Polity

All (4265)Current Affairs (4243)Mains Practice (77)Mains PYQs by Subjects (40)

Need for a Unified Welfare Architecture in India

Context: India’s welfare architecture is vast and globally recognised by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). However, it remains fragmented and inefficient, underscoring the need for systemic unification.

Relevance of the Topic  Mains: India’s Welfare Architecture - Issues, Need for a unified system.

India's Welfare Architecture:  

  • India’s welfare architecture is one of the largest in the world. The Centre runs over 34 major social protection schemes and 24 pension schemes, while states have their own independent initiatives. 
  • The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has acknowledged India’s achievement in delivering both cash and non-cash social protection. 
  • ILO’s World Social Protection Report (2024) states that India’s social protection coverage has doubled from 24.4% in 2021 to 48.8% in 2024.
image 9

While these benefits reach over 100 crore beneficiaries, they operate in silos often duplicating efforts and creating administrative inefficiencies.

Issues with the Current Welfare System

  • Fragmentation of Schemes: Over 34 major central schemes, 24 pension schemes, and many separate state-level programmes run in silos.
  • Duplication & Overlap: Schemes with similar benefits are repackaged under new names by different states, leading to duplication of effort and resources. Institutions like E-Shram (unorganised workers) and EPFO (formal workers) overlap, but do not interconnect.
  • Poor Targeting: Eligibility criteria vary widely between schemes causing exclusion of deserving beneficiaries and inclusion of ineligible ones. No unified database (scattered data) or structure makes it difficult to identify the right people.
  • Complex Access for Citizens: People have to run between multiple government offices and platforms to claim entitlements. Lack of portability across states for migrants and informal workers.
  • Inefficient Use of Resources: Scarce fiscal resources spread thinly across many small schemes instead of pooled for greater impact.
  • Focus on Short-term Consumption, Not Long-term Growth: Most schemes are isolated cash payouts without linkages to skill development, asset creation, or economic empowerment.
  • Political Populism: Frequent election-season welfare promises add to fragmentation and fiscal stress. 

These structural gaps highlight the urgent need for a unified welfare delivery system that consolidates schemes and integrates data across Centre and states.

Advantages of a Unified Welfare State

  • Eliminates duplication of schemes and saves administrative costs. Optimises scarce fiscal resources for deeper coverage.
  • Simplifies access: one platform for all entitlements. Improves interoperability between databases and schemes.
  • Strengthens targeting of genuine beneficiaries. Integrates benefits, allowing one entitlement to unlock others.
  • Shifts focus on collective outcomes instead of isolated scheme performance.

The G20 New Delhi Declaration’s call for “sustainably financed universal social protection coverage” further strengthens the case for a “One Nation, One Social Security” governance model.

Global Lessons: 

  • Brazil- The Fome Zero Programme: Established the Unified System of Social Assistance (SUAS), integrating welfare services across all 26 states, the federal district, and over 5,500 municipalities.
  • South Korea (1990s Reforms): Consolidated fragmented programmes under the National Pension Service and National Health Insurance Service.

Proposed Framework for Unified Welfare Architecture in India: 

  • Centre provides the unified architecture; states adapt to local contexts.
  • Use EPFO’s Universal Account Number (UAN) to route all transfers, earmarking a portion for pensions/insurance.
  • Employ Aadhaar, JAM Trinity, and Digital India Stack for portability and verification.
  • Reward states for improved coverage, efficiency, and outcome delivery.
  • Harmonise overlapping welfare laws while respecting state autonomy.

To unlock the full potential of its vast welfare network, India must move from fragmented silos to a unified, digitally integrated system that ensures portability, precision targeting, and lasting socio-economic upliftment.

India’s First Underwater Museum and Artificial Coral Reef

Context: Maharashtra is set to create India’s first underwater museum and artificial coral reef by scuttling the decommissioned naval warship INS Guldar near Nivati Rocks, Vengurla, in Sindhudurg district. 

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About India’s First Underwater Museum; Artificial Coral Reef; INS Guldar. 

India’s first Underwater Museum and Artificial Coral Reef

  • India’s first underwater museum and artificial coral reef will be developed around the decommissioned warship INS Guldar in Maharashtra.
  • Aim: To boost marine conservation and tourism, offering scuba diving and future submarine tours. 
  • The underwater museum cum-artificial reef is estimated to cost Rs 78 crore. The initiative is supported by the central government. Centre will bear nearly 60% of the total cost and the state government the rest. 

INS Guldar

  • INS Guldar, an 83 metre long Kumbhir Class landing ship, was built in Poland and commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1985. It was decommissioned in 2024. 
  • It was designed for amphibious warfare and capable of beach landings. It was once part of India’s peace keeping mission in Srilanka combating attacks from the Liberation of Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
  • It has been officially handed over by the central government to the Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation for conversion into a submerged museum. 

Scuttling of INS Guldar: 

  • Scuttling is the deliberate sinking (controlled sinking) of a ship to dispose of an old vessel, create an artificial reef, or prevent it from falling into enemy hands. The process of scuttling follows the Archimedes principle.
  • Archimedes principle: The buoyant force keeping an object afloat is equal to the weight of the water the object displaces. 

Six years after Abrogation of Article 370 in J&K 

Context: August 5, 2025 marks the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019, which revoked the special status of Jammu & Kashmir, and led to the effective repeal of Article 35A of the Indian Constitution.

