Monthly Current Affairs August 2025 — Key Terms (Vocabulary)

Sedition Law and its History

• Indian Penal Code, Section 124A: sedition provision discussed as a core topic in The Hindu article ("sedition redux") and a piece by former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur.
• Origins of sedition provision:
  • Section 124A added in the year 1870, about a decade after the IPC’s enactment in 1860.
  • Text: anyone who promotes disaffection against the government established by law through words, writings, spoken words, or visual representations can be found guilty of sedition.
  • Punishments (as commonly cited): life imprisonment, jail up to 3 years, and a fine.
• Primary objective at inception:
  • To curb nationalist sentiments in a colonial India and to prevent ideologies aimed at overthrowing the British government.
  • Free speech could challenge colonial rule, which the British sought to suppress.
• Misuse during colonial period:
  • Section 124A used against nationalist leaders; this history is important to understand later reforms and replacements.
  • Notable historical context includes famines between 1876 and 1900 (approximately 18 famines, with ~1.9 million deaths) and Epidemics Act of 1897 in response to the plague.
  • Pune plague handling by the British administration: oppressive policies, tax collection, desecration of religious places, and nudity checks for disease screening; led to protests and the Chapekar brothers’ actions (assassination of Walter Charles Rand) and subsequent hanging.
• Lokmanya Tilak and Gandhi:
  • Tilak was prosecuted for sedition under Section 124A; British argued it promoted disaffection despite a plea of not guilty and he was sentenced to 18 months.
  • Justice Strachey’s interpretation broadened sedition to include the absence of affection towards the government, not just active disaffection.
  • Gandhi was booked for sedition and pleaded guilty, framing sedition as a duty to oppose a morally corrupt government.
• Role of sedition in political struggle:
  • The law was used to target nationalist leaders and suppress dissent against the government established by law.
• Constituent Assembly and Sedition Law (lead-in to Article 19):
  • Constitution framed post-independence included fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(A) with eight reasonable restrictions. Key restrictions include sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, and public order.

Constituent Assembly and Sedition Law

• The Constitution’s eight grounds (Article 19(2)) include:
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Security of the State
  • Public order
  • Defamation
  • Contempt of court
  • Incitement to an offense
  • (Two additional grounds often cited:) friendly relations with foreign states and decency or morality
• Article 13(1): laws enforced before the commencement of the Constitution remain valid if compatible with fundamental rights; otherwise void.
• Decision not to retain sedition as a ground of reasonable restriction:
  • Because government is elected by the people, citizens should have the right to promote disaffection when it does not reflect their wishes and aspirations.

Evolution of Sedition Law in India

• 1962: Heddar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
  • Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 124A, affirming sedition as constitutional but with restrictions.
  • A speech would be deemed sedition only if it incites violence.
• 1962: Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (often cited as Kedar Nath Singh case)
  • The sedition law was diluted: not every inflammatory or provocative speech constitutes sedition unless it leads to violence.
• 1997: Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab (Balwan Singh)
  • Reiterated that promoting disaffection against the government in a way that incites people to take up arms and overthrow it through undemocratic means is sedition.
  • Emphasized democratic avenues to change government (elections, voting). Incitement to violence to overthrow the government constitutes sedition and can lead to terrorism or secessionism.
• Core principle:
  • Restriction on sedition: unless speech leads to violence, it is not sedition; this principle has been reinforced in cases involving terrorism and secession.
• Khalistan context and the 2015 precedent:
  • Khalistan movement: slogans in favor of the movement were not deemed seditious if they did not incite violence.
  • 2015 landmark case: Shown in Singing v. Union of India (2015) where the court stated that individuals may advocate views without inciting violence, but sedition has been misused by political actors.

Misuse of Sedition Law and its Repeal

• Notable misuse instances:
  • Journalist Vinod Dua booked for sedition during COVID-19 lockdown for highlighting migrant plight and asking for relief.
  • A filmmaker in Lakshadweep criticized quarantine norms; an MP criticized the government's handling of COVID-19; both faced sedition charges.
• 2022: Supreme Court review of sedition law:
  • Court paused all sedition cases and postponed further arrests pending constitutional review.
• Parliament changes:
  • Before Court could rule, Parliament replaced IPC with Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) which does not have sedition; Section 152 replaces sedition with disaffection-promoting provisions against the nation, not the government.

