🚨 UPSC EXAM NOTES presents the February edition of our comprehensive monthly guide. Access it  to enhance your preparation. We value your input - share your thoughts and recommendations in the comments section or via email at Support@upscexamnotes.com 🚨

Critical Topics and Their Significance for the UPSC CSE Examination on February 27, 2025

Daily Insights and Initiatives for UPSC Exam Notes: Comprehensive explanations and high-quality material provided regularly for students

Why are PwDs worried about DPDP rules?

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international importance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Governance

Context:

With the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) looking to wrap up public consultations on the draft Rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 by March 5, disability rights activists are trying to get a key provision of the Act amended or dropped, pointing out that it infantilises Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), negates their decision-making capabilities, and comes from a misunderstood notion of how guardianship works for PwDs

Read about:

Who are persons with disability?

Portrayal of disability persons in Films

Key takeaways:

• With the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) aiming to conclude public consultations on the draft Rules for the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 by March 5, disability rights advocates are pushing for modifications to a key provision of the Act.
• They argue that the existing clause diminishes the autonomy of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), disregards their ability to make decisions, and reflects a flawed understanding of guardianship.
• A major concern stems from Section 9(1), which categorizes PwDs alongside children and mandates that for adult PwDs with legal guardians, consent for processing personal data must be obtained from the guardian.
• While government officials have attempted to mitigate concerns by restricting the provision's applicability to specific disabilities, experts argue that significant challenges in implementation remain.
• The government introduced the DPDP Act, 2023, to regulate digital personal data processing while balancing individuals’ privacy rights with lawful data use. Section 9(1) stipulates that before processing personal data of a child or a PwD with a legal guardian, a Data Fiduciary must obtain the verifiable consent of the child’s parent or the PwD’s guardian, as prescribed by law.
• The Act defines "Data Fiduciaries" as entities processing personal data and "Data Principals" as individuals whose data is collected. However, under Section 2(j)(ii), a "lawful guardian" is also included within the definition of a Data Principal for PwDs.
• The draft Rules, issued by MeitY on January 3, outline the regulatory framework for the Act. Rule 10 specifically governs the implementation of Section 9(1).
• According to Rule 10(2), when a Data Fiduciary seeks verifiable consent from a person identifying as a PwD’s lawful guardian, they must verify that the guardian has been legally appointed by a court, a designated authority, or a local-level committee under applicable guardianship laws. Additionally, the Rules recognize guardianship under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, and the National Trust (NT) Act, 1999.
• The Rules define PwDs subject to Section 9(1) as individuals with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments that significantly limit their ability to participate in society, even with appropriate support, or those diagnosed with conditions such as autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, or severe multiple disabilities.
• However, while the Rules provide detailed illustrations for obtaining parental consent for children, no comparable examples are given for securing consent from guardians of PwDs. This omission has raised concerns among disability rights activists and experts regarding the provision’s practical application across different disabilities and levels of severity, as well as inconsistencies in guardianship laws.

Understanding Guardianship for PwDs

• In India, legal guardianship for PwDs is governed by two laws: the RPWD Act, 2016, and the NT Act, 1999, each outlining distinct roles for guardians.
• The NT Act applies to individuals diagnosed with autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disabilities, or multiple such conditions and provides for full guardianship, granting guardians complete authority over decision-making.
• Conversely, the RPWD Act applies to individuals with long-term disabilities affecting participation in society and offers "limited guardianship," allowing supported decision-making when necessary.
• While the NT Act conflicts with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) by linking guardianship to decision-making capacity without clear definitions, the RPWD Act aligns more closely with UNCRPD principles by framing guardianship as assistance rather than control.

