💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Without great powers on board, G20 is a drift

    Introduction

    The G20 emerged from the ashes of the 2008 crisis as the principal platform steering global financial stability, representing both advanced and rising powers. Over time, however, geopolitical rifts, protectionist shifts, and weakened multilateralism have steadily eroded its efficacy. The absence of great powers, divergent national priorities, and competing minilaterals now raise questions about the G20’s ability to act as an anchor for global economic coordination.

    Why in the News

    The G20 has entered a phase of visible fragmentation as major powers like the US, China, and Russia increasingly skip or downgrade their participation, marking a sharp contrast to its central role during the 2008 global financial crisis. Trump chose to boycott the 2025 G20 summit, which was hosted by South Africa in Johannesburg. The earlier summits, including Bali 2022 and New Delhi 2023, were marked by absence of key leaders such as Putin and Xi, signalling an unprecedented weakening of multilateral cooperation. The article highlights how the G20, once elevated to the “premier forum for international economic cooperation,” is now reduced to a middle-power platform with diminishing relevance. This drift, caused by unilateralism, great-power tensions, and rival blocs, is a major setback for global governance.

    How Did the G20 Rise From Crisis to Centrality?

    1. Global Financial Crisis (2008): Elevated from a finance ministers’ forum to a leaders’ summit after the Lehman collapse, recognising the need for collective economic stabilisation.
    2. US-EU Leadership: President Bush convened the first summit; European leaders pushed to formalise it as the central platform for crisis response.
    3. Inclusive Membership: Plural representation of middle powers, India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, gave the G20 legitimacy beyond the G7.

    Why Is the G20 Losing Relevance Today?

    1. Great-Power Withdrawal: Absence of Xi and Putin (2023) indicates declining commitment by major actors.
    2. Shift to Bilateralism: 2022 Bali summit dominated by US-China bilateral diplomacy, overshadowing collective agenda.
    3. Competing Priorities: US focus on securitising trade; China’s rivalry; Russia’s Ukraine conflict, reducing appetite for multilateral compromise.
    4. Fragmentation: Emergence of parallel groups like G2 ideas, Quad, IPEF, diluting G20 centrality.

    What Role Did Unilateralism Play in Weakening the G20?

    1. America First (Trump Era):
      1. Protectionist shift and retreat from multilateral commitments.
      2. Trade war with China and sanctions redirected US focus to bilateral power play.
      3. Undermined collective financial architecture, making G20 coordination difficult.
    2. Return of Great-Power Rivalry:
      1. US-China confrontation replaced cooperative economic agenda.
      2. Russia’s isolation post-Ukraine war created a split within member states.

    How Did the Absence of the Big Three Impact Multilateral Decision-Making?

    1. Reduced Negotiating Power: Without the US, China, and Russia at full participation, G20 communiqués lost substance.
    2. Lowered Stakes: Middle powers alone cannot push structural financial reforms.
    3. Decline in Issue Ambition: Meetings shifted from global macroeconomic governance to modest incremental outcomes.
    4. Loss of Crisis-Time Authority: Unlike 2008-09 summits which produced coordinated fiscal and financial action, recent meetings lacked decisive outcomes.

    What Does the G20 Drift Mean for India?

    1. Opportunity Shrinks: India’s earlier success, G20 admitting AU under its presidency, may not translate into sustained influence without great-power participation.
    2. Rise of Minilaterals: Quad, I2U2, IPEF may overshadow the G20’s relevance for India’s long-term strategic and economic diplomacy.
    3. Squeezed between Powers: India must balance ties with the US, China, and Russia while leading middle-power groupings.
    4. Reduced Global Economic Voice: Weak G20 undermines India’s push for reforms in global financial architecture and voice of Global South.

    Conclusion

    The G20’s drift reflects the broader fragmentation of global governance, marked by strategic rivalry, unilateral policies, and weakened collective will. Without full engagement of great powers, the forum risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. For India, the challenge is balancing leadership of the Global South with managing rival great-power agendas in an increasingly divided world.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] ‘Virus of Conflict is affecting the functioning of the SCO’. In the light of the above statement point out the role of India in mitigating problems.

    Linkage: Great-power rivalry within SCO mirrors the G20’s paralysis, where conflicting interests of major powers weaken collective decision-making. India’s balancing role in SCO highlights how middle powers attempt to preserve multilateral relevance amid widening geopolitical fractures.

  • Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir Project

    Why in the news?

    • Karnataka has decided to submit a revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) for the Mekedatu balancing reservoir across the Cauvery River.
    • The Supreme Court termed Tamil Nadu’s challenge as “premature”, enabling the CWMA and CWC to examine the project.

