Mains Exhaustive

Why does Punjab keep Flooding?

Context: Punjab, often described as the “land of five rivers” and the “food bowl of India,” faces recurrent floods that devastate lives, agriculture, and infrastructure.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Factors responsible for recurrent floods in Punjab.

Historical records show that Punjab has faced major floods in 1955, 1988, 1993, 2019, 2023. In 2025, all 23 districts of the state have been declared flood-hit with more than 3.8 lakh people affected and over 11.7 lakh hectares of farmland destroyed.

Factors responsible for Floods

Geographical and Natural Factors: Punjab has three perennial rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) and seasonal rivers like the Ghaggar, numerous hill streams and seasonal streams which make it naturally flood-prone. Heavy monsoon rainfall in Punjab and upstream states like Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir causes rivers to swell beyond capacity.
Failures of Flood Protection Infrastructure: Floods are aggravated by poor upkeep of barrages. Poor maintenance and lack of periodic strengthening of Earthen embankments (dhussi bundhs) reduce their effectiveness during extreme events. E.g., Madhopur Barrage gate failure in 2025.
Role of Dams and Barrages:
- Bhakra Dam (Sutlej), Pong Dam (Beas), and Thein/Ranjit Sagar Dam (Ravi) are managed mainly for irrigation and power, not flood control. Excessive rainfall forces dam authorities to release large volumes of water suddenly to prevent overtopping which floods downstream areas.
- Punjab alleges that the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) keeps reservoir levels high in July-August to secure irrigation and hydropower needs, leaving little flood cushion for late monsoon rains.
Governance and Institutional Problems:
- Punjab has limited say in the decision-making of the BBMB, especially after the 2022 amendment that allowed officers from across India (not just Punjab and Haryana) to hold top posts.
- Lack of coordination and delayed warnings between dam operators and state authorities worsen the damage.
- Governments typically adopt a reactive rather than preventive approach, focusing on relief after disasters instead of long-term mitigation measures like desilting rivers and strengthening embankments.
Border and Strategic Dimensions: Ravi river partly flows through Pakistan, where the military has built strong embankments and flood-control structures, altering the river’s behaviour and increasing risks for India’s side.
Climate Change Factor: Monsoons in South Asia have become more volatile, with 2025 witnessing 15-30% above-normal rainfall in Himachal, J&K, and Punjab. Extreme rainfall events are reducing the effectiveness of traditional dam rule curves and embankment defences.

Socio-Economic Consequences of Floods:

Floods devastate Agriculture, destroying standing crops like paddy and delaying wheat sowing, directly impacting national food security.
Farmers lose not just crops but face costs of de-silting fields, repairing tube wells, and restoring soil health.
Agricultural labourers (dependent on seasonal employment) face joblessness and social insecurity after floods.
Rural economies collapse temporarily with large-scale distress migration possible in worst-hit areas.

Way Forward

Scientific Dam Management: Reservoirs should maintain a flood cushion during monsoon months with real-time monitoring and transparent release protocols.
Strengthening Embankments: Earthen dhussi bundhs must be reinforced, illegal sand mining curbed, and concrete structures built in vulnerable stretches, especially along border rivers.
Desilting and River Training: Rivers should be regularly desilted and trained to remove bottlenecks and increase their carrying capacity.
Integrated Early Warning Systems: A coordinated early warning system should link IMD, dam authorities, irrigation departments, and district administrations.
Reform of Indus Waters Treaty: The treaty should be updated to incorporate adaptive management and climate change resilience.
Comprehensive Relief Mechanism: Direct Benefit Transfers should be expanded to provide quick and targeted relief to farmers and agricultural labourers

Without structural reforms in dam governance, embankment strengthening, and adaptive water-sharing policies, Punjab will continue to face devastation. Effective flood management is critical not only for the state’s security and economy but also for India’s national food security and border stability.

India-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Roadmap

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.

Centre and Manipur ink Peace Pact with Kuki-Zo groups

Context: Recently, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and the Manipur state government signed a revised Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact with 24 Kuki-Zo insurgent groups under the Kuki National Organisation (KNO) and the United People’s Front (UPF).

Relevance of the Topic: Prelims & Mains: Key features of Peace Pact between Centre, Manipur Government and Kuki-Zo Groups.

Suspension of Operations (SoO) Pact

The SoO pact was first signed in 2008 after the violent Kuki-Naga clashes of the 1990s.
Under the original pact, around 2200 cadres of KNO and UPF were moved into designated camps, received a stipend of ₹6,000/month, and agreed to suspend operations against the State and Union forces.
The pact was extended annually until February 29, 2024, when the Manipur Government refused renewal of the pact citing violations of ground rules and accusing SoO groups of instigating the 2023 ethnic violence in Manipur.

