THE HINDU CURRENT AFFAIRS – JPSC BPSC UPSC
Jharkhand public service commission
ποΈ POLITY & CONSTITUTION
1. SC Orders Oversight of Bar Council of India’s Policy Decisions
Tags: BCI, Advocates Act 1961, Statutory Bodies
Why Important: Tests understanding of professional self-regulatory bodies and SC’s supervisory jurisdiction over them.
Prerequisite Knowledge: The Bar Council of India is a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961 β distinct from the Bar Council of a State, and distinct from the judiciary itself.
Content:
- The Supreme Court clarified that senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra is serving only as “pro tem” chairperson of the BCI until fresh elections are held
- Directed the council to consult the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General β both permanent ex-officio BCI members β before taking any major policy decisions in the interim
- Allegations examined included:
- Formation of the BCI Pearl First Trust (2020) with BCI office-bearers as “permanent managing trustees”
- Extension of the BCI chairperson/vice-chairperson tenure to five years
Static Link:
| Body | Legal Basis |
|---|---|
| Bar Council of India (BCI) | Advocates Act, 1961 (statutory body) |
| State Bar Council | Advocates Act, 1961 |
| Attorney-General | Article 76 β ex-officio BCI member |
| Solicitor-General | Statutory position β ex-officio BCI member |
Structure of BCI:
- Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are permanent ex-officio members
- BCI is a statutory body, not a constitutional body
- SC exercises supervisory jurisdiction over BCI’s policy decisions
2. Allahabad HC Quashes NSA Detention β “Concocted Story”
Tags: National Security Act 1980, Habeas Corpus, Preventive Detention
Why Important: Classic Prelims/Mains topic on preventive detention laws and judicial review.
Content:
- The Allahabad High Court quashed the detention of a 25-year-old DU law student under the National Security Act, 1980
- Called the State’s version a “concocted story” and ordered her immediate release
- She had been detained in connection with a Noida workers’ protest
Static Link:
- NSA, 1980 allows detention without trial for up to 12 months on grounds of “acting in a manner prejudicial to the security of the State”
- Habeas Corpus β the writ used to challenge illegal detention
NSA vs UAPA:
| Feature | NSA, 1980 | UAPA, 1967 |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum detention | 12 months | Variable |
| Grounds | “Prejudicial to security of State” | “Unlawful activity” defined |
| Nature | Preventive detention | Substantive criminal law |
| Judicial Review | Available (Article 22) | Available (Article 22) |
Article 22:
- Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases
- Rights of arrested person
- Preventive detention safeguards
3. UN’s “Overshoot, Peak, and Decline” Pathway β Limiting Overshoot Report
Tags: UNEP, Paris Agreement, 1.5Β°C Target, COP30
Why Important: High-value, fresh GS-3 climate governance item β first formal UN articulation of a post-breach pathway.
Content:
- The UNEP report “Limiting Overshoot” warned that breaching the 1.5Β°C global warming limit is now unavoidable “in the next few years”
- Even if every country meets its NDC and net-zero targets, peak warming would reach 1.8Β°C
- Current policies point to a 2.6Β°C rise by 2100
- This traces to the COP30 BelΓ©m (2025) consensus “Global MutirΓ£o,” which was the first COP text to concede a temporary overshoot of 1.5Β°C was likely
Key Terminology:
| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Overshoot | Temporarily exceeding 1.5Β°C target |
| Peak | Maximum warming reached |
| Decline | Subsequent reduction in warming |
NDCs vs Net-Zero Pledges:
| Feature | NDCs | Net-Zero Pledges |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Binding under Paris Agreement | Voluntary commitments |
| Timeframe | 5-year cycles (2025, 2030, etc.) | Usually 2050 or 2070 |
| Coverage | Nationally Determined Contributions | Long-term goals |
| Both cited as insufficient even in best-case scenario |
COP30 BelΓ©m (2025):
- Held in BelΓ©m, Brazil
- “Global MutirΓ£o” consensus
- First COP text to concede temporary overshoot of 1.5Β°C was likely
4. India-China “Early Harvest” Boundary Talks
Tags: SR-level talks, WMCC, 2005 Agreement on Political Parameters
Why Important: Tests the institutional architecture of India-China boundary negotiations β recurring GS-2 international relations theme.
