Relevance: TSPSC – Telangana Specific (Polity, Fundamental Rights, Governance, Social Issues)
For Prelims:
Telangana Hate Speech Bill 2026, Cognizable Offence, Non-bailable Offence, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2), IPC Section 153A, Section 505, Select Committee
For Mains:
Freedom of Speech vs Reasonable Restrictions, Hate Speech Regulation, Misuse of Law, Digital Regulation, Civil Liberties, State Power vs Individual Rights
Why in News?
The Telangana government introduced the Telangana Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2026, which has generated debate over its provisions and potential impact on freedom of speech.
Background
The Bill was introduced in the State Assembly with the objective of addressing the growing concerns related to hate speech, communal tensions, and targeted violence.
The initiative was influenced by similar legislative efforts in other States and by increasing incidents of hate speech, especially through digital platforms and social media.
Key Provisions of the Bill
- The Bill defines hate speech broadly as any expression—spoken, written, or digital—that promotes disharmony or ill-will based on religion, caste, gender, or sexual orientation.
- It prescribes stringent punishments, including imprisonment ranging from one to seven years for first-time offences and up to ten years for repeat offences.
- The offences are classified as cognizable and non-bailable, which allows the police to arrest individuals without a warrant.
- The Bill also empowers a Designated Officer to remove or block online content without prior judicial approval.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
- The issue of hate speech is closely linked to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- However, this freedom is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), which include grounds such as public order, decency, morality, and incitement to an offence.
- Thus, any law regulating hate speech must maintain a balance between protecting public order and preserving individual freedoms.
Existing Legal Provisions
India does not have a specific law exclusively defining hate speech, but several provisions address related offences:
- IPC Section 153A → Promotes enmity between groups
- IPC Section 505 → Statements leading to public mischief
- Representation of the People Act, 1951 → Disqualification for misuse of speech during elections
- Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 → Penalises promotion of untouchability
- Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 → Prohibits use of religious spaces for promoting hatred
Issues and Criticism
- The Bill has been criticised for its broad and vague definition of hate speech, which may lead to subjective interpretation.
- The classification of offences as non-bailable and cognizable raises concerns about potential misuse and arbitrary arrests.
- The provision allowing removal of digital content without judicial oversight has been described as a form of executive overreach.
- Political parties and civil society groups have argued that such provisions may be used to suppress dissent and limit free speech.
Need for the Law
- Supporters of the Bill argue that existing legal provisions are not sufficient to deal with the speed and scale of online hate speech.
- Recent incidents of communal violence and targeted attacks indicate the need for a more comprehensive and preventive legal framework.
- The Bill aims to protect vulnerable communities and maintain social harmony.
Role of Select Committee
- Due to widespread criticism, the Bill has been referred to a Select Committee of the Assembly.
- The Committee is expected to review the provisions, address concerns related to misuse, and recommend necessary changes.
- Its role is crucial in ensuring that the law achieves a balance between security and liberty.
Significance
- The Bill highlights the increasing importance of regulating digital and online speech in modern governance.
- It raises critical questions about the balance between State authority and fundamental rights.
- The debate surrounding the Bill reflects broader issues of federalism, civil liberties, and democratic accountability.
Challenges
- Defining hate speech precisely without ambiguity remains a major challenge, as vague definitions can lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement.
- Preventing the misuse of legal provisions is equally important, since such laws may be exploited to target political opponents or suppress dissent.
- Ensuring adequate judicial oversight in enforcement is necessary to maintain fairness and protect fundamental rights.
- At the same time, there is a constant need to balance freedom of expression with the requirement of maintaining social harmony in a diverse society.
Way Forward
- The Bill should be redrafted with clear definitions and safeguards against misuse.
- Judicial oversight should be incorporated before actions such as arrests or content removal.
- The law should complement existing provisions rather than duplicate them.
- A balanced approach is necessary to protect both fundamental rights and public order.
CARE MCQ
Q.With reference to hate speech regulation in India, consider the following statements:
- Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, subject to reasonable restrictions.
- IPC Section 153A deals with promotion of enmity between groups.
- Hate speech is comprehensively defined under a single central law in India.
Which of the above statements are correct?
A.1 and 2 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 3 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Answer: A
Explanation
Statement 1 is correct: Freedom of speech is guaranteed but restricted under Article 19(2).
