đŸ’„Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Highlights of the Global Innovation Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has released the Global Innovation Index (GII) 2025.

    About the Global Innovation Index (GII):

    • Overview: Annual ranking of 139 economies by their innovation capacity and success.
    • Publishers: Jointly by Cornell University, INSEAD, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
    • Origin: First published in 2007.
    • Indicators: Uses 80+ metrics across 7 pillars.
    • Structure:
      • Innovation Input Sub-Index: Institutions, human capital and research, infrastructure, market sophistication, business sophistication.
      • Innovation Output Sub-Index: Knowledge and technology outputs, creative outputs.
    • Purpose: Helps governments evaluate how effectively R&D, education, and infrastructure are translated into innovation outcomes.

    Key Highlights of GII 2025:

    • Global R&D growth: Slowed to 2.9% (2024) and 2.3% (2025 projection), down from 4.4% earlier; lowest since the 2010 financial crisis.
    • Top Performers: Switzerland (1st), Sweden (2nd), United States (3rd), followed by Republic of Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, Finland, Netherlands, Denmark, and China (10th).
    • China: Surpassed Switzerland in knowledge and technology outputs; 2nd highest in R&D expenditure; world leader in patent filings.
    • Regional Trends: Europe dominates with 15 of top 25 economies; Southeast, East Asia and Oceania (SEAO) region has 6 economies in top 25.
    • India: Ranked 38th globally with a score of ~40.5; top among lower-middle income countries and in Central & Southern Asia.
      • Strengths: Knowledge and technology outputs (22nd), market sophistication, and human capital and research.
      • Weaknesses: Business sophistication, infrastructure, and institutions remain lagging.
    [UPSC 2019] The Global Competitiveness Report is published by the:

    Options:

    (a) International Monetary Fund  (b) United Nations Conference on Trade and Development  (c) World Economic Forum * (d) World Bank

     

  • [18th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A judicial nudge following stuck legislative business

    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: The recent Supreme Court directive fixing a timeline for Governors under Article 200 directly relates to the constitutional limits on gubernatorial powers discussed in the 2022 question. Both highlight that the Governor, as a constitutional head, must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not misuse discretion to stall legislation. Just as re-promulgation of ordinances undermines legislative supremacy, withholding assent indefinitely violates constitutional morality and federal balance.

    Mentor’s Comment:

    The recent Supreme Court intervention fixing a time limit for Governors and the President to act on Bills marks a constitutional milestone. This decision is not merely about timelines but about strengthening federalism, ensuring legislative efficacy, and curbing misuse of gubernatorial discretion. For UPSC aspirants, it becomes a vital case study in Centre-State relations, separation of powers, and the evolving role of the judiciary in sustaining democracy.

    Introduction

    The Supreme Court’s decision to prescribe a three-month time limit for Governors and the President to take a final call on Bills under Article 200/201 has reignited debates on federalism, separation of powers, and the scope of judicial activism. For decades, Governors have been accused of sitting indefinitely on Bills, creating a legislative deadlock and undermining the democratic will of elected legislatures. This judicial nudge aims to resolve what has become a serious constitutional anomaly, ensuring that governance does not remain hostage to political manoeuvring.

    Why is this in the news?

    The issue is significant because, for the first time, the Supreme Court has imposed a specific timeline—three months—for Governors and the President to act on Bills, despite the Constitution prescribing none. This intervention arose after repeated instances where Governors withheld assent or simply delayed action on Bills for years, undermining legislative functioning. The decision is both a remedy for constitutional paralysis and a reinforcement of federal balance, making it a landmark moment in India’s constitutional journey.

    Judicial clarity on Article 200:

    1. Four options under Article 200: Assent to the Bill, withhold assent, return the Bill for reconsideration, or reserve it for the President.
    2. No discretion intended: The omission of the words “in his discretion” (present in Government of India Act, 1935, Section 75) shows the Constituent Assembly wanted Governors to act only on aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
    3. Judicial commissions’ stand: Both Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions reiterated that Governors are constitutional heads, not independent power centres.

    Has the Governor misused discretionary powers?

