Context: Recently, the Union Cabinet has approved a Rs 1500 crore Incentive Schemeto develop recycling capacity in the country for the separation and production of critical minerals from secondary sources.
Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about Incentive Scheme for Critical Mineral Recycling.
Incentive Scheme for Critical Mineral Recycling
Aim: To develop capacity to recycle battery waste and e-waste for extraction of critical minerals.
This scheme is part of the National Critical Mineral Mission (NCMM) which is aimed at building the domestic capacity of and supply chain resilience in critical minerals.
Tenure: 6 years from FY 2025-26 to FY 2030-31.
Key Highlights of the Scheme:
Eligible feedstock: e-waste, Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) scrap, and scrap other than e-waste & LIB scrap (E.g., catalytic convertors in end-of-life vehicles).
Expected beneficiaries: Both large established recyclers and small new recyclers (including start-ups), for whom one-third of the scheme outlay has been earmarked.
The scheme will be applicable to investments in new units as well as expansion of capacity / modernisation and diversification of existing units.
Incentive Structure
Capex subsidy: 20% on plant, machinery, and utilities for units that start production within a set timeframe. Delays will attract lower subsidies.
Opex subsidy: Linked to incremental sales over the FY 2025-26 base year. Firms can claim 40% of eligible Opex in the second year, and 60% in the fifth year, subject to meeting sales thresholds.
Subsidy limits: Maximum Rs 50 crore per large entity and Rs 25 crore per small entity, with ceilings on Opex support at Rs 10 crore and Rs 5 crore respectively.
Expected Outcomes:
Expected to develop at least 270 kilo ton of annual recycling capacity resulting in around 40 kilo ton annual critical mineral production.
Bringing in about Rs 8000 crore of investment and creating close to 70,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Context: Recently, the Prime Minister of Singapore was on his official visit to India. India and Singapore marked 60 years of diplomatic ties by adopting a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Roadmap.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Significance of India-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Roadmap.
Both countries agreed on a forward-looking roadmap for the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (CSP) covering eight priority areas.
Key Elements of the Roadmap towards Comprehensive Strategic Partnership:
1. Economic Cooperation:
Deepen bilateral trade and market access by Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) and initiate the review of CECA in 2025.
Substantial review of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA).
Semiconductor ecosystem collaboration through policy dialogues, resilient supply chains, R&D partnerships, workforce training, and business-to-business cooperation.
Jointly develop sustainable and next-generation industrial parks with advanced manufacturing capabilities.
Enhance capital market connectivity through NSE-IFSC-SGX GIFT Connect.
2. Skills Development:
The National Centre of Excellence for Skilling in Advanced Manufacturing will be established in Chennai with Singapore’s support.
Both sides will promote cooperation in Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET), curriculum development, certification frameworks, internships, and teacher training.
State-level initiatives (such as Singapore-Assam Nursing Talent Skills Cooperation) will be scaled up.
3. Digitalisation and Technology:
Strengthening digital finance and fintech cooperation, cyber security, and capital market linkages.
The Joint Working Group on Digital Technologies will explore opportunities in AI, quantum computing, critical and emerging technologies.
Specific AI collaboration will involve AI-ready datasets and sectoral applications in agriculture, healthcare, and education.
The UPI-PayNow linkage will be expanded to maximise paperless, secure, cross-border payments.
4. Sustainability:
Collaborate on green hydrogen and ammonia production and trade. Explore cooperation in urban water management and civil nuclear energy.
Joint work will continue in multilateral platforms such as the International Solar Alliance and Global Biofuels Alliance.
Food security cooperation will include export promotion and accreditation frameworks for agricultural products.
Green and Digital Shipping Corridor (GDSC) will be developed to strengthen maritime connectivity and promote green maritime fuels.
5. Connectivity:
Maritime connectivity will be expanded through the Green & Digital Shipping Corridor.
Aviation connectivity will be expanded through partnerships in aviation and aerospace Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO).
Cooperation in Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) will be promoted.
6. Healthcare and Medicine:
The MoU on Health Cooperation will be implemented to cover digital health, disease surveillance, maternal and child health, access to medicines, and combating communicable and non-communicable diseases..
