Prelims Workshop: Polity
Batch 2 | Topics 16–33 | Important Constitutional DevelopmentsImportant Constitutional Developments
18 TopicsQuick Navigation Index
16 Personality Rights
17 Contempt of Court Limits
18 Right to Vote
19 Article 33 - Armed Forces FRs
20 Deputy Speaker Vacancy
21 Uniform Civil Code
22 National Flag Framework
23 Right to Digital Access
24 Narco-Analysis Tests
25 Article 370 & J&K Statehood
26 Delhi Services Dispute
27 Section 6A Citizenship Act
28 AMU Minority Status
29 UP Madarsa Education Act
30 Fifth & Sixth Schedules
31 Article 2 vs Article 3
32 Assent to State Bills
33 Article 311 - Civil Services
TOPIC 16
Personality Rights (AI Misuse and Sadhguru Case)
Why in News
- In 2025, the Delhi High Court issued an injunction protecting the personality rights of spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev against AI-generated misrepresentation — unauthorised use of his name, image, and voice online.
Key Facts
- Personality rights: Right to control unauthorised use of Name, Image, Voice, Likeness, and distinctive expressions.
- Not expressly mentioned in any Indian statute; governed via Trademarks Act 1999, Copyright Act 1957, common law tort of "passing off", and Article 21 (Privacy).
- Emblems Act, 1950: Prohibits commercial use of images of Mahatma Gandhi and the Prime Minister.
- Posthumous personality rights: No specific statutory recognition in India (Deepa Jayakumar v. AL Vijay, 2019).
Important Points
- Art. 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty — includes Right to Privacy (K.S. Puttaswamy, 2017); personality rights derive from this.
- Art. 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech — courts must balance personality rights against free speech claims.
- Trademarks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957: Indirect statutory protection of personality rights in India.
- Passing off (Common Law): Prevents unauthorised use of a person's identity for commercial gain without consent.
- Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Provides additional layer of protection for personal data including biometric data.
TOPIC 17
Contempt of Court Limits (Chhattisgarh SPOs Case)
Why in News
- In 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in the Chhattisgarh Special Police Officers (SPOs) case that no law passed by a legislature can amount to contempt of court unless the law itself has been declared unconstitutional.
Key Facts
- State legislatures possess plenary powers; their enactments cannot per se be treated as contemptuous.
- Governed by Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: two categories — Civil Contempt and Criminal Contempt.
- 2006 Amendment: Truth and good faith allowed as a valid defence in contempt proceedings.
Important Points
- Art. 129: SC is a court of record — inherent power to punish for contempt of itself.
- Art. 215: HCs are courts of record — power to punish for contempt of themselves.
- Civil Contempt: Wilful disobedience of court order or judgment; Criminal Contempt: publication scandalising court or prejudicing proceedings.
- Art. 361: President and Governors immune from contempt proceedings while in office.
- Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Limitation period of 1 year for initiating proceedings.
TOPIC 18
Right to Vote — Constitutional vs. Statutory Right
Why in News
- The debate on whether NOTA should be available in uncontested elections was renewed in 2025, bringing the legal nature of the "right to vote" back into focus.
Key Facts
- Current judicial position: Right to vote is a statutory right under Section 62, RPA, 1950 — NOT a Fundamental Right.
- "Freedom of voting" (the act of casting a vote) is part of Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a).
- UPSC 2017 official answer key accepted "right to vote is a constitutional right" — an important exam nuance.
Important Points
- Art. 326: Guarantees universal adult franchise — the basis of the electoral system.
- Section 62, RPA, 1950: Confers the right to vote as a statutory right.
- NOTA: Introduced by ECI after SC order in PUCL v. UoI (2013).
- Anoop Baranwal v. UoI (2023): SC upheld appointment of ECI members via new law.
- Right to vote can be curtailed by Parliament (e.g., disqualifications under RPA, 1951 — Sections 8, 9, 10, 11).
TOPIC 19
Article 33 — Fundamental Rights of Armed Forces
Why in News
- The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Lt. Samuel Kamalesan from the Indian Army for refusing to enter a regiment's temple during a mandatory parade, reinforcing Article 33's scope.
Key Facts
- Art. 33 empowers Parliament exclusively to restrict or abrogate FRs of Armed Forces, Paramilitary, Police, and Intelligence agencies.
- Also covers non-combatant employees such as barbers, cooks, and carpenters attached to the forces.
- State Legislatures CANNOT legislate under Article 33.