Content:
- The 25th round of Special Representatives (SR) talks (Ajit DovalβWang Yi) in Beijing produced an “Eight Points of Outcomes and Consensus”
- Restored the phrase “Early and Substantial Harvest” β India’s own 2019 coinage, originally proposing to settle the Sikkim Sector together with the Middle Sector along the watershed line
- The Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination (WMCC) , set up a year ago, will oversee:
- An Expert Group on Boundary Delimitation
- A Working Group on Border Management
Institutional Architecture:
| Mechanism | Role |
|---|---|
| SR Talks | Special Representatives (Doval-Wang Yi) β highest political-level dialogue |
| WMCC | Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination β operational-level |
| Expert Group on Boundary Delimitation | Technical boundary settlement |
| Working Group on Border Management | Day-to-day border management |
Static Link:
- The 2005 Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary calls for a “package settlement” covering all four sectors
- This distinguishes sector-wise vs holistic settlement approaches
- Four Sectors: Western, Middle, Eastern, Sikkim
India’s 2019 Proposal:
- Settle Sikkim Sector together with Middle Sector along the watershed line
- This was India’s own coinage of “Early Harvest”
5. FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026
Tags: Foreign Contribution Regulation Act 1976/2010, Civil Society Regulation
Why Important: Directly testable on statutory consequences of FCRA registration cancellation β a recurring GS-2 civil-society/executive-overreach theme.
Content:
- Introduces a “Designated Authority” to take possession, manage, and eventually permanently vest or dispose of assets created from foreign contributions when an organisation’s FCRA certificate is cancelled, surrendered, or lapses
- This is a significant expansion beyond the existing FCRA’s scope, which already provided for vesting of assets upon cancellation but lacked this detailed statutory framework for provisional management of institutional activities
FCRA Framework:
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Original Act | Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 |
| Current Act | Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 |
| Regulatory Authority | Ministry of Home Affairs |
| Purpose | Regulates acceptance and utilisation of foreign contributions |
| Key Feature | Registration mandatory for receiving foreign contributions |
| Consequences of Cancellation | Assets vest in Central Government; now enhanced with Designated Authority |
Designated Authority Provisions (New):
| Power | Detail |
|---|---|
| Take possession | Of assets created from foreign contributions |
| Manage | Institutional activities during transition |
| Vest | Permanently transfer assets to Government |
| Dispose | Of assets as deemed fit |
6. Can Jurists Be Appointed as Supreme Court Judges? β Article 124(3)
Tags: Constituent Assembly Debates, Article 124(3), Article 217
Why Important: Rarely tested but high-value static fact β a constitutional provision unused for 76+ years.
Content:
- Article 124(3) permits appointment to the SC via three routes:
- High Court judge for 5+ years
- Advocate of a High Court for 10+ years
- “Distinguished jurist” in the President’s opinion
- This third route has never been invoked
- The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 (Emergency-era) extended a similar “distinguished jurist” provision to High Court judges (Article 217), but it was omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978
Statutory Link:
| Provision | Route to Appointment |
|---|---|
| Article 124(3) | SC Judge appointment (3 routes) |
| Article 217 | HC Judge appointment (2 routes β jurist route deleted in 1978) |
Comparison with US Practice:
- Felix Frankfurter appointed to US Supreme Court in 1939 after 25 years as a Harvard law professor
- Cited in Constituent Assembly debates as precedent
42nd Amendment (1976):
| Provision | Change |
|---|---|
| Article 217 | Extended “distinguished jurist” provision to HC judges |
| 44th Amendment (1978) | Omitted this provision |
Routes to SC Appointment:
| Route | Condition |
|---|---|
| 1. HC Judge | Must have been HC judge for 5+ years |
| 2. Advocate | Must have been advocate in HC for 10+ years |
| 3. Distinguished Jurist | In President’s opinion (never invoked) |
7. SIR β Verified Forms Still Marked “Permanently Shifted”
Tags: Electoral Rolls, SIR, ASDD Categories
Content:
- Multiple Delhi voters whose enumeration forms were officially signed and digitised by Booth Level Officers still found their names marked “permanently shifted” or “absent/untraceable” in the draft SIR roll
- Highlights a data-integrity gap between BLO verification and final roll compilation
Key Observation:
| Gap | Issue |
|---|---|
| BLO Verification vs Final Roll | Forms signed/digitised by BLOs, yet names marked “permanently shifted” |
| Implication | Data integrity gap in electoral roll revision process |
Static Link:
- BLO: Booth Level Officer β ground-level functionary
- SIR: Special Intensive Revision β statutory exercise under Section 21(3), RPA 1950
- ASDD Categories: Absent, Shifted, Dead, Duplicate
8. SC Seeks Government Explanation on IPS Deputation in CAPFs
Tags: Internal Security, CAPFs, Cadre Management
Why Important: Tests understanding of the distinction between the IPS (state cadre-based) and CAPF cadre officers.
