June 20 – Editorial Analysis UPSC – PM IAS

Editorial Analysis 1 : The Hollowed Tenth Schedule

Source: The Hindu Editorial – “Defection as merger: On politics, the wave of defections” (June 20, 2026)

1. Context and Core Philosophy

The Indian political landscape is currently witnessing a troubling wave of mass defections that threaten the very bedrock of parliamentary democracy. As highlighted in The Hindu editorial dated June 20, 2026, Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies from prominent opposition factions have systematically switched allegiances to ruling coalitions. Rather than facing the punitive measures designed by constitutional framers, these elected representatives are exploiting the “merger” exception under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to cross over without facing disqualification.

This trend has effectively reduced the anti-defection law to a mere technicality. For aspirants mastering GS Paper 2, it is critical to understand that this is not merely a political issue, but a profound constitutional crisis. In a representative democracy, the mandate is typically granted to a party’s ideology and its manifesto as much as to the individual candidate. When the anti-defection law is weaponized to manufacture artificial legislative majorities, it subverts the electoral mandate, rendering the voter’s choice entirely redundant and destabilizing the constitutional equilibrium between the executive and the legislature.

2. Syllabus Mapping

• GS Paper 2: Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions, and basic structure.
• GS Paper 2: Parliament and State Legislatures—structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges, and issues arising out of these.
• GS Paper 2: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.
• GS Paper 4: Probity in Governance and Ethics in Public Administration.

3. Historical Evolution of the Anti-Defection Framework

To understand the current hollowing out of the Tenth Schedule, one must trace its legislative history, which was driven by a desperate need to curb political opportunism.

• The “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” Era: Following the 1967 general elections, Indian politics was plagued by rampant floor-crossing. Legislators frequently changed sides for ministerial berths or financial gains, leading to chronic instability in State governments. The phrase “Aaya Ram Gaya Ram” became synonymous with this transactional political culture.
• The 52nd Constitutional Amendment Act (1985): To combat this, the Tenth Schedule was introduced under Articles 102(2) and 191(2). It aimed to deter defection by disqualifying members who voluntarily gave up their party membership or voted contrary to party whips. However, it provided two key exemptions to protect genuine ideological dissent: a “split” (requiring one-third of the legislature party) and a “merger” (requiring two-thirds).
• The 91st Constitutional Amendment Act (2003): Over time, it became evident that the “split” provision was being abused. Wholesale defections were being engineered in batches of one-third to evade disqualification. The 91st Amendment decisively omitted the provision for a split (Paragraph 3) to clamp down on mass defections. However, it retained the “merger” provision under Paragraph 4, operating under the assumption that a two-thirds majority shift indicated a genuine ideological realignment rather than mere opportunism.

4. Multi-Dimensional Analysis of the Current Crisis

A. The Constitutional and Legal Dimension: The Paragraph 4 Loophole The current crisis revolves entirely around the ambiguous interpretation of Paragraph 4 of the Tenth Schedule.

• The Twin Requirement: Legally, Paragraph 4 stipulates a twin condition for a valid merger. First, the “original political party” must merge with another political party. Second, at least two-thirds of the members of the “legislature party” must agree to this merger.
• The Deliberate Misinterpretation: In recent years, political actors and Presiding Officers (Speakers) have conflated the legislature party with the original political party. If two-thirds of MLAs or MPs defect, the Speaker automatically validates it as a “merger,” entirely ignoring whether the parent political party (the organizational wing outside the legislature) has actually decided to merge.
• Judicial Ambiguity: The Supreme Court in the Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra (2023) case clearly delineated that the legislature party and the political party are distinct entities. A faction of legislators cannot legally claim to be the original political party simply because they possess a legislative majority. Despite this constitutional clarity, the sheer delay in judicial intervention allows defectors to complete their term in office, rendering posthumous judicial pronouncements practically ineffective.

B. The Institutional Dimension: The Paradox of the Partisan Speaker The Tenth Schedule designates the Speaker or Chairperson as the sole adjudicating authority for disqualification petitions. This institutional design is fundamentally flawed in the context of modern Indian politics.