    Location & River

    • Mekedatu is located in Ramanagara district, ~100 km from Bengaluru.
    • The project is proposed on the inter-State Cauvery river.
    • Karnataka = upper riparian; Tamil Nadu = lower riparian.

    Why Does Karnataka Want It?

    • Bengaluru water demand:
      • Present: 2,600 MLD
      • Supply: 2,100 MLD → shortage of 500 MLD
    • Population to reach 20 million in 6 years → demand may rise to 4,000 MLD.
    • Shivakumar argues Mekedatu will ensure regulated release to Tamil Nadu, even in poor rainfall years.

    Why Is Tamil Nadu Opposed?

    • Trust deficit due to the history of Cauvery disputes.
    • Concern: Karnataka may store more water and release it selectively.
    • TN argues the project violates the 2018 SC judgment and Cauvery Tribunal’s final award.

    Centre’s Position

    • 2019: Karnataka submitted DPR → CWC → CWMA.
    • MoEFCC (2019): Sought an “amicable solution” due to inter-State dispute.
    • 2024 (Feb): CWMA referred DPR back to CWC after deliberations.
    • Now: DPR to be examined afresh; CWMA/CWC can facilitate dialogue.

    Constitutional & Legal Angle

    • Inter-State Rivers: Union List Entry 56 – regulation and development of inter-State rivers.
    • River Boards Act, 1956 (not effectively implemented).
    • Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT): Award notified in February 2013.
    • Supreme Court Judgment (2018):
      • Reallocated shares;
      • Gave 4.75 TMC drinking water allocation to Bengaluru.

     

    Recently, linking of which of the following rivers was undertaken? (2016)

    (a) Cauvery and Tungabhadra 

    (b) Godavari and Krishna 

    (c) Mahanadi and Son 

    (d) Narmada and Tapti

  • Return of the G2: Trump, China and the mirage of a bipolar world

    INTRODUCTION

    The reference to a “G2” resurfaced when US President Trump publicly announced that “The G2 will be convening shortly,” signalling a possible US-China duopoly in global decision-making. The Trump-Xi Busan meeting revived an older idea first articulated by economist C. Fred Bergsten in 2005. However, despite dramatic optics, the summit lacked institutional depth and showcased a transactional, spectacle-driven diplomatic approach. The renewed G2 talk generated global unease, especially among allies and emerging economies, given the risks of marginalisation and disruption of regional balances in the Indo-Pacific.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    Trump’s declaration that the US and China would meet as a “G2” revived the idea of a US-China duopoly at a moment of systemic geopolitical flux. The Busan meeting created significant global debate because, despite high-profile optics and selective trade concessions (soybean purchases, tariff relief, fentanyl cooperation), there were no structural commitments or conflict-management mechanisms. The sudden bypassing of broader multilateral processes unsettled allies and intensified concerns of shrinking strategic space for countries like India, especially amid shifting economic projections that show a long-term move toward a tripolar world rather than a bipolar G2.

    G2 Revival: What Does the Busan Moment Signify?

    1. Performative Diplomacy: Trump framed the meeting as a G2 encounter, signalling a claim to architect a new global order driven by bilateral spectacle rather than institutional negotiations.
    2. Transactional Bargains: China resumed US soybean imports; the US eased select tariffs and technology restrictions; cooperation was pledged on fentanyl precursors and rare-earth supply chains.
    3. Absence of Structure: No new institutions, principles, or crisis-management mechanisms were created, making the meeting high on optics but low on structural impact.

    China’s Strategic Calculus Behind the G2 Optics

    1. Symbolic Parity: Great-power parity aligns with China’s long-term ambition for equal status with the US, enhancing its global narrative.
    2. Economic Off-ramp: Tariff relief and tech flexibility help stabilise China’s domestic economy amid headwinds such as overcapacity and slowing productivity.
    3. Controlled Ambiguity: China avoided endorsing a formal duopoly, using strategic ambiguity to retain flexibility while cultivating Global South networks.

    Structural Fragility of a US-China Duopoly

    1. Deep Bilateral Contradictions: Taiwan, technology dependence, and military rivalry create structural barriers to stable cooperation.
    2. Lack of Institutional Grounding: No formal mechanisms exist to manage disputes or align long-term strategic objectives.
    3. Risk to Alliances: The G2 idea signals that alliances are expendable, undermining confidence among US partners in Asia and Europe.