7. People-to-People and Cultural Exchanges:
Student exchanges, including ITI students and Singapore-India Partnership Foundation's immersion programmes will be expanded.
Internships for Singaporean students in Indian companies under the India Ready Talent (IRT) programme will be encouraged.
8. Defence and Security:
Deepen defence technology cooperation in AI, quantum computing, automation, and unmanned vessels.
Maritime cooperation will include maritime security, submarine rescue, and Maritime Domain Awareness. Singapore acknowledged India’s interest in the Malacca Straits Patrol highlighting shared maritime security interests.
The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty will be used to strengthen cooperation in criminal investigations.
Institutional Mechanisms:
India-Singapore Ministerial Roundtable will be institutionalised as the foremost mechanism to monitor the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership roadmap annually. Regular Foreign Office Consultations will review bilateral relations.
Strategic Significance
The roadmap reflects India’s Act East Policy and positions Singapore as a key partner in the Indo-Pacific region.
The focus on semiconductors, digital economy, and green shipping aligns with India’s strategic priorities for self-reliance and sustainable growth.
Cooperation in maritime security and the Malacca Straits Patrol enhances India’s strategic presence in one of the world’s busiest sea lanes.
Skill development initiatives and the National Centre of Excellence in Chennai will strengthen India’s human capital and industry-readiness.
Expansion of UPI-PayNow and fintech linkages highlights India’s global leadership in Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI).
Counter-terrorism coordination deepens India’s regional and global security partnerships.
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.
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%.
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.
InState 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.
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.
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.
Certificationbottlenecks: 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.
Context: Indian Courts have been male-dominated institutions. Presently, there is just one woman judge out of the full strength of 34 judges in the Supreme Court. In order to implement inclusive policies, it is necessary to employ a female perspective into the institution.
Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Essay; Under Representation of Women in Judiciary: Reasons and Way Forward.
Introduction
Over the past century, women in law have made significant progress in India. The first woman lawyer, Cornelia Sorabji, was entitled to practice in 1924. Since then, women have entered the legal profession in increasing numbers, attained the rank of Senior Advocates, and served as judges in the lower judiciary.
Despite these advancements, women’s representation in the higher judiciary remains alarmingly low, which highlights deep-rooted systemic inequality.
Issue of Glass Ceiling in the Higher Judiciary
Women’s representation in the higher judiciary continues to be minimal.
Only 13.4% of High Court judges are women.
In eight High Courts— Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Manipur, Meghalaya, Odisha, Tripura, and Uttarakhand— there is either no woman judges or just one.
Allahabad High Court, the largest in the country, has only three women judges out of 79 (2%).
Only one High Court, the Gujarat High Court, currently has a woman Chief Justice.
Women judges are appointed at a later age than men, with an average appointment age of 53 years compared to 51.8 years for men. This delay prevents them from reaching senior positions.
At Supreme Court level
The situation in the Supreme Court is even more dire:
Since 2021, 28 judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court, but none of them are women.
In the past 75 years, nine men have been elevated directly from the Bar to the Supreme Court, while only one woman has received the same elevation.
Only 11 women have been appointed to the Supreme Court till date (August 2025), which is a mere 3.8% of total judges appointed since its inception in 1950.
There is total absence of caste diversity among women judges in the Supreme Court due to non-appointment of women judges from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The delayed age of appointment for women results in women judges not making it to the Collegium or as Chief Justice of India. The first woman CJI will be Justice B. V. Nagarathna, who is scheduled to be appointed for only 36 days (in 2027).
Reasons for under-representation of women in Judiciary:
1. Barriers to Women’s inclusion:
Heightened Scrutiny: Women face greater scrutiny when being considered for elevation, with their merit being questioned more rigorously than their male counterparts.
Entry-level barriers: The Judicial Service Rules in many states require continuous legal practice, which can be challenging for women who need career breaks due to family responsibilities. This restricts their chances of elevation to the Bench.
Retention challenges: Even when women enter the judiciary, career progression is hampered by rigid transfer policies and lack of support structures, discouraging their long-term participation.
