The Centre launched the first phase of the Model Youth Gram Sabha (MYGS), a pioneering initiative that seeks to introduce the concept of Gram Sabhas into school classrooms across India. Inspired by the Model United Nations (MUN)—an educational simulation of the United Nations—the MYGS initiative aims to nurture civic awareness, grassroots democracy, and participatory governance among schoolchildren, particularly in rural and tribal areas. This is the first time in India that students are being actively involved in a structured simulation of village governance at the national level.
The initiative is spearheaded by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj (MoPR) in collaboration with the National Institute of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (NIRDPR), the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. For FY 2025–26, a budget of ₹8.5 crore has been allocated for the initiative. Additionally, each participating school will receive a support of ₹20,000 to organize mock Gram Sabha sessions, ensuring that resources are available for smooth implementation.
The MYGS initiative is designed with multiple objectives aimed at fostering democratic awareness and participatory skills among youth:
Civic Education and Engagement: Educate rural and tribal students about democratic processes, rights, and responsibilities.
Early Exposure to Democracy: “Catch them young” by making grassroots democracy a lived experience, rather than a theoretical concept.
Cultivation of Public Service Values: Build a generation that sees local governance as a meaningful avenue for public service.
Revival of Gram Sabha Participation: Strengthen participatory governance by reviving interest and engagement in Gram Sabha proceedings.
The initiative incorporates simulation-based learning, where students actively participate in mock Gram Sabha sessions. Key features include:
Student-Led Governance Simulation: Students assume various roles such as Sarpanch, Ward Members, Villagers, Village Secretary, ANM, Anganwadi Worker, and Junior Engineer to simulate real-world governance processes.
Hands-On Learning: Students discuss local issues, debate resolutions, draft village development plans, and prepare mock village budgets. This encourages discussion, consensus-building, and problem-solving, rather than passive learning.
Training Cascade Model: National Level Master Trainers (NLMTs) will train teachers, who will then guide student sessions, ensuring effective knowledge dissemination and uniformity in implementation.
Competitions and Rewards: To motivate participation, regional and national-level competitions will be held. Awards include ₹1 crore for 1st prize, ₹75 lakh for 2nd prize, and ₹50 lakh for 3rd prize, along with certificates for all participating schools.
The first phase of the initiative targets approximately 620 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas (JNVs) and 200 Eklavya Model Residential Schools (EMRSs), totaling around 1,100–1,200 schools. Government schools in Maharashtra and Karnataka have been included as volunteer states. Phase II will expand the program to cover more schools nationwide, thereby scaling its reach and impact.
The MYGS initiative represents the first structured national attempt to involve schoolchildren directly in village-level governance. Its significance lies in:
Youth Participation and Leadership: Encourages students to actively participate in decision-making, fostering leadership qualities from a young age.
Bridging Theory and Practice: Translates classroom learning about Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) into practical experience.
Civic Literacy and Ethical Governance: Enhances awareness about democratic responsibilities, ethical governance, and social accountability.
Social Inclusion: Targets rural and tribal youth, promoting inclusive civic engagement and bridging socio-economic gaps.
The Model Youth Gram Sabha is a visionary initiative that combines education with civic engagement, creating a generation of informed and responsible citizens who are aware of the workings of grassroots democracy. By simulating real-world governance processes, the initiative not only fosters leadership and participatory skills but also strengthens social inclusion, civic literacy, and democratic ethos among India’s youth.
The Doctrine of Clean Slate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Court clarified that a successful resolution applicant—i.e., the new owner or buyer of an insolvent company—cannot be held liable for criminal offences or liabilities that arose from the corporate debtor’s past management. This principle reinforces the idea that the company, once revived under the IBC, can start afresh without being burdened by old debts or disputes.
The Clean Slate Doctrine ensures that a company, upon completion of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC, gets a fresh start. Once the company is taken over by a new buyer through an approved resolution plan, it becomes free from all past debts, penalties, and legal liabilities. The legal foundation of this doctrine lies in Section 31 of the IBC, which provides that the approved resolution plan is binding on all stakeholders, including government authorities. This legal certainty is crucial to ensure confidence among investors and facilitate the revival of distressed companies.
