Though the Human Rights Commissions have contributed immensely to the protection of human rights in India, yet they have failed to assert themselves against the mighty and powerful. Analyzing their structural and practical limitations, suggest remedial measures.
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.
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.
The detention of Congress leaders in Uttar Pradesh on September 25, 2026, during a protest demanding the resignation of the Chief Election Commissioner, underscores escalating political tensions regarding the perceived impartiality of the Election Commission of India (ECI). These protests highlight a deepening debate over the independence of constitutional bodies, particularly following recent legislative shifts in the appointment process of Election Commissioners, and the broader challenges in maintaining public confidence in the electoral machinery. The incident reflects a growing trend where political actors increasingly view the institutional structure of the ECI through the lens of partisan alignment, raising questions about the stability of democratic institutions in the face of intense electoral competition.