Infrastructure deficiencies: Many courts lack basic facilities such as separate washrooms, crèches, and family-friendly spaces. A 2019 survey by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found that nearly 100 district courts lack dedicated washrooms for women, making their daily work environment difficult.
2. Collegium System and alleged gender bias:
No clearly defined criteria: There are no clearly defined criteria for eligibility, merit, or the selection process.
Composition: Collegiums, predominantly composed of men, rarely make a concerted effort to identify and elevate qualified women candidates.
Rejection by the government: Even when women’s names are recommended, they are disproportionately rejected by the government. Since 2020, nine women’s names were recommended for High Court appointments, but five were rejected outright.
Way Forward
1. Transparent Appointment Process:
Collegium should establish a clear and transparent selection process based on merit.
Time-bound approvals for collegium recommendations (A timeframe of 90 days is proposed).
2. Gender diversity as a stated objective:
Gender diversity should be an explicit criterion in judicial appointments, ensuring that at least one-third of judges in the High Courts and Supreme Court are women.
Adopt Kerala's model of 50% reservation for women in lower judiciary.
Establish gender diversity targets (33-50%) in higher judiciary appointments.
3. Inclusive infrastructure and policy-level changes:
Judicial policies should account for women’s specific needs, including maternity benefits and flexible transfer policies.
Courts must prioritise gender-friendly infrastructure, including sanitary facilities, feeding rooms, and crèches.
Inclusion of women in the High Court and Supreme Court committees on infrastructure and policy-making to ensure gender-sensitive decision-making.
4. Encouraging women in the legal profession:
Law firms, bar councils, and judiciary bodies should actively mentor and support women lawyers to build a strong pipeline of candidates for judicial roles.
Carole Pateman’s theory of the “public-private divide” aptly explains how traditionally male-dominated institutions fail to adapt to the inclusion of women. A female-centric gaze in judicial policy-making is necessary to ensure that infrastructure, recruitment, and retention policies are designed with women’s lived realities in mind.
Context: The central government plans to geo-tag all buildings (residential and non-residential) in the Census 2027.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Concept of geo-tagging, Geo-tagging and governance.
What is Geo-Tagging ?
Geo-tagging is the process of assigning precise latitude and longitude coordinates to a physical asset, building, or location and linking it to a Geographical Information System (GIS) map.
It digitally pins a structure or object to its exact place on a map allowing it to be identified, verified, and monitored in real time.
Historical Context and Present Use in India:
In India, geo-tagging has been used in government schemes such as the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY), MGNREGA assets, and other development programmes to ensure transparency and accountability in asset creation.
For the first time in Census 2027 the government plans to geo-tag all residential and non-residential buildings across the country.
Geo-Tagging in Census 2027:
Enumerators will geo-tag each building within its Houselisting Block (HLB) using a Digital Layout Mapping (DLM) system. This is a departure from earlier censuses, where hand-drawn notional maps were prepared. Now, layout maps will be automatically generated from geo-tagged building data.
Census 2027 will beIndia’s first fully digital census using mobile applications, self-enumeration options, and real-time monitoring through the Census Monitoring & Management System (CMMS).
Benefits of Geo-Tagging:
Accuracy in Enumeration: Geo-tagging will ensure that all buildings are mapped and counted, reducing the chances of omission or duplication.
Transparency and Accountability: Digitally tagged assets reduce the possibility of ghost entries and fraudulent claims.
Policy Formulation: Real-time and location-specific data on housing, amenities, and population distribution will strengthen evidence-based policymaking.
Disaster Management and Urban Planning: A geo-tagged housing database can aid in evacuation, rehabilitation, and planning for infrastructure and civic services.
Integration with Other Digital Initiatives: Geo-tagging complements initiatives like Digital India, GIS-based governance, and the Smart Cities Mission creating a unified digital governance framework.
Challenges in Geo-Tagging:
Privacy Concerns: Citizens may have apprehensions about the government mapping and digitally storing the exact location of their homes.
Digital Divide: Rural and remote areas with weak internet and digital infrastructure may face difficulties in real-time geo-tagging.