The Clean Slate Doctrine serves several important purposes. Firstly, it attracts genuine investors by providing them with certainty and finality regarding their investment. Secondly, it prevents the new management from being burdened with old disputes, hidden liabilities, or pending claims that could hinder operational efficiency. Lastly, the doctrine ensures the smooth and timely revival of insolvent companies, contributing to overall economic stability and the protection of jobs.
Several landmark judicial rulings have shaped and reinforced the Clean Slate Doctrine under the IBC:
Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019): The Supreme Court (SC) held that once the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves a resolution plan, all previous claims and liabilities of the company are extinguished.
Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC (2021): The SC reaffirmed that even government dues not included in the resolution plan are effectively written off.
Surya Exim Case (Gujarat HC, 2024): The Gujarat High Court reiterated that, post-approval of the resolution plan, no new tax or other claims can be raised for periods prior to the insolvency resolution.
These rulings collectively emphasize that the company’s revival under the IBC is meant to be free from past entanglements, creating a truly clean slate for new management.
While the doctrine protects the company, it does not shield the former directors or management from personal or criminal liability. Individuals responsible for past actions may still face legal consequences, ensuring accountability while allowing the business itself to restart without historical burdens.
The Doctrine of Clean Slate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been reaffirmed by the Delhi High Court. The Court clarified that a successful resolution applicant—i.e., the new owner or buyer of an insolvent company—cannot be held liable for criminal offences or liabilities that arose from the corporate debtor’s past management. This principle reinforces the idea that the company, once revived under the IBC, can start afresh without being burdened by old debts or disputes.
The Clean Slate Doctrine ensures that a company, upon completion of the insolvency resolution process under the IBC, gets a fresh start. Once the company is taken over by a new buyer through an approved resolution plan, it becomes free from all past debts, penalties, and legal liabilities. The legal foundation of this doctrine lies in Section 31 of the IBC, which provides that the approved resolution plan is binding on all stakeholders, including government authorities. This legal certainty is crucial to ensure confidence among investors and facilitate the revival of distressed companies.
The Clean Slate Doctrine serves several important purposes. Firstly, it attracts genuine investors by providing them with certainty and finality regarding their investment. Secondly, it prevents the new management from being burdened with old disputes, hidden liabilities, or pending claims that could hinder operational efficiency. Lastly, the doctrine ensures the smooth and timely revival of insolvent companies, contributing to overall economic stability and the protection of jobs.
Several landmark judicial rulings have shaped and reinforced the Clean Slate Doctrine under the IBC:
Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta (2019): The Supreme Court (SC) held that once the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approves a resolution plan, all previous claims and liabilities of the company are extinguished.
Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons v. Edelweiss ARC (2021): The SC reaffirmed that even government dues not included in the resolution plan are effectively written off.
Surya Exim Case (Gujarat HC, 2024): The Gujarat High Court reiterated that, post-approval of the resolution plan, no new tax or other claims can be raised for periods prior to the insolvency resolution.
These rulings collectively emphasize that the company’s revival under the IBC is meant to be free from past entanglements, creating a truly clean slate for new management.
While the doctrine protects the company, it does not shield the former directors or management from personal or criminal liability. Individuals responsible for past actions may still face legal consequences, ensuring accountability while allowing the business itself to restart without historical burdens.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), India’s premier tax tribunal, recently marked its 84th anniversary with a national symposium, highlighting its enduring role in the country’s tax administration. Established on 25 January 1941 under Section 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1922, ITAT was envisioned as a specialized quasi-judicial body to adjudicate disputes related to direct taxes. Today, it operates under Section 252 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, serving as the final fact-finding authority in direct tax matters and providing taxpayers a robust mechanism for appeal before approaching the higher judiciary.
Often referred to as the “Mother Tribunal”, ITAT is recognized as India’s oldest and most respected tribunal. Its motto, “Nishpaksh, Sulabh, Satvar Nyay”, translates to “Impartial, Easy, and Speedy Justice,” reflecting the tribunal’s commitment to fairness and efficiency. ITAT functions as a quasi-judicial appellate authority, handling appeals against orders passed by the Income Tax Department. It is empowered to review facts, evidence, and legal interpretations, ensuring that disputes are resolved with both technical expertise and judicial prudence.