 As J&K completes six years as a Union Territory, there have been both positive and negative developments after the abrogation of Article 370. 

Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Article 370; Article 35A. Mains: J&K after Article 370 abrogation: Key developments; Challenges. 

On August 5, 2019, the government revoked Article 370 through a Presidential order and reorganised the state. J&K was split into two Union Territories (UTs): J&K (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature), effective from October 31, 2019.

What was Article 370? 

  • Enacted in 1952, Article 370 granted erstwhile state J&K a unique degree of autonomy. The provision:
    • Allowed the state to operate with its own constitution and flag
    • The state retained the authority to make laws on all matters, except defence, foreign affairs, communications, and finance. 
  • Article 370 was placed under Part XXI of the Constitution, which deals with temporary and special provisions. It also allowed the state’s Constituent Assembly to decide how much of the Indian Constitution would apply. Notably, it included a clause permitting the Assembly to recommend the article’s own repeal.
  • In practice, Indian laws could not be applied to J&K without the consent of its state government. Indian Parliament’s legislative reach was therefore significantly limited, requiring state concurrence for most matters.

What was Article 35A?

  • Article 35A, added to the Constitution in 1954, gave special rights and privileges to the permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir. 
  • Its roots lay in the 1952 Delhi Agreement between then-Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Jammu and Kashmir’s leader Sheikh Abdullah.
  • It empowered the Jammu and Kashmir state legislature to decide who qualified as a 'permanent resident' of the state. A permanent resident was someone who was a state subject as of May 14, 1954, or had lived in the state for at least 10 years and lawfully acquired property. These exclusive rights included:
    • It allowed the state to grant special rights to permanent residents in areas like land ownership, government jobs, and education scholarships.
    • It barred non-residents from permanently settling, buying property, or accessing state benefits.
    • It had a discriminatory clause against women: if a female resident married someone from outside the state, she could lose her property rights, and the same applied to her children.
  • The laws made under Article 35A were shielded from judicial scrutiny. No act of the state legislature coming under the ambit of Article 35A can be challenged for violating the Indian Constitution or any other law of the land. 

What has changed in J&K after Article 370 Abrogation?

Positive Developments: 

  • Successful elections and participation of voters: For the first time in decades, UT J&K recorded an impressive over 63% voter turnout in the Assembly elections. Additionally, the 2024 Lok Sabha elections witnessed the highest voter participation in the region in the last 35 years.
  • Major dip in violence and stone pelting: The incidents of stone pelting have completely stopped in the UT (As per the Union Home Ministry data). E.g., In 2023, not a single case of stone pelting or strike was recorded, a significant decline compared to 2010 (over 2600 incidents of stone pelting and 132 strikes).
  • Infrastructural development and investment: Successful completion of several infrastructural projects.
    • Inauguration of Rs 42,500 crore Udhampur-Srinagar-Baramulla Rail Link. It features the world’s highest rail bridge over the Chenab River. This bridge connects the Jammu region with Kashmir valley, and is crucial for regional integration, economic growth and defence mobility.
    • Projects worth over Rs 76000 crore are currently in the pipeline in the UT. Centre approved 19 road and tunnel projects worth over Rs 10,000 crores in June 2025.
  • Tourism boost: Post Article 370 abrogation, the UT has witnessed a major boost to tourism and local economy. E.g., Over 21.1 million people visited the UT in 2023. However, the recent Pahalgam attack has caused a brief hiatus. 

Pertaining Issues: 

  • Security Concerns and Terrorism in J&K: 
    • Selective killings: Targeting tourists, non-local employees & entrepreneurs (those being issued domicile certificates) for derailing measures to promote industrial development and tourism. E.g., Recent targeted attacks in Pahalgam. 
    • Improvised weapons: Reliance on IEDs to avoid confrontation with security forces, using sticky bombs (detonated from distance) & simulated training conditions.
    • New modes of weapon delivery: Air-dropping of bombs using UAVs by Pakistan-backed terror outfits. 
  • Economic Slowdown of J&K’s economy as a centrally administered unit:
    • Decline in GSDP: The growth in Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has declined both in nominal and in real terms. As a result, the contribution of J&K to the national GDP has declined to 0.77%. 
    • Slowdown in income growth and high unemployment: In 2025, in the 15-29 age bracket, the unemployment rate of UT J&K is more than 30%, which is almost double the national average.
    • Poor Fiscal Health:
      • Decline in fixed and invested capital, accompanied by a sharp rise in borrowings. Despite better revenue mobilisation, J&K’s fiscal health has deteriorated significantly with higher debt and deficits compared to pre-2019. 
      • Internal debt has almost doubled in just five years. Total outstanding liabilities of the UT are now almost 60% of the GSDP. 
      • Fiscal deficit is around 6%, way above the stipulated FRBM limits. 

The economy is heavily reliant on central grants (up to 70% of expenditure), and core sectors like agriculture and industry contribute far less than services.

The road ahead lies in the restoration of J&K’s statehood to usher in participatory democracy in J&K, confer more political, administrative and economic powers to the state government and will uphold federal principles. 

Also Read: Supreme Court upholds abrogation of Article 370 

Stablecoins and their Regulation 

Context: Hong Kong is set to enforce a new Stablecoins Ordinance, requiring a licence for issuing fiat-referenced stablecoins (FRS). This move aims to regulate stablecoin issuers, ensure transparency, protect investors, and prevent financial risks like money laundering and unbacked digital assets.