Important Points
- Art. 33: Parliament can restrict/abrogate FRs for disciplined forces; Laws under this cannot be challenged in court on FR grounds.
- Army Act, 1950: Main law governing Army personnel made under Art. 33 framework.
- Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT): Established under Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 for service-related disputes.
- Art. 34: Parliament can indemnify any person for acts during Martial Law.
TOPIC 20
Deputy Speaker — Vacancy Since 2019
Why in News
- The post of Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker has remained vacant since June 2019, an unprecedented constitutional lacuna in Indian parliamentary history.
Key Facts
- Article 93 mandates election of Deputy Speaker "as soon as may be" after Lok Sabha is constituted.
- By convention, the Deputy Speaker post is offered to the principal Opposition party.
- Rule 8 of Lok Sabha Rules: Speaker must fix a date for election of Deputy Speaker.
Important Points
- Art. 93: Lok Sabha shall choose Speaker and Deputy Speaker "as soon as may be".
- Art. 95: Deputy Speaker presides in absence of Speaker; both absent — member of Panel of Chairpersons presides.
- Art. 96: Speaker/Deputy Speaker shall NOT preside while resolution for their removal is under consideration.
- Art. 178: State Assemblies have similar provisions for Speaker and Deputy Speaker.
- Deputy Speaker has same powers as Speaker when presiding, including casting vote in case of tie (Art. 100).
TOPIC 21
Uniform Civil Code — Uttarakhand Implementation
Why in News
- Uttarakhand passed the UCC (Amendment) Bill, 2025, tightening provisions on live-in relationship registration and extending the marriage registration period to one year.
Key Facts
- Uttarakhand is the first Indian State to implement UCC post-Independence (Feb 2024) under Article 44.
- Covers marriage, divorce, inheritance, and adoption; exempts Scheduled Tribes.
- Goa Civil Code (Portuguese-era) is the only pre-independence example.
Important Points
- Art. 44 (DPSP): State shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for citizens — a directive, not an enforceable right.
- DPSPs are non-justiciable (Art. 37) but fundamental to governance.
- Personal laws are in the Concurrent List (Entry 5) — both Centre and State can legislate.
- Narasu Appa Mali Case (1952): Personal laws are NOT subject to Fundamental Rights (debated precedent).
- Shayara Bano v. UoI (2017): SC declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional — incremental reform towards uniformity.
TOPIC 22
National Flag — Constitutional & Legal Framework
Why in News
- The 2021 amendment to Flag Code allowing machine-made and polyester flags enabled the Har Ghar Tiranga campaign, which has been conducted annually since 2022.
Key Facts
- Designed by Pingali Venkayya; adopted by Constituent Assembly on July 22, 1947.
- Governed by Flag Code of India, 2002.
- Right to hoist National Flag is a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(a) — Union of India v. Naveen Jindal (SC, 2004).
Important Points
- Art. 19(1)(a): SC held right to hoist national flag with dignity is part of freedom of expression.
- Art. 19(2): State can impose reasonable restrictions; Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 operates here.
- Flag Code of India, 2002: Part I (description), Part II (display by public), Part III (display by Govt).
- Machine-made polyester flags allowed since Dec 2021 amendment.
TOPIC 23
Right to Digital Access as Fundamental Right
Why in News
- In 2025, the Supreme Court in Amar Jain v. Union of India ruled that inclusive digital access to e-governance and welfare delivery is an "instinctive component" of Article 21.
Key Facts
- Digital access described as an "instinctive component" of Right to Life and Personal Liberty.
- SC issued directions to revise digital KYC norms under Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
- Invoked "Principle of Substantive Equality" for digital transformation.
Important Points
- Art. 21: Right to Life interpreted expansively to now include digital access.
- Art. 14: Digital exclusion of PwDs violates equality; policy must be substantively equal.
- Art. 38 (DPSP): State to promote welfare; provide adequate means of livelihood — supports inclusion.
- RPwD Act, 2016: Section 42 mandates accessible electronic media and internet.
- Maneka Gandhi Case (1978) & Olga Tellis Case (1985): Foundational precedents for expanding Art. 21.
TOPIC 24
Narco-Analysis Tests — Constitutional Validity
Why in News
- In 2025, the Supreme Court overturned a Patna High Court order that had broadly allowed narco-analysis tests, reaffirming the Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) judgment.
Key Facts
- Involuntary narco tests violate both Article 20(3) (self-incrimination) and Article 21 (personal liberty).
- Even voluntary narco-test reports CANNOT be used directly as primary evidence.
- Only physical evidence found as a consequence of a test disclosure may be admissible.
