News 1:Bengal SIR Nears End: Another 6 Lakh Names May Be Deleted as Hearings Conclude; 58 Lakh Already Removed

As the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal concludes its hearing phase on February 14, 2026, approximately 6.25 lakh voters who failed to appear face potential deletion, adding to the 58 lakh already removed. The process has triggered a major confrontation between the Trinamool Congress government and the Election Commission, with Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee personally challenging the exercise in the Supreme Court.

1. Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)

• Final Phase: The hearing stage of the SIR in West Bengal is set to end on February 14, 2026, with the final voter list expected on February 28, 2026 .
• Scale of Deletions: Approximately 6.25 lakh voters who did not appear for hearings despite notices face removal. This follows an earlier deletion of 58 lakh names, reducing the state’s total electors to 7.08 crore .
• Discrepancies Notices: Notices for “logical discrepancies” were issued to about 1.36 crore voters, with details of 1.23 crore verified so far .
• CEC’s Displeasure: Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar expressed strong displeasure against seven District Magistrates/District Electoral Officers (Cooch Behar, Jalpaiguri, Malda, North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas, East Midnapore, and East Burdwan) for guideline violations, including delays in uploading documents and dereliction of duty .
• Political Context: Assembly elections are due in March-April 2026, with the current term ending May 7, 2026. CM Mamata Banerjee has personally appeared in the Supreme Court, alleging the SIR is a “targeted” exercise for “deletion, not inclusion” .

Prelims 360

Guidelines for SIR (Special Intensive Revision) Updation

(For District Magistrates / District Electoral Officers – UPSC Ready)

SIR is conducted to ensure that the Electoral Roll is accurate, inclusive and free from duplication.

It is carried out under the supervision of the:

• Election Commission of India

District Magistrates usually function as:

• District Electoral Officers (DEOs)

📜 Legal Basis

Article 324 of the Constitution

• Representation of the People Act, 1950
• Registration of Electors Rules, 1960

🟢 Key Guidelines to District Magistrates / DEOs

1️⃣ Ensure Accuracy & Purity of Electoral Roll

• Remove duplicate entries
• Delete names of deceased persons
• Correct demographic errors
• Identify shifted voters

2️⃣ Intensive Field Verification

• Conduct door-to-door verification through Booth Level Officers (BLOs)
• Cross-check with:
  • Birth and death records
  • Local body databases
  • Migration data

3️⃣ Focus on Inclusion

• Ensure enrolment of:
  • First-time voters (18+)
  • Women voters
  • Persons with disabilities
  • Marginalised communities

4️⃣ Strict Adherence to Timelines

Publish draft roll

• Allow claims & objections period
• Dispose of objections within prescribed time
• Publish final roll

5️⃣ Transparent Claims & Objections Process

• Allow filing under:
  • Form 6 (new inclusion)
  • Form 7 (objection/deletion)
  • Form 8 (correction)
• Provide reasoned orders in case of rejection

6️⃣ Prevent Political Bias

• Maintain neutrality
• Avoid arbitrary deletions
• Ensure decisions are evidence-based

7️⃣ Public Awareness

• Conduct SVEEP campaigns
• Inform citizens through:
  • Public notices
  • Local announcements
  • Digital platforms

8️⃣ Technology Integration

• Use ERONet and digital verification tools
• Aadhaar linkage (voluntary, not mandatory)

9️⃣ Law & Order Coordination

• Coordinate with police if sensitive areas
• Ensure peaceful revision process

News 2:TN Govt Disburses ₹5,000 to 1.31 Crore Women Ahead of Polls; Stalin Accuses Conspiracy to Stop Scheme

In a major pre-election move, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has credited ₹5,000 each to the bank accounts of 1.31 crore women beneficiaries under the Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT), including advance payments and a special summer grant, while alleging a conspiracy to stall the scheme through legal challenges.

1. Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)

• Core Announcement: CM Stalin announced the disbursal of ₹5,000 each to 1.31 crore women family heads under the Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT) .
• Breakdown of Amount: The sum includes the regular ₹1,000 monthly assistance for February, an advance disbursal of ₹2,000 for March and April, and a special summer aid of ₹2,000 .
• Future Promise: Stalin declared that if his party (DMK) is re-elected, the monthly grant would be increased to ₹2,000 under a ‘Dravidian 2.0’ government.
• Political Context: This announcement follows the AIADMK’s similar promise in its first election manifesto last month, setting the stage for a competitive electoral pledge .
• Allegation of Conspiracy: Stalin alleged that a “group in Delhi and another group in Tamil Nadu” were conspiring to stop the disbursal by moving court, citing the elections. He framed the advance payment as a shield against this .

