Q.1: Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

 The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) was enacted to ensure free and fair elections, a cornerstone of Indian democracy under Article 324. To safeguard electoral integrity, the Act clearly defines “corrupt practices” under Sections 123–136, which, if proven, can lead to disqualification and even annulment of elections.

Core Provisions of ‘Corrupt Practices’ under RPA
 Section 123 lists the following as corrupt practices:

• Bribery (123(1)): Offering money, gifts, or gratification to influence voting behaviour.
• Undue Influence (123(2)): Threats, inducements, or spiritual/psychological pressure interfering with voters’ free choice.
• Appeals on religion, caste, community, language, or race (123(3) & 123(3A)).
• Use of National Symbols/Religion (123(3)): Seeking votes in the name of God or religious institutions.
• Publication of false statements (123(4)) damaging a rival candidate’s reputation.
• Use of Government machinery (123(7)): Misuse of officials, vehicles, or resources during elections.
• Exceeding expenditure limits (123(6)): False accounts or unaccounted spending.

The Supreme Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (2017) expanded the interpretation by ruling that any appeal to religion, caste, or community constitutes corrupt practice.

 Asset Growth would led to ‘Undue Influence’and consequently a corrupt practice

• Wealth used for inducements → Potential undue influence
• Patronage networks → Buying loyalty, undermining fairness
• Erodes Free & Fair Elections → Voter’s choice distorted by money, muscle, or manipulation

• Weakens Political Equality→ Rich candidates dominate, poor excluded

• Promotes Criminalization of Politics–43% of 2019 Lok Sabha MPs declared criminal cases, rising to 46% in 2024,→ Legislators with tainted background thrive

• Undermines Public Trust→ Citizens lose faith in institutions & rule of law

• Policy Capture → Elected leaders prioritize benefactors, not citizens

• Threatens Constitutional Value   → Violates democracy, equality, and integrity principles

Challenges

• RPA does not explicitly list disproportionate assets as a “corrupt practice,” its implications—money power, inducements, and voter manipulation—fall within undue influence.

• Loopholes: Assets hidden under benami names or family members.
• Weak enforcement: Election Commission cannot conduct detailed financial audits
• Judicial delays: Corruption cases drag for decades, blunting deterrence.

Way Forward

• Independent auditing of affidavits by ECI/Lokpal.
• Real-time disclosure through integrated PAN–Aadhaar–GST tracking.
• Stricter penalties for concealment, including immediate disqualification.
• Public funding of elections to reduce reliance on black money.
• Fast-track courts for electoral corruption cases.

Conclusion
 The RPA, 1951 lays a robust foundation against corrupt practices. While disproportionate asset growth is not directly codified as such, its link to undue influence and erosion of electoral fairness makes it a serious concern. The future of electoral integrity rests on tightening disclosure norms, empowering regulators, and punishing offenders swiftly—to ensure that democracy reflects the people’s will, not illicit wealth.

Q.2 Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

 India’s judiciary faces massive pendency—As of February 7, 2025, the pending caseload stands at 4.57 crore, reflecting a 0.63 per cent increase in just over a month. To address technical disputes and reduce judicial backlog, the Constitution under Articles 323A and 323B provided for administrative tribunals. They were meant to complement courts by offering specialised, speedy, and cost-effective adjudication.

Need of administrative tribunals
 Tribunals bring functional advantages that regular courts struggle to offer:

• Speed and Accessibility: Regional benches reduce delays and costs for litigants.
• Expertise: Bodies like the National Green Tribunal (NGT, 2010) or NCLT blend judicial and technical expertise, unlike generalist courts.
• Judicial burden reduction: Service, tax, and corporate disputes are channelled out of mainstream courts, easing pendency.
• Simplified procedure: Tribunals follow less formal, flexible processes compared to lengthy CPC/CrPC procedures.

Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 – Provisions

• Abolished certain appellate tribunals (e.g., Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), Plant Varieties Tribunal, Airport Appellate Tribunal).
• Merged many into existing bodies (e.g., Competition Appellate Tribunal → NCLAT, Cyber Tribunal → TDSAT).
• Appeals from abolished tribunals shifted to High Courts.

Positive Aspects

Streamlining Justice System → reduced fragmentation by merging low-case tribunals.

Consistency of Judgments → High Courts ensure uniformity in interpretation.

Reduced Administrative Burden → fewer bodies to manage, less duplication.