Relevance of the Topic : Prelims: Key facts about Stablecoins; CBDCs. 

What are Stablecoins?

  • Stablecoins are a class of cryptocurrencies with their values linked to assets.
  • Unlike cryptocurrency coins such as Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) or even tokens such as Shiba Inu (SHIB), whose values can wildly rise and fall due to investor sentiments and other factors, stablecoins are designed to maintain relatively steady prices. 
  • This stability is achieved through the process of “pegging” the stablecoin to an asset such as:
    • Fiat currency (like U.S. Dollars, EU Euros, Hong Kong Dollars, etc.)
    • A commodity (like gold)
    • Other cryptocurrencies (such as Bitcoin), by regulating their value via computer algorithms, or by mixing multiple strategies. 
  • While the price of Bitcoin might rise or fall in the coming years, a USD-pegged stablecoin should ideally remain around $1. 

Difference between Stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies

  • CBDCs are digital currencies officially issued and controlled by a government’s central bank, while Stablecoins can be privately issued and can also be pegged to foreign currencies. 

Why do Stablecoins require Regulation? 

  • Widespread Use: Stablecoins are used globally for trading, savings protection, and cross-border transactions, especially in countries facing currency instability (E.g., Argentina, Turkey, Afghanistan).
  • Market Size: Over $250 billion worth of stablecoins are in circulation. E.g., Tether (USDT) alone has a supply of over 163 billion USDT.
  • Lack of Transparency: Issuers may not always have adequate reserves backing their stablecoins, leading to trust issues and risks of fraud or insolvency.
  • Potential Impact on Fiat Currencies: Excessive or unregulated issuance may affect the value and stability of the underlying fiat currencies or commodities.
  • Risk of Collapse: History shows that algorithmic stablecoins (like UST in 2022) can fail, leading to massive investor losses and systemic risks.
  • Need for Oversight: Regulation ensures reserve transparency, financial audits, consumer protection, and compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) norms.

Regulation of Stablecoins around the world

GENIUS Act:  

  • The US President signed the GENIUS Act (July 2025) to regulate stablecoins and protect the US Dollar.
  • The Act requires 100% reserve backing with liquid assets like US dollars or short-term Treasuries for stablecoins.
  • Those issuing this asset will also have to make monthly, public disclosures of the composition of their reserves, apart from complying with marketing rules.

Other countries that have started to regulate stablecoins include Japan and Singapore, while multiple other jurisdictions have more generic regulations that cover stablecoins along with other cryptocurrencies. 

What is Hong Kong’s Stablecoins Ordinance?

  • It will be illegal for people to offer any unlicensed fiat-referenced stablecoin (FRS) to a retail investor, or actively market the issue of unlicensed FRS to the public of Hong Kong.
  • Companies that want to legally issue stablecoins to users in Hong Kong will have to obtain a licence from the Monetary Authority as well as meet set requirements when it comes to managing reserve assets and redemption, asset stabilisation, and processing user requests.
  • In addition to this, they will have to comply with the applicable regulations that prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, thus making sure that their assets are properly disclosed and audited. 

Also Read: Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) 

Boost the capacity of Legal Aid System in India 

Context: Legal services institutions established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, are tasked with the mandate of providing free legal aid to nearly 80% of India’s population. However, the actual reach remains modest. 

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Key facts about NALSA.

Mains: Issues in India’s legal aid system.

Legal Aid System in India: Constitutional and Statutory Mandate

  • Access to Justice is a fundamental right. Article 39A of the Indian Constitution mandates the State to ensure that no citizen is denied justice due to economic or other disabilities. 
  • To fulfill this constitutional vision, the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 established a framework to deliver free legal aid to the weaker and vulnerable sections of society. The Act establishes a three-tier structure of legal services institutions:
    • National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) at the National level
    • State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) at the State level
    • District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) at the District level

Who is Entitled to Free Legal Aid?

  • Under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the following categories of persons are eligible for free legal aid in India:
    • Women and Children
    • All members of SC and ST communities
    • Victims of Trafficking or Begging
    • Persons in Custody: Includes undertrials, prisoners, and persons in psychiatric institutions
    • Persons with Disabilities
    • Industrial Workmen
    • Victims of Natural Disasters or Mass Disasters
    • Persons with an Annual Income below a Prescribed Limit: Income threshold varies by State (generally ₹1 lakh to ₹3 lakh per annum)
    • HIV/AIDS Patients
  • Services include: Legal advice, representation in court, mediation, and legal awareness.

Institutional Framework: 

  • Legal services institutions operate front offices in court complexes and legal aid clinics in rural and remote areas, serving as first points of contact for legal advice and guidance.
  • A panel of qualified and trained lawyers is empanelled to provide free legal representation to eligible beneficiaries.
  • The Act promotes the deployment of trained para-legal volunteers to spread legal awareness and assist in dispute resolution at the grassroots level.
  • The Act empowers legal services authorities to organise Lok Adalats for amicable settlement of disputes. Also promotes mediation and conciliation as part of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR).
  • Regular legal literacy camps, awareness drives, and training programmes are mandated to educate citizens about their rights and remedies.

The Performance Gap: 

However, the implementation and impact remain modest, exposing a critical gap between policy intent and on-ground realities.

