{"id":73043,"date":"2025-11-12T10:59:06","date_gmt":"2025-11-12T05:29:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=73043"},"modified":"2025-11-12T10:59:06","modified_gmt":"2025-11-12T05:29:06","slug":"daily-editorial-analysis-12-november-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/daily-editorial-analysis-12-november-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Daily Editorial Analysis 12 November 2025"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><strong>The Infirmities in the SIR of Electoral Rolls<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Election Commission of India (ECI)<\/strong>, empowered under <strong>Article 324 of the Constitution<\/strong>, bears the crucial duty of ensuring <strong>free, fair, and credible elections<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>However, the recent <strong>Special Intensive Revision (SIR)<\/strong> of electoral rolls ordered by the ECI in <strong>twelve States and Union Territories<\/strong>, including <strong>Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and West Bengal<\/strong>, has <strong>triggered strong protests<\/strong> and even <strong>legal challenges<\/strong> before the <strong>Supreme Court of India<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Conducted only <strong>months before key Assembly elections<\/strong>, the SIR has raised <strong>serious questions about timing, legality, and voter citizenship verification<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>This controversy highlights <strong>deeper constitutional tensions<\/strong> between administrative discretion and democratic safeguards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Context and Nature of the SIR<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>SIR<\/strong> represents a <strong>comprehensive, door-to-door revision<\/strong> of electoral rolls involving <strong>enumeration, verification, and adjudication of claims and objections<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>ECI justified<\/strong> this move by citing <strong>demographic changes<\/strong> caused by <strong>urbanisation, migration, and mortality<\/strong> since the last SIR in <strong>2002\u201303<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>However, the <strong>Opposition and State governments<\/strong> criticised the <strong>haste<\/strong> and <strong>timing<\/strong> of the exercise, noting that a <strong>summary revision<\/strong> had already been completed in <strong>2024<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>Bihar Assembly election<\/strong>, preceded by a similar SIR, became the testing ground for these concerns, with opponents alleging that such <strong>massive revisions close to elections<\/strong> could <strong>disenfranchise voters<\/strong> and <strong>compromise electoral fairness<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Legal Framework: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>legal foundation<\/strong> for electoral roll revision is laid down in <strong>Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1950<\/strong>, which distinguishes between two types of revisions:<\/li>\n<li><strong>Revision before general elections<\/strong>: a <strong>summary revision<\/strong>, mandatory before every Lok Sabha or Assembly election.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Revision in any year<\/strong>: an <strong>intensive revision<\/strong>, undertaken at the ECI\u2019s discretion to ensure the accuracy of rolls.<\/li>\n<li>As per <strong>Rule 25 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960<\/strong>, the <strong>former is summary in nature<\/strong>, while the <strong>latter is intensive<\/strong>, almost akin to <strong>preparing a new electoral roll<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, <strong>intensive revisions<\/strong> are ideally <strong>delinked from election cycles<\/strong>, to be conducted when <strong>no imminent elections<\/strong> are due.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Question of Timing and Administrative Discretion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>While the <strong>ECI\u2019s authority<\/strong> to revise rolls is <strong>undisputed<\/strong>, its <strong>decision to conduct an SIR immediately before elections<\/strong> is <strong>deeply problematic<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Between <strong>2003 and 2024<\/strong>, India witnessed <strong>five general elections<\/strong> and numerous State polls, yet <strong>no such SIR<\/strong> was ordered.<\/li>\n<li>This <strong>sudden urgency<\/strong> raises concerns of <strong>opacity, haste, and potential bias<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>An <strong>intensive revision<\/strong> requires <strong>massive fieldwork<\/strong>, <strong>public verification<\/strong>, and <strong>time for appeals<\/strong>, all of which may be <strong>compromised under electoral deadlines<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Such timing risks <strong>damaging public trust<\/strong> in the ECI, an institution whose <strong>credibility depends on both neutrality and perception of fairness<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Central Controversy in the SIR: Citizenship Verification and Constitutional Boundaries<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Under <strong>Article 326<\/strong>, only <strong>citizens of India<\/strong> can be enrolled as voters.