Statement 2 is correct: Section 153A addresses promotion of enmity.
Statement 3 is incorrect: There is no single comprehensive law defining hate speech.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding Hate Speech in India:
- The term “hate speech” is explicitly defined in the Constitution of India.
- Restrictions on hate speech are mainly enforced through provisions of the Indian Penal Code such as Sections 153A and 295A.
Choose the correct answer:
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: B
Explanation :
The Constitution does not define hate speech, but it can be restricted under reasonable restrictions on free speech and is punished through IPC provisions like Sections 153A and 295A.
Q.Consider the following statements:
- Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code punishes acts promoting enmity between different groups on grounds such as religion, race, or language.
- Mere criticism of a religion automatically attracts punishment under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: A
Explanation:
Statement 1: Correct. Section 153A criminalizes acts or speech that promote hostility or hatred between groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., as such acts threaten public order and communal harmony.
Statement 2: Incorrect. Section 295A applies only when there is deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings. Mere criticism, academic discussion, or unintentional remarks do not automatically fall under this provision.
Q.Consider the following statements regarding hate speech jurisprudence:
- In Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, the Supreme Court directed Parliament to enact a specific law on hate speech.
- The Court observed that existing provisions in the Indian Penal Code can address many instances of hate speech.
A. 1 only
B. 2 only
C. Both 1 and 2
D. Neither 1 nor 2
Answer: B
Explanation:
Statement 1: Incorrect.
In the Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014) case, the Supreme Court was approached with a request to frame detailed guidelines and laws to control hate speech, particularly by political and religious leaders. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue but refused to issue a mandatory direction to Parliament to enact a new law. It held that law-making is primarily the function of the legislature, and the judiciary cannot compel Parliament to enact specific legislation. The Court only observed that Parliament may consider framing a comprehensive law if it finds it necessary.
Statement 2: Correct.
The Court noted that several provisions already exist in the Indian Penal Code to deal with hate speech and communal incitement. These include provisions such as Section 153A (promoting enmity between groups), Section 295A (deliberate acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and Section 505 (statements causing public mischief). According to the Court, the main issue was often lack of effective enforcement of existing laws rather than absence of legal provisions. Hence, the Court emphasized better implementation of the current legal framework instead of immediately creating new legislation.
MAINS QUESTION
Q. Discuss the challenges in regulating hate speech in India. Examine whether new legislation is necessary or existing laws are sufficient.
Word Limit: 250 words
FAQs
Q1. Is hate speech defined in Indian law?
No, there is no single comprehensive definition, but various laws address related offences.
Q2. What constitutional provision governs free speech?
Article 19(1)(a), subject to restrictions under Article 19(2).
Q3. What is a cognizable offence?
An offence where police can arrest without a warrant.
Q4. Why is the Bill controversial?
Due to vague definitions, strict provisions, and potential misuse affecting free speech.
Relevance: GS Paper I – Modern Indian History
For Prelims:
Indian National Army, Azad Hind Government, Forward Bloc, Haripura Session, Jai Hind, Rani of Jhansi Regiment
For Mains:
Indian National Army, Azad Hind Government, Forward Bloc, Haripura Session, Jai Hind, Rani of Jhansi Regiment
Why in News?
A recent analytical article revisits Subhas Chandra Bose and critically evaluates the contradiction between his ideological commitments to equality and his strategic choices during the freedom struggle. The discussion is relevant in understanding how revolutionary leadership balances ideals with political necessity.
Core Idea of the Article
- The article argues that Subhas Chandra Bose cannot be understood through a simplistic binary of idealism or pragmatism.
- His politics reflects a deliberate attempt to operationalise radical ideas such as social equality, secularism, and economic justice, while simultaneously adopting militarised and strategic methods that appear inconsistent with those ideals.
- The central argument is that Bose represents a case where ideological purity was consciously subordinated to the urgency of national liberation.
Bose’s Ideological Framework
- Bose’s ideological framework was rooted in dismantling structural inequalities within Indian society.
- He viewed caste hierarchy, communal divisions, and gender exclusion as obstacles to nation-building rather than merely social issues.
- He emphasised disciplined nationalism based on scientific planning and collective mobilisation.
- Unlike liberal nationalist approaches, his vision required a strong, interventionist state that could transform society after independence.