  • Between April 2023 and March 2024, only 15.5 lakh individuals accessed legal aid, even though nearly 80% of India’s population is eligible.
  • Since 2019, the national per capita spending on legal aid has doubled from roughly ₹3 to ₹7.

Key Challenges in Legal Aid System

Low Budget and Underutilisation of Funds: 

  • The budget for legal aid comprises less than 1% of the total justice budget (police, prisons, judiciary, and legal aid). 
  • During 2017-18 to 2022-23, NALSA’s funds fell from ₹207 crore to ₹169 crore. The utilisation of NALSA funds has dropped from 75% to 59%.

Rigid Expenditure Guidelines: 

  • As per the NALSA Manual 2023, the State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) have been barred from incurring expenditure from the NALSA fund on certain items without prior approval. These include:
    • hiring project or front office staff
    • purchasing or hiring vehicles and equipment
    • engaging outsourced personnel
    • expenses related to victim compensation
    • food distribution, and tree plantation.
  • Funds are to be used only for specific functions with ceilings: 50% for legal aid and advice, 25% for awareness and outreach, and 25% for Alternate Dispute Resolution and mediation.

Declining Para-Legal Volunteers:

  • Low budgets constrict the ability to deploy para-legal volunteers (PLVs) on the ground. The total number of para-legal volunteers dropped by nearly 38% between 2019 and 2024. From 5.7 per lakh population, there were only 3.1 per lakh population in 2023.
  • Reluctance of States to revise honorariums for para-legal volunteers. Most PLVs receive honorarium far below minimum wages (as less as ₹250 per day in certain states). Poor pay leads to high attrition rate among PLVs, who form the backbone of last-mile legal access.

Implementation Challenges in the Legal Aid Defence Counsel (LADC) Scheme: 

  • Introduced in 2022, the LADC scheme is a dedicated legal aid initiative for representing only accused persons, based on the public defender model. It aims to ensure quality legal representation for accused/convicts and reduce the burden on the assigned counsel system.
  • In 2023-23, ₹200 crore was specially earmarked for LADCs by NALSA and it was fully utilised. However, in 2024-25, the allocation has dropped to ₹147.9 crore.

Way Forward

  • Financial Reforms: 
    • Increase budgetary allocation, especially for frontline workers.
    • Remove fund utilisation bottlenecks- allow flexibility to SLSAs and DLSAs.
    • Ensure uniform and fair honorariums for PLVs.
  • Human Resources: Recruit and retain more para-legal volunteers and legal aid lawyers. Upgrade training and monitoring mechanisms for better outcomes.
  • Infrastructure: Expand Legal Aid Clinics, especially in rural areas. Ensure tech-based legal access via mobile apps, kiosks, or tele-law.
  • Monitoring & Accountability: Introduce independent audits and feedback mechanisms. Regularly assess impact and outcomes, not just inputs.

It is essential to boost the capacity of legal aid systems to make them truly effective. Without these resources, the system falls short of providing the quality of justice enshrined in the Constitution.

Also Read: Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India. 

Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill

Context: Maharashtra Legislative Assembly passed the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill aiming to combat the perceived rise of "Urban Naxalism", and the activities of left-wing extremist (LWE) frontal organisations in the State.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: About Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill.

Mains: Impacts of such legislations on the Right to Freedom of Expression.

Maharashtra has become the fifth State after Chhattisgarh, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha to enact a Public Security Act for more effective prevention of unlawful activities of such organisations.

Why was the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill introduced?

  • Maharashtra government claims that the State has become a safe haven for ‘Urban Naxal’ organisations. 
  • As per the State government, Over 60 Naxal-linked "frontal organisations" operate in the State, providing shelter, logistics, and support to armed Maoists.

What is Urban Naxal?

  • Urban Naxal is a political and security term used to describe individuals or groups in urban areas who are alleged to be sympathisers, supporters, or facilitators of Maoist ideology and Left-Wing Extremism (LWE).

Key Provisions of the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill: 

  • The Bill empowers the government to declare organisations ‘illegal’ without due process.
  • Allows the government to extend ban on an organisation without any limit on the duration.
  • Section 2(f) of the Bill criminalises speech (spoken or written), signs, gestures or visual representations which ‘tend to interfere’ with public order or ‘cause concern’.
  • Excludes lower courts from jurisdiction, effectively closing off easy judicial remedies.
  • Allows the suppression of facts in public interest.
  • Provides full protection to State officials acting in good faith.
image 54

Criticism of the Bill: 

  • The Bill empowers the government to declare organisations ‘illegal’ without due process and allows suppression of facts in ‘public interest’.
  • Vague terms like “tend to interfere with public order” or “cause concern” could criminalise dissent, satire, protests, or criticism. 
  • The ambiguity in the Bill has given rise to fear that it might be used against farmers’ organisations, students’ groups, civil rights groups, political opponents and critics under the label of ‘threat to public order’.
  • Critics argue that stringent laws like UAPA and existing State laws are already sufficient to tackle left-wing extremism.
  • It allows the government to extend a ban on an organisation without any limit on the duration. By excluding lower courts from jurisdiction, the Bill limits judicial remedies and violates principles of natural justice.

The argument in favour of the Bill is that it seeks to prevent Maoists from brainwashing youth, professionals, and civil servants through front organisations, and the new law would only target those who try to undermine the constitutional order. However, this does not deny the probability of misuse of the legislation.

