Daily Current Affairs

October 24, 2025

Current Affairs

FSSAI Bans Misuse of ‘ORS’ Label

Context: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued a directive prohibiting the use of the term ‘Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS)’ on any food or beverage product that does not meet the World Health Organization (WHO)-approved formulation.

This move aims to curb misleading marketing practices where some beverage companies label sugary drinks as “ORS,” deceiving consumers and posing potential health risks.

About the Directive

  • Legal Basis: Issued under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which empowers FSSAI to regulate and enforce food labelling and safety standards.
  • Misbranding Clause: Products using the term “ORS” without approval will be treated as misbranded or misleading advertisements, punishable under the Act.
  • Objective: To ensure that only clinically validated and WHO-compliant formulations are sold as ORS in India.
image 44

About FSSAI

  • Established: 2008, under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
  • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
  • Mandate: To lay down science-based standards for food articles and regulate their manufacture, storage, distribution, and sale to ensure food safety.

About Oral Rehydration Salts (ORS)

  • Purpose: ORS is a scientifically formulated solution used to treat dehydration resulting from diarrhoea, vomiting, or heat stress.
  • WHO-Approved Composition:
    Sodium chloride, glucose, potassium chloride, and trisodium citrate — in precise proportions to optimize absorption.
  • Mechanism: The glucose–sodium co-transport mechanism in the intestines facilitates the absorption of electrolytes and water, restoring hydration efficiently.
  • Health Significance:
    • Recognized as one of the most important medical advances for preventing child mortality due to diarrhoea.
    • Must not be confused with general energy or electrolyte drinks, which often contain excessive sugar and inadequate electrolyte balance.

Significance of the Ban

  • Consumer Protection: Prevents the sale of unscientific and misleading products claiming medical properties.
  • Public Health Safety: Safeguards vulnerable populations, especially children, from consuming high-sugar products mislabelled as ORS.
  • Regulatory Strengthening: Reinforces India’s compliance with WHO and UNICEF standards for rehydration therapy.

Conclusion

The FSSAI’s regulation marks a vital step in ensuring evidence-based labelling and consumer protection. By limiting the ‘ORS’ tag to scientifically verified formulations, India upholds both medical integrity and public health priorities.

China’s WTO Complaint Against India’s EV Subsidy Policy

Context: China has filed a complaint at the World Trade Organization (WTO) alleging that India’s electric vehicle (EV) and battery subsidy schemes — including the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) for Advanced Chemistry Cells — violate global trade rules.

Beijing claims that India’s policy discriminates against foreign automakers and suppliers, contrary to WTO norms of fair competition.

image 43

About the Dispute:

The complaint has been lodged under the WTO’s Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM), which prohibits subsidies contingent upon export performance or use of domestic goods over imported ones.

Allegations by China:

  1. National Treatment Violation (Article III, GATT):
    India’s local-content requirements in EV and battery subsidies allegedly favour domestic firms like Tata Motors and Ola Electric over foreign companies.
  2. Import-Substitution Subsidy (Article 3, ASCM):
    China contends that India’s benefits are tied to sourcing from domestic manufacturers — a prohibited form of subsidy under WTO rules.
  3. Market Access Barrier:
    India’s 70–100% import duty on fully built EVs discourages entry of Chinese automakers, limiting market access.

Consequences for India:

  • WTO Dispute Risk:
    If consultations fail, the WTO may establish a dispute panel, potentially ruling against India’s EV PLI scheme.
  • Trade Deficit Concern:
    India’s $99.2 billion trade deficit with China (FY 2024–25) could widen if bilateral trade relations deteriorate further.
  • Diplomatic Strain:
    The complaint could set back recent efforts to stabilise India–China ties following the 2020 Ladakh border tensions.

India’s Defence and Way Forward:

Transparent Subsidy Design:
Recast EV incentives as green-tech or R&D subsidies permissible under ASCM Article 8 (non-actionable subsidies).

Bilateral Consultation:
Engage China under the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Article 4 consultation stage to seek an amicable solution.

Strategic Diversification:
Build alliances through the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) and Global Biofuels Alliance to reduce dependency on Chinese EV inputs.

Technology Localisation:
Promote domestic innovation via Atmanirbhar EV Mission 2030, public–private R&D grants, and partnerships with Japan, the EU, and the US.

WTO Norms & Principles (At a Glance):

PrincipleProvisionPurpose
MFN (Most-Favoured-Nation)Article I, GATTEqual treatment to all WTO members
National Treatment (NT)Article III, GATTNo discrimination against imports after entry
Countervailing MeasuresArticle VI, GATTCorrect trade distortion caused by subsidies
Dispute Resolution ProcessArticles 4–17Consultation → Panel → Appellate Review

Conclusion:

While India’s EV incentives aim to foster sustainability and self-reliance, they must remain WTO-compliant to avoid sanctions or trade retaliation. Balancing green industrial policy with global trade obligations will be key to ensuring both domestic innovation and international credibility.

Government Tightens Online Content Blocking Rules, Adds Senior-Level Oversight

Context: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has amended the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 to introduce new safeguards and senior-level oversight in online content blocking under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.

Key Highlights of the Amendment

Who Can Now Issue Blocking Notices

Only senior officials are now authorised to issue content removal or flagging notices to platforms such as YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram.
Authorised officers include:

  • Joint Secretary (JS) or equivalent officer at the Centre/State.
  • Director-level officers, where no JS exists.
  • DIG or above, in police departments, specifically authorised.

Each order must clearly specify:

  • Legal basis and statutory provision
  • Nature of the unlawful act
  • Exact URL/digital location of content

A monthly review of all such orders will be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Secretary (e.g., IT Secretary or State Home Secretary).

Rule 3(1)(d): The Legal Basis

Under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, the government can flag content that violates Indian law.

If platforms fail to act, they may lose “safe harbour” protection—their legal immunity from user-generated content liability.
Such notices act as warnings, not direct takedown orders.

Why the Change Was Needed

In some states, junior police officers (like Sub-Inspectors or ASIs) had been issuing blocking notices, raising concerns of misuse and lack of accountability.
The amendment ensures that only senior officers can exercise this power, promoting transparency, due process, and uniformity across states.

Background: X vs. Government Case

Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) had legally challenged the government’s use of Rule 3(1)(d), calling it arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The Karnataka High Court, however, upheld the government’s authority.
Officials clarified that the new amendment is not a reaction to X’s case but does address its core concern by defining clear authority and procedure.

Section 79(3)(b) vs Section 69A

ProvisionPurposeKey Feature
Section 79(3)(b)Removal of unlawful contentPlatforms lose “safe harbour” if they fail to act
Section 69ABlocking content on grounds of national security, integrity, or defenceDirect blocking by government agencies

Significance

The amendments mark a shift toward responsible digital governance, ensuring that content blocking powers are exercised with legal clarity, senior oversight, and procedural accountability.

They balance freedom of expression with the need to curb misuse and maintain lawful online spaces.