- His idea of a “higher synthesis” reflected an attempt to combine Western scientific rationality with Eastern civilisational values, indicating that his nationalism had both material and philosophical dimensions.
Translation of Ideology into Practice (INA)
- Bose’s most concrete attempt to implement his ideas was through the Indian National Army.
- Within the INA, he removed institutional structures that reinforced social divisions and replaced them with a unified command structure based on merit and shared national identity.
- The use of common symbols such as “Jai Hind” and a shared linguistic framework was intended to transcend regional and religious identities.
- The INA functioned not only as a military force but as a laboratory for testing Bose’s vision of an egalitarian and unified India.
Social Equality and Secular Military Model
- Bose institutionalised equality within the INA by eliminating caste-based segregation and ensuring that soldiers from different religious backgrounds operated within a single integrated framework.
- This was significant because it directly challenged colonial narratives that portrayed Indian society as inherently divided and incapable of unity.
By embedding secularism within a military institution, Bose attempted to demonstrate that national unity could be practically achieved rather than merely rhetorically asserted.
Economic Thinking and Planning Vision
- Bose’s economic thought was centred on state-led development and social welfare. He supported the idea of planned economic development well before it became mainstream in post-independence India.
- He argued for ensuring a living wage for workers and reducing economic disparities through state intervention.
However, his approach did not fully align with orthodox communism. Instead, he sought a balanced framework that combined planning with national priorities, indicating an independent economic vision tailored to Indian conditions.
Women’s Participation in National Movement
- The role of women in India’s freedom struggle was both significant and transformative, reflecting their active and widespread participation in the fight against British rule.
- Women from diverse regions, religions, and social backgrounds united in the nationalist movement, displaying remarkable courage, resilience, and patriotism.
- Their contribution not only strengthened the struggle for independence but also challenged existing social norms. The key characteristics of their role are as follows:
· Upper-Class Initiative: · Gandhian Influence: · Initially Symbolic Participation: · Limited Focus on Women’s Issues: |
Strategic Alliances and Realpolitik
- Bose’s alliances with Axis powers must be understood in terms of strategic calculation rather than ideological alignment. He viewed global geopolitical conflict as an opportunity to weaken British imperialism.
- Despite engaging with regimes such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, he did not endorse their ideological foundations. His criticism of racial doctrines and imperial expansion indicates that his alliances were instrumental in nature.
- This reflects a conscious adoption of realpolitik, where external partnerships were used as tools to achieve national objectives.
Theory vs Praxis: The Core Paradox
- The central paradox in Bose’s political life lies in the coexistence of egalitarian ideals and hierarchical methods.
- While he advocated equality and social justice, his reliance on military discipline and centralised authority introduced elements of control that appear inconsistent with democratic ideals.
- Similarly, his opposition to imperialism contrasts with his willingness to collaborate with imperial powers for strategic gain.
- This contradiction is not accidental but reflects the tension inherent in revolutionary politics, where the urgency of achieving independence shapes decision-making.
Conclusion
Subhas Chandra Bose represents a unique synthesis of ideological commitment and strategic pragmatism. His attempt to translate principles of equality, secularism, and social justice into institutional practice distinguishes him from many contemporaries.
At the same time, the contradictions in his methods reflect the complexities of revolutionary politics, where achieving national liberation often requires difficult and contested choices. His legacy lies not only in his contribution to independence but also in the questions he raises about the relationship between ideals and action.
CARE MCQ
Q.With reference to Subhas Chandra Bose, consider the following statements:
- He attempted to operationalise social equality within the Indian National Army by removing caste and religious distinctions.
- His economic ideas were strictly aligned with orthodox communist ideology.
- His alliances during World War II were guided by strategic considerations rather than ideological agreement.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
A. 1 and 3 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 2 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
The first statement is correct because Bose ensured an integrated and non-discriminatory structure within the INA. The second statement is incorrect because his economic thought represented a balanced planning approach rather than strict communism. The third statement is correct as his alliances were strategic and aimed at weakening British rule.