Prelims 360

🌸 Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT)

The Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT) is a flagship social welfare scheme of the Government of Tamil Nadu aimed at providing financial assistance to women heads of families.

🏛 Launched By

Government of Tamil Nadu

• Announced under Chief Minister M. K. Stalin

🎯 Objective

• Promote women’s economic empowerment
• Ensure basic income support
• Reduce financial vulnerability of poor households
• Strengthen decision-making power of women

👩‍👧 Beneficiaries

Eligible women:

• Must be head of the family
• From economically weaker households
• Based on ration card and income criteria

Certain categories (like income tax payers, government employees, etc.) are excluded.

📌 Nature of the Scheme

Feature	Details
Type	Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)
Target Group	Women heads of families
Amount	₹1,000 per month
Funding	State government budget

How Kalaignar Magalir Urimai Thittam (KMUT) is argued not to be a “freebie” during elections

The debate around “freebies” vs. “welfare rights” became prominent after observations of the Supreme Court of India on irrational freebies and fiscal prudence.

Here’s how the Tamil Nadu government defends KMUT:

1️⃣ It Was a Manifesto Promise Before Elections

• The scheme was clearly announced in the party manifesto before elections.
• Voters made an informed choice.
• Hence, it is seen as part of a democratic mandate, not a last-minute inducement.

📌 In legal terms, pre-declared welfare promises are treated differently from sudden electoral bribes.

2️⃣ It Is a Budgeted, Ongoing Welfare Scheme

• Implemented after government formation.
• Passed through the regular budget process of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly.
• Funded via state revenues.

This makes it a policy decision, not an election-time handout.

3️⃣ It Has Eligibility Criteria (Not Universal Giveaway)

• Only eligible women heads of families.
• Exclusions apply (e.g., income tax payers, government employees).

So, it is targeted social assistance, not unconditional cash distribution.

4️⃣ Welfare vs Freebie – Legal Distinction

Courts have broadly differentiated:

Welfare Scheme	Freebie
Targeted, budgeted, policy-based	Arbitrary, fiscally reckless
Linked to social justice	Purely vote-seeking inducement
Part of governance	Short-term electoral lure

KMUT is defended as:

• A social justice measure
• A women empowerment scheme
• Within fiscal capacity of the state

5️⃣ Constitutional Backing

Such schemes can be justified under:

• Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38 & 39)
• Social justice mandate

States have autonomy in welfare spending under India’s federal structure.

News 3:Over 8,600 Complaints Against Judges in a Decade; Government Cites ‘In-House Mechanism’ as Accountability Framework

The Lok Sabha was informed that the CJI’s office received 8,630 complaints against sitting Supreme Court and High Court judges between 2016 and 2025. Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal did not address queries on action taken, instead outlining the judiciary’s internal “in-house procedure” as the established mechanism for handling such grievances.

1. Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)

• Core Disclosure: Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal informed the Lok Sabha that the office of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) received 8,630 complaints against sitting judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts over a 10-year period (2016-2025) .
• Highest
  • 2024: 1,170 (peak)
• Unanswered Queries: The Minister did not respond to DMK MP Matheswaran’s questions regarding:
  • What action had been taken on the complaints.
  • Whether the government proposed to issue guidelines for systematic documentation and monitoring of complaints .
• Government’s Position: The Minister explained that under the existing “in-house procedure,” the CJI and High Court Chief Justices are authorized to handle complaints. Complaints received through CPGRAMS or other channels are forwarded to them .

Prelims 360

In-House Procedure for Complaints Against Judges (India)

India follows an “in-house procedure” (a judicially evolved mechanism) to deal with complaints against judges of the higher judiciary, separate from the constitutional removal process. It operates under the supervision of the Supreme Court of India and the Chief Justices concerned.

1️⃣ Legal & Constitutional Background

• Articles 124(4) & 217: Provide the formal impeachment/removal process (Parliament-led) for Supreme Court and High Court judges.
• The in-house procedure is not in the Constitution or a statute; it was framed by the judiciary (late 1990s; refined in 2014) to maintain institutional integrity.

It is meant for disciplinary inquiry short of impeachment.