Introduction of Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)

• Section 152: prohibits activities that promote disaffection against the nation, including subversive activities, secession, and armed struggle.
• Seen as replacement for sedition, with focus on disaffection toward the nation rather than opposition to the government established by law.

Collegium System for Appointing Judges

• The collegium system exists for appointing judges; criticized as unconstitutional and opaque; not explicitly in the original Constitution that the President shall appoint judges based on collegium recommendations.
• Notable incidents and reforms:
  • Justice Yashwant (Delhi High Court) found to have half-burnt cash in official residence; investigation and removal proceedings are pending in Parliament.
  • Justice Sanjiv Khanna, as Chief Justice of India, enacted transparency measures:
  • Supreme Court to publish assets of all Supreme Court judges on its website; High Court judges to publish assets on their respective websites.
  • Collegium to publicly reveal the role of both the High Court and Supreme Court collegia in recommending names for appointments; disclose criteria used and gender/caste composition.
  • Details of candidates for judge posts, including whether family members were or are not judges, to address nepotism concerns.
  • Post-retirement, Justice Khanna’s tenure saw the collegium recommending the nephew of the new CJI (Justice Gavai) to the Bombay High Court, raising nepotism concerns.
  • Justice Vipul Pancholi’s transfer from Gujarat HC to Patna HC was delayed by 9 months; government approval unclear.
  • Pancholi later recommended to Supreme Court; Justice Nagarathna dissented about the recommendation.
  • Debates over transparency and governance of the appointment process and potential for nepotism, especially with an eye to future CJI appointments (2031).
• Emphasis on transparency in asset disclosures and appointment criteria as a step to rebuild credibility of the judiciary.

Conviction of Prajwal Revanna and Swift Justice

• Prajwal Revanna: 34-year-old grandson of former PM HD Deve Gowda; convicted of raping his maid, recording it, and blackmail; sentenced to life imprisonment without early release.
• Significance: Demonstrates that the law can reach powerful individuals; reinforces the principle that no one is above the law.
• Swift justice narrative:
  • The case took just over a year due to the Supreme Court’s directive (2017) to establish special courts for cases involving legislators.
  • Emphasizes the need for time-bound justice; contrasts with typical delays due to adjournments, lost files, and witness issues.
• Takeaway for exams: swift delivery of justice and special courts can improve public trust in the system.

Hate Speech and Freedom of Speech

• Sam Rena stand-up show and guest Ranir Alabadi:
  • A case filed against Ranir Alabadi for alleged obscene comments; catapulted debate on the boundaries of free speech.
  • Ranveer Allahbadia’s attempt to club multiple cases against him; Supreme Court initially refused to club, commenting that his content should be toned down; court also ordered him to halt certain podcast activities on YouTube.
• Pure SMA Foundation intervention:
  • Alleged that comedian Samir Reena mocked disabled individuals; calls for action to curb hate speech.
• Legal doctrine on hate speech:
  • Supreme Court has clarified that hate speech is not protected under Article 19(1)(A) when it marginalizes a group or promotes violence, especially against vulnerable groups.
  • In Amish Devan v. Union of India (2021), threats against a journalist were denied protection due to causing psychological hatred toward a group.
  • Difference emphasized between non-commercial (political speech, newspaper columns, debates) and commercial speech (advertising).
• SMA Cure Foundation argument:
  • Calls for guidelines to curb hate speech against vulnerable groups; SC faced criticism for its stance.
• Key principle: Freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, which aims to marginalize or incite harm against groups based on membership.
• Implication: Balance between free speech and protection of vulnerable groups; distinctions between commercial and non-commercial speech matter in regulation.
• Broader takeaway: The need for responsible speech among journalists and public figures; the risk of stigmatization of disability or other identities.

Disability Rights and Free Speech

• Intersection of disability rights with free speech raised in UPSC contexts.
• Societal evolution toward inclusivity and disability rights; depiction in media can perpetuate stereotypes.
• Article 14 and dignity: Right to equality before law and equal protection; dignity central to interpretation of rights, including for persons with disabilities.
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016: duty on the state to treat people with disabilities with equality and dignity; example cited of accessible mobility (ramps instead of stairs).
• Media guidelines and court rulings:
  • Courts have issued guidelines to portray disabilities with respect; NALSA (2014) and related cases are cited in discussions of self-identification for gender and dignity.
• Self-identification and gender identity context (lead into transgender rights): recognition that identity should be self-identified, and surgery is not required for gender change in some contexts.
• Research-based messaging: emphasize dignity and equality in Article 14 and Article 21 contexts; avoid sensational or demeaning coverage.