    Global Implications of the G2 Notion

    1. Destabilising for Allies: Japan, South Korea, Australia fear erosion of regional balance if the US deprioritises alliances.
    2. Institutional Marginalisation: G2 bypasses multilateral institutions, weakening global governance frameworks.
    3. Supply-Chain Reconfiguration: A US-China bilateral alignment could redirect global supply chains, adversely affecting Indo-Pacific economies.

    Why the G2 Idea Alarms India

    1. Risk of Strategic Sidelining: A bilateral shortcut between the US and China may marginalise India despite its rising economic weight.
    2. Supply Chain Dependence: India’s dependence on Chinese imports (electronics, APIs, critical minerals) becomes more vulnerable.
    3. Quad Uncertainty: A possible thaw between the US and China creates ambiguity around the Indo-Pacific strategy and Quad commitments.
    4. Manufacturing Disadvantage: Reduced US pressure on China undercuts India’s ambition to position itself as a credible alternative manufacturing hub.

    Long-term Trend: A Tripolar, Not Bipolar, World

    1. Economic Projections: PwC and Goldman Sachs project by 2050 a tripolar structure: China (1st), India (2nd), US (3rd) in PPP terms.
    2. Limits on China’s Rise: Demographic contraction and industrial overcapacity constrain China’s long-term dominance.
    3. India’s Structural Advantages: Young workforce, expanding market, tech ambitions support India’s rise as a major economic pole.
    4. US Position: Innovation strength persists, but political polarisation and ageing demographics slow future growth.

    CONCLUSION

    Trump’s revival of the G2 is more spectacle than substance, reflecting a transitional phase rather than a durable geopolitical redesign. Structural contradictions, alliance concerns, and global economic shifts limit the feasibility of a US-China duopoly. The long-term trajectory points to broader multipolarity, with India emerging as a critical pole in global politics. The Busan moment thus underscores the instability of great-power bargains that bypass wider global participation and institutional frameworks.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] “The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.” Explain.

    Linkage: The PYQ statement directly connects to intensifying US-China strategic rivalry, which shapes the global balance of power, technology races, and Indo-Pacific security dynamics. It is highly relevant for GS-II (IR) as it influences India’s strategic space, Quad calculus, supply-chain realignments, and the emerging multipolar world order.

  • Operation Pawan  

    Why in the News?

    • For the first time, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Upendra Dwivedi paid homage at the National War Memorial to soldiers who died during Operation Pawan (1987–1990).
    • Event held on 25 November 2025.

    What was Operation Pawan?

    • A major military operation launched by the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in Sri Lanka.
    • Objective: Disarm the LTTE under the Indo–Sri Lanka Accord (1987).
    • Duration: October 1987 – 1990.

    Background

    • Under the Indo–Sri Lanka Peace Accord (July 1987):
      • India agreed to deploy IPKF to enforce peace in Northern & Eastern Sri Lanka.
      • The LTTE initially agreed to surrender weapons but soon reneged.

    Casualties in Operation

    • Hundreds of Indian soldiers killed, and over 1,000 injured.
    • One of India’s largest overseas military operations.

    National War Memorial

    • Location: New Delhi, near India Gate.
    • Dedicated to soldiers of post-Independence operations including:
      • 1947–48, 1962, 1965, 1971 wars
      • Kargil 1999
      • IPKF operations, and counter-insurgency missions.

    Importance of the IPKF Mission 

    • First large-scale out-of-country deployment of Indian forces.
    • Political and military complexities:
      • Fighting LTTE, once seen sympathetically by India.
      • Hostile terrain and guerrilla warfare challenges.
    Operations undertaken by the Army towards upliftment of the local population in remote areas to include addressing of their basic needs is called:  (2024)

    (a) Operation Sankalp 

    (b) Operation Maitri 

    (c) Operation Sadbhavana 

    (d) Operation Madad

    This question is highly relevant as it tests the specific format of knowledge required for Operation Pawan (the name and mission of a defence action).

  • [26th November 2025] Hindu OpED Trump-MbS summit- $1 trillion among friends

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union. Explain.

    Linkage: The Trump-MbS summit reflects the U.S. strategy of rebuilding alliances to counter China’s growing influence in West Asia, where Beijing has expanded economically and diplomatically. The revived U.S.-Saudi partnership strengthens America’s geopolitical position in a region where China had begun to outpace it.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Trump-Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) summit marks a major inflection in West Asia’s geopolitical landscape. The article examines the renewed U.S.-Saudi alignment, its military-economic scale, its contrast with earlier strains, and its strategic implications for India. This simplified yet UPSC-rich analysis helps aspirants understand the evolving balance of power in West Asia and its global consequences.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The article is significant because the U.S.-Saudi bilateral relationship has revived after years of drift, culminating in Trump’s first West Asia visit where both sides advanced $242 billion defence deals and $270 billion investment commitments, a scale unseen since the 1945 FDR-Saudi pact. The summit signals the return of transactional, high-value U.S.-Saudi cooperation, a sharp contrast to the Biden years of friction, Khashoggi tensions, and Saudi diversification toward China and Russia. This reset represents one of the largest bilateral economic-military consolidations globally, reshaping energy, security, and global power equations.