Important Points
- Art. 20(3): Protection against self-incrimination — no person accused shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
- Art. 21: Narco tests without consent violate procedure established by law.
- Selvi Judgment (2010): Involuntary narco, lie detector, and brain mapping tests are unconstitutional and results are inadmissible.
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act (Section 23, BSA): Facts discovered from info given by accused are admissible exceptions.
- Art. 20(1) & 20(2): Ex-post-facto laws and Double jeopardy prohibitions complete criminal trial protections.
TOPIC 25
Article 370 Abrogation & J&K Statehood
Why in News
- In 2025, the Supreme Court sought a detailed response from the Centre on the timeline for restoring J&K's statehood, following the abrogation upheld in 2023.
Key Facts
- SC upheld abrogation (Dec 2023), declaring Art. 370 was always "temporary".
- State Assembly elections for J&K were held in Sept-Oct 2024 as mandated by the court.
- Ladakh demands include Sixth Schedule inclusion, statehood, and local job reservations.
Important Points
- Art. 370: Special provisions for J&K — declared temporary; abrogation upheld by SC (2023).
- Art. 3: Parliament's power to bifurcate a State and create new UTs.
- Art. 356: SC held Parliament could act as J&K legislature during President's Rule at the time of abrogation.
- Sixth Schedule (Art. 244A): Demanded by Ladakh for Autonomous District Councils.
- J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019: Created UT of J&K (with Assembly) and UT of Ladakh (without Assembly).
TOPIC 26
Delhi Services Dispute — Article 239AA
Why in News
- Parliament enacted the GNCTD Amendment Act, 2023 to overturn the SC ruling that gave the Delhi Government control over civil services.
Key Facts
- SC (May 2023): Delhi Govt has power over "Services" (Entry 41, List II) to ensure accountability.
- The 2023 Act created the National Capital Civil Services Authority (NCCSA) where the LG's view prevails.
- Triple chain of accountability: Civil servants to elected govt; elected govt to citizens.
Important Points
- Art. 239AA: Special provisions for Delhi (69th CAA); excludes Public Order, Police, and Land from Delhi's power.
- Art. 239AA(3)(b): Parliament law prevails over Delhi law in case of inconsistency.
- Art. 239AA(4): LG must act on Cabinet's aid and advice; disputes referred to President.
- Art. 123: Power of President to promulgate Ordinance (used to nullify SC ruling before the Act).
- Shamsher Singh Case (1974): Constitutional convention that Governors act on Cabinet advice extends to Delhi.
TOPIC 27
Section 6A Citizenship Act & Assam Accord
Why in News
- In October 2024, a 5-judge SC Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.
Key Facts
- Section 6A implements the Assam Accord (1985) providing a March 24, 1971 cut-off for citizenship.
- Migrants entering between 1966 and 1971 are deemed citizens; post-1971 migrants are illegal.
- Dissent: Justice Pardiwala argued Section 6A became unconstitutional due to lack of a sunset clause.
Important Points
- Art. 5–11: Constitutional provisions on citizenship; Art. 11 empowers Parliament to regulate it.
- NRC (National Register of Citizens): Updated for Assam under 6A framework; 1.9 million excluded.
- Art. 29: Right of minorities to conserve distinct culture; SC held 6A does not violate this.
- Art. 355: Duty of Union to protect States from external aggression (migration concerns).
- CAA 2019: Provides citizenship to persecuted minorities but has a separate legal framework from Assam NRC.
TOPIC 28
AMU Minority Status — SC Overrules Azeez Basha
Why in News
- In November 2024, a 7-judge SC Constitution Bench overruled the 1967 Azeez Basha judgment regarding Aligarh Muslim University's (AMU) status.
Key Facts
- New principle: Minority status depends on who established the institution (intent/foundational support), not just statutory incorporation.
- AMU was established as Mohammedan Anglo-Oriental College (1875) before the 1920 Act.
- Case remanded to a 3-judge bench to apply the new test.
Important Points
- Art. 30(1): Right of religious and linguistic minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
- Art. 30(2): State shall not discriminate in granting aid to minority institutions.
- TMA Pai Case (2002): Established test for determining minority character.
- Azeez Basha (1967): Previously held that statutory establishment precluded minority status (overruled).
- Minority institutions are exempt from NEET and RTE 25% reservation quotas in unaided institutions.
TOPIC 29
UP Madarsa Education Act — Partially Upheld
Why in News
- In November 2024, the SC reversed the Allahabad HC judgment and upheld most of the UP Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004.