Q.With reference to the role of women in the Indian national movement, consider the following pairs:
Leader | Associated Characteristic |
1. Rani Lakshmibai | Symbol of regional armed resistance |
2. Kasturba Gandhi | Participation in nationwide Gandhian movements |
3. Begum Hazrat Mahal | Advocacy of women’s suffrage in legislative reforms |
Which of the pairs given above is/are correctly matched?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Explanation:
Pair 1 is correct as Rani Lakshmibai led armed resistance in 1857. Pair 2 is correct as Kasturba Gandhi actively participated in Gandhian movements. Pair 3 is incorrect because Begum Hazrat Mahal was associated with the Revolt of 1857, not with suffrage or legislative reforms.
Q. Consider the following statements regarding Subhas Chandra Bose:
- He was elected President of the Indian National Congress twice and later resigned due to ideological differences with Gandhian leadership.
- He advocated complete independence (Purna Swaraj) much before it became the official Congress goal in 1929.
- He formed the Forward Bloc to consolidate left-wing elements within the Congress.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 and 3 only
(c) 1 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (d)
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is Correct: Subhas Chandra Bose was elected Congress President in 1938 (Haripura Session) and 1939 (Tripuri Session). However, due to serious ideological differences with Gandhian leaders over methods and pace of struggle, he resigned from the post.
- Statement 2 is Correct: Bose was among the early leaders who strongly demanded complete independence, even before the Congress officially adopted Purna Swaraj as its goal in 1929 (Lahore Session).
- Statement 3 is Correct: After resigning, he founded the Forward Bloc in 1939 to bring together left-wing and radical elements within the Congress to pursue a more aggressive anti-colonial strategy.
Q.With reference to Subhas Chandra Bose and the Indian National Army (INA), consider the following statements:
- The INA was first formed under his leadership in Southeast Asia during World War II.
- Bose established the Provisional Government of Azad Hind, which was recognized by some Axis powers.
- The INA’s campaigns were primarily concentrated in the eastern frontiers of India, including Imphal and Kohima.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 2 and 3 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: (a)
Explanation:
- Statement 1 is incorrect: The INA was initially formed in 1942 by Captain Mohan Singh with Japanese support. Subhas Chandra Bose took over its leadership later in 1943 and reorganized it.
- Statement 2 is correct: Bose established the Provisional Government of Azad Hind in 1943, which received recognition from Axis powers such as Japan and Germany.
- Statement 3 is correct: The INA, in collaboration with Japanese forces, launched military campaigns in India’s northeastern region, particularly in the battles of Imphal and Kohima.
CARE MAINS
Q.“Subhas Chandra Bose represented a radical and militant strand of Indian nationalism that challenged the dominant Gandhian approach.”
Critically examine his ideology, methods, and contribution to the Indian freedom struggle. (250 words)
FAQs
Q.Why is Subhas Chandra Bose considered a paradoxical leader?
He is considered paradoxical because his commitment to equality and inclusive nationalism coexisted with the use of militarised and centralised strategies that appear contradictory to those ideals.
Q.How did Bose implement secularism in practice?
He implemented secularism by integrating soldiers of different religions into a unified military structure within the INA, without any institutional segregation.
Q.What distinguished Bose’s economic thinking from other leaders?
His emphasis on state-led planning combined with flexibility and national priorities distinguished his approach from both laissez-faire and rigid communist models.
Q.Why were Bose’s foreign alliances controversial?
They were controversial because he collaborated with Axis powers, but these alliances were driven by strategic necessity rather than ideological alignment.
Q.What is the key takeaway for UPSC preparation?
Bose’s life illustrates the tension between ideological commitment and political pragmatism, which is a recurring theme in the study of revolutionary movements.
Relevance: GS Paper II – Polity & Governance
For Prelims:
Delimitation, Article 82, Article 170, 42nd Amendment 1976, 84th Amendment 2001, 87th Amendment 2003, Census-based representation, Women’s Reservation
For Mains:
Delimitation, Article 82, Article 170, 42nd Amendment 1976, 84th Amendment 2001, 87th Amendment 2003, Census-based representation, Women’s Reservation
Why in News?
The Union Government is considering a Constitutional Amendment and a fresh delimitation exercise to redistribute Lok Sabha seats among States based on the 2011 Census. This proposal is significant because it seeks to alter the current seat allocation that has remained effectively frozen for decades, and it is also linked with the implementation of women’s reservation in legislatures.
Core Issue and Proposal
- The proposal involves revising the distribution of Lok Sabha seats across States to reflect changes in population as recorded in the 2011 Census.