HIV/AIDS Testing and Right to Privacy

• Mandatory HIV/AIDS testing before marriage questioned; various states considered making testing mandatory, but not allowed under current law.
• Article 21: Right to privacy and personal liberty are foundational; DNA testing of a fetus to establish paternity is protected under Article 21 as part of privacy.
• HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2017: testing cannot be forced; counselling must occur before testing; consent required; reports kept confidential.
• Making HIV/AIDS screening mandatory before marriage would violate the 2017 Act due to counselling, consent, and confidentiality concerns.
• If someone tests positive, they can be linked to anti-retroviral treatment centers; viral load can be reduced to non-transmittable levels with ART, enabling marriage in some cases.
• Debate on confidentiality vs. public health:
  • Some argue that testing happens without consent; others argue for reasonable testing (similar to horoscopes) for informed decision-making.
• Stigma and public health messaging:
  • Stigma around HIV/AIDS remains a major barrier; campaigns like "U is equal to U" promote undetectable equals untransmittable; aim to reduce stigma and encourage testing and treatment.
• The Meghalaya context:
  • Debates on mandatory testing continue; orthodox religious beliefs complicate acceptance of condoms, contraception, and related measures.
• The role of civil servants:
  • Emphasize campaigns to educate the public, reduce stigma, and promote safe sex practices; balance privacy with public health needs.

The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill

• Proposed amendments to Indian Constitution:
  • Targets Articles 75, 164, and 239A related to Union and State Ministers and Councils.
• Purpose:
  • To address ministers being accused of crimes; a joint parliamentary committee will examine the bill.
• Key issue:
  • Debates around how this bill could affect federal balance and accountability of ministers; concerns about executive dominance and jurisdiction, and whether judiciary should be more involved.

Rights of Transgender Persons

• NALSA v. Union of India (2014): Supreme Court recognized transgender as the third gender and directed affirmative action through reservations in government jobs and education.
• Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act 2019: Implemented to give legal recognition and protections; key concept is self-identification—individuals can identify their gender without mandatory sex-reassignment surgery.
• Case of Beyonce Lehra (Manipur): transgender woman facing bureaucratic hurdles for changing gender on education certificates; Manipur High Court ordered change of gender on certificates, citing right to travel abroad under Article 21 and importance of self-identification.
• Implications: highlights challenges in bureaucratic implementation of transgender rights; underscores the importance of self-identification and non-discrimination in public records and education/careers.

Vishaka Guidelines and Gender Justice

• Vishaka guidelines (1997) emerged after Bhanwari Devi case (Rajasthan, 1992): guidelines to prevent sexual harassment of women at the workplace.
• Judicial basis:
  • Article 141 and Article 142 used to give guidelines the status of law-like authority, though they were guidelines initially and later codified as POSH Act (2013).
• POSH Act 2013: Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal Act.
• Nirbhaya case (2012) and its aftermath:
  • Protests across the country led to reforms in criminal law; establishment of new offense provisions (e.g., stalking, harsher punishment for rape).
• Legacy and ongoing challenges:
  • While gender justice reforms advanced, cases still drag in courts; the need for continued, proactive enforcement to protect women’s safety and dignity.
• Takeaway for exams: Vishaka guidelines illustrate how judicial activism can create de facto law through guidelines, later formalized into statute.

Judicial Overreach and Free Speech

• Rahul Gandhi and Bharat Jodo Yatra:
  • He stated that 2,000 square kilometers of Indian territory were lost to China; the Galwan Valley clashes led to a defamation case.
  • Allahabad High Court dismissed the defamation case; Supreme Court had mixed responses; Justice Dipankar Datta commented on the tone of remarks.
• Public discourse and judicial role:
  • The Hindu editorial criticized perceived judicial overreach in certifying patriotism; defense argued that opposition leaders have a responsibility to hold the government accountable.
  • Abhishek Manu Singhi (Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer) argued for accountability and disclosure in political discourse.
• Former CJI Patanjali Sastri’s view:
  • Emphasized the importance of free speech for political education and functioning of democratic institutions.
• Outcome and lesson:
  • The Supreme Court’s censure in such cases is debated as an example of judicial overreach; tension exists between maintaining national sentiments and protecting free speech.

