Content
- Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024
- Are existing mechanisms effective in preventing custodial violence?
- The need to safeguard the right to vote
- Trump threatens 500% tariff on countries importing oil from Russia
- TB death audits, like maternal mortality model, can aid elimination’
Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024
Introduction
- The Maharashtra Assembly has passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024, aimed at curbing unlawful activities of Left-Wing Extremist (LWE) groups and similar organisations.
- The Bill will be tabled in the Legislative Council for final passage.
Relevance : GS 2 ( Governance & Polity), GS 3 (Internal Security )
Key Features of the Bill
- Applicable to individuals associated with banned organisations classified as unlawful.
- Punishment: 2 to 7 years of imprisonment.
- Offences under the Act: Cognisable and non-bailable.
- Power to seize and forfeit funds of such organisations.
- Only those proven to be members of banned groups can be prosecuted.
Legislative Process
- Introduced in December 2024 during the Winter Session.
- Referred to a Joint Select Committee for detailed examination.
- Passed in the Assembly after a two-hour discussion by voice vote.
Current Context
- Maharashtra reportedly has 64 frontal organisations associated with extremist groups—among the highest in India.
- Four other states—Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Odisha—have similar public security laws.
Concerns and Debates
- Definition Clarity: Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the broad or ambiguous terms in the Bill.
- Potential Overreach: Questions raised on whether student groups, farmer unions, or peaceful protestors could be affected.
- Safeguards: Emphasis needed on ensuring that only individuals with proven links to banned organisations are prosecuted.
Security vs Rights: A Balanced Lens
Merits:
- Aims to address the organisational and financial infrastructure of unlawful groups.
- Adds state-level legal backing to act against extremist networks beyond central laws.
Cautions:
- Overbroad definitions may risk misinterpretation or misuse.
- Strong legal tools require clear accountability mechanisms and judicial oversight.
- Ensuring protection of peaceful dissent is essential to maintain democratic space.
Comparative Insight
- The Bill aligns with existing models in other states that combat insurgency or extremism.
- Draws parallels with central legislation like UAPA, though the scope is confined to state jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill, 2024 reflects a proactive approach to addressing organised extremist threats. However, effective implementation requires a rights-respecting, evidence-based, and transparent framework. Ensuring that the law is used strictly for security threats—not ideological expression—is vital to preserve both safety and civil liberties in a constitutional democracy.
Are existing mechanisms effective in preventing custodial violence?
Introduction
- The custodial death of Ajith Kumar (27), a security guard in Sivaganga, Tamil Nadu, has reignited national concern over police torture and custodial deaths.
- In response, a CBI probe has been ordered and the Madras High Court has directed submission of a report by August 20, 2025.
Relevance : GS 2 ( Governance) , GS 3 (Internal Security: Human rights and custodial safeguards) , GS 4 (Ethics: Abuse of power, rule of law, and justice delivery)
Custodial Violence in India – Core Issues
- No stand-alone anti-torture law: India signed but has not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture.
- Entrenched police culture: Violence is often seen as a tool for quick justice amid slow legal processes.
- Public perception split: Outrage is selective; celebratory responses to extra-judicial killings highlight societal complicity.
- Data deficiency: No centralized, credible public database on custodial torture or deaths.
Institutional Gaps & Legal Loopholes
- CCTV directives (SC, 2020): Implementation is patchy; cameras are often non-functional or torture occurs off-camera.
- Judicial oversight: Magistrates often fail to physically inspect arrestees or question custodial treatment meaningfully.
- Evidence loophole (Section 27, Indian Evidence Act): Allows admissibility of evidence recovered via custodial confessions, indirectly legitimizing torture.
Reform Recommendations
- Training & Sensitisation: Incorporate human rights, scientific interrogation, and bias-awareness in police training.
- Decriminalisation of petty offences: Reduces unnecessary custodial detentions and police overreach.
- Empowering magistracy: Strengthen their role as the first line of custodial rights protection.
- Reverse burden of proof: Law Commission has recommended shifting onus to police in custodial death cases.
- Functional Police Complaints Authorities: Supreme Court mandated them in Prakash Singh (2006), but few States comply fully.
Structural Factors
- Hierarchical culture: Rigid command structures may protect erring officers.
- Social hierarchies: Marginalised communities face disproportionate abuse.