Constitutional Alignment → greater judicial accountability since tribunals often faced executive control in appointments.

Negative Aspects

Burden on High Courts → already overburdened; shifting appeals increases pendency.

Loss of Expertise → technical matters may suffer due to lack of domain knowledge in High Courts.

Accessibility Issues → litigants earlier approached specialized tribunals at local levels; now must go to High Courts, increasing cost and time.

Judicial Independence Concerns → despite reforms, executive continues to influence appointments/tenure of tribunal members (SC raised concerns in Madras Bar Association cases).

Executive dominance in appointments and 4-year tenure raised questions of independence.

Way Forward

• Establish a National Tribunals Commission for appointments and oversight.
• Ensure longer, secure tenures (5–7 years) to preserve independence.
• Expand digital platforms for e-filing and hearings to improve accessibility.
• Adopt a uniform procedural framework across tribunals.

Conclusion
 Tribunals remain central to India’s justice delivery system—providing expertise and efficiency. However, the 2021 reforms, while rationalising structures, risked diluting independence and increasing judicial load. For tribunals to serve their constitutional purpose, reforms must focus on autonomy, accountability, and access rather than mere cost-cutting.

Q13. Compare and contrast the President’s power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are preemptive pardons? (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
 The power to pardon embodies the “sovereign’s prerogative of mercy”—meant to correct judicial errors, soften harsh punishments, and balance justice with compassion. While both India and the USA empower their Presidents with this authority, the scope, limitations, and accountability mechanisms differ significantly, reflecting their distinct constitutional systems.

Pardoning Power in India (Article 72 & 161)

• Article 72: President may pardon, reprieve, respite, remit, or commute punishments for:
  1. Offences under Union laws.
  2. Court-martial cases.
  3. Death sentences.
• Governor (Art. 161): Similar powers at the state level, excluding death penalties.
• Nature: President exercises the power on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Art. 74).
• Judicial Review: Limited review possible—Maru Ram v. Union (1980), Kehar Singh (1989), Epuru Sudhakar (2006) held that decisions can be challenged if mala fide, arbitrary, or discriminatory.
• Recent Example: Debate on mercy petitions in Nirbhaya (2012 case) showed the checks of judicial and executive coordination.

Pardoning Power in the USA (Article II, Sec. 2)

• Scope: President can pardon, reprieve, or commute sentences for federal offences
• Nature: A personal executive power, not bound by Cabinet advice.
• Judicial Review: None—US Supreme Court in Ex Parte Garland (1866) held that pardons are beyond judicial scrutiny.
• Practice: Used expansively—President Ford’s pre-emptive pardon of Nixon (Watergate, 1974); Trump’s pardons of aides in 2020.
• Limitations: Cannot override impeachment, applies only to federal (not state) crimes.Comparison Table: India vs USA (Pardoning Power)

Explicit limits on the pardoning power

• Bound by advice: President acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Art. 74); not a personal prerogative.
• Judicial review (limited): SC in Maru Ram (1980), Kehar Singh (1989), Epuru Sudhakar (2006) — mercy orders can be struck down for mala fides, arbitrariness, irrelevant considerations, non-application of mind, or ignoring material facts.
• Federal scope: President’s power covers Union offences, court-martial cases, and death sentences; Governor’s power covers State law offences (not death-penalty pardons).A (Art. II, §2, U.S. Constitution)
• Jurisdictional limits: Applies only to federal offences; no role in state crimes; cannot affect impeachment.
• No judicial review of validity: Courts generally cannot review a validly issued pardon (Ex parte Garland, 1866).
• No prospective immunity: Pardon can be pre-emptive for past acts not yet charged, but cannot authorize future crimes.
• Political/constitutional checks: Pardon used for bribery or obstruction can itself expose officials to liability; misuse risks impeachment and electoral sanction.
• Self-pardon: Unsettled in practice; widely contested constitutionally.

Pre-emptive Pardons: A pardon granted before conviction or even before initiation of trial, effectively preventing prosecution.

USA: Recognized and practiced. Example – President Gerald Ford granted a preemptive pardon to Richard Nixon (1974) for any crimes during Watergate.

India: Not recognised—mercy jurisdiction arises only after conviction/sentencing..

Conclusion
 The Indian system is parliamentary and reviewable, ensuring checks against misuse, while the US system is presidential and absolute, with minimal checks beyond political accountability. Both systems highlight the tension between justice and mercy, but differ in how much discretion the President truly wields.