    INTRODUCTION

    The U.S.-Saudi partnership has historically shaped post-Second World War geopolitics, especially in energy and security. The Trump-MbS summit renews this legacy by combining massive defence sales, investment promises, and realignment on regional issues such as Iran, sanctions, and energy security. The revived partnership represents both strategic opportunity and geopolitical recalibration.

    What drives the renewed U.S.-Saudi strategic alignment?

    1. Historic continuity: Reconnects with the 1945 FDR-Ibn Saud “oil-for-security” pact revived in 2005 and 2025.
    2. Exceptional summit chemistry: Trump and MbS elevated bilateral commitments during Trump’s first regional visit.
    3. High-value agreements: $242 billion military commitments and $270 billion investment forum deals signal unprecedented scale.
    4. Shared interests: Addresses U.S. need for Gulf stability and Saudi need for defence, investment, and autonomy.

    How has the bilateral relationship evolved from past highs and lows?

    1. Historical tensions: 1973 oil embargo, 1980s missile purchases from China, Yemen war tensions, and the Khashoggi killing strained ties.
    2. Biden-era rifts: Public criticism of Saudi human rights issues pushed Riyadh closer to China and Russia.
    3. Saudi diversification: Riyadh’s engagement with Xi Jinping and Middle Eastern summits signal multipolar diplomacy.
    4. Return to U.S. orbit: Trump’s visit and renewed defence-economic convergence restore traditional alignment.

    What are the key outcomes of the Trump-MbS summit?

    1. Massive defence deals: Commitment to supply $242 billion in U.S. military equipment.
    2. Investment surge: MbS aims to raise Saudi investments in the U.S. economy from $600 billion to $1 trillion.
    3. Energy cooperation: Coordination on oil production to maintain a moderate, sustainable price.
    4. AI & tech collaboration: U.S. and Saudi firms advance “future-ready AI projects,” including AI chips.
    5. Regional stabilisation agenda: Coordination on Iran, Yemen ceasefire, and navigation security.

    What are the emerging regional geopolitical implications?

    1. U.S.-Saudi-Russia triangle: Saudi alignment tempers Russian oil revenue by stabilising global oil prices.
    2. Sanctions dynamics: U.S.-Saudi cooperation supports enforcement of sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.
    3. Security architecture: Signals continuity of U.S. commitment to Gulf security despite regional volatility.
    4. NATO+ narrative: U.S. sees Saudi as a “major non-NATO ally,” pushing deeper defence integration.

    What does this recalibration mean for India?

    1. Energy stability: Coordinated U.S.-Saudi oil policy keeps prices moderate, critical for India’s energy security.
    2. Defence + tech prospects: Saudi Vision 2030 and U.S. tech investments open new opportunities for Indian firms.
    3. Strategic partnership: India needs to accelerate the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Saudi Arabia.
    4. Geopolitical balancing: India must navigate U.S.-Saudi rapprochement while maintaining ties with Iran and Russia.

    CONCLUSION

    The Trump-MbS summit revives a historic partnership at a scale unmatched in recent years. By combining large defence contracts, investment flows, and re-alignment on energy security, the U.S.-Saudi partnership is again central to West Asian geopolitics. For India, this moment offers both opportunity and the need for strategic agility.

     

  • Decoding personality rights in the age of AI

    Introduction

    Personality rights, traditionally rooted in privacy, dignity, and control over one’s identity—are facing unprecedented stress due to generative AI. Deepfake technologies, synthetic media, and AI-generated impersonation are creating new risks of deception, reputational harm, financial loss, and large-scale identity exploitation. Recent legal disputes involving celebrities highlight widening vulnerabilities and the absence of a robust legal framework in India.

    Why in the News? 

    Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai recently approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against AI-generated videos that imitated their identity, voice, and catchphrases. This marks a major turning point because AI deepfakes are now powerful enough to replicate personalities at scale and for commercial misuse, something never seen before. The case exposes how India lacks a unified personality-rights legislation even as misuse grows rapidly, contrasting sharply with the stricter frameworks in the US, EU, and China.