Stray Dogs and Animal Rights

• Stray dogs issue documented as a significant public health and ethical concern in India.
• Rabies risk and nuisance in cities like Delhi, Bengaluru, Chennai, etc.; India is highlighted as rabies capital in certain contexts.
• Supreme Court orders and modifications:
  • Initial order: arrest stray dogs, keep them in shelter homes, vaccinate, and release back; deemed unimplementable due to insufficient shelter capacity.
  • Later modification: collect, shelter, vaccinate, then release; dogs are territorial and guard their area.
• Ethical and legal questions:
  • Balancing animal welfare with public health; issues of implementation and practicality of court orders.
• Plan for ethics session:
  • These cases are earmarked for discussion in a separate ethics-focused civil services session.

Election Commission and Voter Fraud

• Rahul Gandhi’s data claims (via press conference) on voter fraud in a Karnataka constituency:
  • Case totals include duplicate voters (12,000), fake addresses (40,000), multiple voters at a single address (10,452), indistinguishable voter ID photos (4,132), and misuses of Form Six (33,692).
• EC response:
  • Asked for proof under oath; Gandhi argued that electoral rolls can be revised and that the onus should be on EC to investigate, not the witness.
• Verification challenges:
  • Electoral rolls are shared with political parties as bulky image PDFs, making verification difficult; call for a searchable text format for transparency.
• Trust in the EC:
  • CSDS studies show that a sizable portion of the public distrusts the Election Commission; calls for more transparency in data sharing.

Reforms in Electoral Processes

• Special intensive revision (SIR):
  • Used to correct large-scale errors in electoral rolls; Bihar's implementation criticized for editing voters, particularly women, through deletions and other actions that may marginalize certain groups.
• Aadhaar and identity proofs:
  • EC reportedly does not accept Aadhaar as a valid identity proof; calls for alternative proofs.
• VV Pat (Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail) and counting of VVPATs:
  • Editorials advocate counting more VVPATs to enhance sample representativeness and transparency.
• Literacy and accessibility considerations:
  • Bihar's female literacy rate (15-49 age group) around 55 ext{%} (2019–2021); literacy impacts document-based eligibility for voting.
• CCTV footage sharing:
  • EC decided not to share CCTV footage with candidates or parties due to privacy concerns; criticized as inconsistent given selective sharing in other contexts (e.g., high-profile voters).
• Supreme Court guidance:
  • Symbol loading units to be stored for 45 days after results to address discrepancies; this supports challenge procedures.
• Trust and transparency:
  • Calls for broader transparency in electoral processes to restore public confidence and credible democratic processes.
• Overall takeaway:
  • The editorial and expert commentary emphasize reforms to curb corruption, improve data integrity, and bolster accountability in elections.

One Nation, One Election

• Proposal origins:
  • First proposed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2017; supported by the Election Commission of India.
  • A high-level committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind studied the feasibility of simultaneous elections for Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
• Committee findings:
  • Recommended holding simultaneous elections historically, as in early years of Indian democracy; disrupted later by presidential rule and early dissolution of Lok Sabha.
• Rationale and goals:
  • Aims to reduce election frequency, costs, and disruptions; create a more stable political environment; enable governance continuity.
• Expert perspectives:
  • Milan Vaishnav and Gautam Bhatia offer nuanced views: simultaneous elections are not a silver bullet; benefits described as weaker and context-dependent; one-size-fits-all may not fit all states.
• Economic and governance considerations:
  • Potentially lowers campaign costs and reduces disruption to governance; however, the necessary constitutional amendments and state-level considerations are substantial.
• Costs and political economy:
  • Critics argue that election costs remain high (e.g., party funding, etc.), and the argument that massive centralization could undermine federalism.
• Counterpoints and alternative models:
  • The idea of "one nation, two elections" (midpoint clustering of state polls with national term) proposed as a compromise.
• Economic and turnout considerations:
  • Evidence on voter turnout and fatigue from mixed state elections is mixed; some argue that simultaneous elections could increase turnout; others caution about regional issues dominating national concerns.
• Conclusion:
  • The debate around one nation, one election centers on balancing federalism, governance efficiency, political incentives, and practical constitutional reform.