• Conflict of Interest: In the Indian parliamentary system, the Speaker rarely resigns from their parent political party upon assuming the chair, unlike the convention in the United Kingdom. Consequently, Speakers often act as extensions of the ruling dispensation.
• Weaponization of Delay: When members defect to the ruling party, the Speaker often sits on the disqualification petitions indefinitely—a tactic known as “pocket vetoing” by delay. Conversely, if a member defects from the ruling party, disqualification is executed with lightning speed.
• The Dissent in Kihoto Hollohan: In the landmark Kihoto Hollohan (1992) judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the Tenth Schedule. However, the minority dissent by Justices J.S. Verma and L.M. Sharma is highly relevant today. They argued that vesting adjudicatory powers in the Speaker, who is dependent on the majority for their tenure, violates the basic democratic principle of an independent, impartial tribunal.

C. The Ethical and Democratic Dimension: Commodification of Representation Beyond legal loopholes, the current wave of defections highlights a severe ethical rot in democratic representation.

• Subversion of the Mandate: The Tenth Schedule was meant to prioritize the political party’s ideology over individual opportunism. When a leader seeks votes using a specific party symbol and manifesto, their post-election defection is a fundamental breach of the social contract with the electorate.
• Resort Politics and Money Power: The logistical execution of these “mergers” often involves sequestering legislators in luxury resorts far from their constituencies to prevent “poaching” by rival camps. This phenomenon deeply commodifies elected representatives, reducing them to mere tradable assets where money power and intimidation eclipse democratic duties.
• Erosion of the Rajya Sabha: Artificially engineering majorities in State Assemblies directly impacts the composition of the Rajya Sabha. By engineering mass defections in states, ruling coalitions can bypass the natural, staggered electoral process of the Upper House, thereby removing the constitutional checks and balances required for passing sweeping legislation or constitutional amendments.

5. Comparative Constitutionalism: International Perspectives

Analyzing how mature democracies handle legislative dissent provides valuable insights for reforming the Indian framework.

• The United Kingdom and the United States: Neither the UK nor the US has an anti-defection law. Legislators are free to vote their conscience or defect without losing their seats. These democracies rely heavily on internal party discipline, the pressure of local constituents, and the ultimate punishment at the ballot box in the next election.
• South Africa and Bangladesh: Conversely, these nations maintain extremely rigid party control. In Bangladesh, Article 70 of their Constitution states that a member vacates their seat if they vote against the party or resign from it, leaving almost zero room for intra-party democracy or dissent.
• The Indian Middle Ground: India attempted to strike a balance between strict party discipline (to ensure government stability) and the legislator’s freedom of conscience. However, the current exploitation of the merger clause proves that this middle ground has failed, becoming the worst of both worlds.

6. A Comprehensive Way Forward

To rescue the Tenth Schedule from becoming an instrument of democratic subversion, sweeping and multi-faceted reforms are required.

• Re-evaluating the “Merger” Exemption (Legislative Reform): * Parliament must urgently amend the Tenth Schedule to remove ambiguity. Paragraph 4 must explicitly state that a merger is completely invalid unless the Election Commission of India (ECI) certifies that the national or state organizational wings of the respective political parties have formally merged.
  • Alternatively, as suggested by several constitutional experts and the Law Commission in its 170th Report, the exemption for “mergers” should be deleted entirely, just as the exemption for “splits” was deleted in 2003. If a legislator wishes to change parties, they must resign and face a fresh by-election, allowing the voters to ratify their decision.
• Establishing an Independent Adjudicatory Mechanism (Institutional Reform):
  • The Speaker must be stripped of the power to adjudicate defection cases.
  • As recommended by the Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms (1990) and the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), the power of disqualification should vest in the President (for MPs) or the Governor (for MLAs), who shall act strictly and bindingly on the advice of the Election Commission of India.
  • The Supreme Court, in Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. The Hon’ble Speaker (2020), also suggested that Parliament amend the Constitution to establish a permanent, independent tribunal headed by retired judges to decide defection cases swiftly and impartially.
• Enforcing Strict Timelines (Judicial Reform):
  • Until an independent tribunal is established, the Supreme Court must create binding judicial precedents enforcing strict timelines. The directive that Speakers must decide disqualification petitions within a maximum of three months must be enforced with punitive measures for non-compliance, such as the automatic stripping of the defecting member’s voting rights during the pendency of the petition.
• Limiting the Scope of the Whip (Democratic Reform):
  • To ensure the anti-defection law does not stifle legitimate intra-party debate, the issuance of a party whip should be restricted only to critical motions that threaten the survival of the government—such as No-Confidence Motions, Confidence Motions, or the passing of the Annual Budget/Money Bills. For all other routine legislation, members should be allowed to vote according to their conscience and constituency interests without the fear of disqualification.