Q.4 Discuss the nature of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Briefly describe the powers and functions of the Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
 The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370, bifurcated the former state into two Union Territories—J&K (with a legislature) and Ladakh (without one). The new J&K Legislative Assembly functions within the framework of a Union Territory with partial state-like powers, closer to Delhi and Puducherry, but with more restrictions.

Nature of the Assembly

• Unicameral structure: Earlier bicameral legislature was replaced by a single house; Legislative Council abolished.
• Composition: Up to 114 members (90 elected + nominated for women, minorities, Kashmiri migrants, PoK displaced persons).
• Lieutenant Governor’s Role: Executive head of the UT; Assembly decisions on reserved subjects (land, police, public order) require LG’s approval.
• Status: A hybrid—democratically elected but less autonomous than a state legislature.

Powers and Functions

• Legislative Powers:
  • Can legislate on State and Concurrent List subjects (except public order, police, land, local government).
  • Parliament retains overriding authority.
• Financial Powers: Passes budget, Appropriation Bills, and taxes on state subjects.
• Executive Oversight: Council of Ministers headed by CM is collectively responsible to the Assembly.
• Special Functions: Inclusion of reserved seats gives voice to displaced groups (e.g., PoK refugees).

Value Addition

• Before 2019: J&K had its own Constitution, flag, and residuary powers; now it is fully under the Indian Constitution with reduced autonomy.
• Delimitation (2022): Increased elected Assembly seats from 83 to 90 (total 114 including 24 for PoK), with Jammu gaining representation (43 vs 47 in Kashmir).
• Elections (2024): First polls since 2014 held in Sept–Oct 2024; 64% turnout, NC–Congress alliance formed govt; but key powers like law & order remain with the Lt. Governor.

 Challenges

• Reduced autonomy risks political alienation.
• Centre-heavy control via LG may limit local self-rule.
• Delayed elections undermine democratic legitimacy.

Way Forward

• Conduct timely elections to restore representative government.
• Balance security needs with developmental autonomy.
• Strengthen Assembly’s role in welfare, employment, and rehabilitation to regain public trust.

Conclusion
 The post-2019 J&K Assembly is a democratic but curtailed institution, ensuring representation within the Union framework. Its credibility will depend on regular elections, effective Centre–UT cooperation, and empowering local voices, to balance national integration with regional aspirations

Q15. “The Attorney General of India plays a crucial role in guiding the legal framework of the Union Government and ensuring sound governance through legal counsel.” Discuss his responsibilities, rights and limitations in this regard. (Answer in 150 words) – 10 marks

Introduction
 The Attorney General of India (AGI), established under Article 76 of the Constitution, is the highest law officer of the Union. By advising the executive, defending the state in courts, and clarifying legal positions in Parliament, the AGI ensures that governance operates within the constitutional framework.

Responsibilities

• Chief Legal Advisor: Advises the Union Government on constitutional, legal, and legislative matters.
• Judicial Representation: Appears on behalf of the Centre in the Supreme Court and High Courts in cases of national importance.
• Parliamentary Role: Can participate in debates and committees of both Houses to explain legal aspects of bills and policies (without voting rights).
• Guardian of Legality: Ensures new laws and executive actions conform with constitutional limits.
• International matters: The AG may advise the Union, but India’s representation before bodies like the ICJ is via a designated MEA ‘Agent’ and appointed external counsel (e.g., Harish Salve in the Jadhav case).

Recent Cases (Illustrative)

• In 2023–24, AG R. Venkataramani defended the Centre in cases involving demonetisation’s legality and same-sex marriage recognition, balancing executive policies with constitutional values.
• In 2025, the AG intervened in the Supreme Court against the ED summoning of senior lawyers for professional opinions, protecting rule of law and professional independence.
• Represented the government in land claim fraud cases in Arunachal Pradesh, safeguarding public finances.

Rights

• Right of audience in all courts of India.
• Right to participate in Parliament and committees.
• Privileges and remuneration as prescribed by the President.

Limitations

• Tenure: Serves at the pleasure of the President; no fixed security.
• Advice not binding: Government may disregard AG’s counsel.
• No voting rights in Parliament.
• Conflict of interest risks: Can undertake private practice, but not against the Government or in criminal defence.