Data Security: Protecting sensitive location data from cyber threats is a major challenge.
Geo-tagging is a crucial step towards e-governance and evidence-based administration in India. It will help bridge gaps between planning and implementation by providing precise, location-linked, and real-time data.
Context: The Supreme Court has questioned the validity of the blanket exemption granted to minority institutions from the applicability of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009. The SC has called for reconsideration of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust vs. Union of India (2014) judgment by a larger bench.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Article 21A; Article 30(1)
Mains: Conflict between the Right to Education (Article 21A) and the Rights of Minorities to establish and administer educational institutions (Article 30(1)).
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India (2014) Case
The RTE Act, 2009 was enacted to guarantee free and compulsory education to all children aged 6-14 years under Article 21A of the Constitution.
In the case, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that applying the RTE Act to minority institutions (aided or unaided) was unconstitutionalas it violated Article 30(1).
Article 30(1) guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.
As a result, minority institutions were granted a blanket exemption from RTE provisions, including the 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups under Section 12(1)(c).
Supreme Court’s Recent Observations (2025)
The SC expressed serious doubts about the correctness of the Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (2014) ruling that gave minority institutions blanket exemption from the RTE Act.
The SC held that the RTE Act ought to apply to all minority institutions (aided or unaided) without eroding their minority character under Article 30(1).
The bench clarified that Article 21A and Article 30(1) are not in conflict; they can and must co-exist mutually.
Section 12(1)(c), mandating 25% reservation for disadvantaged groups was described as serving the broader purpose of social inclusion and universalisation of education. Section 12(1)(c) does not alter school demographics to compromise minority identity and comes with a reimbursement mechanism ensuring financial neutrality.
Any conflict can be reconciled by admitting minority children who also belong to weaker sections or disadvantaged groups under the quota.
On the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), the SC reaffirmed it as a minimum qualification under the RTE Act binding on minority institutions as well.
Context: The Supreme Court has recently sought a detailed response from the Centre on the issue of restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Concept of Federalism, Constitutional Framework for Creation of States.
Mains: Issue of Restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir.
Abrogation of Article 370
The abrogation of Article 370 and enactment of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 bifurcated the State into two Union Territories:
Jammu & Kashmir (with legislative assembly)
Ladakh (without legislative assembly).
The Supreme Court in 2023 upheld the abrogation, but it also directed the Union Government to restore statehood and conduct Assembly elections.
Constitutional Framework for Creation of States
The Constitution of India provides three processes for creating States: admission, establishment, and formation.
Admission requires an organised political unit and is guided by international law, as was the case with Jammu and Kashmir’s accession in 1947 through the Instrument of Accession signed by Maharaja Hari Singh.
Establishment involves acquisition of new territories, such as the cases of Goa and Sikkim.
Formation refers to reorganisation of existing States under Article 3, which has expanded India’s map from 14 States in 1956 to 29 States before the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Article 3 empowers Parliament to form, alter, or rename States, but it does not authorise converting a State into a Union Territory on a permanent basis. Thus, continuing to keep Jammu and Kashmir as a Union Territory is against the spirit of federalism embedded in the Constitution.
Implications of Non-Restoration:
Denial of statehood leads to a democratic deficit, since a Union Territory places overriding powers in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor rather than the elected government.
It also dilutes citizens’ rights to self-governance, which is central to India’s democratic framework.
Continued Union control risks alienating the people of Jammu and Kashmir and may undermine long-term stability and integration.
From a constitutional perspective, it sets a dangerous precedent where any State could potentially be downgraded to a Union Territory, eroding the spirit of federalism.
Why Restoration of Statehood is Imperative?
Restoring statehood is imperative to uphold federalism, which the Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati (1973) held to be part of the Basic Structure.
The Rajya Sabha under Article 83(1) ensures continuous representation of States in national decision-making , and denial of statehood disrupts this equilibrium and weakens India’s cooperative federalism.
It empowers the elected government and restores the principle of self-rule, thereby addressing the democratic aspirations of the people.
It reinforces the separation of powers by complying with the Supreme Court’s directions.
