Daily Current Affairs

September 5, 2025

Current Affairs

India’s plan for creating Theatre Commands in Defence

Context: The debate on creating theatre commands has re-surfaced following discussions at the Ran Samwad 2025 tri-service seminar at the Army War College, Mhow.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Theaterisation of Command: Significance and the Challenges. 

What is Theaterisation?

  • Theaterisation refers to the integration of the Army, Navy, and Air Force resources into unified ‘theatre commands’ for operational deployment under a single commander. 
  • Each theatre command will be responsible for a specific geographical region, enabling better coordination in combat. 
image 20

Current Structure :

  • The Army and Indian Air Force (IAF) currently have seven commands each, and the Navy has three commands. 
  • In addition, there are two tri-service commands: Andaman and Nicobar Command (ANC), and the Strategic Forces Command (SFC) which manages India’s nuclear arsenal.
  • There is also the Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQIDS), which was created after the Kargil conflict to fulfil the need for an institutional framework for higher management of defence.

Rationale for Theaterisation: 

  • Modernisation of warfare: Modern conflicts are multi-domain (land, sea, air, cyber, space, UAVs, precision weapons). Unified command is required to respond effectively.
  • Jointness: India’s forces often operate separately; integration will eliminate duplication and ensure synergy in operations.
  • Learning from advanced militaries: Advanced militaries like the US and China operate through unified commands; India cannot afford “siloed warfare”.
  • Efficient resource utilisation: Optimises limited assets, reduces overlaps, and enhances operational readiness.

Evolution of Theatre Command Plans

  • 2019: Creation of Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) and Department of Military Affairs (DMA); mandate included restructuring into joint/theatre commands.
  • 2020: Gen Bipin Rawat (first CDS) proposed 4 commands: Air Defence, Maritime, Western, Eastern.
  • Post-2021 (after Gen Rawat’s death): an adversary-based joint theatre command was proposed.
    • Northern & Eastern Theatres (China-centric)
    • Western Theatre (Pakistan-centric)
    • Maritime Theatre Command

Ongoing discussions cover command HQs, operational areas, reporting structure, lead service, and integration of ANC & SFC.

Steps already Taken towards Jointness: 

  • Joint logistics nodes established.
  • Cross-postings among services.
  • Integration in procurement, training, and staffing via Headquarters Integrated Defence Staff (HQIDS) and DMA.

Challenges in creating Theatre Commands:

  • Institutional Resistance: Services have operated under independent commands for over 70 years; dismantling them will be disruptive.
  • Inter-Service ‘rivalries’ and Disagreements: 
    • IAF’s concerns over division of its assets
    • Perception of army dominance and 
    • Bias towards threat on land borders, E.g. a proposed single Maritime Theatre Command for Eastern and Western commands of the Indian Navy from Sir Creek to Sunderbans. 
  • Risk of Operational Delays and Decision-making Bottlenecks: Risk of longer decision-making chains if additional command levels are created.
  • One-size-fits-all Model: Blind replication of foreign models (like of the US) may not suit India’s unique threat environment and resource base.
  • Inter-service Dissonance: Despite consensus on the need for integration, divergence remains on how to achieve it, i.e., through theatre commands or by strengthening existing joint structures.

Way Forward

  • Consensus-building: Ensure reforms are consultative, not imposed.
  • Pilot Projects: Test limited theatre structures before nationwide rollout.
  • Future-readiness: Incorporate cyber, space, AI, and electronic warfare into doctrines.
  • Empowering CDS & DMA to overcome institutional inertia.
  • India-specific Model: Tailored to geography, adversaries, and force structure, not copy-paste from other militaries.

Theatre commands are a game-changer reform in India’s higher defence management. However, success depends on addressing doctrinal concerns, ensuring doctrinal balance between Army, Navy, and IAF, and evolving a flexible, India-specific model.

As CDS Gen Chauhan emphasises, the objective is to resolve “dissonance” and build consensus so that the armed forces fight future wars jointly rather than individually. 