7. Conclusion

The Tenth Schedule was conceived as an institutional vaccine against the virus of political defection. However, as the editorial in The Hindu rightly points out, the virus has mutated, and the vaccine has been rendered largely ineffective through the weaponization of the ‘merger’ clause. The unabated circumvention of the anti-defection law is not merely an exploitation of legal loopholes; it is a direct assault on the sanctity of the electoral process. For India to safeguard its parliamentary democracy, the constitutional apparatus must be recalibrated. Removing the adjudicatory powers from the partisan office of the Speaker and closing the Paragraph 4 loophole are no longer matters of academic debate, but of urgent democratic survival.

Practice Mains Question & Answer Blueprint

Question: “The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution, designed to combat political opportunism, has been rendered hollow by the weaponization of the ‘merger’ clause and the partisan role of the Speaker.” Critically analyze this statement in light of recent political developments. Suggest comprehensive measures to strengthen the anti-defection framework. (250 words, 15 marks)

Editorial Analysis 2 : Right of Way – Reclaiming the Urban Footpath

Source: The Hindu Editorial – “Right of way: On the right to walk on demarcated footpaths” (June 20, 2026)

1. Context and Core Philosophy

In an epoch-making intervention that fundamentally redefines urban mobility and public space in India, the Supreme Court, on June 19, 2026, delivered a landmark judgment recognizing the right to walk safely on demarcated footpaths as a fundamental right. Adjudicating a motor accident compensation case (Maniyar Iliyaz @ Shaik Riyaz v. P. Ayyappan) wherein a five-year-old child was fatally struck by a tanker lorry while walking to school with his father, a bench comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar held that pedestrian rights must take precedence over the movement of motorized vehicles.

The Hindu editorial, titled “Right of way,” critically evaluates this judicial pronouncement. While celebrating the constitutional expansion, the editorial issues a profound caveat: judicial recognition alone cannot transform the perilous reality of Indian streets. It argues that rights-based legislation in India often struggles when the State fails to build the corresponding physical infrastructure. Furthermore, the editorial astutely points out the impending socio-economic conflicts this judgment might ignite, particularly concerning the informal urban economy. If municipal corporations utilize this ruling as a pretext to launch eviction drives against street vendors, it could inadvertently gentrify public spaces and criminalize the survival of the urban poor.

For UPSC aspirants, this issue is a prime example of the intersection between constitutional law, urban governance, socio-economic equity, and infrastructural development. It demands a highly nuanced understanding of how fundamental rights operate not just in courtrooms, but on the chaotic, contested pavements of modern Indian cities.

2. Syllabus Mapping

• GS Paper 2: Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions, and basic structure (Expansion of Articles 19 and 21).
• GS Paper 2: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections of the population by the Centre and States (Urban poor, street vendors, and the Street Vendors Act, 2014).
• GS Paper 1: Urbanization, their problems, and their remedies.
• GS Paper 3: Infrastructure: Energy, Ports, Roads, Airports, Railways, etc. (Urban transport and planning).

3. Multi-Dimensional Analysis of the Judgment and Urban Reality

A. The Constitutional and Legal Dimension: Expanding the Horizon of Liberty

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) has continually expanded since the landmark Maneka Gandhi case (1978). This recent judgment is a conceptual leap, linking the right to life with the right to safe movement.