Conclusion
 The AGI is pivotal in guiding the legal framework of governance, defending executive action, and maintaining constitutional order. Recent interventions show the office’s role in balancing legality with governance. Going forward, codifying tenure security, reducing conflict of interest, and strengthening autonomy can further enhance the credibility and effectiveness of this crucial constitutional office.

Q.11 “Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike….” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
 The Supreme Court has observed that “constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike.” Coined by B.R. Ambedkar, constitutional morality implies adherence to the values and procedures of the Constitution—justice, equality, accountability, and respect for institutions—over individual or political expediency.

Concept of Constitutional Morality

• Beyond legality: It requires not just following the letter of the law but upholding constitutional values like liberty, equality, fraternity, and due process.
• Checks on power: Acts as a restraint on all—executive, legislature, judiciary, and citizens—to prevent authoritarianism or majoritarian impulses.
• Supreme Court judgments like Navtej Singh Johar (2018) and Sabarimala (2018) highlighted that constitutional morality must prevail over societal or political morality..

Application to Judicial Independence & Accountability

• Judicial Independence:
  • Judges must be free from external pressure (executive/legislative interference).
  • Constitutional morality ensures insulation of judiciary through Articles 124–147 (Supreme Court), 214–231 (High Courts).
    • Examples: striking down NJAC (2015) to protect independence.
  • Judicial Accountability:
    • Independence cannot mean unaccountability. Constitutional morality requires judges to act with transparency, impartiality, and restraint.
    • Judicial review must respect separation of powers; excessive activism can be seen as overreach.
    • Mechanisms: Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill (proposed), in-house procedures, RTI Act (SC under “public authority”).

Way Forward

• Strengthen collegium transparency and code of conduct for judges.
• Institutionalize mechanisms for judicial performance review without eroding independence.
• Foster a culture of self-restraint and reasoned judgments in line with constitutional values.

Conclusion
 Constitutional morality serves as the balancing beam: it secures the judiciary’s independence as a guardian of rights while demanding accountability to prevent arbitrariness. Only by internalizing these values can the judiciary maintain both public trust and constitutional supremacy.

Q12. The Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power for the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
 The framers of the Constitution provided a flexible yet safeguarded mechanism for constitutional amendments under Article 368. Parliament has wide powers to amend, but these powers are subject to both procedural hurdles and substantive limits, ensuring that amendments strengthen the Constitution without altering its core identity.

Procedural Limitations

• Special Majority: Unlike ordinary laws, amendments require a special majority—two-thirds of members present and voting, and more than half of total membership in each House.
• State Ratification: For federal provisions (e.g., distribution of powers, representation of states in Parliament), ratification by at least half of the state legislatures is necessary. Example: 101st CAA, 2016 (GST).
• No Joint Sitting: Both Houses must independently approve an amendment; Lok Sabha cannot override Rajya Sabha.
• Mandatory Presidential Assent: An amendment cannot become law without it.
• Initiation Power: Only Parliament can initiate amendments; state legislatures have no such role Except regarding abolition or creation of legislative council

 Substantive Limitations

• Basic Structure Doctrine: In Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), the Supreme Court held that Parliament cannot alter the “basic structure” of the Constitution—federalism, secularism, democracy, judicial review, rule of law, etc.
• Judicial Safeguards: Amendments undermining rights or institutional balance were struck down—e.g., Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) (election of PM), Minerva Mills (1980) (primacy of DPSPs over Fundamental Rights), NJAC case (2015) (judicial independence).
• Implied Limits: Amendments cannot abolish judicial review or transform India into a non-democratic, authoritarian regime.

Conclusion
 Thus, the Indian amending process is a middle path—neither rigid like the U.S. Constitution nor flexible like the U.K. Parliament. Procedural checks and substantive limits together ensure that Parliament’s amending power is broad but not absolute, preserving both adaptability and constitutional continuity.

Q.13 Discuss the evolution of the collegium system in India. Critically examine the advantages and disadvantages of the system of appointment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India and that of the USA. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

Introduction
  In India, the collegium system—a judicial innovation—evolved through landmark cases, while the United States follows a more executive–legislative model. Both systems have distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Evolution of the Collegium in India

• Constitutional Text (Articles 124 & 217): Judges are appointed by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India (CJI).
• First Judges Case (S.P. Gupta, 1981): Held executive primacy; “consultation” did not mean concurrence.
• Second Judges Case (1993): Overruled; gave primacy to judiciary. Collegium of CJI + 2 senior-most judges recommended appointments.
• Third Judges Case (1998): Expanded collegium to CJI + 4 senior-most judges; President bound by its recommendation.
• NJAC Act (2014): Sought to replace collegium with National Judicial Appointments Commission (judiciary, executive, eminent persons).
• Supreme Court (2015): Struck down NJAC as violating basic structure (judicial independence). Collegium restored, but directed greater transparency.