Core Values and Importance
The tribunal’s core values emphasize independence, accessibility, expertise, and efficiency, making it a cornerstone of India’s tax governance framework. ITAT has been instrumental in ensuring fiscal discipline, reducing the litigation burden on High Courts, and enhancing taxpayer confidence in the fairness of the tax system. Its contribution is not limited to tax disputes; ITAT has also served as a model for other specialized tribunals, such as the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Railway Claims Tribunal, and the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board.
In line with technological advancements, ITAT is undergoing digital transformation, implementing measures such as e-filing of appeals, virtual hearings, and faster disposal of cases. These initiatives aim to make justice more accessible and efficient, reducing delays and enhancing transparency. The tribunal also represents a unique synergy between the judiciary, executive, and tax professionals, fostering a collaborative environment to ensure fair and effective tax governance.
A tribunal is a quasi-judicial body established for the speedy and specialized resolution of disputes in particular areas. Unlike regular courts, tribunals are designed to adjudicate cases more quickly by leveraging technical expertise in specific subjects such as taxation, labor, or administrative matters. The objective is to provide efficient justice in specialized domains without overburdening traditional courts.
The statutory foundation for India’s tribunal system was laid by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, which added Part XIV-A to the Constitution, including Articles 323-A and 323-B.
Article 323-A empowers the Parliament to establish Administrative Tribunals for matters related to the recruitment and service conditions of public servants. These tribunals can be set up at both the Central and State levels, offering a specialized forum for government employment disputes.
Article 323-B provides a framework for the creation of tribunals in other specialized areas such as taxation, land reforms, consumer disputes, and more. This article allows both the Parliament and State Legislatures to enact laws to establish tribunals in specific domains, enabling a structured mechanism for speedy dispute resolution outside traditional courts.
Despite their significance, India’s tribunal system faces several challenges affecting efficiency and judicial independence. One major concern is the lack of independence in the discharge of duties. Excessive executive interference in appointments and the inclusion of technical members in certain tribunals have weakened their autonomy.
Another pressing issue is the high number of pending cases. For instance, as of 2021, the Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts had 7,312 pending cases, while the Armed Forces Tribunal reported 18,829 pending matters. Tribunals also face infrastructure deficiencies, including shortages in human resources, prolonged vacancies, and inadequate service delivery facilities.
Other challenges include jurisdictional disputes between tribunals and regular courts, as well as the absence of integrated administrative control, since nearly 16 central tribunals function under different ministries, resulting in coordination gaps and inefficiencies.
Experts and judicial authorities have proposed several measures to enhance the capacity and independence of tribunals in India. One key recommendation is to ensure the judicial independence of tribunal members by having selection committees dominated by jurists and insulating members from external influence.
The establishment of a National Tribunal Commission (NTC) was also recommended in the landmark case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997). An independent body like the NTC would oversee the administration of all tribunals, ensuring uniformity, efficiency, and independence.
Additionally, timely appointments and increased staffing are necessary to reduce delays. Tribunals should employ permanent, specialized staff instead of relying heavily on deputed personnel. Finally, clarifying jurisdiction and coordination between regular courts and tribunals is essential to minimize disputes, confusion, and overlapping authority.
We provide offline, online and recorded lectures in the same amount.
Every aspirant is unique and the mentoring is customised according to the strengths and weaknesses of the aspirant.
In every Lecture. Director Sir will provide conceptual understanding with around 800 Mindmaps.
We provide you the best and Comprehensive content which comes directly or indirectly in UPSC Exam.
If you haven’t created your account yet, please Login HERE !
We provide offline, online and recorded lectures in the same amount.
Every aspirant is unique and the mentoring is customised according to the strengths and weaknesses of the aspirant.
In every Lecture. Director Sir will provide conceptual understanding with around 800 Mindmaps.
We provide you the best and Comprehensive content which comes directly or indirectly in UPSC Exam.
Offline/Online Class
