GS 2 · Rights, duties and constitutional morality
Published · Updated
On September 27, 2026, the Supreme Court engaged in crucial hearings regarding legal challenges to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. In a notable divergence of administrative stances, the Andhra Pradesh government submitted an affidavit stating it played no role in the enactment of the central legislation and maintained that it has not engaged in any discriminatory practices against transgender persons. Conversely, the Uttarakhand government defended the Act, asserting that the existing framework is beneficial for the community and sufficient to address their welfare needs. This judicial discourse highlights the complex interplay between central legislative mandates, state-level implementation, and the overarching constitutional protections for vulnerable groups.
WHY THIS MATTERS FOR MAINS
The event demands an analysis of federalism in the context of rights-based legislation, focusing on whether states can abdicate responsibility for implementing central laws. It underscores the tension between the NALSA (2014) judgment principles—centered on self-identification—and the current legislative framework, requiring an understanding of the balance between uniform rights and state-specific policy responses.
Study angle, not an exam prediction · GS 2 / Constitution & polity
TRY THE DEMAND · ORIGINAL PRACTICE PROMPT
Generate a fresh timed question on this syllabus topic and build your own answer plan.
Practice this topic →News facts are drawn from these reports. The Mains analysis is our study interpretation.
UPSC 2025 · GS 2
“Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike...” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.
Read this PYQ →UPSC 2021 · GS 2
‘Constitutional Morality’ is rooted in the Constitution itself and is founded on its essential facets. Explain the doctrine of ‘Constitutional Morality’ with the help of relevant judicial decisions.
Read this PYQ →UPSC 2017 · GS 2
Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
Read this PYQ →UPSC 2019 · GS 2
From the resolution of contentious issues regarding distribution of legislative powers by the courts, ‘Principle of Federal Supremacy’ and ‘Harmonious Construction’ have emerged. Explain.
Read this PYQ →GS 2 · Constitution & polity
In a significant legal intervention addressing the statutory protections of gender minorities, the Supreme Court asserted that subsequent amendments or alterations to transgender laws cannot strip away rights and identity recognitions already conferred upon individuals. Responding to petitions urging protection against the arbitrary cancellation of transgender identity cards, the apex court reinforced the doctrine of non-retrogression, emphasizing that state actions must uphold dignity, legal certainty, and fundamental constitutional guarantees established under landmark jurisprudence.
GS 2 · Constitution & polity
The Supreme Court has ruled that the failure to recover a valid train ticket from a deceased passenger's body or accident site cannot serve as sole grounds to dismiss a statutory compensation claim under the Railways Act. Emphasizing the benevolent nature of welfare legislation, the Court held that procedural technicalities and investigative omissions by state authorities must not prejudice the rights of grieving families seeking justice for untoward railway incidents.
GS 2 · Constitution & polity
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea filed by Pranit More seeking to club multiple First Information Reports registered across different states, notably Maharashtra and Haryana, in connection with the viral '₹370 biriyani' controversy. A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India sought responses from the Union government and the respective state authorities. This case highlights recurring legal debates surrounding the multiplicity of proceedings, forum shopping, and the protection of fundamental freedoms against retaliatory or harassing criminal prosecutions.