Key Provisions of the 2025 Revised SoO Pact

Verification of cadres will be carried out by security forces, and a complete list of cadres with name, date of birth, Aadhaar, and latest photographs will be prepared by the Government.
Foreign nationals (particularly from Myanmar’s Chin-Kuki community) if found among the cadres will be removed from the list and deported.
The number of designated camps will be reduced from 14 to 12 (6 for KNO and 6 for UPF), and these camps will not be located near highways, populated areas, conflict-prone zones, the Myanmar border, or inter-state boundaries.
Weapons belonging to cadres will be stored in the nearest CRPF or BSF camps rather than in the insurgent-run camps.
Stipends for cadres will resume but will only be paid through Aadhaar-linked bank accounts and only for those physically present in the camps during inspections.
The Manipur Police will issue photo identity cards to all cadres to facilitate proper monitoring.
The Kuki-Zo Council (KZC) has agreed to open National Highway-2 (Imphal-Dimapur) a critical supply route for the Imphal Valley for free movement of commuters and goods.
A Joint Monitoring Group (JMG) headed by the Principal Secretary (Home) of Manipur will monitor implementation, conduct physical verification, and deal firmly with violations.
The pact mandates that KNO and UPF must abjure violence, abide by the Constitution of India and the territorial integrity of Manipur, and not maintain links with other armed groups.
The agreement bars insurgent groups from recruiting new cadres, carrying out offensive operations, or associating with domestic or foreign armed groups.
The Army, Assam Rifles, CAPFs, and State Police will not launch operations against these groups as long as they abide by the pact.
The pact provides for a tripartite political dialogue among the Centre, Manipur Government, and KNO/UPF to work towards a negotiated political settlement within the Constitution of India.

Significance:

The pact represents a renewed attempt at peace-building after the collapse of the agreement in 2024.
It reaffirms the territorial integrity of Manipur, addressing concerns of the Meitei community.
It acknowledges the Kuki-Zo demand for a political settlement, but strictly within the framework of the Indian Constitution.
The opening of NH-2 restores the economic lifeline and ensures supply of essential commodities to the Imphal Valley.
The relocation of camps away from sensitive areas reduces the possibility of renewed violence and enhances civilian security.

Challenges:

Trust deficit remains between communities: Meiteis accuse Kuki groups of fuelling the 2023 violence, while Kukis distrust the State Government.
The phrase “negotiated political settlement within the Constitution of India” is ambiguous and may be interpreted differently by the parties.
Implementation difficulties exist in verifying cadres, relocating camps, and deporting foreign nationals from Myanmar.
The temporary nature of the pact (valid for one year) means long-term peace remains uncertain.

The Coordinating Committee on Manipur Integrity (COCOMI), one of the largest Meitei civil society groups in Manipur, has rejected the signing of Suspension of Operations (SoO) pact with the Kuki-Zo insurgent groups.

Also Read: What Manipur Needs?

Why are India, Afghanistan and Pakistan vulnerable to deadly Earthquakes?

Context: A 6.0-magnitude earthquake struck northeast Afghanistan. A 6.0-magnitude earthquake struck northeast Afghanistan. The quake originated at a shallow depth of 8 km, making the surface shaking extremely intense and destructive.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Why are India, Afghanistan and Pakistan vulnerable to deadly Earthquakes?

Why are India, Afghanistan and Pakistan vulnerable to deadly Earthquakes?

The region has experienced devastating earthquakes in the past :

2001 Bhuj Earthquake (India)
2005 Earthquake (Pakistan-administered Kashmir)
2015 Hindu Kush Earthquake (Afghanistan)
2023 Herat Earthquake (Afghanistan)
2025 Afghanistan

Reasons for frequent Earthquakes in the Region:

Tectonic Stress: The region lies on the collision boundary of Indian Plate and Eurasian Plate. The Indian Plate is moving northward at about 5 cm per year, colliding with the Eurasian Plate. This tectonic stress causes frequent earthquakes along active fault lines, especially in the Himalaya and Hindu Kush mountains.
Delamination of Indian Plate: Recent studies reveal that the Indian Plate is splitting into two, with the lower part detaching and sinking into the Earth’s mantle (a process called delamination). In the Himalayan collision zone, delamination results in fractures that increase stress in the Earth’s crust, raising the likelihood of seismic events.