Advantages of Collegium (India)

• Protects judicial independence by insulating appointments from political influence.
• Prevents executive overreach in a polarized polity.
• Judicial expertise ensures focus on merit and integrity.

Disadvantages of Collegium

• Opaque and non-transparent process; reasons for selection/rejection not published.
• Perceived as judicial nepotism; limited diversity (women, SC/ST, minorities).
• No external accountability; “judges appointing judges” undermines democratic legitimacy.
• Tyranny of unselected—>Judicial supremacy

1. System of Judicial Appointments

Process of Appointment

1. Vacancy Occurs–Due to retirement, resignation, death, or creation of new judgeship.
2. Nomination by the President– President selects a candidate, often after consultation with: Law clerks, legal advisors, Senators (especially from the same party).

Factors considered: professional competence, ideology, diversity, political considerations.

3. Senate Judiciary Committee Review– Conducts hearings to assess qualifications, integrity, past judgments, ideology. Witnesses and experts may be called to testify.
4. Senate Confirmation— Simple majority vote required in the full Senate.

If approved → President formally appoints the judge.

If rejected → President must nominate another candidate.

5. Life Tenure

Federal judges hold office during good behavior, effectively life tenure unless impeached.

• Process: President nominates → Senate Judiciary Committee hearings → Senate majority confirmation.
• Advantages: Transparent, publicly debated; strong checks and balances.
• Disadvantages: Highly politicized; ideological battles dominate (e.g., confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, 2020). Judges often labelled as “conservative” or “liberal,” undermining perception of neutrality.

Comparative Assessment

• India prioritises independence, but sacrifices accountability and transparency.
• The U.S. ensures public scrutiny and accountability, but judicial appointments become political battlegrounds.
• Both systems highlight the tension between independence vs accountability in democratic governance.

Conclusion
 The collegium system has preserved India’s judicial autonomy but suffers from opacity. A middle path—greater transparency, wider consultations, and diversity in appointments without compromising independence—is needed. Learning from global practices, India must evolve a more participatory and accountable mechanism while retaining judicial primacy.

Q 15. Examine the evolving pattern of Centre–State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India? (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

 India’s fiscal federalism has steadily evolved from a centralized planning model to a Finance Commission–driven, GST-based framework. While the Constitution envisages a cooperative division of resources, recent reforms and fiscal pressures have reshaped Centre–State financial dynamics, raising questions on autonomy and equity.

Evolution of Patterns

• Planning Commission era (1950–2014): States depended heavily on discretionary plan and non-plan grants, creating vertical imbalance.
• Post-2015 shift: The 14th Finance Commission raised States’ share of divisible pool taxes to 42%; the 15th FC retained an effective 41% (accounting for J&K/UTs). This significantly increased untied fiscal space.
• GST (2017): States ceded key indirect taxes for a unified GST, with a 5-year compensation guarantee of 14% revenue growth. Compensation ended in 2022, though the cess continues till 2026 to service earlier borrowings.

Recent Trends

• Cesses and surcharges: Their share in Union gross tax revenues rose from ~10% in 2011–12 to ~20% in 2020–21, easing to ~14–15% in 2023–24. Since these are non-shareable, States’ actual transfers are lower than the 41% headline figure.
• Conditional capital support: Since 2020–21, the Centre has extended 50-year, interest-free loans to States for capital expenditure. In FY 2024–25, ~₹85,700 crore was approved, ₹50,571 crore released by December 2024. This nudges States towards reforms in power, urban finance, and asset monetisation.
• Fiscal stress: RBI reports show several States breaching the 3% FRBM deficit norm, with high debt–GSDP ratios, limiting fiscal space.
• GST Council: Though hailed as a model of cooperative federalism, disputes over compensation, rate rationalisation, and autonomy reflect tensions.

Impact on Fiscal Federalism

• Positives:
  • Predictable tax devolution;
  • stronger State role via GST Council;
  • reform-linked central support.
• Concerns:
  • Shrinking divisible pool,
  • end of GST compensation, and
  • increasing conditionality –dilute States’ fiscal autonomy.

