What is the common examiner trap about Polity in UPSC exams?

They may ask about the number of workers (7,520) or the financial sanction (₹300 crore) but swap the context—e.g., asking about the amount disbursed for regularisation (it was for arrears/compliance, not the scheme cost itself). They might also confuse the roles of the single judge vs. the division bench.

What should UPSC aspirants remember about Polity for Prelims?

1. Target this Data: 7,520 workers under the Andaman & Nicobar DRMs Regularisation Scheme 2023. 2. Target this Nodal Body: Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) - mandated to approve the scheme. 3. Target this Legal Point: The 'policy decision' defence is unavailable when court orders involve enforcing fundamental/basic human rights.

PolityGovernance

Take AI Challenge ▸

News 12 of 27

Calcutta HC Directs Centre to Regularise 7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors in Andaman & Nicobar Under 2023 Scheme

Q: Which central government department was directed by the Calcutta High Court to approve the regularisation scheme for Daily Rated Mazdoors?

Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), The Calcutta High Court's division bench was dealing with a plea by the Union of India challenging a single judge's order that mandated the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to approve the regularisation scheme. DoPT is the nodal agency for personnel matters in the central government.

Q: Consider the following statements regarding the Calcutta High Court judgment on regularising Daily Rated Mazdoors: 1. The court ordered the regularisation of workers under a scheme framed in 2023 for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 2. The judgment held that the defence of 'policy decision' is always available to the government against court orders. 3. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the Umadevi case while delivering its order. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Both 1 and 3, Statement 1 is correct: The court was dealing with the 'Andaman and Nicobar Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) (Engagement and Regularisation) Scheme 2023'. Statement 2 is incorrect: The court explicitly ruled that the 'policy decision' shield is NOT available when implementation involves fulfilling the state's duty to enforce fundamental or basic human rights. Statement 3 is correct: The government's counsel argued the scheme was against principles laid down in the Umadevi case, which the court addressed in its order.

Q: According to the news, how many Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) are to be regularised as per the Calcutta High Court's order?

7,520, The article clearly states that the Calcutta High Court has ordered the centre to accord approval to a regularisation scheme for over seven thousand Daily Rated Mazdoors, specifying the number as 7,520 in the context of the government's argument against en masse regularisation.

Q: What was a key legal principle established by the Calcutta High Court regarding government 'policy decisions' in this judgment?

A one-time sanction or approval cannot be classified as a general 'policy decision'., The court clarified the legal test for a 'policy', stating it must be a conscious plan of action, general in nature, and not confined to specific cases or one-time instances. It specifically noted that 'a single grant of approval to a scheme cannot be placed on the high ground of a 'policy decision' of the government.'

Polity Social IssuesSUPPORT

Target:UPSC GS-IIMPSCTeachingSSC GAPrelims HighMains HighStatic GK Link

30 Apr 2026

~2 min

Source: Indian Express

Key Data:7,520 workers₹300 croreScheme 202338-year battle

Bodies:Calcutta High CourtDepartment of Personnel and Training (DoPT)Supreme Court

Practice MCQs from today's news ▸

~2 min · Quick mode

What This Article Covers

1.Calcutta HC's division bench orders DoPT to approve a regularisation scheme for 7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors in A&N Islands after a 38-year legal struggle.

2.Court clarifies that a 'policy decision' shield is unavailable when court directions involve fulfilling the state's duty to enforce fundamental or basic human rights.

3.The judgment critiques the 'victim mentality' and the untenable argument that compliance occurred only under the 'threat of contempt'.

The Big Picture

Prelims · HighMains · High

The Calcutta High Court has mandated the Central Government to regularise 7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, rejecting the 'policy decision' defence. This landmark judgment reinforces that financial burden cannot shield the state from its constitutional duties to protect fundamental rights.

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

Workers to be Regularised7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs)

Scheme NameAndaman and Nicobar Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) (Engagement and Regularisation) Scheme 2023

Key Legal Precedent CitedSecretary, State of Karnataka and others v Umadevi and others

Financial Sanction Involved₹300 crore

1-Minute Revision

›Workers to be Regularised: 7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs)
›Scheme Name: Andaman and Nicobar Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) (Engagement and Regularisation) Scheme 2023
›Target this Data: 7,520 workers under the Andaman & Nicobar DRMs Regularisation Scheme 2023.
›Target this Nodal Body: Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) - mandated to approve the scheme.
›Target this Legal Point: The 'policy decision' defence is unavailable when court orders involve enforcing fundamental/basic human rights.