Content:
- The SC’s May 2025 judgment directed progressive reduction of IPS officer deputation to senior CAPF posts (Senior Administrative Grade and above) within two years
- The Centre later enacted the CAPFs (General Administration) Act, 2026 to seemingly circumvent this judgment
- Now under separate challenge via five writ petitions
Key Distinction:
| Cadre | Nature |
|---|---|
| IPS | State cadre-based β All India Service |
| CAPF | Central Armed Police Forces β dedicated cadre |
CAPFs (General Administration) Act, 2026:
- Enacted after SC’s May 2025 judgment
- Aimed to circumvent the judgment
- Challenged via five writ petitions
9. Purse Seine Fishing β SC on State vs Union Jurisdiction in EEZ
Tags: Marine Fishing Regulation Rules 2020, EEZ Rules 2025, Cooperative Federalism
Why Important: Tests the layered jurisdiction over India’s maritime zones β territorial waters vs EEZ.
Content:
- The SC directed Tamil Nadu to frame a “specified channel” for vessel transit to the EEZ
- Held that fishing within territorial waters is governed by the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020
- The EEZ (beyond 12 nautical miles) is governed by the Central “Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the EEZ Rules, 2025,” which requires an “access pass”
Maritime Zones (UNCLOS):
| Zone | Limit | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial Waters | 0-12 nautical miles | State jurisdiction |
| Contiguous Zone | 12-24 nautical miles | Limited enforcement |
| EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) | 12-200 nautical miles | Central jurisdiction |
Fishing Regulations:
| Zone | Governing Law | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial Waters (0-12 NM) | Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 | State |
| EEZ (12-200 NM) | Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in EEZ Rules, 2025 | Central |
| Key Requirement for EEZ | “Access pass” required | Central |
Purse Seine Fishing:
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| What it is | A fishing method using a large net to encircle fish |
| Concern | Environmental impact, overfishing |
| Issue in Case | State vs Union jurisdiction in EEZ |
π STATIC CORNER β QUICK REVISION
| Subject | Key Static Pointer |
|---|---|
| BCI | Statutory body under Advocates Act, 1961 |
| Attorney-General | Article 76 β ex-officio BCI member |
| Solicitor-General | Statutory β ex-officio BCI member |
| NSA, 1980 | Preventive detention up to 12 months |
| UAPA, 1967 | Substantive criminal law β “unlawful activity” |
| Article 22 | Protection against arrest and preventive detention |
| NDCs | Nationally Determined Contributions under Paris Agreement |
| COP30 | BelΓ©m, Brazil (2025) β “Global MutirΓ£o” consensus |
| SR Talks | Special Representatives β India-China boundary dialogue |
| WMCC | Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination |
| 2005 Agreement | Political Parameters β “package settlement” for boundary |
| FCRA | Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 |
| Designated Authority | New under FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 |
| Article 124(3) | SC Judge appointment β 3 routes (jurist route never used) |
| Article 217 | HC Judge appointment β jurist route deleted in 1978 |
| 42nd Amendment (1976) | Extended jurist provision to HC Judges |
| 44th Amendment (1978) | Omitted jurist provision for HC Judges |
| Territorial Waters | 0-12 nautical miles (State jurisdiction) |
| EEZ | 12-200 nautical miles (Central jurisdiction) |
| UNCLOS | United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea |
π― STATIC CONCEPT LINKAGES
| Linkage | Key Distinction |
|---|---|
| NSA vs UAPA | NSA = preventive detention, UAPA = substantive criminal law; NSA requires “security of State” ground; UAPA requires “unlawful activity” |
| NDCs vs Net-Zero | NDCs = 5-year cycle commitments under Paris Agreement; Net-Zero = voluntary long-term goals |
| Territorial Waters vs EEZ | 0-12 NM = State jurisdiction; 12-200 NM = Central jurisdiction |
| IPS vs CAPF Cadre | IPS = state cadre-based All India Service; CAPF = dedicated Central cadre |
| BCI vs State Bar Council | BCI = statutory body under Advocates Act, 1961; State Bar Councils = separate statutory bodies |
| Article 124(3) Routes | HC Judge (5+ yrs), Advocate (10+ yrs), Distinguished Jurist (never used) |