Vishaka Guidelines and Gender Justice (Revisited)

• Recap of Vishaka guidelines and POSH Act: foundational to protecting women from sexual harassment at workplace; the move from guidelines to a formal legal framework (POSH Act) marks institutional reform.
• Broader implications for gender justice:
  • Emphasizes the role of judicial guidance in filling legislative gaps; highlights ongoing challenges in implementation and enforcement across public and private sectors.

Key Takeaways and Cross-Cutting Themes

• Sedition law and its evolution:
  • From colonial usage aimed at suppressing nationalist movements to modern debates on free speech, state power, and civil rights.
  • The replacement of the sedition framework with Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita reflects ongoing reconsiderations of how dissent is regulated.
• Judicial transparency and accountability:
  • Moves toward asset disclosures, public criteria for appointments, and publicizing appointment details show a push for accountability within the judiciary, albeit with concerns about nepotism and integrity.
• Free speech, hate speech, and the limits of expression:
  • The tension between protecting free speech and preventing hatred, violence, or marginalization of vulnerable groups remains central to constitutional debates and case law.
• Gender justice and disability rights:
  • The Vishaka guidelines, POSH Act, NALSA, and related debates illustrate how jurisprudence shapes social norms and protection for women and transgender individuals.
• Public health, privacy, and individual rights:
  • HIV/AIDS policy debates highlight the need to balance privacy rights with public health goals; consent and confidentiality provisions remain crucial.
• Electoral reforms and governance:
  • Data integrity, trust in the Election Commission, and debates over one nation, one election reflect the constant search for more efficient, credible democratic processes.
• Real-world relevance and exam value:
  • Topics cover foundational constitutional principles (Articles 14, 21, 25, 75, 164, 239A), landmark judgments, and contemporary policy debates relevant for prelims and mains exams.

Quick Reference: Key Laws, Cases, and Figures Mentioned

• Indian Penal Code, Section 124A (Sedition)
• IPC enactment year: 1860; sedition added in 1870
• Article 19(1)(A): freedom of speech and expression; eight grounds for restrictions:
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Security of the State
  • Public order
  • Defamation
  • Contempt of court
  • Incitement to an offense
  • Friendly relations with foreign states
  • Decency or morality
• Article 13(1): continuation of pre-constitution laws compatible with fundamental rights
• Heddar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
• Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962)
• Balwan Singh v. State of Punjab (1997)
• Khalistan movement (Slogans context)
• Singing v. Union of India (2015)
• Vinod Dua sedition case (COVID-19 context)
• Amish Devan v. Union of India (2021)
• Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) -> Vishaka Guidelines
• POSH Act 2013 (Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal Act)
• NALSA v. Union of India (2014) – transgender rights and recognition
• Transgender Persons Protection of Rights Act 2019
• Bhanwari Devi case (1992)
• Nirbhaya case (2012)
• 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (Articles 75, 164, 239A) – governance of ministers
• 2017 HIV/AIDS testing and privacy framework (HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act 2017)
• EVO: one nation, one election debate – Kovind committee chaired by Ram Nath Kovind; PM Modi's 2017 proposal
• PMLA context (ED prosecutions and conviction rates): high case load with low conviction rate; 2015–2025: nearly 6000 cases filed; only 15 convictions
• VVPAT and related Supreme Court guidance (45-day window for symbol loading units post-results)
• Statistical references: MPs with criminal charges in 18th Lok Sabha: 46 ext{%} overall; serious charges 31 ext{%}; BJP 39 ext{%}; Congress 49 ext{%}; Trinamool 45 ext{%}; Shiv Sena 71 ext{%}
• Literacy data: Bihar women (15–49) literacy 55 ext{%} (2019–2021)
• Notable individuals: Justice Sanjiv Khanna (CJI), Justice Gavai (nephew); Justice Vipul Pancholi; Justice Nagarathna; V. Senthil Balaji
• Cases and events related to transgender rights and identity, gender justice, and workplace harassment jurisprudence

End of Notes for August 2025 Current Affairs Session

• This set synthesizes the 14 topics covered in August 2025 across multiple sources, highlighting core concepts, landmark cases, policy shifts, and their relevance for prelims and mains examinations.