Mastered this topic? Test your knowledge with a full MCQ quiz.

Practice exam-style questions, track your score, and strengthen your recall.

News Snapshot

⚖️

Judicial Mandate on Regularisation

Calcutta HC orders the Centre to approve the 2023 regularisation scheme for 7,520 DRMs, stating the state cannot maintain double standards.

🛡️

Policy Shield is Not Absolute

Court rules that the defence of 'policy decision' is unavailable when a court order involves enforcing fundamental or basic human rights.

💸

Financial Cost ≠ Policy Immunity

The judgment clarifies that mere financial consequences of a beneficial scheme do not elevate it to a protected 'policy decision'.

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

The litigation originated from a 1988 office memorandum regarding pay and regularisation of casual workers in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Following decades of legal battle, a 2022 division bench order directed the administration to frame a regularisation scheme, which was notified in August 2023. The current appeal by the Union of India challenged a single judge's February order that mandated the DoPT to approve this 2023 scheme.

Core Analysis & Implications

The court's reasoning is multi-faceted. First, it establishes that the standards governing the Union Government are higher than those for ordinary citizens, preventing 'double standards'. Second, it draws a critical legal distinction: a 'policy decision' must be a conscious, general plan of action, not a one-time sanction like approving a court-directed scheme. Third, it underscores that financial burden (like the ₹300 crore disbursed) alone cannot confer policy immunity, especially when fundamental rights are at stake. The judgment also firmly rejects the administration's 'victim mentality' and the argument that compliance was due to a 'threat of contempt', affirming that court judgments are binding irrespective of such threats.

Future Outlook / Way Forward

The Centre must now comply with the order to regularise the 7,520 DRMs. This judgment sets a significant precedent for similar long-pending regularisation cases across the country, particularly those involving casual and contract workers. It reinforces judicial authority in ensuring the state fulfills its constitutional duties, potentially limiting the government's ability to use 'policy' as a blanket defence against implementing welfare-oriented court orders.

Doctrine of Precedents & 'Living Law'

The court addressed the government's reliance on the Umadevi case, which cautioned against mass regularisation. It held that judicial opinion evolves with society's 'lived realities' and precedents cannot be 'frozen in time'. Echoing the Constitution as a 'living document', the judgment asserts that the 'law of precedents' must also be dynamic, allowing for interpretation in consonance with contemporary needs and contexts.

Key Facts at a Glance

Workers to be Regularised7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs)

Scheme NameAndaman and Nicobar Casual Labourers/Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) (Engagement and Regularisation) Scheme 2023

Key Legal Precedent CitedSecretary, State of Karnataka and others v Umadevi and others

Financial Sanction Involved₹300 crore

You've read the full analysis. Now test your understanding.

Practice exam-style questions based on this article.

Q1Static LinkageEasyUPSC, SSC, State PSC

Which central government department was directed by the Calcutta High Court to approve the regularisation scheme for Daily Rated Mazdoors?

Q2Statement-basedHardUPSC, State PSC

Consider the following statements regarding the Calcutta High Court judgment on regularising Daily Rated Mazdoors:

1. The court ordered the regularisation of workers under a scheme framed in 2023 for the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

2. The judgment held that the defence of 'policy decision' is always available to the government against court orders.

3. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in the Umadevi case while delivering its order.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Q3Data-centricMediumUPSC, SSC, State PSC

According to the news, how many Daily Rated Mazdoors (DRMs) are to be regularised as per the Calcutta High Court's order?

Q4Application/ImpactMediumUPSC, State PSC

What was a key legal principle established by the Calcutta High Court regarding government 'policy decisions' in this judgment?

All 25 MCQs ▸

Read original article from Indian Express

You finished this topic

Practice 3 MCQs from this news Next Article

Explore Related Topics

PolityView Topic MCQs →Social IssuesView Topic MCQs →

PreviousCentre's ₹81,000 Cr Great Nicobar Project Covers 166.1 sq km, Fells 7.11 Lakh Trees; Claims No Tribal Relocation for Strategic Indo-Pacific Role Next AIIMS Submits Review Plea Citing Severe Risks of 24-Week MTP, Child with 755g Birth Weight Suffered Life-Long Complications

Related Current Affairs

Polity Current Affairs

Centre Seeks SC Exemption for CSE 2025, 2026 from OBC Creamy Layer Income Test Retroactivity

The Centre has urged the Supreme Court to keep CSE 2025 and 2026 out of the Rohith Nathan judgment's retrospective operation, allowing the older OBC creamy layer income test to continue. It warns that retrospective application would hit 3.7 lakh OBC recruitments since 2016 and trigger widespread litigation across Railways, Banks, Posts and paramilitary.