- Promotional incentives: In some cases, officers accused of excesses receive promotions, not punishment.
Community & Civil Society Role
- Community policing: Can build trust, but requires clarity, training, and monitoring.
- Civil society & media: Vital in rights awareness, independent scrutiny, and pressure for accountability.
Key Court Judgments
- Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006): Mandated police complaints authorities.
- Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020): Directed CCTV installation in police stations and gave victims right to access footage.
Conclusion
Custodial violence in India is not merely a legal or procedural failure—it’s a reflection of deeper institutional, social, and cultural dysfunctions. Addressing it requires more than camera installations or one-time probes. It calls for comprehensive reform, strengthened oversight, and a fundamental shift in policing ethos—from dominance to service, from control to accountability.
The need to safeguard the right to vote
Introduction
- On July 10, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to accept Aadhaar, Voter ID, and Ration Cards during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar.
- The court’s observation — that the right to vote goes to the root of our republic — re-ignites a critical debate on inclusiveness vs vigilance in India’s electoral democracy.
Relevance : GS 2 ( Electoral reforms & ECI role ,Statutory vs Fundamental voting rights ), GS 4 (Ethical inclusion & democratic accountability)
Right to Vote in India: Status and Jurisprudence
- Not a Fundamental Right: As per Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006), the right to vote is a statutory right under Section 62 of RPA, 1951.
- Not a Constitutional Right: Although debated, a larger Bench has not recognised it as a constitutional right.
- However, courts and civil society treat it as a democratic necessity (a “democratic imperative”).
- Justice Ajay Rastogi’s dissent (2023): Linked right to vote with Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21, but this remains a minority view.
Supreme Court Intervention in Bihar’s SIR
- SC directed EC to accept multiple ID documents — Aadhaar, voter ID, ration card — to prevent wrongful exclusions.
- Next hearing on July 28. Petitions claim that errors and exclusions in SIR are disenfranchising genuine voters.
Electoral Rolls: Legal Framework
- Governed by:
- RPA, 1950 – electoral roll preparation, revision, inclusion/exclusion.
- RPA, 1951 – election conduct, offences, disqualifications.
- Section 21 of RPA, 1950: Empowers EC to carry out revision of rolls.
- Section 19: Only “ordinary residents” aged 18+ can be registered.
- EC’s constitutional power under Article 324 ensures it is the final authority in electoral matters.
What is “Ordinary Residence”?
- Means genuine, habitual presence in a constituency.
- Manmohan Singh Case (1991) clarified: Mere casual stay or address doesn’t qualify.
- Prevents fraudulent voting, ensures real voter-constituency linkage.
Why Roll Accuracy Matters?
- Mass exclusions violate “one person, one vote”.
- False inclusions allow impersonation, vote dilution.
- Courts say: Only substantial and material errors that affect election outcome can invalidate results (Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, 1985).
Citizenship Verification & Legal Safeguards
- Lal Babu Hussein v. ERO (1995): EC cannot delete voters on vague suspicion.
- Due process must be followed: full inquiry, fair hearing, evidence, and quasi-judicial procedure.
- Md. Rahim Ali (2024) reaffirmed that prior voting history and due process are critical in deletions.
Inclusivity Measures
- Postal ballots under Rule 18 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: For armed forces, government staff abroad, election officials.
- NRI voters (Section 20A of RPA, 1950): Can vote only in person — no postal/proxy yet.
Historical Comparison – Global Context
- UK allowed universal suffrage only in 1928 (women).
- US needed constitutional amendments + civil rights reforms to make voting truly inclusive.
- India adopted universal adult suffrage from day one (1950) — an exceptional choice globally.
Conclusion
India’s electoral integrity depends not only on preventing fraud but also on ensuring access for every legitimate voter. The Supreme Court’s directive in the Bihar case reflects this dual imperative — vigilance with inclusion. As the country prepares for future elections, the EC must combine technological tools, due process, and legal safeguards to maintain both the purity and inclusivity of the electoral rolls. Citizens too must be proactive in verifying and updating their data, for democracy’s strength lies in the validity of every single vote.
Trump threatens 500% tariff on countries importing oil from Russia
The Trigger: U.S. Sanctioning Russia Act, 2025
- Proposed by: Bipartisan U.S. Senators (Lindsey Graham & Richard Blumenthal) in April 2025.