It helps maintain national unity with federal balance, preventing over-centralisation that could erode trust among States.
While temporary Union control may be justified on grounds of security, its prolonged continuation undermines both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. The restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir is not merely a political demand but a constitutional obligation essential for safeguarding India’s federal design.
Context: Nepalese Prime Minister has voiced his concerns over India and China to resume using Lipulekh pass to carry out border trade. Nepal claims Lipulekh as its own territory, however, India has categorically dismissed it as “neither justified nor based on historical facts and evidence”.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts about Lipulekh Pass. Mains: An important aspect of challenges associated with India-Nepal Relations.
About Lipulekh Pass
The Lipulekh Pass is a Himalayan pass situated in the Pithoragarh district of Uttarakhand, India. It is located on the border between Uttarakhand, Nepal and Tibet.
Lipulekh is strategically important to India as it provides access to Tibet and serves as a key route for the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra.
The pass is near the trading town of Taklakot (Purang) in Tibet and has been used since ancient times by traders, mendicants and pilgrims.
It is also used by pilgrims to Kailash-Manasarovar Yatra.
Nepal’s claim to Lipulekh Pass and Kalapani Region:
Historical Basis: Nepal claims the southern side of the pass called Kalapani territory, based on the Treaty of Sugauli 1816 between British East India Company and Nepal.
The treaty delimited the boundary along Kali river (Sharda/Mahakali river). It stated that Nepal would cede the territories west of the Kali river.
Nepal claims that the Kali river originates from Limpiyadhura, west of Kalapani and Lipulekh. On this basis, Nepal claims Kalapani, Lipulekh, and Limpiyadhura as its part.
India claims that the Kali river originates at Kalapani village in Pithoragarh, where all its tributaries merge.
Hence, the bone of contention is the differing interpretation of the origin of the Kali River.
India’s stand on Lipulekh Pass:
Border trade between India and China through Lipulekh Pass commenced in 1954 and has been going on for decades. This trade had been disrupted in recent years due to COVID-19 and other developments, and both sides have now agreed to resume it.
India rejects Nepal’s objection to resumption ofIndia-China border trade through the Lipulekh Pass stating that the arguments are not based on “historical facts”. Any unilateral artificial enlargement of territorial claims by Nepal is untenable.
In the recent past the official map of Nepal, included in the constitution of Nepal, shows Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh and Kalapani located to the east of theMahakali River as integral parts of Nepal.
Context: The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has signed an Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) with the government of Japan on Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM) under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Article 6.2 of Paris Agreement, National Designated Authority.
Mains: Significance of India-Japan Joint Crediting Mechanism.
The MoC was unveiled as part of the broader Indo-Japan cooperation framework titled Green Energy Focus for a Better Future.
Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement
Under Article 6.2 countries can trade emissions reductions bilaterally. It enables a host country to sell units to a buyer country, in exchange for investments, support for capacity building, and access to technologies not available through domestic resources.
The buyer country purchases these units known as Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) to address any gaps in meeting its own climate goals.
About the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM)
The JCM is a Japanese initiative designed to promote global climate action. Under this mechanism, Japan implements and invests in low-carbon technologies in developing countries.
The resulting emission reductions are credited to both Japan and the host country, and Japan uses its share to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).
Unlike the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) established under Kyoto Protocol, host countries under JCM act as joint implementers, not just passive participants.
A Joint Committee manages the mechanism including rules, methodologies, project registration, and credit sharing.
India has established a National Designated Authority (NDA) to approve JCM projects and oversee the functioning of the domestic carbon market.
Significance for India’s Climate Commitments:
India has made ambitious NDC commitments under the Paris Agreement for 2030. These include:
Reducing the emission intensity of GDP by 45% from 2005 levels.
Achieving 50% cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources.
Creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO₂ equivalent through afforestation.
JCM will support India in meeting these targets by providing foreign investment, advanced technology, and access to international carbon markets.
It will also enable the international trading of carbon credits generated from such projects under Article 6.2 of the Paris Agreement with Japan and other countries on similar lines without adversely impacting India’s NDC commitments.