Active Fault Lines: Presence of major faults like the Himalayan Frontal Thrust (HFT), Main Boundary Thrust (MBT), Chaman Fault (Pakistan-Afghanistan border), and Karakoram Fault. Sudden slip along these faults releases massive seismic energy.
Geological and Topographical Factors: Young fold mountains (Himalayas & Hindu Kush) are geologically unstable and continue to deform under tectonic pressure. The presence of steep slopes, deep valleys, and thick sedimentary deposits amplifies seismic waves. Plains such as the Indo-Gangetic basin are prone to soil liquefaction during major tremors.
Role of Climate Change: Rising global temperatures are causing accelerated glacier melt in the Himalayas, with up to 80% of glaciers projected to disappear by 2100. The loss of glacial weight leads to isostatic rebound, which shifts the earth’s crust and triggers quakes. Meltwater seeps into the ground, reducing friction along fault lines, thereby making slippage more likely.

Thus, while tectonics remain the primary driver, climate change acts as a risk multiplier.

India’s plan for creating Theatre Commands in Defence

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

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

What is Theaterisation?

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

Current Structure :

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

Rationale for Theaterisation:

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

Evolution of Theatre Command Plans

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

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

Steps already Taken towards Jointness:

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

Challenges in creating Theatre Commands:

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

Way Forward

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

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

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

Also Read: India needs National Security Doctrine

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and Delhi Riots Bail Case

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

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

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

What is Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967?

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

Key Provisions of UAPA:

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

Delhi Riots Case:

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

Why Bail Was Denied in the Delhi Riots Case?

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

Issues and Criticism of UAPA:

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

Broader Democratic Concerns

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

Way Forward

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

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

Mains Practice Question:

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

Should Reservations Exceed the 50% Cap?

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

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

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

What are the Constitutional Provisions?

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

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

Important Court Rulings in this Context:

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

Arguments for Exceeding the 50% Cap:

Proportional Representation: Backward classes form a majority of the population, and proportional representation requires a higher quota share.
Substantive equality demands going beyond formal equality, as historical injustices and deep-rooted discrimination cannot be addressed with a 50% limit.

Address persistent underrepresentation of SCs, STs, and OBCs which still continues, with many reserved posts remaining unfilled.
States with higher percentages of marginalised populations argue that a rigid 50% ceiling undermines their autonomy to design policies that reflect their demographic realities.

Arguments against Exceeding the 50% Cap:

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

Way Forward

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

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

Under Representation of Women in Judiciary

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.

RTE Exemption to Minority Institutions should be Revised: SC

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.

Rising Urban Noise Pollution

Context: Urban noise pollution has emerged as one of the neglected public health crises despite policy measures.

Relevance of the topic:

Prelims: Legal Framework, Constitutional Provisions related to noise pollution.

Mains: Key reasons for rising noise pollution and associated challenges.

As per the World Health Organisation, safe limits in silent zones are 50 dB by day and 40 dB by night. Yet in cities such as Delhi and Bengaluru readings near sensitive institutions often reach 65 dB-70 dB.

Existing Measures for Noise Regulation:

The Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 provide legal provisions for defining silent zones and regulating permissible limits.
The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) launched the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) in 2011 to generate real-time noise data across Indian cities.
State governments and local authorities are empowered to regulate loudspeakers, firecrackers, construction activities, and industrial operations.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life with dignity, encompassing mental and environmental well-being.
Article 48A mandates proactive environmental protection.
Public awareness campaigns such as “No Honking Day” in some states, have been undertaken to encourage behavioural change among citizens.

Despite the presence of policy measures, noise pollution continues to rise because enforcement has remained weak and largely symbolic.

Gaps and Challenges in Implementation:

Weak enforcement of the Noise Pollution Rules and penalties for violations are rarely imposed. E.g., Noise Pollution Rules 2000 are rarely updated to reflect urban realities.
Lack of coordination: Multiple agencies such as traffic police, municipal bodies, and State Pollution Control Boards act in silos, which leads to a lack of coordination.
Fragmented Data: Data generated by the National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network often remains fragmented and is not effectively linked to enforcement actions.
Technological bottlenecks: Sensor placement is frequently flawed, with many devices installed at heights of 25-30 feet, which leads to inaccurate readings.
Public apathy and normalisation of honking, drilling, and construction noise reduce civic pressure on authorities to act.
Urbanisation, late-night infrastructure work, and logistics-driven traffic contribute to rising noise levels despite existing restrictions.

Health, Social and Ecological Impacts

Noise pollution has severe health consequences, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, stress, and disturbed sleep cycles.