States cannot demand Delimitation claiming parity with J&K: SC 

Context: The Supreme Court dismissed a petition seeking the Delimitation of Assembly Constituencies in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana on grounds of parity with the recent delimitation exercise in Jammu and Kashmir (2022). 

Relevance of the topic : Prelims : Article 170(3), Delimitation process and legal provisions

What is Delimitation Exercise?

  • Delimitation refers to the process of redrawing the boundaries of constituencies or electoral areas. This ensures that each constituency has a roughly equal number of voters, based on the principle of ‘one vote, one value’.
  • The Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. (Article 82 for Lok Sabha and Article 170 for State Legislative Assemblies).
  • After each census, a readjustment is to be made in: 
    • allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha to the States
    • division of each State into territorial constituencies.
  • Such an exercise was carried out after the 1951, 1961 and 1971 Census.
  • The 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 put the delimitation exercise on freeze for 25 years until the 2001 Census to encourage population-limiting measures. 
  • Further, 84th Amendment Act, 2001 put on hold the delimitation exercise again until the first Census after 2026.

The Supreme Court rejected the petition as Article 170 (3) imposes a freeze on delimitation of State Legislative Assembly seats until the first Census after 2026. 

image 50

What Article 170 (3) says?

Article 170 deals with the composition of Legislative Assemblies. 

  • Article 170 (1): Subject to the provisions of Article 333, the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of not more than 500, and not less than 60 members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State.
  • Article 170 (2): 
    • Each State must be divided into territorial constituencies in such a way that the population per seat is roughly equal across the State. This division is based on the most recent census for which final figures have been published.
    • Until the figures of the first post-2026 census figures are published, the term “last census” will mean the 2001 Census. (84th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2001) 
  • Article 170 (3): Until the relevant figures for the first Census taken after the year 2026 have been published, it shall not be necessary to readjust:
    • Total number of seats in the Legislative Assembly of each State as fixed by the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 1976; and
    • Division of each State into territorial constituencies as made by that Order.
image 51

Why was Delimitation allowed in Jammu & Kashmir ? 

  • Jammu & Kashmir became a Union Territory in 2019 after the abrogation of Article 370. As a Union Territory, it is not bound by the freeze under Article 170(3).
  • The delimitation exercise in 2022 was based on the 2011 Census, following the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.

The Supreme Court also held that:  

  • Allowing delimitation for Andhra Pradesh and Telangana through a judicial dictum would foster discontent among other States and breed inequality.
  • Granting such a relief would prompt unabated challenges from other similarly situated regions. In particular, the four NorthEastern States- Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, and Nagaland, which were expressly excluded from the scope of delimitation by way of a Central notification in 2021.

Also Read: Delimitation and concerns of South Indian States 

Ministry blocks 25 OTT platforms over ‘Obscene Content’

Context: The Information & Broadcasting Ministry has directed the blocking of websites and Apps of 25 OTT platforms for allegedly carrying obscene, vulgar, and in some cases, pornographic content.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Information Technology Act, 2000, and the IT Rules, 2021. 

Ministry blocks OTT platforms over Obscene content

  • The Information & Broadcasting Ministry has directed the blocking of websites and Apps of 25 OTT platforms for allegedly carrying obscene, vulgar, and in some cases, pornographic content.
  • Utilising the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021, notifications have been issued to various intermediaries to ensure that access to these sites and Apps is disabled.
  • The content hosted on these platforms was found to be in violation of: 
    • Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000; Section 67A of the IT Act, 2000
    • Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code  
    • Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986. 
  • The government had received multiple public grievances against these platforms, including the references from the National Commission on Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) about content on platforms Ullu and ALTT. 

Legal Basis of the Ban: 

  • Section 69A of IT Act, 2000 empowers the government to block public access to any online information (block content on internet) in the interest of: (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) Security of the State, (iv) friendly relations with foreign States, (v) public order, (vi) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to above.
    • Criticism: The law does not have “decency and morality” as grounds for blocking information. 

Legal Provisions on Obscenity in India: 

  • Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000: An offence is committed by a person who publishes or transmits any material which is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest.
  • Section 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit acts, etc. in electronic form.
  • Article 19(2) of Indian Constitution: Allows the State to impose reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression for reasons like- security of the state, public order, morality, etc. It provides constitutional backing to Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. 
  • Sections 292 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code contemplate the selling, letting on hire, distribution or public exhibition of obscene matter. 
  • Section 4 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986: Prohibition of publication or sending by post of books, pamphlets, etc., containing indecent representation of women. 
  • IT Rules, 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Mandates OTT platforms to:
    • Self-classify content into age-based categories
    • Set up Grievance Redressal Mechanisms
    • Adhere to a Code of Ethics. 

Also Read: What does Indian Law say about Obscenity? 

Every SC/ST Complaint must lead to FIR without Preliminary Inquiry: Madras HC

Context: Recently, the Madras High Court has ruled that the police cannot conduct preliminary inquiry on receipt of complaints disclosing cognisable offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989. Police should straightaway register First Information Reports (FIRs) against the suspects.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: About Madras HC ruling and key Provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Mains: Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Provisions and issues in Implementation. 

