Context:

• The Constitution, once a symbol of deliberation and balance, is now allegedly being reshaped not by Parliament or the Executive—but by the Judiciary, the very institution meant to uphold it.
• Therefore, re-examining the Constitution in light of B.R. Ambedkar's legacy—which embodies limited powers, checks and balances, and democratic accountability—is imperative on this Ambedkar Jayanti (April 14).

Judiciary vs. Federal Structure - A Critical Lens on a Recent Verdict:

• Background: Delay in gubernatorial assent to Bills in Tamil Nadu.
• Judicial action: In the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 to:
  • Set time limits for governors to assent to Bills (affecting Article 200).
  • Assert that the President “ought” to seek the Court’s opinion under Article 143.
  • Create grounds for a mandamus against the President if advice is not followed.
• Implication: This dramatically reinterprets Articles 200, 201, 74, and 143, bypassing the Council of Ministers and placing the Judiciary at the centre of legislative decisions.

Key Constitutional Concerns:

• Erosion of separation of powers:
  • The Supreme Court has seemingly overstepped by re-legislating, not interpreting.
  • Bypasses Article 74, where the President acts on Cabinet advice.
  • The suggestion that courts can direct or compel the President dilutes executive authority.
• Violation of federal norms:
  • The ruling affects all states, yet no state was heard during the proceedings.
  • The Judiciary acting suo motu threatens federal consultation and cooperative federalism.
• Procedural lapses in judicial conduct:
  • Article 145(3) mandates a constitution bench (5 judges) for substantial constitutional questions; the verdict came from a two-judge bench.
  • Undermines constitutional procedure and may set a dangerous precedent.

Broader Implications for Democracy and Governance:

• Judicial supremacy vs constitutional morality:
  • The Judiciary has taken a moral high ground to justify expansion of power.
  • Raises questions: Who interprets morality? Can it override constitutional procedure?
• Potential legislative pushback: Parliament, under Article 145(1), can regulate SC procedures:
  • Create laws regarding bench formation, case listing, and judgment timelines.
  • May trigger institutional friction between Parliament and Judiciary. 

Recommendations and Way Forward:

• Need for larger bench review: Any state can seek a review of the verdict based on:
  • Lack of notice to other states.
  • Decision by less than five judges on a constitutional matter.
  • Judicial amendment of the Constitution—without Parliamentary approval under Article 368.
• Call for judicial restraint:
  • Upholding constitutional order requires judicial discipline, not judicial activism.
  • A living Constitution must not be a shapeshifting Constitution.

Conclusion - A Disservice to Ambedkar’s Legacy:

• Ambedkar cautioned against the “grammar of anarchy”.
• Current developments risk replacing it with the grammar of judicial supremacy.
• On Ambedkar Jayanti, the judiciary must introspect: Are they upholding the Constitution, or rewriting it?

Q1. Discuss the implications of the Supreme Court's invocation of Article 142 in the State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu case on the doctrine of separation of powers.

Ans. The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 to impose time limits on gubernatorial assent undermines the separation of powers by encroaching into the legislative and executive domains.

Q2. How does the recent Supreme Court ruling affect the federal structure of the Indian Constitution?

Ans. The ruling alters the federal balance by allowing the Judiciary to override constitutional provisions like Article 200 without consulting affected states, thereby weakening cooperative federalism.

Q3. Why is the decision in this case seen as a deviation from constitutional procedure under Article 145(3)?

Ans. The case involved substantial constitutional interpretation but was decided by a two-judge bench instead of the required five-judge Constitution Bench, violating Article 145(3).

Q4. Examine the constitutional validity of imposing time limits on governors for Bill assent through judicial interpretation.

Ans. Imposing time limits judicially on governors contravenes Article 368, which mandates that such amendments be made only by Parliament.

Q5. What does the phrase “grammar of judicial supremacy” signify in the context of this judgment?

Ans. It signifies the unchecked expansion of judicial power beyond constitutional limits, effectively allowing the judiciary to reshape governance without democratic accountability. 

Source:IE

Context

• In March 2025, a surge of textbook revisions across India, coincided with a wave of public anger targeting Mughal monuments.
• Viral campaigns incited vandalism and called for the renaming or destruction of tombs, reflecting a disturbing trend: the reduction of centuries of complex history into a simplistic narrative of heroes and villains.
• While some argue that such moves correct historical inaccuracies or colonial biases, the selective rewriting of history risks deepening social divides rather than clarifying the past.