    Erosion of Personality Rights in the AI Era

    1. AI Deepfakes: Enable face swaps, voice clones, and synthetic content that manipulate identity and support misinformation, malice, extortion, and erosion of trust.
    2. Unchecked AI Use: Generates mass commodification of human identity, intensifying reputational and financial vulnerabilities.
    3. Technological Trigger: The rise of generative AI tools has amplified impersonation risks and blurred lines between authenticity and deception.

    How Does Indian Law Currently Address Personality Rights?

    1. Fragmented Framework: India relies on privacy principles, constitutional protection, and selective case law but lacks a dedicated statute.
    2. Judicial Protection:
      1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017) upheld privacy as a fundamental right.
      2. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) recognised personality rights.
      3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023) banned misuse of his catchphrase “jhakaas” and likeness for diluted brand value.
      4. Arijit Singh v. Golden Ventures LLP (2024) protected his voice from AI replication.
    3. Regulatory Limits: IT Act 2000 and Intermediary Guidelines 2021 address impersonation and deepfakes but lack enforcement clarity, especially for cross-border misuse.

    How Do Global Jurisdictions Handle Personality Rights?

    1. United States
      1. Right of Publicity: Treated as transferable property.
      2. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (2024) bans unauthorized AI voice cloning and deepfake performances.
      3. Character.AI Cases: Highlight how AI models create digital personas that blur reality.
      4. First Amendment Constraints: Free speech limits over-regulation.
    2. European Union
      1. GDPR: Provides dignity-based protection over personal and biometric data.
      2. EU AI Act (2024): Classifies deepfakes as high risk, mandates transparency and labelling.
    3. China
      1. Internet Court Rulings (2024): AI-generated synthetic voices must not deceive consumers.
      2. AI-related cases treat voice actors and media workers as harmed individuals needing redress.

    Why Does India Need a Comprehensive Personality-Rights Law?

    1. Legal Vacuum: No dedicated statute addressing AI impersonation, deepfakes, monetisation of likeness, and cross-border exploitation.
    2. AI Platforms’ Liability: Lack of clear obligations for watermarking, transparency, and algorithmic accountability.
    3. Global Pressure: AI’s transnational nature demands compliance with international standards.
    4. Growing Harm: Cases of identity theft, synthetic celebrity endorsements, and psychological impact from digital cloning are rising.

    What Should India’s Legal Framework Include?

    1. Explicit Definition: Clear categorisation of personality rights, covering image, voice, likeness, name, gestures, and distinctive traits.
    2. Platform Accountability: Mandatory watermarking, AI content labelling, and traceability.
    3. Consent Architecture: Requirement of explicit consent for any AI-generated replication.
    4. Civil and Criminal Remedies: Compensation mechanisms and penalties for willful impersonation.
    5. Cross-Border Enforcement: Harmonisation with EU, US, and global regulatory practices.
    6. Ethical AI Standards: Transparency norms, audit trails, and safeguards against dataset misuse.

    Conclusion

    AI has radically transformed the nature of identity and personhood, challenging traditional legal doctrines surrounding privacy and personality rights. India must move from fragmented protections to a comprehensive, future-ready framework that secures individual autonomy while supporting responsible AI innovation. Without such reform, the risks of impersonation, exploitation, and identity erosion will only multiply.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain.

    Linkage: This question directly links to personality rights and AI deepfakes, as both derive from the privacy-autonomy framework under Article 21. It is relevant because the erosion of digital identity through AI impersonation tests the very constitutional protection the Puttaswamy judgment established.