In a significant verdict, the Madras High Court has held that : 

  • The police must immediately register an FIR upon receiving complaints that disclose cognizable offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, without conducting any preliminary inquiry.  
  • The court cited Section 18A(1)(a) of the SC/ST Act (inserted via 2018 Amendment) which states:  No preliminary inquiry shall be required for registration of an FIR against any person under this Act.
  • The court reinforced that As per Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST Rules 1995, only officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) are authorised to investigate.
  • Directed that the chargesheet must be filed within 60 days of FIR registration to ensure timely justice.
  • The Judge directed the Director-General of Police/ Head of Police Force to communicate a copy of his order to all Commissioners as well as Superintendents of Police in the State to ensure compliance with legal procedures in SC/ST cases.

SC and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

  • Enacted to prevent atrocities and hate crimes against Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
  • Aim: To provide protection, justice, and rehabilitation to victims of caste-based violence and discrimination. 
image 49

Key Provisions of SC and STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989: 

  • Criminalises caste-based atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
  • Includes acts like social boycott, denial of access to public spaces, forced labor, sexual abuse, and humiliation.
  • Does not cover offenses between SCs and STs themselves.
  • Most offences under the Act are cognizable and non-bailable.
  • Mandates establishment of exclusive Special Courts for speedy trial of cases.
  • Provides for relief, compensation, and rehabilitation of victims.
  • Burden of proof may shift to the accused in certain cases (reverse burden of proof).
  • Section 18: Bars anticipatory bail for accused under the Act (unless quashed by courts in exceptional cases).
  • Section 18A (Inserted in 2018): No preliminary inquiry required before FIR. No prior sanction needed for arrest of public servants. 
  • Rule 7 of SC/ST Rules, 1995: Investigation must be conducted by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
  • Charge sheet must be filed within 60 days from FIR registration.

Issues in Implementation:  

  • Police continue to conduct preliminary inquiries before registering FIRs, despite Section 18A(1)(a) prohibiting it.
  • Inquiries are often conducted by officers below the rank of DSP, violating Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST Rules, 1995.
  • Police frequently delay or avoid FIR registration, misusing discretion and undermining victims’ rights.
  • Regular procedural non-compliance hampers justice delivery and weakens cases.
  • Final reports/chargesheets are not filed within the mandated 60-day period, defeating the objective of speedy justice.

Also Read: National Commission of Scheduled Caste

Special Intensive Revision in Bihar: Legal Basis and Criticism 

Context: The Election Commission of India (ECI) filed a counter affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to the writ petition challenging the constitutionality of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise, currently underway in Bihar. 

ECI has defended its authority to require electors to prove citizenship through fresh documentation as part of the SIR exercise. In Bihar, the last SIR was held in 2003.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: About Special Intensive Revision (SIR) and its legal basis.  Mains: Issues with SIR.  

What is the SIR (Special Intensive Revision)?

  • A process initiated by the ECI to revise and verify electoral rolls.
  • Aim: To ensure that the voter list is accurate, inclusive, and free from discrepancies by allowing new registration, deletions, and modifications.
image 47

Legal Basis: 

  • Article 326: Mandates that only Indian citizens can be registered as Voters. ECI asserted that it has the authority to require individuals to submit relevant documents to prove citizenship and eligibility under Article 326.
  • Article 324 vests the ECI with the power to supervise and control the preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of Elections. 
  • Section 21 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act empowers the Election Commission (EC) to undertake a special revision of electoral rolls at any time, citing reasons in writing.
  • Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 mandates the preparation of electoral rolls “under the superintendence, direction and control” of the ECI, Representation of the People Act, 1950 (RPA). 
  • Registration of Electors Rules, 1960: Permit summary and intensive revisions.

However, the term “intensive” is not mentioned in the Representation of the People Act, and the rules do not define it clearly, raising questions about the statutory backing of the SIR. 