The Role of History: Discernment, Not Dogma

• History, as a discipline, demands nuance. It is not a static record of events but a dynamic interpretation of causes, contexts, and consequences.
• However, when manipulated through ideological lenses to restore perceived glories or correct alleged injustices, history ceases to guide societies toward wisdom and instead becomes a tool for sowing division.
• This phenomenon, where historical revisionism is driven by political motives, can fracture social cohesion and provoke violence, especially when used to reclaim a so-called ‘status quo ante.’

Revisionism vs. Reinterpretation

• A crucial distinction must be made between historical reinterpretation and revisionist history.
• Reinterpretation is an academic process, an evolving inquiry informed by new evidence or perspectives that refine our understanding.
• In contrast, revisionism, particularly when fuelled by political agendas, seeks to recast the past to justify contemporary ideologies.
• This distortion often underpins identity politics, territorial claims, and nationalist fervour, leading to cycles of resentment and retaliation.

Historical Precedents of Revisionism

• Crusade Wars
  • The danger of historical revisionism is not theoretical—it is well-documented across centuries.
  • The Crusades exemplify how religious narratives were used to justify bloodshed under the pretence of reclaiming holy lands.
  • The First Crusade (1096–1099), launched to recapture Jerusalem, ignited centuries of conflict between Christian and Muslim powers, leaving a legacy of mistrust rather than reconciliation.
• European Wars of Religion
  • Similarly, the European Wars of Religion during the 16th and 17th centuries, including the catastrophic Thirty Years’ War, reveal the consequences of reviving religious grievances.
  • Fuelled by the Protestant Reformation and a desire to restore Catholic dominance, these conflicts led to immense human and economic devastation.
  • Instead of fostering understanding, historical grievances were weaponised, plunging Europe into chaos.

20^th Century Examples of Dangerous Revisionism

• Nazi Germany
  • In the 20th century, Nazi Germany offers the most extreme and chilling example.
  • Adolf Hitler’s ideological narrative of a betrayed and humiliated Germany, bolstered by myths of Aryan superiority and a manipulated interpretation of the Treaty of Versailles, culminated in the Second World War and the Holocaust.
  • Here, history was not just re written, it was used as a license for conquest and genocide.
• The Partition of India
  • Even in more recent times, historical revisionism continues to wreak havoc.
  • The Partition of India in 1947 was marred by competing historical narratives between Hindu and Muslim communities.
  • Instead of a peaceful transition into two sovereign nations, the result was one of the most violent episodes of communal strife in history, driven by the desire to reclaim lost identities rather than shape a shared future.
• Israel-Palestine Conflict
  • In the contemporary era, the Israel-Palestine conflict stands as a tragic example of clashing historical narratives that remain irreconcilable.
  • Both sides claim historical rights to the same land, perpetuating a cycle of violence and displacement with little progress toward peace.
• Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine
  • Similarly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, justified by revisionist rhetoric about historical unity and territorial continuity, has caused immense suffering and regional destabilisation.
  • These events underscore the destructive consequences of using history as a justification for present-day aggression.

The Way Forward: History as a Guide, not a Grudge

• History must serve as a teacher, not as a template for revenge.
• Recognising historical injustices is crucial, but using them to justify modern-day retribution only perpetuates conflict.
• The yearning for a golden past often blinds societies to the opportunities of the present and the promise of the future.
• By learning from our shared past, through dialogue, empathy, and a commitment to truth, we can avoid the pitfalls of vengeance and chart a course toward a more inclusive and peaceful future.

Conclusion

• As philosopher George Santayana warned, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’
• But just as perilous are those who remember only to relive it, driven not by humility, but by hubris.
• The greatest tribute we can pay to history is not to revise it to suit contemporary ideologies, but to reckon with it honestly.

Q1. What is the main danger of selective historical revisionism?
Ans. It fuels social division and fosters hatred instead of understanding.

Q2. How does historical reinterpretation differ from revisionism?
Ans. Reinterpretation is an academic update based on new evidence, while revisionism often serves political agendas.

Q3. What historical event shows the danger of reclaiming a “golden past”?
Ans. Nazi Germany’s attempt to restore German supremacy led to World War II and the Holocaust.

Q4. Why did the Partition of India turn violent?
Ans. Competing historical grievances between religious communities triggered communal conflict.

Q5. What should be the purpose of studying history?
Ans. To learn from past mistakes and build a better future—not to relive or reverse it.

Source: The Hindu

Context

• The implementation of the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023, marked a transformative moment in India’s socio-political landscape.
• It signified a shift in gender equity from the peripheries to the core of political discourse.
• Yet, this mainstreaming of feminist concerns, while undeniably progressive, has also led to a paradox: the very centrality of gender issues in public dialogue has made critical engagement with feminism increasingly fraught.
• Feminist discourse today, while more visible and powerful than ever, can at times feel rigid, polarised, and disconnected from the emotional complexity of lived experience.