  • [25th November 2025] Hindu OpED Bridging India’s numeracy gap

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2020] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.
    Linkage: NEP 2020 aligns with SDG-4 by focusing on equitable, high-quality education and foundational learning. However, implementation gaps and weak learning outcomes, especially in numeracy, limit its SDG-4 impact so far.
    Mentor’s Comment
    India’s learning crisis has silently shifted from illiteracy to numeracy failure. While the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and NIPUN Bharat Mission strengthened foundational literacy, recent evidence shows that numeracy continues to stagnate sharply, closing the doors of higher education for millions. This article decodes why numeracy outcomes matter for economic, cognitive, and social mobility, and what a multi-pronged policy roadmap must look like.
    INTRODUCTION
    NEP 2020 identifies Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN) as the cornerstone of future learning, and NIPUN Bharat translated this into classroom action. While literacy outcomes have shown improvement, numeracy remains stubbornly low, particularly in conceptual understanding and real-life application. India is now at a point where foundational literacy success must be expanded to higher-order mathematical learning.
    WHY IN THE NEWS 
    The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2024 shows that while 48.7% of Class 5 students read fluently, only 30.7% can solve a basic division problem, marking an 18% performance gap between literacy and numeracy. No State reports higher numeracy than literacy, highlighting a national trend of mathematics stagnation. Also, nearly 70% of Class 8 students and more than 50% of Class 5 students remain unable to perform basic division, despite classroom-based math instruction. The gap between school learning and real-life mathematical use is widening, closing higher-education opportunities as teens fail to cross the Class 10 board exam numeracy threshold.
    Where does India’s numeracy gap originate?
    1. Hierarchical nature of mathematics: partial understanding in lower grades (e.g., place value) blocks higher concepts such as addition and decimals.
    2. Cumulative error effect: once gaps form, students rarely recover, unlike in language.
    3. Traditional syllabus-driven pedagogy: focuses on advancement, not mastery; students progress without clearing conceptual blocks.
    Why does classroom learning not translate into real-world mathematical ability?
    1. High classroom performance, low life applicability: Evidence from the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab: students who excel in assessments fail to apply math in real-life situations.
    2. Real-world tasks do not transfer to classroom problems: Children able to handle money or shop-related calculations cannot solve textbook problems.
    3. Mismatch in learning environment: Schooling moves faster than the pace of conceptual consolidation.
    What are the consequences of India’s numeracy stagnation?
    1. Academic roadblocks: students struggle in science and mathematics subjects that dominate board exams.
    2. Early exit from education: adolescents leave school before Class 10 due to fear of mathematics.
    3. Reduced human capital formation: failure to master numeracy blocks access to high-skill employment and technical careers.
    Why does Foundational Literacy and Numeracy (FLN) need expansion beyond early grades?
    1. Persistent learning gaps after Grade 3: 70% of Class 5 and more than 50% of Class 8 students cannot divide.
    2. COVID-19 widened numeracy deficits: most Class 3 students reached upper-primary without core math skills.
    3. Transferable higher-grade pedagogy required: FLN-style teaching must be extended to older students.
    What does an effective multi-pronged response look like?
    1. Strengthening middle-grade support: extend FLN interventions to Class 8 to prevent permanent numeracy loss.
    2. Teaching math through everyday life: bills, ratios, fractions, percentages, and measurements.
    3. Child-friendly activity-based pedagogy: aligned with real literacy levels rather than grade-based syllabus.
    4. Embedding numeracy across subjects: problem-solving in science, geography, social sciences.
    CONCLUSION
    India has cracked foundational literacy but not foundational numeracy. The nation stands at a turning point where classroom success must evolve into real-life mathematical competence, ensuring that students not only pass but thrive academically and economically. Extending FLN-style pedagogy to middle-grade stages remains the most urgent policy priority.