• De-linking Movement from Motorization: The Court observed a “civilizational problem” wherein the right to move has been erroneously equated with movement on wheels. The judgment powerfully articulated that human beings walked long before the invention of the wheel. Therefore, the primary right of movement guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) (“to move freely throughout the territory of India”) is the fundamental right to walk.
• The Interplay of Rights: The Court noted that walking is not mere physical transit; it embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c). A citizen walks to assemble, to protest, to socialize, and to access economic opportunities. Stripping them of safe walking spaces is a direct curtailment of their democratic participation.
• The Failure of the Motor Vehicles Act (1988): A critical legal observation made by the Court was that the Motor Vehicles Act was never designed to protect pedestrians. Its primary focus has historically been to standardize commercial transport. The Court stated that the Act has, in many ways, acted as an impediment, undermining the precious rights of walkers by prioritizing vehicular speed over human safety.
• Correlative Duty of the State: Rights do not exist in a vacuum. The Court established that the fundamental right to walk carries a “correlative duty” for the State. If a road exists, there is a strict, legally binding obligation on duty bearers—Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, Municipalities, and Panchayats—to demarcate, construct, and safeguard footpaths.

B. The Urban Planning and Infrastructure Dimension: The Vehicle-Centric Paradigm

The physical manifestation of this constitutional right hinges entirely on urban planning paradigms, which in India are acutely flawed.

• The Monopoly of the Motorized Class: Modern Indian city planning suffers from inherent elitism. As the Court noted, the entire spectrum of motorized transportation has dominated road designs, pushing walkers aside to the point where pedestrians are treated as a “nuisance.” Flyovers, underpasses, and road-widening projects routinely consume pedestrian infrastructure to shave mere minutes off a commuter’s drive.
• The Fallacy of “Restitutionary Remedies”: The Court held that citizens can invoke constitutional remedies for restitution and compensation against duty bearers if their right to walk is violated. However, The Hindu editorial sharply counters that restitutionary remedies—paying compensation after a life is lost—do not solve the systemic issue. A fundamental right is rendered meaningless if it only operates posthumously.
• State Failure vs. Citizen Duty: The editorial draws a brilliant parallel with the Swachh Bharat Abhiyan. Despite strict mandates against littering, the culture persists because the law aggressively focuses on the citizen’s duty to segregate waste, while the State completely overlooks its duty to consistently collect and process it. Similarly, you cannot legally obligate citizens to walk safely if the State structurally refuses to build the footpaths.

C. The Socio-Economic and Cultural Dimension: The Livelihood Conundrum

The most critical contradiction highlighted by the editorial is the potential clash between pedestrian rights and the rights of the urban poor.

• Conflict with the Street Vendors Act, 2014: The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act was enacted to protect informal workers under Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession). The fear is that urban local bodies (ULBs) will weaponize the Supreme Court’s mandate for “clear footpaths” to unleash arbitrary eviction drives.
• Gentrification and Criminalization of Poverty: Indian footpaths are not sterile transit corridors; they are vibrant economic zones. They host cobblers, vegetable vendors, and tea stalls that serve the working class. If the State initiates a “cleansing” of streets to guarantee a sanitized walking experience, it will gentrify public spaces and criminalize the daily survival mechanisms of the urban poor.
• Weak Municipal Implementation: The root of this conflict is municipal apathy. The Street Vendors Act requires ULBs to conduct detailed surveys, establish Town Vending Committees (TVCs), and scientifically demarcate “vending zones” and “no-vending zones.” Because most ULBs have delayed or abandoned these processes, vendors are forced to occupy spaces haphazardly. The resulting chaos is blamed on the poor, masking the administrative failure of the State.
• The Nudge Theory in Public Policy: The editorial emphasizes that shifting from a vehicle-centric society to a pedestrian-centric one requires a profound cultural shift, not just a legal “nudge.” For instance, the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (2003) succeeded in curtailing public smoking not through massive retrospective lawsuits, but through consistent social messaging and immediate, small fines. Ensuring right-of-way for pedestrians requires a similar combination of cultural education and immediate, low-level enforcement against encroaching vehicles, rather than grand constitutional litigation.