Key Areas of Concern

• A survey by policy think tank PACTA and Saksham Disability, involving 91 PwDs, found that 27.4% had legal guardians. Among those aware of the governing law, most were under the RPWD Act’s limited guardianship provision.
• However, the report noted that in practice, many PwDs with legal guardians still had their affairs entirely managed by the guardian.
• The study concluded that while the Act and draft Rules seem appropriate in theory, real-world guardianship dynamics often undermine the autonomy of PwDs.
• For those under the NT Act, full guardianship directly contradicts the principles of the UNCRPD, which emphasizes self-determination. Additionally, Section 9(1) appears to assume that having a legal guardian automatically implies an inability to make digital decisions.
• Another issue is the lack of consideration for gender and disability intersectionality. For example, the report highlights that a PwD woman might be unable to purchase sanitary products online without her guardian’s consent due to platform restrictions.
• Nipun Malhotra from the Nipman Foundation, advocating for revisions to these provisions, argues that Section 9(1) has created confusion regarding its scope and application.
• Attempts to address concerns through restrictive definitions in the draft Rules have only complicated the matter. He pointed out that the inclusion of "physical impairment" raises further ambiguity, as individuals with purely physical disabilities are not typically assigned legal guardians.

Additional Challenges

Concerns regarding the consent clause include:

• The legal responsibilities of a PwD’s guardian under the Act.
• How the provision aligns with guardianship laws that may not comply with UNCRPD principles.
• Whether guardians can refuse to provide consent on behalf of a PwD for specific platforms.

Saksham’s report also questions how platforms will handle PwDs’ personal data. To comply with Section 9(1), platforms would need to ask whether a user has a disability and whether they have a legal guardian. If a user has a disability but no legal guardian, platforms would still collect disability-related data without a valid reason for processing it.

Additionally, if legal guardians are considered Data Principals, they may bear full legal responsibility, potentially prioritizing their own interests over those of the PwD. Experts further emphasize that the primary barrier to digital inclusion for PwDs remains the inaccessibility of online platforms and applications. A 2023 evaluation by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy of ten widely used apps found that platforms like Paytm, Swiggy, Zomato, and Flipkart had low accessibility scores

Follow Up Question

1.How far do you think that the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act will facilitate inclusivity and empowerment of persons with disabilities in India? Discuss.

What did the HC rule about arresting women at night?

For Preliminary Examination:  Current events of national and international importance

For Mains Examination: GS II - Governance

Context:

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Deepa versus S. Vijayalakshmi and Others ruled that the legal provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which restricts the arrest of a woman after sunset and before sunrise, is directory and not mandatory

Read about:

First Information Report (FIR)

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

Key takeaways:

• The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, in the case of Deepa vs. S. Vijayalakshmi & Others, ruled that the legal provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which restricts the arrest of women between sunset and sunrise, is directory rather than mandatory.
• The case involved a woman arrested at 8 PM, where a single judge initially held that the arrest violated Section 46(4) of the CrPC. However, upon appeal, a two-judge bench determined that this provision is not absolute.
• Section 43(5) of BNSS, corresponding to Section 46(4) of the CrPC, includes two safeguards:

1. Women should not be arrested at night, except under exceptional circumstances.
2. In such cases, a woman police officer must obtain prior approval from a jurisdictional magistrate through a written request.

• This provision aims to protect women but does not clearly define what constitutes an exceptional situation. Furthermore, Section 46(1) of the CrPC states that a male officer should not touch a woman unless a female officer is unavailable, or the situation demands it.
• The Madras High Court emphasized that Section 46(4) of the CrPC does not specify consequences for non-compliance. If the provision were meant to be mandatory, the legislature would have outlined penalties for violating it.
• The Court also noted that in cases where a serious crime is committed at night, strict adherence to the procedure could allow the accused to escape, which may compromise public interest.
• The Law Commission of India, in its 135th (1989) and 154th (1996) reports, recommended that women should not be arrested at night unless necessary approvals were obtained.
• Section 46(4) of the CrPC was added in 2005, incorporating these recommendations with modifications. The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court also ruled that no woman should be detained without a female constable, and never at night. However, the Supreme Court later acknowledged that strict enforcement of this rule might cause practical challenges.
• The Madras High Court clarified that while Section 46(4) of the CrPC is not mandatory, police officers must justify any deviation from the rule. Although failure to comply does not necessarily invalidate an arrest, the officer may be required to explain the reasons for non-compliance. The Court also directed police authorities to establish clear guidelines defining what qualifies as exceptional circumstances for arrests of women during restricted hours

 Follow-Up Question

1.Which of the following statements regarding the arrest of women under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is/are correct?