  • What will mean for Chandigarh if it is brought under Article 240

    Introduction
    Chandigarh is a Union Territory that also serves as the shared capital of Punjab and Haryana. The Governor of Punjab currently holds additional charge as the Administrator of Chandigarh. The proposal to place Chandigarh under Article 240 of the Constitution may allow the Centre to appoint an independent Administrator and frame regulations for Chandigarh without relying on state mechanisms. The move carries political, administrative, and federal ramifications, especially for Punjab and Haryana.
    Why in the news? 
    Bringing Chandigarh under Article 240 could give the Centre sweeping legislative and administrative powers over the Union Territory, including the ability to repeal or amend laws applicable to Chandigarh through Parliament or Presidential regulations. This marks a sharp departure from the existing model, where Punjab’s Governor also administers Chandigarh. The move could influence bureaucratic control, fiscal provisions, and power distribution among Punjab, Haryana, and the Centre, making the stakes exceptionally high.
    What is Article 240?
    • Empowers the President to make regulations for the peace, progress and good government of certain Union Territories.
    • Regulations issued under Article 240 have the force of Parliamentary law, making them equivalent to an Act of Parliament.
    • Allows amendment or repeal of existing laws in a UT, giving the Union direct legislative authority.
    • Applies to UTs without a legislative assembly: Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu.
    • Applies to Puducherry only when its Assembly is dissolved or suspended, enabling temporary Central control.
    • Enables the Centre to bypass State governments in UT governance, creating a more unitary administrative model.
    Chandigarh’s current administrative arrangement
    1. Shared capital system: Chandigarh serves as the capital of both Punjab and Haryana.
    2. Additional charge: The Governor of Punjab functions as the Administrator of Chandigarh.
    3. UT governance limitations: Chandigarh lacks its own Legislative Assembly.
    What Article 240 enables
    1. Sweeping Central authority: The President can make regulations for peace, progress, and good government for UTs.
    2. Regulatory override: Any law applicable to Chandigarh can be repealed or amended via Parliamentary legislation.
    3. Direct central rule template: Similar model followed in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Daman & Diu, Puducherry (when its Assembly is dissolved/suspended).
    Implications if Chandigarh is brought under Article 240
    1. Independent Administrator: No additional charge by Punjab Governor; Centre appoints directly.
    2. Bureaucratic restructuring: Large administrative staff of Punjab and Haryana currently posted in Chandigarh may face institutional and coordination changes.
    3. Legislative possibilities: May enable eventual Legislative Assembly for Chandigarh in the future.
    4. Greater Central oversight: Budgetary and policy matters would fall more firmly under Union control.
    5. Concerns raised: Critics fear this would give excessive control to the Centre.
    Arguments that the move benefits Chandigarh
    1. Clear autonomy: Reduced administrative overlap from two states.
    2. Institutional accountability: A dedicated Administrator creates faster decision-making.
    3. Long-term governance clarity: Removes ambiguity caused by shared capital model.
    Previous administrative attempts
    1. 1984 attempt: Proposal to appoint an independent Administrator linked to counter-terror coordination; Punjab was under President’s Rule.
    2. 2016 attempt: Opposition arose due to the practice of Punjab Governor holding Administrator’s charge.
    Conclusion
    Placing Chandigarh under Article 240 reflects a significant recalibration of Centre-State dynamics. While the move promises administrative clarity and efficiency, it raises questions of federal balance and the political stakes of Punjab and Haryana. The issue remains a critical case-study in Indian federalism, constitutional design, and UT governance.
    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-State relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.
    Linkage: The question reflects the recent shift in Centre-State power balance through greater Union control in administrative, fiscal and institutional domains. It links directly with debates like Chandigarh under Article 240, Governor-State tensions, GST Council dynamics and UT re-organisation, core themes of Indian federalism in GS-II.

  • What does the SC’s advisory opinion imply?

    INTRODUCTION

    The advisory opinion of the Supreme Court was sought to address concerns raised by delays in assent to Bills passed by State Assemblies and the earlier judicial attempt to impose fixed timelines on Governors. The reference involved 14 constitutional questions focused on the interpretation of Articles 200 and 201 and the Court’s jurisdiction to intervene. The new opinion aims to clarify the contours of discretionary powers while protecting legislative authority under the Constitution.

    WHY IN THE NEWS

    The Supreme Court has issued a landmark advisory opinion on a Presidential reference under Article 143, reversing the April 2025 ruling that introduced the concept of “deemed assent” and mandated a three-month timeline for Governors and the President to act on Bills. The Court has clarified that while Governors ordinarily act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, their powers under Articles 200 and 201 are discretionary, without any judicially enforceable time limits. This ruling has reshaped the dynamics between constitutional heads and elected State governments, impacting legislative functioning and federal balance.

    What triggered the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion

    1. Presidential reference origin: Resulted from the two-judge bench judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu (April 2025).
    2. Three-month timeline mandate: The earlier ruling specified that Governors and the President must act on Bills within three months.
    3. Deemed assent invocation: The bench used Article 142 to grant deemed assent for Tamil Nadu Bills pending with the Governor.
    4. Government concern: The Union Government sought clarity on whether Bills become justiciable before enactment and whether courts can prescribe time limits.
    5. Magnitude of reference: A total of 14 constitutional questions were raised relating to Articles 200 and 201 and the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

    What were the key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s opinion?

    1. Three constitutional choices under Article 200: The Governor may assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President’s consideration.
    2. Discretion of Governor: The Governor exercises discretion in choosing among the three options and is not necessarily bound by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    3. Non-justiciability before enactment: Courts cannot compel Governors to act before a Bill becomes law due to absence of constitutionally prescribed timelines.
    4. Autonomy of President under Article 201: The President’s powers operate independently and cannot be substituted by judicial directives.
    5. Absence of deemed assent: The Constitution does not provide for deemed assent; judicial power under Article 142 cannot be used to invent such a mechanism.

    Does this opinion contradict earlier judicial interpretations?