image 48

Key Issues and Criticism

  • Burden of Proof on Electors: 
    • SIR shifts the burden of proving citizenship onto all existing electors, despite their prior registration through due process. 
    • A complaint-based mechanism already exists to delete non-citizens, but the ECI has provided no data showing its failure due to large-scale inclusion errors. In absence of such evidence, the ECI’s claim that only SIR-based entries are authentic is unsubstantiated and legally weak.
  • Weak Statutory Basis: The Representation of the People Act, 1950 makes no distinction between electors added through summary or intensive revisions. The term “intensive” is absent from the Act and lacks a clear definition even in the 1960 Rules. Thus, the legal foundation of SIR is vague, raising concerns over its legitimacy and enforceability.
  • Arbitrary Privileging of 2003 Electoral Roll: 
    • ECI rejects EPIC as proof of citizenship but exempts electors in 2003 rolls and their children from furnishing documents, relying only on name extract. This contradiction is legally questionable, especially when no proof of house-to-house verification or deletions of illegal migrants in 2003 is provided.
    • Absence of 2003 SIR guidelines in the affidavit further weakens the claim, making the preferential treatment of 2003 entries arbitrary and unverified.
  • Questionable use of NRC-Based Citizenship Criteria: 
    • SIR 2025 applies citizenship verification norms from the CAA 2003, requiring extensive documentary proof (birth details of voter and parents). However, the constitutionality of CAA 2003 is still under Supreme Court review, and NRC, which the law envisaged, has not been implemented anywhere except Assam.
    • Rules under CAA 2003 were notified even before the Act was passed, casting doubt on their legality. Even the Registrar General of India has not ordered NRC initiation.
    • Hence, ECI lacks legal authority to enforce NRC-based citizenship tests via SIR in Bihar.
  • Arbitrary Exclusion of Aadhaar and Ration Cards as Eligibility Documents: 
    • ECI rejected Aadhaar as proof of citizenship, despite voluntarily collecting Aadhaar numbers in SIR 2025 forms. This is inconsistent, especially since ECI has no statutory mandate to test citizenship.
    • Ration cards were excluded citing the prevalence of forgeries, but no similar objection was raised against residence certificates, despite over 13.89 crore certificates issued in Bihar (2011-2025), far more than the state's total population.
  • Transparency Concerns:
    • The ECI’s counter-affidavit claims that over 90% of Bihar’s 7.89 crore electors have already submitted enumeration forms under the SIR exercise. However, the affidavit does not reveal how many of those forms were submitted with the required documents.
    • It admits that forms submitted “with or without documents” will be included in the draft electoral roll, to be published on August 1, 2025. Document verification has been postponed, and scrutiny by electoral registration officers will only happen after the draft is published. 
  • Operational & Implementation Issues in SIR:
    • Till 22 July around 21.35 lakh (2.7%) electors were yet to receive and submit their enumeration forms. As of July 24, around 7 lakh electors (0.9%) had not submitted enumeration forms.
    • Major political parties of Bihar were requested by the ECI to connect with the remaining electors, through their functionaries and booth level agents. 
    • Inability of the ECI in ensuring 100 % coverage through its own machinery of booth level officers (BLOs) and volunteers further exposes the impracticality of the SIR schedule.
  • Unverified Mass Exclusions: 
    • Over 53 lakh electors (6.7%) were not found at their addresses, including 21.6 lakh deceased and 31.5 lakh migrated voters.
  • The absence of constituency-wise data and pending verification raises concerns about error-prone deletions that may disproportionately affect certain demographics and constituencies. 

Also Read: Why are Bihar’s Electoral Rolls being revised?

Biostimulants in Indian Agriculture 

Context: Government has tightened the regulation of Biostimulants following the complaints from farmers about forced tagging of Nano-fertilisers or Biostimulants with conventional subsidised fertilisers.

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Biostimulants, Fertiliser Control Order (FCO) 1985, Insecticide Act 1968.

What are Biostimulants?

The Fertiliser (Inorganic, Organic or Mixed) (Control) Order 1985, which regulates the manufacturing and sale of biostimulants, defines biostimulants as substances or microorganisms that: 

  • Stimulate plant physiological processes
  • Improve nutrient uptake
  • Enhance growth, yield, stress tolerance, and crop quality.
  • Do not include pesticides or plant growth regulators which are regulated under the Insecticide Act 1968.

They can be derived from seaweed extracts, plant waste, or microorganisms and are not traditional fertilisers or pesticides.

image 51

India’s Biostimulant Market

  • India biostimulants market size is valued at USD 355.53 million in 2024.
  • The market is projected to grow from USD 410.78 million in 2025 to USD 1,135.96 million by 2032, exhibiting a CAGR of 15.64% during the forecast period.

Issues with Biostimulants:  

  • Questionable Efficacy: Many farmers complained about the ineffectiveness of biostimulants.
  • Unregulated Sale in the Past: Biostimulants were sold without government approval for years since they were neither classified as fertilisers nor pesticides. Over 30,000 products were sold unchecked for years. After government regulation, the number has now come down to approximately 650.
  • Provisional Certification Loophole: Manufacturers were allowed to sell products with only provisional registration, which was extended repeatedly. This delayed the enforcement of full regulatory standards.

1985 Fertiliser Control Order (FCO) and the Insecticide Act, 1968

  • In India, fertilisers and pesticides are governed by the 1985 Fertiliser Control Order and the Insecticides Act of 1968, respectively.
  • The Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare issues the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO) under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and makes changes to it from time to time.

Regulation of Biostimulants

  • In 2021, the Ministry of Agriculture amended the 1985 FCO and included biostimulants, paving the way for their regulated manufacturing, sale and import. The inclusion of biostimulants empowered the Central government to fix specifications.
  • The FCO classified biostimulants specified in Schedule VI of the FCO in eight categories, including botanical extracts (as well as seaweed extracts), bio-chemicals, vitamins, and antioxidants.
  • Every manufacturer or importer of a biostimulant shall make an application to the Controller of Fertilisers along with the requisite product information.
  • The product’s chemistry, source (natural extracts of plant/microbe/animal/synthetic), shelf-life, reports of bio-efficacy trials, and toxicity must be submitted, along with other data. The five basic acute toxicity tests are: 
    • Acute oral 
    • Acute dermal 
    • Acute Inhalation 
    • Primary skin Irritation
    • Eye irritation 
  • The four eco-toxicity tests are: (i) Toxicity to birds; (ii) Toxicity to Fish (Freshwater); (iii) Toxicity to honeybees; (iv) Toxicity to earthworm
  • The FCO clearly states that no biostimulant shall contain any pesticide beyond the permissible limit of 0.01ppm. 
  • Agronomic bio-efficiency trials shall be conducted under the National Agricultural Research System, including the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and state agricultural universities. 
  • Bio-efficacy trials shall be conducted at minimum three different doses for one season at three agro-ecological locations.