Key Facts
- SC held a statute cannot be struck down for violating "Basic Structure" alone; validity must be traced to express constitutional provisions.
- Struck down provisions granting "Fazil" (PG) and "Kamil" (UG) degrees as they conflicted with the UGC Act, 1956.
Important Points
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Limits Parliament's power to amend the Constitution, NOT ordinary legislation.
- Art. 28: Prohibits religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained by State funds.
- Art. 30: Minority institutions can impart religious instruction and cannot be denied aid solely on that basis.
- Art. 21A & RTE Act: Apply to all children including those in Madarsas.
- UGC Act, 1956: Only UGC-recognised institutions can grant degrees.
TOPIC 30
Fifth & Sixth Schedules — Tribal Areas
Why in News
- Ladakh's Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance have been demanding inclusion under the Sixth Schedule throughout 2024–25.
Key Facts
- Fifth Schedule (Art. 244(1)): Covers Scheduled Areas in 10 States; involves Tribes Advisory Councils (TAC).
- Sixth Schedule (Art. 244(2)): Covers tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram; involves Autonomous District Councils (ADCs).
- ADCs have greater autonomy, including legislative powers over land, forests, and fisheries.
Important Points
- Art. 244: Administrative framework for tribal areas.
- PESA Act, 1996: Extends Panchayati Raj to Fifth Schedule areas while preserving tribal self-governance.
- Forest Rights Act, 2006: Recognises rights of STs over forest land.
- Governor's Role: Under Fifth Schedule, Governor acts on advice of Central Govt for modifications.
- ADCs under Sixth Schedule can establish district and village courts for specific offences.
TOPIC 31
Article 2 vs Article 3 — Formation of States
Why in News
- Demands for statehood in Ladakh and the 2019 reorganisation of J&K continue to make the procedures under Article 3 a central focus.
Key Facts
- Article 2: Admission/establishment of NEW states from territories outside India (e.g., Sikkim).
- Article 3: Formation of new States or alteration of boundaries/names of EXISTING States.
- Article 4: Laws under Arts 2 and 3 are NOT constitutional amendments; passed by simple majority.
Important Points
- Art. 3 Procedure: Bill introduced only on President's recommendation; State Legislature consulted but its opinion is not binding.
- J&K Reorganisation (2019): Parliament acted under Art. 3; no State consent was required.
- Sikkim (1975): Added under Art. 2 as a new State via 36th CAA.
- Telangana (2014): Carved out under Art. 3; AP Legislature's opinion was overridden by Parliament.
TOPIC 32
Assent to State Bills — Article 200/201
Why in News
- In 2025, the SC ruled that courts cannot prescribe timelines for assent but simultaneously held that Governors cannot exercise a "pocket veto" via prolonged inaction.
Key Facts
- Art. 200 options: Assent, withhold, return for reconsideration, or reserve for President.
- "Deemed Assent" is unconstitutional — courts cannot assume assent just because time lapsed.
- If a State Assembly re-passes a returned Bill, the Governor MUST give assent.
Important Points
- Art. 200: Governor's options for Bills; Money Bills cannot be returned.
- Art. 201: President's options on reserved Bills — assent, withhold, or direct reconsideration.
- Art. 143: SC's advisory opinion power; 16th Presidential Reference (2025) focused on Bill assent timelines.
- Art. 361(1): President and Governors not answerable to courts for official acts.
- State of TN v. Governor (2025): SC used Art. 142 in exceptional cases to deem Bills as having received assent.
TOPIC 33
Article 311 — Civil Service Disciplinary Proceedings
Why in News
- In 2025, the SC clarified in State of Jharkhand v. Rukma Kesh Mishra that appointing authority approval is ONLY mandatory for the final dismissal, not for initiating proceedings.
Key Facts
- Art. 311(1): No dismissal by authority subordinate to the appointing authority.
- Art. 311(2): Reasonable opportunity of being heard is mandatory before dismissal/reduction in rank.
- Exceptions to inquiry: (a) Criminal conviction; (b) Impracticability; (c) National security.
Important Points
- Art. 310: Doctrine of Pleasure — civil servants hold office during pleasure of President/Governor.
- Art. 311: Acts as a constitutional limitation on the Doctrine of Pleasure.
- Art. 309: Parliament/State Legislature can regulate recruitment and conditions of service.
- Art. 312: Creation of All India Services (IAS, IPS, IFoS) via Rajya Sabha resolution with 2/3rd majority.
- All India Services Act, 1951: Governs conditions for top-tier bureaucracy.