Children exposed to high noise levels experience impaired cognitive development and reduced learning outcomes.
Elderly citizens and individuals with pre-existing health conditions face aggravated mental and physical health challenges.
Noise pollution reduces productivity, increases irritability, and lowers the overall quality of life in cities.
Noise disrupts animal communication systems. E.g., A 2025 University of Auckland study found that urban noise altered the sleep and song patterns of common mynas within a single night. Such disruptions signal a broader breakdown of ecological communication, which affects biodiversity and the urban environment.

In 2024, the Supreme Court of India affirmed that environmental disruptions, including excessive noise, can infringe upon the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21

Global Experiences and Best Practices:

Europe: The European Environment Agency estimated in 2020 that noise pollution causes annual economic losses worth €100 billion due to its health impacts. In response, several European cities redesigned speed zones, enforced strict zoning regulations, and integrated noise mapping into urban planning.
Japan: Japan has introduced acoustic zoning laws and noise-mapping systems that guide urban development and reduce sound exposure in residential areas.

India, by contrast, suffers from regulatory fragmentation and institutional silence.

Way Forward

Formulation of National Acoustic Policy on the lines of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to establish permissible decibel levels for different urban zones. The policy must mandate regular noise audits and empower local grievance redressal mechanisms to make enforcement citizen-centric.
Decentralisation of National Ambient Noise Monitoring Network (NANMN) to give local bodies access to real-time data and responsibility for immediate action.
Directly linking noise monitoring with enforcement to ensure that violations invite penalties, strict zoning compliance, and restrictions on construction activities.
Public awareness must be institutionalised through continuous campaigns, driver training programmes, and community initiatives.
Urban planning must integrate acoustic resilience by creating noise-buffer zones, embedding green spaces, and designing infrastructure that balances speed with sonic civility.

Tackling urban noise pollution requires moving beyond token regulations towards a rights-based approach that upholds Article 21 guarantee of life with dignity.

Seas rising faster around Lakshadweep and Maldives

Context: Recent scientific research using coral microatolls has revealed that sea-level rise (SLR) in the central Indian Ocean, particularly around the Maldives, Lakshadweep, and Chagos Archipelago is accelerating. Earlier studies suggested that significant acceleration started only in the 1990s, but new evidence shows that seas in this region have been rising since the late 1950s.

Relevance of the Topic: Mains: Implications of Climate Change.

Rising Sea Levels in Indian Ocean

Rising sea levels are among the most visible and threatening consequences of global warming. The Indian Ocean, which is the third largest ocean basin in the world, has been experiencing sea-level rise at an accelerated pace.
The Indian Ocean’s levels have been rising at around 3.3 millimetres per year, which is higher than the global average, which in turn amplifies changes in ocean dynamics and atmospheric circulation.
These shifts have a direct impact on coral reefs, fisheries, and low-lying island nations such as the Maldives, Lakshadweep, and the Chagos Archipelago.

Key Findings of the Study:

A team of researchers from the National University of Singapore studied coral microatolls in the Maldives. The study reconstructed sea-level history from 1930 to 2019, extending the existing records by nearly 90 years. The findings showed that :

Sea levels rose by around 0.3 metres over the 90-year period.
The rate of rise has accelerated over time: it was between 1 and 1.84 mm/year from 1930 to 1959, and between 3.91 and 4.87 mm/year from 1990 to 2019. This indicates that sea-level rise in the Indian Ocean began accelerating in the late 1950s.
The periods of coral growth interruption coincided with El Niño events, negative Indian Ocean Dipole events, and the 18.6-year lunar nodal cycle, all of which influence sea levels and stress corals.

Implications of Rising Sea Levels:

Ecological: Coral reefs face bleaching due to reduced sunlight, warmer waters, and acidification, threatening biodiversity and marine productivity.
Human & Economic: Low-lying islands risk inundation; livelihoods from fisheries and tourism are endangered; flooding, erosion, and storm surges increase vulnerability.
Geopolitical & Security: Strategic islands like Maldives and Lakshadweep face displacement, migration, and sovereignty challenges, impacting maritime trade and security.

Way Forward

Strengthening Scientific Monitoring: Expanding tide gauge networks, improving satellite observations, and using natural recorders such as coral microatolls can help fill critical gaps in sea-level data, and thus improve the accuracy of climate models and projections.
Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: Restore mangroves, seagrasses, and coral reefs as natural buffers.
Policy & Governance: Integrate sea-level rise into planning and disaster frameworks; secure climate finance and technology for island nations.
Resilient Infrastructure: Build climate-proof housing, elevate infrastructure, and strengthen flood protection.
Regional & Global Cooperation: Use IORA, UNFCCC, and regional platforms for joint monitoring, data sharing, and coordinated adaptation.

Issue of Restoration of Statehood to Jammu and Kashmir

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.