Content:
- Double trouble
- Little has changed in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025
Double Trouble
Context : Concerns Over Electoral Integrity
- Public Confidence: The credibility of India’s electoral system is crucial for both voters and political parties.
- ECI Under Scrutiny: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has faced criticism from various stakeholders, including political parties and civil society groups.
- Voter Registration Discrepancies: The recent surge in voter numbers in some states, such as Maharashtra (48 lakh new voters in six months), has raised suspicions.
- Opposition Concerns: Parties like Congress and Trinamool Congress have questioned the voter registration process, highlighting inconsistencies in electoral rolls.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Elections)
Practice Question :Discuss the challenges posed by duplicate EPIC numbers in India’s electoral system and evaluate the feasibility of Aadhaar-based voter deduplication as a solution. Suggest alternative reforms to ensure electoral integrity. (250 words)
EPIC Number Issues and Potential for Duplicate Voting
- Duplicate EPIC Numbers: The ECI acknowledged that some voters share the same Electors Photo Identification Card (EPIC) number.
- Migrant Voter Challenge: A voter could potentially be registered in multiple states due to delays in de-duplication, leading to voting in multiple locations.
- Impact on Electoral Fairness: If elections in different states occur in quick succession, a voter might cast ballots in multiple constituencies, raising questions about election integrity.
Aadhaar as a Solution – Strengths and Limitations
- Aadhaar-Based Deduplication: Linking Aadhaar to voter registration can help restrict a voter to one polling location.
- Citizenship vs. Residency Issue: Aadhaar identifies residents, not necessarily citizens, making it insufficient as the sole proof of voting eligibility.
- Data Privacy Concerns: Linking Aadhaar to voter rolls could lead to misuse, such as profiling of voters, raising privacy and surveillance risks.
- Need for Supplementary Proofs: Biometric verification alone is not foolproof and must be backed by alternative identity verification to prevent exclusion due to technological failures.
Potential Electoral Reforms
- Unique Voter ID System: ECI must ensure that each voter has only one EPIC number linked to a single constituency.
- Regular Voter Database Updates: Frequent and transparent updates to electoral rolls can minimize duplicate registrations.
- Alternative Identity Verification: Alongside Aadhaar-based deduplication, other proofs of citizenship should be mandated to prevent voter exclusion.
- Transparent Process: The ECI should maintain transparency in its de-duplication process and communicate effectively with political stakeholders.
Conclusion
- Ensuring Electoral Integrity: While Aadhaar linking can help restrict a voter to one polling location, it should not be the sole method of verification.
- Balanced Approach Needed: Electoral roll de-duplication must balance security, privacy, and inclusion to ensure no eligible voter is disenfranchised.
- ECI’s Responsibility: A robust verification mechanism, supplemented by clear and fair policies, is necessary to maintain trust in India’s electoral process.
Little has changed in the Income-Tax Bill, 2025
Objective and Structural Changes
- The Income-Tax Bill, 2025, aims to replace the Income-Tax Act, 1961, to simplify taxation.
- The government claims it will enhance clarity, reduce litigation, and create a fairer tax system.
- The existing law (1961) is considered complex, unwieldy, and filled with provisos and exceptions.
- However, a close reading reveals that the changes are largely cosmetic, without substantial reforms.
Relevance :GS 2(Governance) , GS 3(Indian Economy)
Practice Question:Critically analyze whether the Income-Tax Bill, 2025, simplifies taxation or merely restructures the existing law. (250 words)
Lack of Simplification in Legal Language
- Global best practices promote plain language drafting to make laws accessible to common citizens.
- While some argue that legal precision requires complexity, global examples show that clear laws improve compliance and reduce litigation.
- The Bill fails to simplify legal language, maintaining dense and convoluted phrasing.
- Example:
- Replacing “notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary” with “irrespective of anything to the contrary” does little to improve accessibility.
- The fundamental taxation approach remains unchanged, making the Bill more of a restructuring exercise than a reform.
Limited Substantive Changes
- The Bill removes some redundant provisions and consolidates compliance rules into tables and schedules.
- However, this could have been achieved through amendments rather than a complete overhaul.
- Cross-referencing to existing laws continues, making interpretation cumbersome and litigation-prone.
- Example:
- The definition of income under Section 2(49) refers to Section 2(24) of the 1961 law, defeating the purpose of drafting a new statute.
- Courts have already provided interpretations for many provisions; new changes may reopen settled debates, leading to increased litigation and legal uncertainty.
Persisting Litigation and Compliance Burdens
- The Bill fails to address core issues that lead to high litigation in taxation matters.
- Reopening of completed assessments:
- Earlier, authorities needed “reason to believe” income had escaped taxation.
- Post-April 2021, this was changed to “information” suggesting escaped income, relying on undefined risk management strategies.
- The Bill retains these ambiguities, continuing the scope for arbitrary tax reassessments.
Expanded Search and Seizure Powers
- Most controversial aspect: Bill grants tax authorities excessive powers to conduct search and seizure operations.
- Fundamental concerns post-Puttaswamy judgment (2017):
- The Supreme Court affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right.
- Existing search and seizure powers already face constitutional scrutiny.
- Instead of limiting these powers, the Bill expands them to digital spaces:
- Officials can inspect any electronic device, emails, social media accounts, and cloud storage.
- If a taxpayer denies access, authorities can override access codes to retrieve data.
- No judicial oversight on these expanded powers, increasing risks of government overreach and misuse.
- This legalizes digital intrusions, raising serious privacy and constitutional concerns.
Key Takeaways and Recommendations
- The Bill does not fundamentally alter tax policy, instead offering a restructured version of the old law.
- Legal complexity and litigation risks remain, making compliance difficult for taxpayers.
- Expanded search powers risk violating privacy rights, necessitating urgent reconsideration.
- A piecemeal approach to reform through targeted amendments would be more effective than repealing and reenacting the entire law.
- The Select Committee should review and reconsider the need for this Bill, especially its draconian enforcement provisions.