Way Forward

• Limit long-term reliance on cesses/surcharges to expand the divisible pool.
• Calibrate GST 2.0 with simplified rates and revenue stability mechanisms.
• Enhance States’ own tax capacity (property tax, excise).
• Institutionalise fiscal councils for cooperative monitoring and debt sustainability.

Conclusion
 Centre–State financial relations are shifting from discretionary transfers to rules-based federalism. Yet, true fiscal federalism requires not only higher devolution but also trust, predictability, and autonomy so that States can design development strategies suited to their needs.

Q.18 The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has to address the challenges faced by children in the digital era. Examine the existing policies and suggest measures the Commission can initiate to tackle the issue. (Answer in 250 words) – 15 marks

 The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), a statutory body under the CPCR Act, 2005, must safeguard children’s rights in an online ecosystem [marked by cyberbullying, grooming, CSAM, sextortion, deepfakes, gaming addiction, dark patterns, and data harvesting.]

Challenges faced by children in the digital era

1. Exposure to Inappropriate Content–Children may access violent, sexual, or extremist content online.

Example: Social media, online gaming platforms, adult websites.

2. Cyberbullying and Online Harassment– Cyberbullying can lead to anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem– Suicidal cases
3. Addiction and Screen Time– Reduced physical activity → obesity,Sleep disturbances, Attention deficit issues
4. Privacy and Data Vulnerability– Children may share personal information unknowingly.

Risk of identity theft, phishing, or targeted exploitation.

5. Impact on Social Skills—
   1. Over-reliance on digital interaction can reduce face-to-face communication and empathy.
   2. Can affect emotional intelligence and interpersonal relationships.
   3. Educational Inequality–Digital divide Widens the gap in learning outcomes between privileged and underprivileged children.
   4. Mental Health Issues– Anxiety, depression, stress, Body dysmorphic disorder social comparison etc.
   5. Misinformation and Fake News–Impacts critical thinking and decision-making skills.

Existing policy architecture — what India already has

• POCSO Act, 2012 (online sexual abuse; speedy trials); JJ Act, 2015/21 (care & protection).
• IT Act, 2000 + IT Rules, 2021 (Intermediary Due Diligence & 24‑hour takedown for CSAM/non‑consensual intimate images; grievance officers; traceability on lawful orders).
• DPDP Act, 2023 (parental consent; prohibits tracking/targeted ads/behavioural monitoring of children <18 where detrimental; duties on data fiduciaries).
• I4C (Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre) & National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, CERT‑In advisories (operational response), NCERT cyber‑safety handbooks, Childline 1098.

Gaps
 Patchy platform compliance; weak age‑assurance; slow takedowns for cross‑border content; EdTech/data‑broker profiling of minors; school BYOD risks; low parent/teacher digital literacy; limited coordination between NCPCR, police cyber cells, MeitY and State Commissions.

What NCPCR should initiate (measures)

1. Children’s Online Safety Code (India): an “age‑appropriate design code” for all child‑facing services—default high privacy, DM/geo‑tag off by default, no dark patterns, no targeted ads, no recommender rabbit‑holes for minors.
2. Trusted‑flagger & 24×7 escalation cell: MoUs with major platforms for sub‑24‑hour removal of CSAM/deepfakes; standard takedown templates; quarterly transparency reports.
3. EdTech & school audits: a Child Data Minimisation Standard (no profiling, no trackers in homework apps), device filters, classroom MDM, safe‑use SOPs under RTE
4. Age‑assurance sandbox with MeitY: privacy‑preserving methods (no mass KYC) + penalties for mislabelled services.
5. Parental & teacher literacy at scale: plug‑and‑play modules in Hindi + regional languages via DIKSHA/PM e‑Vidya; include cyber‑hygiene in SCERT curricula.
6. Joint protocol with I4C/States: standard FIR checklist for online harms, survivor‑centric POCSO e‑reporting, linkage to 1098 and psychosocial support.
7. NCPCR Research & Harms Observatory: real‑time dashboards on harms, periodic audits of platform compliance, and policy advisories to MeitY/DoSE&L.

Conclusion
 By coupling existing laws with a proactive safety‑by‑design regime, rapid takedowns, EdTech governance, and mass digital literacy, NCPCR can translate rights on paper into real online safety for India’s children.