Also Read: India needs National Security Doctrine

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Delhi Riots Bail Case 

Context: Delhi High Court declined to grant bail to Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulfisha Fatima, and seven others charged as key conspirators of the February 2020 Delhi riots saying the riots were a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy”.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: UAPA 1967: Provisions and related issues. 

The accused have been charged under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), including Section 16 which prescribes the death penalty for committing Terrorist Act.

What is Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967?

  • UAPA was enacted to give the state powers to deal with activities that threaten the sovereignty and integrity of India.
  • Initially, it targeted unlawful associations, but successive amendments expanded it into India’s principal anti-terror law.
  • Amendments in 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2019 broadened its scope allowing the central government to designate not just organisations but also individuals as terrorists.

Key Provisions of UAPA: 

  • Definition of Terrorist Act (Section 15): Covered acts intended to threaten India’s unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty, or to strike terror in people. Means can include bombs, explosives, firearms, or any other means.
  • Punishments (Section 16): Death penalty or life imprisonment for terrorist acts causing death.
  • Unlawful Activities: Criminalises acts supporting secession, cession of Indian territory, or disrupting sovereignty.
  • Designation of Terrorists (2019 amendment): Individuals can be listed as terrorists without judicial process, based on executive decision.
  • Bail Provisions: Bail is extremely restrictive. Bail cannot be granted if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe accusations are prima facie true (effectively reverses the presumption of innocence).
  • Extended Detention: Police can seek 180 days of detention without filing a charge sheet (compared to 60-90 days under ordinary criminal law).

Delhi Riots Case: 

  • In February 2020, large-scale communal violence broke out in North-east Delhi during protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).
  • The violence resulted in the death of 54 people and damage to more than 1500 properties.
  • The Delhi Police alleged that the riots were not spontaneous but a “premeditated, well-orchestrated conspiracy” involving activists and student leaders.
  • Based on this, several persons including Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, apart from provisions of the IPC.
  • The prosecution argued that conspiracies were hatched through WhatsApp groups, secret meetings, and mobilisation of protest sites, including calls for a “chakka jam”, which allegedly escalated into riots.

Why Bail Was Denied in the Delhi Riots Case?

  • The court applied Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which bars bail if accusations appear prima facie true. 
  • Testimonies of protected witnesses, who claimed that the accused discussed escalation of violence and setting Delhi on fire, were presumed true at this stage. Their credibility cannot be tested during bail.
  • The court emphasised that bail proceedings cannot turn into a detailed evaluation of evidence. Explanations offered by the accused could not be weighed against prosecution material at this stage.
  • The alleged plan to organise a chakka jam was treated as falling under the broad phrase “any other means” in Section 15, thereby qualifying as a terrorist act.
  • Although the accused have spent over five years in jail, the court held that delay alone cannot justify bail, and that an expedited trial conducted in undue haste may compromise fairness and due process.

Issues and Criticism of UAPA: 

  • Stringent Bail Conditions: Almost amounts to “bail not jail” being reversed, as courts presume prosecution’s case true.
  • Prolonged Incarceration: Accused may remain in jail for years without trial, thus the process itself becomes punishment. E.g., In Delhi riots case, accused have spent 5 years without trial raising concerns of violation of Article 21. 
  • Overbroad Definition of ‘Terrorist Act’: The phrase “any other means” under Section 15 expands the scope excessively, creating scope for misuse against peaceful protest and dissent. E.g., A chakka jam was classified as terrorism in the Delhi riots case.
  • Protected Witness System: Limits cross-examination, raises concerns of fair trial and natural justice.
  • Executive Overreach: Power to declare individuals as terrorists without judicial scrutiny undermines separation of powers.
  • Low Conviction Rate: NCRB data shows conviction rate under UAPA is below 30%, yet thousands spend years in pre-trial custody.

Broader Democratic Concerns

  • UAPA is criticised for blurring the line between legitimate dissent and terrorism.
  • It raises questions about Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) and Article 19 (freedom of speech, assembly, and association).
  • In a democracy, misuse of anti-terror laws against protesters risks a chilling effect on free speech.