1. Section 43(5) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 46(4) of CrPC) strictly prohibits the arrest of women after sunset and before sunrise under all circumstances.
2. In exceptional cases, the prior permission of the jurisdictional magistrate must be obtained for such an arrest.
3. The Madras High Court ruled that the provision restricting nighttime arrests of women is mandatory, and any violation renders the arrest illegal.
4. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that strict enforcement of this rule may create practical difficulties in certain cases.

Select the correct answer using the codes below:

 (a) 1 and 3 only
(b) 2 and 4 only
(c) 1, 2, and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, 3, and 4

All about delimitation

For Preliminary Examination:  Delimitation exercise, Election Commission of India

For Mains Examination: GS II - Indian Polity & Governance

Context:

Delimitation is expected to be held after the new Census exercise, which is much-delayed. As per the delimitation calendar set earlier, this was to happen by 2026

Read about:

Delimitation exercise

Election COmmission of India

Key takeaways:

• Definition and Constitutional Basis of Delimitation
  The Election Commission defines delimitation as the process of establishing electoral constituency boundaries based on the latest Census data. According to Article 82 of the Constitution, the allocation of Lok Sabha seats for each state must be revised following every Census to reflect population shifts.

• Composition of the Lok Sabha and Population Representation
  Article 81 stipulates that the Lok Sabha can have a maximum of 550 members, with 530 representing states and 20 representing Union Territories. It also mandates that the ratio of seats to population should be as uniform as possible across states, ensuring equal representation for citizens nationwide.

• Purpose and Principles of Delimitation
  Delimitation aims to restructure electoral constituencies in a balanced manner, following the principle of ‘One Vote, One Value.’ This ensures fair representation for various population groups and minimizes disparities in constituency sizes.

• Delimitation Commission and Its Functioning
  The Constitution mandates the formation of an independent Delimitation Commission every ten years to reallocate seats among states. Appointed by the President, the Commission consists of a retired judge from the Supreme Court or a High Court, the Chief Election Commissioner, and the State Election Commissioner.

• Process of Redrawing Constituencies
  The Commission evaluates population changes to modify or establish constituencies as needed. A draft report is published in the Gazette of India for public consultation. After incorporating feedback, the final report is issued, and under the Delimitation Commission Act, 1952, and Article 329A of the Constitution, its decisions hold the force of law and cannot be challenged in court.

• Constitutional Amendments for Delimitation
  To implement the delimitation process, amendments are required in several constitutional provisions, including:

  • Article 81 (defining Lok Sabha composition)
  • Article 170 (pertaining to Legislative Assemblies)
  • Article 82 (addressing seat reallocation)
  • Article 55 (impacting the value of votes in presidential elections)
  • Articles 330 and 332 (dealing with seat reservations in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies)

• Concerns of Southern States
  Tamil Nadu and other southern states argue that states with effective population control should not be disadvantaged in seat allocation compared to states with higher population growth.

Changes in Lok Sabha Composition Due to Delimitation

• History of Delimitation Exercises
  Delimitation has been conducted four times—1952, 1963, 1973, and 2002—with seat adjustments occurring in the first three instances. In 1952, the maximum number of Lok Sabha seats was capped at 500, with elections initially conducted for 489 seats. By 1957, this increased to 494.

• Adjustments in 1963
  The 1963 Delimitation Commission noted that the average constituency population had increased from 7.3 lakh to 8.9 lakh, prompting an increase in total Lok Sabha seats to 522.

• Revisions in 1973
  In response to population growth and the formation of new states, the Commission expanded Lok Sabha membership to a maximum of 545 seats, which has remained unchanged since then.

• Freeze on Delimitation (1976)
  The 42nd Amendment (1976) imposed a 25-year freeze on the number of Lok Sabha seats, postponing delimitation until after the 2001 Census. The Congress-led government under Indira Gandhi, during the Emergency, justified this move to protect states with successful population control from losing representation.

• Further Delay in 2002
  Under the 84th Amendment (2002), the BJP-led government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee extended the delimitation freeze for another 25 years. While constituency boundaries were revised based on the 2001 Census, the overall number of Lok Sabha seats and their distribution among states remained unchanged. According to this amendment, delimitation was scheduled to take place after the 2031 Census. However, with the 2021 Census delayed, the government is considering adjustments to this timeline.

 Follow Up Question