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>ECI demanded documentary proof<\/strong> of citizenship but <strong>excluded Aadhaar<\/strong>, arguing that it <strong>does not establish nationality<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>However, the <strong>Supreme Court\u2019s interim order<\/strong> directed the ECI to <strong>accept Aadhaar<\/strong> as a valid proof of <strong>identity<\/strong>, if not <strong>citizenship<\/strong>, exposing a grey area between <strong>identity verification and nationality confirmation<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>This raises a fundamental constitutional question: <strong>Can the ECI independently determine which documents prove citizenship?<\/strong><br \/>\nThe <strong>Constitution (Articles 5\u201311)<\/strong> and the <strong>Citizenship Act, 1955<\/strong> vest this authority solely in the <strong>Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Thus, the ECI\u2019s unilateral specification of acceptable documents is <strong>ultra vires<\/strong>, <strong>beyond its legal authority<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Since the <strong>MHA has not notified a definitive list of citizenship documents<\/strong>, the ECI\u2019s improvisation <strong>creates legal ambiguity<\/strong> and <strong>risks arbitrary exclusion<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Such action violates <strong>Article 14 (equality before law)<\/strong> and <strong>Article 21 (right to fair procedure)<\/strong>, as it can lead to <strong>unjust disenfranchisement<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Judicial Precedent and Democratic and Institutional Implications<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Judicial Precedent: The Lal Babu Hussein Case (1995)<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Supreme Court\u2019s ruling<\/strong> in <strong>Lal Babu Hussein &amp; Others v. Electoral Registration Officer &amp; Others (1995)<\/strong> provides crucial precedent.<\/li>\n<li>The Court observed that <strong>once a voter\u2019s name is included in the roll<\/strong>, it must be <strong>presumed<\/strong> that all <strong>statutory procedures were followed<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Therefore, <strong>removal of names<\/strong> without strong legal justification is <strong>arbitrary and unconstitutional<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Democratic and Institutional Implications<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>SIR controversy<\/strong> transcends mere legality; it touches the <strong>moral and democratic essence of electoral governance<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>electoral roll<\/strong> is not just an administrative record; it is the <strong>foundation of popular sovereignty<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Any process that risks <strong>excluding legitimate citizens<\/strong> undermines <strong>the inclusiveness and integrity of Indian democracy<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>overlapping jurisdictions<\/strong> of the <strong>ECI<\/strong> and the <strong>MHA<\/strong>, combined with the <strong>absence of legislative clarity<\/strong>, create a <strong>vacuum of accountability<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Conclusion<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The <strong>Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls<\/strong> exposes <strong>critical tensions between administrative autonomy and constitutional accountability<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>While the <strong>ECI\u2019s intent<\/strong> to maintain <strong>accurate voter rolls<\/strong> is legitimate, the <strong>timing<\/strong>, <strong>scope<\/strong>, and <strong>procedural ambiguities<\/strong> of the SIR demand scrutiny.<\/li>\n<li>The <strong>absence of a defined legal framework<\/strong> for <strong>citizenship verification<\/strong> has led to <strong>institutional overreach<\/strong> and <strong>citizen vulnerability<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Moving forward, both the <strong>Union Government<\/strong> and the <strong>ECI<\/strong> must ensure <strong>transparency, coordination, and fairness<\/strong> in electoral roll management.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>The Infirmities in the SIR of Electoral Rolls\u00a0FAQs<\/strong><\/h3>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What is the main controversy surrounding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The main controversy is about the timing and legality of conducting an intensive revision just before elections, which critics say may lead to voter exclusion and constitutional violations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> Under which law does the Election Commission conduct electoral roll revisions?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> Electoral roll revisions are conducted under Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> Who has the authority to determine documents proving Indian citizenship?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Ministry of Home Affairs, not the Election Commission of India, has the authority to determine documents proving citizenship.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What did the Supreme Court decide in the Lal Babu Hussein case (1995)?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> The Court held that once a person\u2019s name is entered in the voter roll, it must be presumed valid, and removal without due process is arbitrary and unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> Why is the Special Intensive Revision considered risky for democracy?