2️⃣ When Is It Invoked?

• Written complaint with verifiable material
• Allegations of misconduct (not merely judicial errors)
• Complaint can come from:
  • Litigants
  • Lawyers
  • Public
  • Other judges

3️⃣ Procedure for High Court Judges

Step 1: Initial Scrutiny

• Complaint goes to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court.
• If the complaint is against the Chief Justice of a High Court, it goes to the Chief Justice of India (CJI).

Step 2: Preliminary Examination

• If credible, a three-judge committee is constituted (usually two Chief Justices of other High Courts + one HC judge).

Step 3: Inquiry

• Committee examines evidence.
• Judge concerned gets an opportunity to respond (principles of natural justice).

Step 4: Outcome

Committee may:

• Dismiss complaint
• Advise corrective steps
• Recommend withdrawal of judicial work
• Recommend resignation
• In extreme cases, recommend initiation of impeachment process

4️⃣ Procedure for Supreme Court Judges

If complaint is against a Supreme Court judge (other than CJI):

• CJI conducts preliminary scrutiny.
• If credible, a three-judge committee of SC judges is formed.

If complaint is against the CJI:

• The senior-most SC judge initiates the process.

5️⃣ Nature of Penalties (In-House)

The in-house procedure cannot remove a judge. It can:

• Issue advisory or warning
• Seek resignation
• Recommend not assigning judicial work
• Lead to voluntary retirement

Formal removal requires Parliamentary impeachment.

News 4:SC Rules Spectrum is ‘Public Good’, Not Private Asset; Telecom Companies Can’t Own or Sell It Under IBC

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has declared that spectrum is a “scarce natural resource” owned by the people of India, with legal title exclusively vesting in the Union government. The court held that telecom service providers (TSPs) cannot list spectrum as an asset for insolvency or liquidation under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), as licensees acquire only a “limited, conditional, and revocable privilege” to use it.

1. Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)

• Core Ruling: A Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar held that spectrum is a public resource, not a private asset. TSPs cannot include it in the pool of assets for insolvency or liquidation under the IBC.
• Legal Principle: “Mere recognition of spectrum licensing rights as an intangible asset by TSPs in financial statements is not conclusive of ownership,” the court clarified. Ownership vests exclusively in the Union of India, which holds it in trust for the people.
• Nature of License: Spectrum grants a “limited, conditional and revocable privilege” to use, subject to licence conditions and public interest. It does not confer any proprietary interest.
• Context: The judgment arose from appeals against a 2021 NCLAT order in the Aircel insolvency case. Lenders (led by SBI) sought to treat spectrum as an asset, while the DoT claimed statutory dues.
• Key Holdings:
  • Spectrum cannot be sold/transferred under IBC.
  • Licence fees/spectrum usage charges are not “operational debts” under IBC; they are “regulatory consideration” for a sovereign privilege, not payment for goods/services.
  • The IBC cannot “make inroads” into the telecom sector’s exclusive legal regime .

Prelims 360

What Exactly Is Spectrum?

The electromagnetic spectrum includes different frequency bands measured in Hertz (Hz).

For ISPs, important bands include:

• MHz (Megahertz)
• GHz (Gigahertz)

Higher frequency → Faster data → Shorter range
Lower frequency → Slower data → Longer coverage

🌐 2️⃣ Why Do ISPs Need Spectrum?

ISPs provide internet in two ways:

🔹 A) Wired (No spectrum needed)

• Fibre broadband (optical cables)
• DSL

🔹 B) Wireless (Spectrum required)

• 4G / 5G
• Fixed Wireless Access (FWA)
• Satellite internet
• Wi-Fi services

Wireless internet providers must use licensed spectrum.

🏛 3️⃣ Who Owns Spectrum in India?

Spectrum is considered a national resource and is controlled by:

• Department of Telecommunications
• Auction conducted under policy oversight of the Government of India

The regulator is:

• Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

💰 4️⃣ How Do ISPs Get Spectrum?

Through:

• Spectrum Auctions
• Paying license fees
• Complying with telecom regulations

Example:

• 5G spectrum auctioned in 2022 to telecom companies.

📶 5️⃣ Types of Spectrum Used by ISPs

Type	Use
Licensed Spectrum	Mobile internet (4G/5G)
Unlicensed Spectrum	Wi-Fi (2.4 GHz, 5 GHz bands)
Satellite Spectrum	Space-based internet