D. The Inclusion and Accessibility Dimension

While the judgment implicitly covers all citizens, the declaration of this right is profoundly transformative for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), the elderly, and children.

• Universal Design: For a wheelchair user or a visually impaired citizen, a footpath that lacks tactile paving, or is interspersed with open drains and high curbs, is non-existent. The fundamental right to walk inherently demands that municipalities adopt the principles of Universal Design, making infrastructure continuously accessible without physical barriers.
• Gender and Mobility: Women in India disproportionately rely on walking and public transport. Safe, well-lit, and demarcated footpaths are directly linked to female workforce participation and their right to access the city without the looming threat of vehicular accidents or harassment in unlit, marginalized street edges.

4. Comparative Perspectives: Global Best Practices

To implement this fundamental right, India must look toward global urban models that have successfully reclaimed streets for people.

• The “15-Minute City” Concept (Paris, France): This urban planning model ensures that all essential daily needs (work, education, healthcare, leisure) are accessible within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city, structurally reducing the reliance on automobiles.
• Superblocks (Barcelona, Spain): Barcelona has redesigned its grid system into “Superblocks” where motorized traffic is restricted to the perimeter, leaving the inner streets entirely for pedestrians, cyclists, and community spaces. This has drastically reduced traffic fatalities and air pollution.
• Vision Zero (Sweden): The philosophy behind Vision Zero is that no loss of life is acceptable in a transport system. It shifts the responsibility from the pedestrian (who is prone to human error) to the system designers, demanding that roads be built so that inevitable human mistakes do not result in fatal consequences.

5. A Comprehensive Way Forward

The transition from a judicial decree to tangible, safe urban spaces requires a multifaceted governance approach.

• Drafting a Dedicated Statutory Framework: As directed by the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Union Government must draft comprehensive legislation dedicated solely to pedestrian rights. This law must clearly define the technical parameters of a “safe footpath” (width, continuity, accessibility) and establish a full-time, independent regulator to oversee urban mobility planning across states.
• Harmonizing Livelihood and Mobility: Municipalities must urgently operationalize the Street Vendors Act, 2014. By conducting scientific surveys and establishing legitimate vending zones that do not obstruct pedestrian flow, cities can ensure that the fundamental right to move freely (Article 19(1)(d)) and the right to livelihood (Article 19(1)(g)) exist in harmony rather than in conflict.
• Mandatory Budgetary Allocation for NMT: State governments must mandate that a fixed, substantial percentage of every Urban Local Body’s transport budget is ring-fenced exclusively for Non-Motorized Transport (NMT) infrastructure. Building footpaths can no longer be an afterthought funded by residual capital.
• Redesigning the Indian Roads Congress (IRC) Guidelines: The current IRC guidelines treat pedestrian infrastructure as a secondary consideration compared to vehicular flow. These guidelines must be overhauled to prioritize pedestrian safety, mandating raised pedestrian crossings, pedestrian refuge islands, and strict speed-calming measures in residential and school zones.
• Strict Enforcement Against Vehicular Encroachment: The culture of impunity where motorists park on footpaths or use them to bypass traffic jams must be dismantled through severe, immediate penalties, leveraging technology such as AI-enabled CCTV enforcement.

6. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recognition of the right to walk as a fundamental right is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history, rectifying decades of elitist, car-centric urban planning. However, a constitutional right written on paper will not stop a speeding tanker. For this judgment to be truly emancipatory, the Indian State must radically pivot its budgetary priorities, and urban municipalities must stop treating the informal economy as an enemy of public order. Reclaiming the urban footpath is not merely an engineering challenge; it is a profoundly democratic exercise in reclaiming the city for its most vulnerable citizens.

7. Practice Mains Question & Answer Blueprint

Question:

“The Supreme Court’s declaration of the ‘right to walk’ as a fundamental right is a progressive constitutional nudge. However, relying solely on restitutionary remedies without addressing structural municipal failures and socio-economic conflicts will render this right illusory.” Critically examine this statement in the context of urban governance in India. (250 words, 15 marks)