire community before investigation is harmful.
- Kashmiri students and workers across India often face harassment, suspicion, and fear after such incidents.
- Collective stigma creates insecurity and damages national unity.
- Justice must target individual wrongdoers, not innocent families or groups.
Security Actions and Human Rights Concerns
- Families of alleged militants often face: Demolition of houses, Arrests and harassment, Surveillance and raids
- A home represents identity, dignity, and stability, not just property.
- Destroying houses of relatives amounts to collective punishment, which is unjust.
- Such actions increase bitter feelings rather than promoting peace.
Growing Alienation Among Youth
- Causes of frustration include: Shrinking job opportunities, Arbitrary dismissals from government jobs, Frequent police checks
- Reservation and recruitment policies are seen as excluding local youth.
- Young people feel: Disempowered, Ignored, Politically voiceless
- Violence grows when people lose hope, not when they feel respected.
Impact of Constitutional and Policy Changes
- The removal of Article 370 is seen by many as: Loss of identity, Weakening of land and job protections
- Changes related to domicile and settlement policies have created fear of demographic change.
- People feel their homeland is being altered without consent.
- Policies may be legal, but perceived as emotionally and socially unjust on the ground.
Misuse of Force vs Need for Dialogue
- Force alone cannot bring peace.
- Security operations may suppress violence temporarily but cannot: Heal mistrust, Create unity, Restore dignity
- Long-term peace requires: Dialogue, Fair governance, Civil liberties
- Faith and moral leadership encourage youth to reject extremism.
Way Forward:
- Shift approach from control to confidence building. Hold fair and transparent investigations.
- End collective punishment and Restore civil freedoms. Expand employment and economic opportunities.
- Encourage political dialogue.
- Treat Kashmir as a political and humanitarian issue, not just law and order.
Conclusion
Lasting peace in Jammu & Kashmir will not come from fear or punishment, but from justice, respect, and trust. Healing wounds is more effective than hiding them. Only inclusive governance can bring real national integration.
EXERCISE SURYAKIRAN
TOPIC: (GS3) SECURITY: THE HINDU
The 19th edition of Exercise SURYAKIRAN (SURYAKIRAN-XIX, 2025) recently began at Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand, withparticipation from the armies of India and Nepal.
Exercise SURYAKIRAN
- Exercise SURYAKIRAN is a bilateral military training programme conducted annually between India and Nepal.
- The exercise is organised alternatively in the two countries every year.
- It aims to improve military coordination and enhance working understanding between both armies.
- The Indian Army is represented mainly by troops from the ASSAM Regiment, while the Nepal Army fields corresponding battalions.
- The exercise focuses on practising sub-conventional warfare operations as per Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which deals with peace enforcement missions.
- It strengthens operational skills in real-world environments and prepares soldiers for future UN peacekeeping deployments.
Areas of Focus
- Jungle and Mountain Warfare: Training in difficult terrain with low visibility and steep gradients.
- Counter-Terrorism Operations: Search, ambush, and neutralisation drills.
- Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR): Coordination during earthquakes, floods, and rescue missions.
- Environmental Protection: Army participation in eco-friendly practices and community awareness.
- Joint Air-Ground Operations: Integration between army units and aviation support teams.
Use of Modern Technology
This edition places special emphasis on emerging technologies such as:
- Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) for surveillance.
- Drone-based Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).
- Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based decision systems.
- Unmanned logistic vehicles for supply movement.
- Armour protection systems for troops in hostile areas.
Strategic Importance
- Strengthens India-Nepal defence relations.
- Builds trust and interoperability between armed forces.
- Enhances regional stability along the Himalayan border.
- Supports India’s commitment to neighbourhood cooperation and peacekeeping missions.
OPERATION PAWAN
TOPIC: (GS3) SECURITY: THE HINDU
In 2025, for the first time, the Chief of Army Staff paid tributes to soldiers who died during Operation Pawan. The Army’s official acknowledgement has renewed focus on India’s overseas military role in Sri Lanka.
Background
- Operation Pawan was India’s first large-scale foreign military intervention after Independence.
- It began in 1987 under the government led by Rajiv Gandhi.
- The mission followed the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord, signed on 29 July 1987 between India and Sri Lanka.
- Its aim was to end ethnic violence between Tamil and Sinhalese groups and restore stability.
Objectives of the Mission
- Enforce the peace agreement.
- Disarm Tamil militant groups.
- Assist the Sri Lankan government in establishing normal administration in conflict areas.
- Protect civilians and maintain law and order.
Deployment of IPKF
- Nearly one lakh Indian soldiers were sent as part of the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF).
- Major operations were concentrated in northern Sri Lanka, especially around Jaffna.
- Full military control of the city was achieved by October 1987.
Hostility from LTTE
- The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) refused to surrender weapons.
- They later turned hostile, leading the IPKF into active counter-insurgency warfare.
- The conflict intensified as LTTE fighters used guerrilla tactics and civilian cover.
Human Cost
- Over 1,171 Indian soldiers were killed and more than 3,500 injured.
- Several bodies could not be recovered due to battlefield conditions.
- A prominent hero was Major Ramaswamy Parameswaran, awarded the Param Vir Chakra.
- He died in November 1987 after single-handedly engaging enemy fighters.
End of Operation
- Due to rising casualties and political changes in Sri Lanka, the IPKF withdrew in March 1990.
- The mission officially ended on 24 March 1990.
Legacy and Recognition
- Sri Lanka has built memorials for IPKF soldiers.
- However, India did not initially include their sacrifice in its national remembrance.
- In 2025, the Indian Army formally honoured the martyrs, correcting decades of silence.
Conclusion
Operation Pawan highlights India’s strategic responsibility in regional peacekeeping. The 2025 tribute restores dignity to soldiers whose sacrifices were long overlooked.
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (SLP)
TOPIC: (GS2) INDIAN POLITY: THE HINDU
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently clarified that when the Supreme Court dismisses a Special Leave Petition (SLP)—whether through a detailed (speaking) order or a brief (non-speaking) order—the judgment under challenge does not merge with the Supreme Court’s order.
About Special Leave Petition
- A Special Leave Petition (SLP) is a request made to the Supreme Court seeking special permission to appeal against any judgment, order, or decree of a court or tribunal (except military tribunals), even when no statutory appeal is provided.
- SLP is not a guaranteed right—it is a discretionary power of the Supreme Court.
- Under Article 136, the Supreme Court may allow an appeal if there is a serious question of law or if manifest injustice has occurred.
- The challenged order need not be final; even interim or interlocutory orders can be contested through an SLP.
- The Supreme Court is free to accept or reject an SLP solely based on merit; the petitioner cannot claim it as a right.
Who Can File an SLP?
- Any aggrieved individual, company, NGO, public authority, or government department.
- The essential requirement is that the party must be aggrieved by the impugned order.
- SLPs can arise from: High Court judgments, Tribunal decisions (excluding armed forces tribunals), Quasi-judicial authority orders
Time Limits for Filing SLP
- Within 90 days from the High Court’s judgment, or
- Within 60 days from the High Court’s refusal to grant a certificate of fitness for appeal.
Procedure
- The petition must clearly state all relevant facts and grounds of challenge.
- It must be signed by an Advocate-on-Record.
- A declaration confirming that no similar petition has been filed elsewhere must be included.
- After initial scrutiny, the Supreme Court may hear both parties.
- If the Court finds merit, it converts the SLP into an appeal; otherwise, it dismisses the petition.
