Write short notes on the following in 30 words each : (i) Constitutional morality (ii) Conflict of interest (iii) Probity in public life (iv) Challenges of digitalization (v) Devotion to duty
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.
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.
On September 25, 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of YouTuber Ajeet Bharti regarding a complaint filed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that a prima facie case was established, which triggered the statutory bar under Section 18 of the Act, preventing the court from granting pre-arrest bail. This decision reinforces the legal threshold for protecting marginalized communities from hate speech and discriminatory rhetoric under special legislation, balancing fundamental freedoms with constitutional obligations to uphold human dignity and prevent social oppression.