Way Forward

  • Judicial Safeguard : Courts need to evolve stricter standards of evidence scrutiny at bail stage.
  • Timely Trials: Fast-track courts must ensure UAPA trials are not indefinitely delayed.
  • Narrowing Definitions: Parliament should reconsider vague terms like “any other means” under Section 15.
  • Balance between liberty and security: National security is vital, but so is constitutional liberty; laws must not criminalise dissent.

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed in K.A. Najeeb case (2021), “Courts cannot remain mute spectators when citizens languish in jails under stringent laws with little hope of trial concluding.” While the state must act against orchestrated violence, prolonged incarceration without trial risks turning the “process into punishment”. 

Mains Practice Question:  

Q. The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has been criticised for reversing the principle of ‘bail not jail’. Critically analyse in the context of recent bail rulings in the Delhi riots case.

Should Reservations Exceed the 50% Cap?

Context: The opposition leader in Bihar has pledged to raise the quota limit to 85% if voted to power. At the same time, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the Union government on a petition seeking the introduction of a ‘creamy layer’ system for SCs and STs.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Should reservations exceed the 50 % cap ?

Reservation in the Indian Constitution is envisaged as a corrective mechanism to redress historical injustices and ensure substantive equality. Mere formal equality could not dismantle entrenched social hierarchies in India, and thus reservation empowered the State to adopt affirmative action for disadvantaged groups.

What are the Constitutional Provisions? 

  • Article 15(4) and 15(5) empower the State to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, including SCs and STs, particularly in educational institutions.
  • Article 16(4) allows the State to provide reservations in public employment for backward classes not adequately represented in services.
  • Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B), inserted through constitutional amendments, permit reservation in promotions for SCs and STs and allow the carry forward of unfilled reserved vacancies.
  • Article 46 directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, especially SCs and STs.

The reservation in the Centre at present stands as follows: OBCs (27%), SCs (15%), STs (7.5%) and for the Economically Weaker Section (10%), resulting in a total reservation of 59.5%. 

image 19

Important Court Rulings in this Context: 

  • In Balaji v. State of Mysore (1962), the SC held that reservations should remain within reasonable limits and should not exceed 50%.
  • In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1975), the SC observed that reservation is not an exception to equality, but a facet of equality of opportunity under Article 16; though it did not rule on the 50% ceiling.
  • In Indra Sawhney (1992), the SC upheld 27% reservation for OBCs, and introduced the concept of a creamy layer within OBCs. The court laid down the 50% ceiling rule, subject to extraordinary circumstances. 
  • In Janhit Abhiyan (2022), the SC upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the validity of 10% EWS quota. It clarified that the 50% limit applies only to backward class reservations, and not to the EWS category. 
  • In State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024), the SC upheld the power of states to make sub-classification within SCs/STs. 

Arguments for Exceeding the 50% Cap: 

  • Proportional Representation: Backward classes form a majority of the population, and proportional representation requires a higher quota share.
  • Substantive equality demands going beyond formal equality, as historical injustices and deep-rooted discrimination cannot be addressed with a 50% limit.
  • Address persistent underrepresentation of SCs, STs, and OBCs which still continues, with many reserved posts remaining unfilled.
  • States with higher percentages of marginalised populations argue that a rigid 50% ceiling undermines their autonomy to design policies that reflect their demographic realities. 

Arguments against Exceeding the 50% Cap:

  • Critics argue that excessively high quotas (such as 85%) would violate the constitutional principle of equality of opportunity.
  • Judicial precedents have consistently upheld the 50% ceiling as a safeguard against excessive reservations that may harm merit-based selection.
  • Large numbers of reserved vacancies remain unfilled, suggesting that higher quotas alone may not ensure representation and could worsen backlog vacancies. In the absence of creamy layer exclusion for SCs/STs, benefits get concentrated among advanced sub-groups, leaving the most deprived behind.

Way Forward

  • Policymaking on reservation should be based on empirical evidence from the 2027 Census, which is expected to include caste enumeration.
  • Implement the Rohini Commission’s sub-categorisation to distribute OBC benefits more equitably.
  • Introduce a two-tier system for SCs/STs prioritising the most marginalised sections.
  • Efforts on complementary measures such as skill development, access to quality education, and inclusion of marginalized groups in the private sector.