<br \/>\n<strong>Ans.<\/strong> It is considered risky because arbitrary deletions or document demands can disenfranchise legitimate voters, undermining the fairness and inclusiveness of elections.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/lead\/the-infirmities-in-the-sir-of-electoral-rolls\/article70267813.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">The Hindu<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<h3><strong>Exploited workers, A Labour Policy\u2019s Empty Promises<\/strong><\/h3>\n<h3><strong>Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>An investigation into the seafood industry on India\u2019s east coast revealed <strong>severe exploitation of women workers<\/strong>, who labour in unsafe conditions for meagre wages after being stripped of Employees\u2019 State Insurance (ESI) and Provident Fund (PF) benefits through reclassification as \u201cdaily wagers.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>Despite such widespread abuse\u2014amid an estimated 11 million people living in modern slavery, the highest in the world\u2014the government\u2019s new <strong>draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025<\/strong> claims to be \u201cfuture-ready\u201d and rooted in ancient Indian ethos.<\/li>\n<li>However, critics say it <strong>fails to address systemic worker exploitation<\/strong> or strengthen <strong>labour protections<\/strong> in today\u2019s harsh employment realities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>A Case of \u2018Employer Ease\u2019 in India\u2019s New Labour Policy<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Across India\u2019s steel, textile, seafood, and quarry industries, <strong>millions of workers are hired informally through contractors, without written contracts or benefits<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>According to the ILO (2024), <strong>90% of India\u2019s workforce is informally employed<\/strong>, often denied legal rights, fair wages, and dignity, violating Articles 14, 16, and 23 of the Constitution.<\/li>\n<li>The draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 rebrands labour reform as <strong>\u201ccultural revival,\u201d critics say, prioritising \u201cemployer ease\u201d over worker justice<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Universal Social Security Without Funding Clarity<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The policy proposes a Universal Social Security Account, merging schemes like EPFO, ESIC, PMJAY, e-SHRAM, and State boards to ensure lifelong health, pension, maternity, and accident benefits.<\/li>\n<li>However, it <strong>lacks clarity on funding mechanisms<\/strong>, offering no employer or state contribution mandates, risking tokenistic coverage similar to e-SHRAM\u2019s low payouts.<\/li>\n<li>With digital-only access in a country where only 38% of households are literate, the model risks excluding women, elderly, and low-literates, breaching Article 15 on equality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Missing Safeguards for Collective Bargaining<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The absence of union protections further weakens workers\u2019 bargaining power.<\/li>\n<li>Experts recommend offline access, tripartite funding (employer\u2013state\u2013worker), and union inclusion to prevent systemic exclusion and exploitation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Occupational Safety and Health: Lofty Goals, Weak Enforcement<\/strong>\n<ul>\n<li>The policy pledges to enforce the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.<\/li>\n<li>It does so by the provsions of risk audits and gender-sensitive standards, honouring Directive 42 (state can make provision to secure just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief) and ILO Convention 155 (women\u2019s care-role risks).<\/li>\n<li>However,<strong> its \u201cnear-zero fatalities by 2047\u201d goal seems unrealistic<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Without strong penalties, adequate inspectors, and coverage for informal and gig workers, workplace safety promises risk becoming symbolic.<\/li>\n<li>Digital tools exclude informal workers, undermining equality; ignoring gig mental health, while union audits weaken Article 19.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Areas of Concern in the Draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>AI-Driven Job Facilitation Risks Bias<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The policy envisions the Ministry of Labour and Employment (MoLE) as an employment facilitator, using AI-driven job-matching under the National Career Service (NCS) to align skills and tackle graduate unemployment.<\/li>\n<li>However, the absence of <strong>AI bias safeguards<\/strong> could lead to caste and gender discrimination, violating Article 15, especially in smaller cities and MSMEs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Gig Economy and Wage Code Gaps<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The Wages Code\u2019s minimum protections remain ignored for the 12 million gig workers, allowing \u201cflexibility\u201d to mask exploitation.<\/li>\n<li>Without ethics audits and union oversight, algorithmic systems could deepen inequality and tech-driven labour abuse.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Gender Equity Without Enforcement<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The policy targets <strong>35% female labour participation by 2030<\/strong> through childcare, equal pay, flexible gigs, and apprenticeships \u2014 aligning with ILO Convention 195 and Article 15.