Polity Current Affairs

Calcutta HC Orders 5 Fast-Track Courts for NEET Paper Leak Cases Under 2024 Act

The Calcutta High Court has ordered five dedicated fast-track courts—three in Kolkata and two in Port Blair—to exclusively try NEET paper leak cases under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, with a strict deadline to conclude trial within three months from filing of charge-sheet. This move aims to expedite justice in one of India's biggest education scandals and follows nationwide protests and the resignation of the Union Education Minister.

Polity Current Affairs

Calcutta HC Cancels OBC-A and OBC-B Certificates Issued Under 2025 TMC Rules

The Calcutta High Court has cancelled all OBC certificates issued under the OBC-A and OBC-B categories created by the previous TMC government in 2025. This landmark ruling affects thousands of certificate holders who will now be treated as general category candidates, directly impacting reservation policies and state-level classification powers.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Directs Centre on NTA Reform: Radhakrishnan & Nilekani Committee Recommendations

The Supreme Court has directed the Centre to file an affidavit on implementing recommendations of the K Radhakrishnan and Nandan Nilekani committees to reform the NTA, aiming to make it a vibrant, foolproof institution like the UPSC. The court stressed institutionalisation with proper infrastructure, manpower, and technology to prevent exam leaks and ensure integrity.

Polity Current Affairs

Bihar GAD Reasserts Parents' Salaries, Agricultural Income Exempt in OBC Creamy Layer Test

Bihar's GAD order of September 1, 2026 reiterates that parents' salaries and agricultural income cannot be included in the income test for determining OBC creamy layer status. This follows the Supreme Court's March 11 Rohith Nathan judgment, which flagged 'hostile discrimination' in how the income test was applied differently. The Centre has separately sought SC clarity, even arguing that salary income may be the 'sole intelligible differentia' between OBC candidates in some cases.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Issues Notice to Centre on Plea to Ban Polygamy Under Section 82 BNS Uniformly

The Supreme Court has sought the Centre's response on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of polygamy among Muslims, arguing it violates gender equality and is a primary driver of female destitution. The plea seeks uniform application of Section 82 BNS (bigamy law) and compulsory registration of Muslim marriages. This case could reignite the Uniform Civil Code debate and has implications for personal law reforms.

Polity Current Affairs

Madras HC Directs TN Chief Secretary to Form Panel on POCSO, Juvenile Justice Gaps

The Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu government to form a committee of Home, Health, and Law Secretaries to address systemic gaps in implementing the POCSO and Juvenile Justice Acts. The court made key suggestions including gender-neutral application of POCSO, avoiding criminalizing consensual adolescent relationships, and establishing protocols for medical termination of pregnancy and child witness deposition rooms. This is crucial for UPSC aspirants as it touches upon child rights, judicial activism, and state governance.

Polity Current Affairs

SC Stays UGC Equity Regulations 2026 as 'Vague', Centre Reconsiders Framework

The Centre informed the Supreme Court that the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 — aimed at preventing caste-based discrimination on campuses — is under reconsideration. The SC had earlier stayed the regulations, calling them 'prima facie vague' and potentially divisive. The 2012 regulations remain in force.

Start Today's Quiz(25 Qs)

Take Today's Quiz

25 Qs • 5-7 Mins

Calcutta HC Directs Centre to Regularise 7,520 Daily Rated Mazdoors in Andaman & Nicobar Under 2023 Scheme

Exam Lens

Quick Exam Facts From News

1-Minute Revision

News Snapshot

Judicial Mandate on Regularisation

Policy Shield is Not Absolute

Financial Cost ≠ Policy Immunity

Detailed Analysis & Strategic Depth

Context / Background

Core Analysis & Implications

Future Outlook / Way Forward

Doctrine of Precedents & 'Living Law'

Prelims Flashpoints

Key Facts at a Glance