- At present, the allocation of seats among States is based on the 1971 Census, while constituency boundaries within States were last adjusted using the 2001 Census.
- The proposed reform includes increasing the total strength of the Lok Sabha to around 850 seats, with the majority allocated to States and a smaller share to Union Territories.
- This expansion is intended to improve representation while simultaneously enabling the implementation of 33 percent reservation for women in Parliament and State Assemblies.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
- The process of delimitation derives its authority from Article 82 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census for readjustment of seats and constituencies.
- Similarly, Article 170 provides for the readjustment of Assembly constituencies in States.
- The actual exercise is carried out by a Delimitation Commission, whose orders have the force of law and cannot be challenged in courts.
- This gives the process a final and binding character, making political consensus crucial.
Existing Freeze and Its Rationale
- The allocation of Lok Sabha seats has been frozen based on the 1971 Census due to constitutional amendments.
- The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 first froze the number of seats to encourage States to implement population control measures without fear of losing political representation.
- This freeze was later extended by the 84th Amendment Act of 2001 until the first Census after 2026.
While the 87th Amendment Act of 2003 allowed delimitation of constituencies based on the 2001 Census, it retained the freeze on the total number of seats allocated to each State.
- The rationale behind this policy was to ensure that States that successfully controlled population growth were not politically penalised.
Proposed Changes and Their Implications
- The current proposal seeks to remove or bypass the freeze before its scheduled expiry after 2026, thereby enabling immediate redistribution based on more recent population data.
- Such redistribution would significantly alter the share of representation among States. Estimates suggest that States in the Hindi-speaking belt could see a substantial increase in their share of seats, while southern States could experience a relative decline.
- For example, large States like Uttar Pradesh are expected to gain a significant number of seats, whereas States such as Kerala may see only marginal increases. This reflects demographic changes over the past five decades.
Regional Impact and Political Consequences
- The proposed redistribution is likely to intensify the existing North-South divide in Indian politics. States that have experienced higher population growth stand to gain greater representation, thereby increasing their influence in national decision-making.
- On the other hand, southern States and some western States, which have successfully implemented population control measures, may see their relative political weight reduced. This raises concerns about fairness and equity in representation.
- The shift in seat share could also impact coalition politics, resource allocation, and the overall balance of power within the Union.
Federalism Concerns and Opposition
- Several States have expressed concerns regarding the proposal, particularly about the lack of consultation and the potential erosion of cooperative federalism.
- States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, and Punjab have argued that the freeze should be extended beyond 2026 to protect their interests.
- The concern is that population-based redistribution may undermine the federal principle by disproportionately empowering certain regions while disadvantaging others that have performed better on development indicators such as health and education.
- There is also apprehension that the finality of the Delimitation Commission’s decisions limits avenues for redress.
Women’s Reservation
- The proposal is also linked to the implementation of the constitutional provision for 33 percent reservation for women in legislatures.
- The expansion of Lok Sabha seats is seen as a way to accommodate reserved seats without significantly reducing the number of seats available to existing representatives.
- Thus, delimitation is not only a question of representation but also intersects with gender justice and political inclusion.
Core Constitutional Principle Involved
The entire debate is rooted in the principle of “one person, one vote, one value,” which requires that representation in legislatures should be proportionate to population.
However, this principle comes into conflict with another important consideration, which is the need to reward States that have successfully controlled population growth. The tension between these two principles lies at the heart of the current controversy.
Way Forward
A balanced approach is required to address both democratic representation and federal equity. Wider consultation with States is essential to build consensus and ensure that the process does not create regional alienation.
Alternative approaches, such as weighting representation or introducing safeguards for States that have achieved demographic transition, may need to be explored.
Conclusion
The proposed redistribution of Lok Sabha seats represents a critical moment in India’s democratic evolution. While updating representation based on population is necessary, it must be balanced with considerations of federal fairness and developmental achievements.
The challenge lies in ensuring that delimitation enhances democratic legitimacy without disrupting the delicate balance of India’s federal system.
CARE MCQ
Q. With reference to delimitation in India, consider the following statements:
- The allocation of Lok Sabha seats among States is currently based on the 1971 Census.
- The Delimitation Commission’s orders can be challenged in the Supreme Court.