Context: The US President recently signed an executive order cutting federal funding for jurisdictions that allow cashless bail claiming that it leads to a rise in crime.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Concept of Bail, Cashless Bail, Bail Provisions in India.
Mains: Issues in India’s Bail Provisions and the Urgent Need for Reforms.
What is Bail?
Bail is the conditional release of an accused person from custody while awaiting trial. It is based on the principle of presumption of innocence ensuring that a person is not punished before conviction.
The court’s concern in granting bail is that the accused:
does not abscond or evade trial,
does not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and
remains available to face justice.
Hence, courts require a monetary deposit or surety as a guarantee of compliance. If the accused fails to appear, the money is forfeited. This makes bail both a safeguard of liberty and a mechanism of accountability.
What is Cashless Bail?
Cashless bail refers to the release of an accused without depositing cash upfront. Instead, the accused may sign a personal recognisance (PR) bond, be placed under community supervision, or offer other non-monetary assurances.
The rationale is to ensure that liberty before conviction does not depend on financial capacity.
Bail Provisions in the USA:
In the US, bail traditionally required cash deposits. Failure to pay meant remaining in custody, regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Later many US states introduced cashless bail for relatively minor non-violent offences.
Bail Provisions in India:
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down the process for releasing a person on bail. Among the conditions for bail is the furnishing of a bond or a bail bond.
Bond:
By signing a bond an accused agrees to their bail terms and assures the court they will remain present for the trial. This is usually accompanied by a cash deposit, with the amount depending on the nature of the crime and the economic condition of the accused.
This deposit can be forfeited if bail conditions are violated, and is refunded at the conclusion of the trial regardless of the outcome.
If an accused does not have the means to furnish cash, courts may consider releasing them on a personal recognisance bond (PR bond). This requires the accused to arrange for the cash within a specific time after being released on bail.
Bail bond:
A bail bond is a guarantee given by another person (family member, friend, or employer) to ensure that the accused complies with bail conditions and appears for trial. The surety may also be required to deposit a specified sum, which can be forfeited if the accused absconds.
Courts conduct verification of the surety’s documents, financial standing, and personal background to establish credibility.
Certain courts insist that the surety must possess financial assets, permanent residence, or be a local resident of the district.
In cities like Mumbai, a solvency certificate issued by a revenue officer is mandatory, often causing delays of several days or even weeks in the grant of bail.
Issues in Bail Provisions in India:
Economic Discrimination: 268th Law Commission Report (2017) held that financial surety-based bail is contrary to constitutional ethos, as it discriminates against the poor.
Undertrial Overcrowding: National Crime Records Bureau (2022) shows that over 75% of India’s prison population are undertrials, many detained only due to inability to furnish bail.
Procedural Delays: Mulla Committee on Prison Reforms (1983) flagged that cumbersome verification processes, such as solvency certificates, prolong custody even after bail is granted.
Judicial Hesitancy on PR Bonds: Despite the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon (1979) emphasising bail as a right, trial courts remain reluctant to release accused on personal recognisance bonds.
Constitutional Concerns: The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2022) observed that denial of bail for inability to pay surety violates Article 21 (Right to Liberty).
Need for Bail Reforms in India:
Risk-Based Assessment: The Law Commission (268th Report) recommended shifting from monetary sureties to risk-based evaluation of absconding or tampering.
Greater Use of PR Bonds: Justice Krishna Iyer Committee on Prison Reforms (1987) stressed non-monetary bail to avoid criminalising poverty.
Strengthened Legal Aid: NALSA Report (2023) revealed 5000 undertrials in jail despite bail orders, highlighting the need for proactive legal services intervention.
Prison Decongestion: Supreme Court (2023) directed that undertrials not released within a week of bail must be reported to District Legal Services Authorities.
Systemic Reform: National Police Commission (1977-81) called for liberalised bail policies to ensure speedy justice and reduce undertrial population.
The principle that “bail is the rule, jail the exception” must guide criminal justice in spirit and practice. Without systemic reforms like wider PR bonds, simplified procedures and robust legal aid, bail will remain a privilege of the rich rather than a right of all.