<\/li>\n<li>Yet, without quotas, penalties, or maternity protections for informal workers, the goal remains aspirational.<\/li>\n<li>The neglect of caste-gender data and mental health issues also masks the barriers faced by Dalit and rural women.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Green Transition Without Just Transition<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The green-tech vision promotes AI-enhanced safety and reskilling for coal workers, aligning with SDG 13 and Article 21 (right to livelihood).<\/li>\n<li>However, lacking income support and union inclusion, it risks violating ILO Convention 29.<\/li>\n<li>An urban bias in green jobs could marginalise 400 million informal workers, demanding tripartite funding and OECD-standard safeguards.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Weak Data and Privacy Governance<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>Plans to integrate labour, education, and digital governance through Labour and Employment Policy Evaluation Index (LEPEI) dashboards and Digital India may advance transparency, but poor enforcement of the Data Protection Act risks worker surveillance and curbs on Article 19 freedoms.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h4><strong>Vision vs. Reality<\/strong><\/h4>\n<ul>\n<li>The Shram Shakti Niti 2025 presents itself as a \u201crights-driven, future-ready\u201d framework for Viksit Bharat.<\/li>\n<li>However, its gaps \u2014 weak oversight, digital exclusion, unenforced penalties, and disregard for ILO standards \u2014 could accelerate the decline of unions and deepen inequality in the expanding gig economy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><strong>Restoring Dignity, Rights, and Justice to India\u2019s Workers<\/strong><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The Shram Shakti Niti 2025 risks failing without adequate funding and institutional safeguards.<\/li>\n<li>For millions in informal and forced labour, the real test lies not in digital dashboards but in whether the policy can restore dignity, rights, and justice to the working poor.<\/li>\n<li>The 2025\u201347 implementation must include pilot projects, rights-based audits, tripartite enforcement, offline accessibility for digitally excluded workers, and transparent grievance systems.<\/li>\n<li>Without these, the policy risks becoming symbolic rhetoric rather than a genuine instrument of labour justice in India.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>Exploited workers, A Labour Policy\u2019s Empty Promises FAQs<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Q1.<\/strong> What issue does the article highlight about India\u2019s seafood industry?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It exposes exploitation of women workers in unsafe conditions, stripped of benefits and forced into informal labour, reflecting India\u2019s broader modern slavery crisis.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q2.<\/strong> What is the main criticism of the Shram Shakti Niti 2025?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Critics argue it prioritises \u201cemployer ease\u201d and cultural revival over genuine labour reform, ignoring wage theft, safety, and workers\u2019 constitutional rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q3.<\/strong> How does the policy\u2019s Universal Social Security plan fall short?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> It merges welfare schemes digitally but lacks funding clarity, offline access, and employer contributions, risking exclusion of low-literate and informal workers.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q4.<\/strong> What concerns exist around AI and job facilitation in the policy?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> AI-based job matching lacks bias safeguards, risking caste and gender discrimination, particularly across MSMEs and smaller cities, violating equality principles.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Q5.<\/strong> What measures are needed to make the policy effective?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Ans.<\/strong> Experts recommend pilot projects, tripartite funding, offline access, rights-based audits, and stronger union participation to ensure genuine worker protection and justice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.thehindu.com\/opinion\/op-ed\/exploited-workers-a-labour-policys-empty-promises\/article70267861.ece\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">TH<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Daily Editorial Analysis 12 November 2025 by Vajiram &#038; Ravi covers key editorials from The Hindu &#038; Indian Express with UPSC-focused insights and relevance.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":50653,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[141,882,909],"class_list":{"0":"post-73043","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-daily-editorial-analysis","8":"tag-daily-editorial-analysis","9":"tag-the-hindu-editorial-analysis","10":"tag-the-indian-express-analysis","11":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73043","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73043"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73043\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/50653"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73043"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73043"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73043"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}