- The freeze on seat allocation was introduced to encourage population control measures.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
A. 1 and 3 only
B. 2 and 3 only
C. 1 and 2 only
D. 1, 2 and 3
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct: The current allocation is based on the 1971 Census.
Statement 2 is incorrect: because the Delimitation Commission’s orders are final and cannot be challenged in court.
Statement 3 is correct as the freeze was intended to incentivise population control.
Q. Consider the following statements regarding the Union Legislature of India:
- The President of India is not a part of the Union Legislature.
- The Rajya Sabha has a fixed tenure of six years.
- The Lok Sabha is dissolved by the President upon the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The maximum strength of the Rajya Sabha is capped at 250 members.
How many of the statements given above are correct?
(a) Only one
(b) Only two
(c) Only three
(d) Only four
Ans: (b)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is incorrect:Under Article 79 of the Constitution, the Union Legislature consists of the President, the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha. Hence, the President is an integral part of Parliament, even though not a member of either House.
Statement 2 is incorrect:The Rajya Sabha is a permanent body and is not subject to dissolution. While individual members serve a term of six years, one-third retire every two years, so the House itself has no fixed tenure.
Statement 3 is correct:The Lok Sabha can be dissolved by the President, but this is done on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, reflecting the parliamentary system of governance.
Statement 4 is correct:As per Article 80, the maximum strength of the Rajya Sabha is 250 members, including 238 representatives of States and Union Territories and 12 nominated members by the President.
Q. Regarding the composition of the State Legislative Assemblies in India, which of the following statements is NOT correct?
(a) The maximum strength of a State Legislative Assembly is fixed at 500 members, except for smaller states.
(b) The members of the State Legislative Assembly are chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies.
(c) Seats are reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State Legislative Assemblies in proportion to their population in the state.
(d) The Governor of a state can nominate a maximum of two members from the Anglo-Indian community if they are not adequately represented in the Assembly.
Ans: (d)
Explanation:
Option (a) is correct: Under Article 170, the maximum strength of a State Legislative Assembly is 500 and minimum is 60, though Parliament may allow exceptions for smaller states like Goa, Sikkim, and Mizoram.
Option (b) is correct: Members of the Legislative Assembly are directly elected by the people from territorial constituencies on the basis of universal adult suffrage, ensuring representative democracy at the state level.
Option (c) is correct: Article 332 provides for reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population in the state, ensuring adequate political representation of these communities.
Option (d) is incorrect: The provision for nomination of Anglo-Indian members by the Governor (Article 333) was abolished by the 104th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, and therefore no such nomination is currently permitted.
Q. With reference to the composition of the Rajya Sabha, which of the following statements is/are correct?
- The President nominates 12 members from amongst persons having special knowledge in fields like art, literature, science, and social service.
- The representatives of the states are elected by the members of both the legislative assembly and the legislative council of the state.
- The allocation of seats to the states is based on the principle of equal representation for every state.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 1 and 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Ans: (a)
Explanation:
Statement 1 is correct:Under Article 80 of the Constitution, the President nominates 12 members to the Rajya Sabha from among persons having special knowledge or practical experience in fields such as art, literature, science, and social service, ensuring representation of eminent individuals.
Statement 2 is incorrect: Representatives of states in the Rajya Sabha are elected only by the elected members of the State Legislative Assembly, through the system of proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote. Members of Legislative Councils do not participate.
Statement 3 is incorrect: Seats in the Rajya Sabha are allocated on the basis of population of states, not on equal representation. Hence, larger states have more members than smaller ones, unlike the equal representation model seen in some federal systems like the USA.
MAINS QUESTION
Q. Discuss the constitutional design and rationale behind the composition of the Rajya Sabha. How does it balance federal representation with the need for expertise in the legislative process? [250 WORDS]
FAQs
Q.Why is delimitation controversial in India?
Delimitation is controversial because it changes the distribution of political power among States, which can lead to regional imbalances and federal tensions.
Q. Why was the seat allocation frozen based on the 1971 Census?
The freeze was introduced to ensure that States implementing population control policies were not disadvantaged in terms of political representation.
Q. How does delimitation affect federalism?
It can alter the balance of power between States, potentially favouring regions with higher population growth and raising concerns about fairness.
Q.What is the link between delimitation and women’s reservation?
Expansion of seats through delimitation is expected to facilitate the implementation of 33 percent reservation for women without reducing existing representation.