Central Biostimulant Committee: 

  • In 2021, the Agriculture Ministry constituted the Central Biostimulant Committee for 5 years, with the Agriculture Commissioner as its Chairperson and seven other members.
  • Under the FCO, it shall advise the Centre on:
    • inclusion of a new biostimulant;
    • specifications of various biostimulants
    • methods of drawing of samples and its analysis
    • minimum requirements of laboratory
    • method of testing of biostimulants
    • any other matter referred to it by the central government.

Recent Government Actions on Biostimulants

  • The Union Agriculture Minister wrote to all Chief Ministers urging them to stop the forced tagging of biostimulants with subsidised fertilisers like urea and DAP.
  • The latest extension of provisional certificates expired on June 16, 2025, after which companies cannot sell unapproved biostimulants.
  • In addition to this, the Agriculture Ministry notified “Specifications of Biostimulants” for several crops, including tomato, chilli, cucumber, paddy, brinjal, cotton, potato, green gram, grape, hot pepper, soybean, maize, and onion.

India’s Aviation Sector Need Reforms 

Context: The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau’s preliminary report on the Air India Boeing 787 air crash in Ahmedabad was released recently. The report remains inconclusive with critical uncertainties on whether pilot action was inadvertent or deliberate. 

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Structure of India’s Aviation System.Mains: Key Issues in India’s Aviation Safety Ecosystem.

image 43

Structure of India’s Aviation System

  • The Aviation System broadly involves multiple elements:
    • Airline Operator: The Aircraft (design, airworthiness, and maintenance) and the people who operate it (maintenance engineers, technicians, pilots and cabin crew) are the responsibility of the airline operator.
    • Airports Authority of India: While Airport infrastructure, Air traffic control systems and its personnel are the responsibility of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) and/or the Aerodrome operator. 
  • Regulator: Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA)
    • DGCA regulates Airlines, Airports and Airport Authority of India (AAI).
    • It sets safety rules, approves procedures, and monitors compliance.
  • Supervisory Authority: Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA)
    • It is the top-level policy-making and supervisory body for civil aviation in India.
    • It oversees both DGCA and AAI. 

Key Issues in India’s Aviation Safety Ecosystem

Each layer in aviation safety- from design, engineering, and operations to regulation- contains flaws. Accidents occur when these flaws align. Crashes are the inevitable result of years of systemic neglect and policy violations.

1. Systemic Neglect:

  • Aircraft Design and Airworthiness: DGCA has limited internal technical capacity and relies heavily on foreign regulators such as the Federal Aviation Administration (US) and European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EU). This weakens India's self-sufficiency in evaluating airworthiness.
  • Aircraft Maintenance Standards: 
    • Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (AMEs) work under severe stress without duty time limits. Duty-time limitations recommended for AMEs by the court of inquiry following the crash in Mangaluru (2010) remain unimplemented.
    • The DGCA has allowed airlines to delegate AME tasks to less-qualified, lower-paid technicians- a cost-cutting move that undermines safety.
  • Pilot and Flight Crew Stress:  
    • Airlines violate Flight Time Duty Limitations for pilots, and the DGCA grants exemptions which allow pilots who are fatigued to operate.
    • The DGCA’s unique NOC requirement restricts pilot mobility across airlines, increasing stress and enabling airlines to coerce pilots into breaching regulations.
  • Airline Operations: 
    • Airlines prioritise profit over safety. Despite the DGCA suspending personnel for safety violations, airline officials often retain high positions, controlling operations.
    • DGCA-appointed officers in airlines, who are expected to enforce compliance, often have no real authority, making accountability toothless.
  • Air Traffic Management: The AAI faces a severe shortage of Air Traffic Controller Officers (ATCO). The provision to give licences to ATCO has not yet been implemented. Duty-time limitations for ATCOs, recommended by the Mangalore Court of Inquiry, remain unimplemented. 
  • Silencing Whistle-Blowers: Whistle-blowers are often demoted, transferred, or terminated, discouraging the reporting of critical safety issues in the AAI and airlines.

2. Regulatory Loopholes:  

  • Violations of Inner Horizontal Surface (IHS) Norms
    • Thousands of illegal vertical obstructions have emerged within airport flight paths.
    • Statutory safeguards like the Aircraft Act and Order 988 of 1988 were undermined by a non-statutory appellate committee starting in 2008. This committee, comprising officials from MoCA, DGCA, and AAI, approved dozens of unsafe buildings.
    • Ironically, the same officials who approve unsafe structures are often responsible for judging safety complaints about them.
  • Judiciary has been inactive on aviation issues, relying on the state’s technical expertise on the subject. 

Way Forward

  • Reform DGCA and AAI to improve transparency, technical strength, and accountability.
  • Enact and enforce legal protection for employees who report safety concerns.
  • Revoke and re-evaluate unsafe building approvals.
  • Judiciary’s conservative approach to valuing human life needs to change. It must address the deterioration in the aviation sector and hold authorities accountable. 
  • A genuine ‘culture of safety’ must permeate every layer of the Aviation System including fair employment terms and access to mental health care without punitive consequences.

Without immediate, bold reforms and a fundamental shift toward a genuine culture of safety, India’s rapidly growing Aviation Sector risks further tragedies. The Judiciary, regulators, and policymakers must act in cohesion to bring out the necessary reforms.

Trending now

Captagon
B’nei Menashe: Identity, Migration, and the “Lost Tribes” Debate
Bauxite Mining Conflict in Odisha
Impact of Rising Energy Costs on Migrant Labourers