This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
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.
The United States Supreme Court recently permitted the use of a controversial database for verifying voter citizenship, reigniting intense legal and political debates over electoral integrity. While proponents argue such measures are essential to secure elections against non-citizen voting, civil rights advocates and legal experts warn that relying on error-prone external datasets risks wrongful voter purges. This development underscores the persistent global challenge of balancing stringent administrative oversight with the protection of fundamental voting rights in democratic systems.
The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on an Allahabad High Court order that directed the personal recovery of ₹5 lakh from the Noida District Magistrate (DM) in relation to a detention case under the National Security Act (NSA). The High Court had imposed the penalty as compensation for the wrongful detention of an individual, citing procedural lapses. In the Supreme Court, senior counsel argued that the decision-making process for such detentions involves a multi-tiered administrative review, involving various officials and legal vetting, which makes it legally contentious to single out a specific civil servant for personal financial liability for an official act. This case brings into focus the delicate balance between judicial oversight of administrative actions and the protection of civil servants acting in the course of their official duties.