- Provision: Proposes 500% tariff on countries importing Russian oil.
- Objective: To pressure Russia into good-faith peace negotiations over Ukraine.
- Status: Endorsed in principle by Donald Trump; described as “optional” and “under review.”
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations ) , GS 3(Indian Economy)
India’s Rising Dependence on Russian Crude
- In 2022: < 2% of India’s oil imports came from Russia.
- In FY25: ~35–40% of India’s total crude imports came from Russia.
- Discounted prices under the G7/EU $60 per barrel price cap were a major draw.
Economic Implications for India
- Energy Security Risk: Disruption in supply from Russia (10% of global oil output) may force India to rely on costlier alternatives (e.g., West Asian, African grades).
- Price Volatility: Oil prices could spike to $120–130 per barrel, per Minister Hardeep Singh Puri.
- Trade Deficit Impact: Higher import costs → rising Current Account Deficit (CAD).
- Fiscal Burden: Potential rise in fuel subsidy if global prices soar.
India’s Strategic Response
- Diplomatic Engagement: EAM S. Jaishankar raised energy concerns with U.S. lawmakers (July 2, 2025).
- Ministerial Standpoint: Puri reiterated that Indian oil imports are legal, within global price caps, and benefit global markets.
- Diversification: India may accelerate diversification of crude sources (Middle East, U.S., Latin America).
Global Supply Chain Concerns
- Russia produces ~9 million barrels/day — around 10% of global oil (97 million bpd).
- Sudden exclusion could:
- Tighten global supply.
- Strain OPEC+ spare capacity.
- Raise inflationary pressures worldwide.
Geopolitical Stakes
- India’s balancing act between:
- Strategic ties with the U.S. and G7.
- Energy cooperation with Russia, a top supplier.
- Any unilateral tariff or sanction by the U.S. would test India’s non-alignment diplomacy and energy pragmatism.
‘TB death audits, like maternal mortality model, can aid elimination’
Urgent Focus Areas
- Short-term Priority: Reduce TB mortality in India (from 22 per 1,00,000 to lower benchmarks).
- Long-term Goal: Achieve End TB and SDG targets by 2025/2030.
- India’s current TB death rate: 22 per 1,00,000 (vs. China’s 3 per 1,00,000).
- 800–900 deaths/day from TB in India — mostly unreported and under-recognised.
Relevance : GS 2(Health , Policy )
Key Reforms Proposed
- District-level TB Death Audits (like maternal death audits):
- Headed by District Collectors.
- Non-programme partners (e.g., medical colleges) to conduct independent reviews.
- Every TB patient to be screened for co-morbidities: diabetes, anaemia, alcoholism, HIV.
Diagnostic Gaps and Innovations
- Subclinical TB forms 40–50% of total cases → missed in symptom-based screening.
- Solution:
- AI-backed portable X-ray devices (WHO/STOP TB/ICMR approved).
- Molecular Testing: Increased from ~30% to wider coverage under 100-day TB campaign.
- Household screening: Now feasible with handheld diagnostics.
Nutritional Support as “Natural Vaccine”
- RATIONS Trial (Jharkhand): Nutritional support prevented 50% of secondary TB cases.
- Nikshay Poshan Yojana: Monthly DBT doubled from ₹500 to ₹1000.
- Challenge: Delivery gaps in remote/rural areas, reliance on volunteers.
Best Practice: Tamil Nadu’s TN-KET Model
- Kasanoi Erappila Thittam (2022) aimed to reduce TB deaths by 30% in public-notified patients.
- From 14,961 patients:
- 13% (1,509) identified at high risk of severe illness.
- 75% of high-risk patients assessed at nodal centers.
- 4% mortality among admitted severely ill cases.
- Routine BMI monitoring now institutionalised.
Structural Barriers
- High TB burden among productive age group (25–55 years).
- Causes of death include:
- Late diagnosis, private sector delays, co-morbidities, severe undernutrition.
- Public health mindset needed: treat TB like COVID or maternal deaths.
Way Forward: Recommendations
- Universal clinical evaluation for all TB patients.
- Independent TB death reviews to inform district-level response.
- Scale up portable diagnostics, nutrition schemes, and community-based care.
- Ambitious, well-funded National Strategic Plan essential to drive systemic change.