Feminism’s Two Terrains: Structural and Interpersonal

• The first is structural, the institutional and societal frameworks that have historically marginalized women.
• These include issues of political representation, economic opportunity, education, and safety.
• The second is the interpersonal, the realm of relationships, family dynamics, and everyday interactions.
• While the two inevitably intersect, the danger lies in overextending structural critiques into interpersonal spaces, potentially distorting the human richness of relationships.
• To suggest that every domestic expectation or traditional role is an expression of patriarchal oppression is to flatten the complexity of human interactions.
• For instance, in many Indian households, men silently sacrifice comfort and endure harsh work conditions to support their families.
• A husband may expect a home-cooked meal, but also hand over his entire income to his wife.
• These actions are steeped not merely in control, but also in care, duty, and emotional dependence.
• Such contradictions do not absolve patriarchy, but they complicate it, and understanding these layers is crucial to building a truly inclusive feminist framework.

Structural Change and Everyday Negotiations

• This complexity extends to how social change is affected.
• While systemic reform through protest, legislation, and policy is indispensable, change also emerges through subtle, daily negotiations: a father sending his daughter to college, a husband adjusting to a partner’s career, or a family rethinking traditional gender role.
• These micro-level shifts, especially in marginalised communities, are often facilitated by men who may not identify as feminists but act as quiet allies.
• Acknowledging their role does not weaken feminism, it strengthens it by recognising the multi-dimensional nature of progress.
• There are, of course, clear and egregious instances of gender-based violence and suppression, from honour killings to proxy political representation.
• These demand unequivocal institutional intervention and cultural transformation.
• To address such structural barriers, we must build the state’s capacity to deliver justice and protection effectively.
• However, the most sustainable feminist interventions are those that work at both the institutional and societal levels, and that are sensitive to context and diversity of experience.

A Major Challenge in Contemporary Feminist Discourse: The Dangers of Collapsing Contexts

• A major challenge in contemporary feminist discourse is the tendency to collapse varied experiences into a singular narrative.
• The struggles of an urban, financially independent woman navigating domestic expectations are profoundly different from the existential threats faced by rural women lacking basic safety.
• Yet, too often, feminist rhetoric treats these inequities as part of a homogenous whole.
• This not only risks misrepresenting reality but also alienates potential allies, particularly men, who may themselves be navigating vulnerability and hardship.
• Indeed, many men today feel embattled, a sentiment that, while sometimes exaggerated, is not always unfounded.
• A man who earns less and faces public humiliation may not immediately recognise his privilege over a woman who, though unpaid, is shielded from those same indignities.
• Such complexities must be acknowledged if feminism is to build solidarity rather than provoke defensiveness.

The Way Forward: Towards a Compassionate Feminism

• In today’s hyper-antagonistic social climate, a more compassionate feminism may be the need of the hour.
• This is not a retreat from principles, but a strategic and ethical recalibration.
• A feminism that recognises the emotional and economic pressures faced by men, particularly those on the margins, has the potential to invite empathy and support, rather than opposition.
• What we need now is a feminism that can hold contradiction without collapsing into complicity.
• One that distinguishes between systemic injustice and interpersonal dynamics, that respects cultural context while pushing for reform, and that views men not solely as oppressors, but also as partners in the struggle for equality.
• Such a feminism is better equipped to transform society because it begins not with blame, but with understanding. 

Conclusion

• In male-female relationships, where the personal is inevitably political, an adversarial stance may sometimes be necessary, but it should not be the default.
• A feminism rooted in solidarity, humility, and care may be more powerful in the long run.
• After all, the goal is not just to dismantle patriarchy, but to reimagine relationships, both personal and political, in ways that are equitable, respectful, and deeply human.

Q1. What major event brought gender equity to the center of Indian politics?
Ans, The implementation of the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023, brought gender equity to the forefront of Indian political discourse.

Q2. What are the two terrains of feminist concern mentioned in the essay?
Ans.  There are two main terrains of feminist concern: structural issues that involve societal and institutional systems, and interpersonal relationships that shape daily life and family dynamics.

Q3. Why is collapsing different women’s experiences into one narrative problematic?
Ans. Collapsing different women’s experiences into a single narrative is problematic because it oversimplifies complex realities and can hide important distinctions between types of inequities.

Q4. How can men contribute to feminist progress according to the essay?
Ans. Men can contribute to feminist progress by supporting women in everyday life, showing emotional and economic commitment, and participating in small, meaningful acts of change.

Q5. What role do everyday negotiations play in advancing gender equality according to the essay?

Ans. Everyday negotiations, such as changes in family routines and supportive actions by individuals, play a crucial role in advancing gender equality alongside structural reforms. 

Source:The Hindu