    1. Earlier judicial logic: Decisions in Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) held that Governors act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    2. Present reinterpretation: The Court has held that Article 200 functions fall within discretionary power despite the general rule of acting on ministerial advice.
    3. Shift in constitutional balance: The new interpretation expands discretionary authority when dealing with State legislation.
    What about time limits for Governors and the President?
    1. Punchhi Commission recommendation (2010): Suggested that the Governor should decide on assent within six months.
    2. Precedent in K.M. Singh case (2020): The Court had earlier prescribed a three-month limit for the Speaker to decide disqualification petitions; however, no such limit exists for Governors.
    3. Current ruling: The Supreme Court held that no enforceable time limit applies because the Constitution does not prescribe one.
    4. Implication: The possibility of prolonged delays in assent continues to exist, which may contribute to legislative gridlock.
    What concerns emerge from the current interpretation
    1. Democratic risk: Legislative functioning may be hindered when Bills remain pending without a time frame for disposal.
    2. Centre-State tension: Expanded discretion may tilt the institutional balance toward appointed constitutional heads over elected State governments.
    3. Potential politicisation: Use of gubernatorial office could intensify where State and Union Governments are politically opposed.
    Way Forward
    1. Introduce timelines: Fix a statutory/constitutional time limit for assent to Bills.
    2. Record reasons: Make reservation of Bills and delays explainable in writing.
    3. Structured coordination: Establish periodic Raj Bhavan-State Government consultation mechanism.
    4. Federal ethics: Encourage Governors to follow constitutional neutrality over political alignment.
    5. Legislative reporting: Present pendency reports of Bills before the State Legislature annually.
    6. Capacity building: Train Raj Bhavan staff on constitutional conventions and cooperative federalism.
    CONCLUSION
    The Supreme Court’s advisory opinion carefully aligns with constitutional text by overturning “deemed assent” and reaffirming discretion under Articles 200 and 201. However, it leaves unresolved the core challenge of prolonged delays in gubernatorial action on Bills passed by elected Assemblies. While the opinion respects constitutional separation of powers and prevents judicial overreach, it simultaneously highlights the need for clearer institutional safeguards to protect democratic accountability and cooperative federalism.
    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2022] Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by the Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature.
    Linkage: This PYQ connects directly to current debates on Governors’ discretionary powers, assent to Bills, and constitutional limits on ordinance-making. It is highly relevant after the Supreme Court’s recent advisory opinion on Articles 200 and 201, which redefines executive-legislature balance and safeguards federalism.

  • Justice Surya Kant Sworn in as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI)

    Why in the News?

    Justice Surya Kant took oath as the 53rd Chief Justice of India (CJI) on November 24, 2025, administered by President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan.

    About Justice Surya Kant

    • Born: 10 February 1962, Hisar, Haryana.
    • Youngest Advocate General of Haryana (appointed 2000).
    • Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court (2004).
    • Chief Justice, Himachal Pradesh High Court (2018).
    • Appointed to Supreme Court: 24 May 2019 (along with Justice B.R. Gavai).

    Tenure

    • Will serve until 2 February 2027 — a little over one year.

    Major Priorities as the 53rd CJI

    • Reduce pendency of 90,000+ cases in the Supreme Court to a “manageable number.”
    • Address growing trend:
      • Litigants bypassing High Courts and approaching SC directly.
      • Repeated “miscellaneous applications” causing prolonged litigation

    Major Cases Involving Justice Surya Kant

    • Abrogation of Article 370 (J&K’s special status removed).
    • Electoral Bonds Case – Bench struck down the scheme as unconstitutional.
    • Pegasus spyware case.
    • Suspension of sedition law deliberations.
    • Granted conditional interim bail to Ashish Mishra (Lakhimpur Kheri incident).

    Procedure for Selection of the Chief Justice of India (CJI)

    Constitutional Basis

    • Article 124(2) of the Constitution deals with the appointment of Supreme Court judges (including the CJI). The CJI is appointed by the President of India.

    Seniority Convention

    • By long-standing constitutional convention, the most senior judge of the Supreme Court is appointed as the next CJI.
    • Seniority = date of appointment to the Supreme Court Bench.

    Role of the Collegium

    When the CJI’s post is falling vacant:

    • The outgoing CJI recommends the name of the senior-most SC judge to the Government of India.
    • This recommendation is part of the Collegium system, but only the CJI’s advice is required, not the full Collegium.

    Role of the Law Ministry

    • The Ministry of Law & Justice processes the recommendation.
    • Sends it to the Prime Minister, who advises the President.

    Appointment by the President

    • The President formally appoints the recommended judge as the Chief Justice of India.
    • Appointment is notified in the Gazette.

    Oath of Office

    • The President administers the oath of office to the new CJI at Rashtrapati Bhavan.
    • Oath is under Article 124(6).

    Tenure

    • The CJI holds office until the age of 65.

    Q. With reference to Indian Judiciary, consider the following statements:

    1. Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with the prior permission of the President of India.

    2. A High Court in India has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

    [A] 1 only 

    [B] 2 only 

    [C] Both 1 and 2 

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2