India needs a consensus-driven solution which balances equality of opportunity with the demands of social justice.

Sickle Cell Anaemia and the battle for Disability Justice

Context: In 2024, the Indian government issued revised guidelines under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016. These guidelines provide a framework for assessing the extent of disability of people with two copies of the sickle cell gene, or with both sickle cell and beta thalassaemia, or Hb D.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Key facts about Sickle Cell Anaemia; Rights to Persons with Disabilities Act 2016.

Mains: Issues in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016.

The RPWD Act 2016 marked a step towards protecting the rights of persons with disabilities, and promoting their full inclusion in society. The law aligns with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and promises dignity, equality, and non-discrimination. 

About Rights to Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

  • The Act defines persons with disabilities as a person with physical, intellectual, or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others. 
  • Types of disabilities covered under the Act are increased from 7 to 21. It includes various physical and mental disabilities like acid attack victims, dwarfism and Autism Spectrum Disorder.
  • Persons with benchmark disabilities are entitled to free school education up to 18 years of age, reservations in higher educational institutions, development assistance programmes, and government employment.
  • Reservation: It mandates a 4% reservation in public employment and 5% reservation in educational institutions for PwD. 
  • The Act mandates both public and private institutions to make infrastructure accessible and provide ICT consumer products for PwD.

Sickle Cell Anaemia

  • It is an inherited or genetic blood disorder that affects haemoglobin, the protein in Red Blood Cells (RBCs) that carries oxygen to all parts of the body.
  • Healthy RBCs are soft and round. In SCD, the haemoglobin is abnormal, which causes the RBCs to become hard and sticky and look like a sickle.
  • These rigid, sticky cells die early and often get stuck in blood vessels, clogging the flow of blood. As a result, different parts of the body do not get the oxygen they need. This can cause pain and other serious health problems such as infection, acute chest syndrome and stroke. 
image 18

Treatment: 

  • It is a lifelong illness. The only cure comes in the form of gene therapy and stem cell transplants, however, both are costly and still in developmental stages. 
  • Sickle Cell Anaemia Elimination Mission (2023) aims to eliminate sickle cell disease as a public health problem by 2047. 

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a painful, progressive, and disabling blood disorder, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities like Tribals. 

Narrow lens of disability in Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016

  • Not-inclusive: The Act extends reservations in public sector employment under the 4% quota for persons with vision and hearing loss, locomotor disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.  However, individuals with SCD and other blood disorders are not included in the quota.
  • Subjectivity in benchmark disability: The benchmark disability under the Act must meet a certain threshold of impairment, specifically 40% or more. However, different hospitals, medical boards, and doctors can assign different disability percentages to the same person, depending on their personal judgment.
  • Certification bottlenecks: A medical authority, including chief medical officer, evaluates and certifies disability. Diagnosis reports of confirmatory tests must be from a government or standard lab. The certification process can be largely inaccessible for Adivasi and Dalit patients in rural or remote areas. 

Way Forward

  • Extending job reservations to individuals with SCD and related blood disorders would acknowledge their condition as a significant, lifelong disability. 
  • Reforming the certification process to account for fluctuating and invisible disabilities would reflect a rights-based lens rather than a purely biomedical one.
  • Improve Accessibility: Mobile medical units in tribal and rural areas for on-site certification and treatment.

Disability is not only shaped by physical health, but also by social exclusion, structural barriers, and policy gaps. The continual reliance on biomedical scoring and exclusion of people with SCD from full protections undermines the very purpose of recognising the condition under the Act. 

Unless India’s recognition of SCD brings real rights and protections, it risks becoming exclusion disguised as inclusion. 

Also Read: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 remains only a legal document without intense sensitisation of government functionaries and citizens regarding disability. Comment. 

Trending now

India Invokes Emergency Powers to Secure LPG Supply Amid West Asia Tensions
China’s New Antarctic Law and Implications for Global Polar Governance
India–EU Deepen Partnership in Peaceful Nuclear Science and Fusion Energy
Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026: Strengthening India’s Waste Governance Framework