    1. Contradictory judicial stance: While Shamsher Singh (1974) acknowledged discretionary scope, later judgments including Nabam Rebia (2016) and Tamil Nadu Governor case (2025) rejected such independence.
    2. Risk of overreach: Allowing Governors unilateral discretion would convert them into “super constitutional authorities,” stalling state governance.
    3. Expert view: D.D. Basu highlighted that unlike UK sovereigns, Indian Governors have no scope for withholding assent independently.

    Why did the Supreme Court fix a timeline?

    1. Legislative paralysis: Governors had sat on Bills for years without decision, blocking governance.
    2. Judicial remedy: By fixing three months, the Court ensured smooth functioning of legislatures, akin to how Article 21’s scope was expanded through judicial interpretation in Maneka Gandhi.
    3. Federal protection: Recent rulings in State of Punjab v. Governor (2023) and State of Tamil Nadu v. Governor (2025) strengthened states’ autonomy, preventing misuse of gubernatorial office.

    Could the Union have intervened earlier?

    1. Role under Article 355: The Union is duty-bound to ensure constitutional governance in states. A Governor blocking Bills indefinitely amounts to violation of constitutional provisions.
    2. Non-intervention so far: Successive Union governments avoided directing Governors, leading to judicial stepping in.
    3. Judicial nudge as necessity: The Court’s ruling acts as a constitutional guardrail in absence of executive remedy.

    Implications for federalism and democracy

    1. Strengthening federal balance: Prevents Governors from acting as political agents of the Centre.
    2. Judicial activism or necessity?: Critics see it as judicial overreach, but history shows courts often expand constitutional meaning to meet new realities (e.g., Article 21 due process).
    3. Legislative efficiency: Restores faith in elected assemblies’ authority, ensuring people’s mandate is not subverted.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s directive to Governors and the President is a pragmatic response to a constitutional vacuum. It plugs misuse, safeguards federalism, and ensures legislative efficiency. Far from amending the Constitution, it exemplifies how judicial interpretation adapts constitutional principles to emerging challenges. This marks a significant moment where judicial innovation has strengthened democracy by preventing paralysis of governance.

  • The Hard Truth About Out-of-Pocket Health Expenditure

    Introduction

    In India, healthcare financing is still heavily dependent on households directly paying for medical services. This out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) often pushes families into a vicious cycle of poverty and ill-health. The National Health Accounts (NHA) claims that OOPE as a share of total health expenditure has sharply declined, from 64% in 2013-14 to 39% in 2021-22. On the surface, this appears to be a major policy success. However, a closer look suggests that these numbers may be misleading, as they rely heavily on a single survey base (NSS 75th round, 2017-18) and ignore the lived realities of health shocks, especially during COVID-19.

    Is OOPE in India Really Declining?

    1. NHA estimates: Show a steep decline in OOPE—from 64% in 2013-14 to 49% in 2017-18, and further to 39% in 2021-22.
    2. Basis of estimation: The 2017-18 NSS (75th round) forms the primary source, with later estimates extrapolated only for inflation.
    3. Question of accuracy: The decline may be linked to lower ailment reporting and reduced hospitalisation, not to falling medical costs.

    How Do Other Data Sources Contradict NHA?

    1. Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES) 2022-23: OOPE as share of household consumption rose—from 5.5% to 5.9% in rural areas and 6.9% to 7.1% in urban areas (2011-12 to 2022-23).
    2. Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (LASI): Shows higher hospitalisation rates among the elderly, contrary to NSS-based decline.
    3. CPHS-CMIE Data: Reveals a V-shaped trend—steep fall in OOPE during COVID-19 due to under-utilisation, followed by a sharp rise. The NHA completely misses this fluctuation.
    4. National Income Accounts (NIA): Estimates show a steady rise in household health spending as a share of GDP, contradicting the NHA’s declining trend.

    Why Are NHA Estimates Considered Flawed?

    1. Single-source dependency: NHA depends mainly on the NSS morbidity survey, which underreports ailments.
    2. Exclusion of COVID-19 impact: No NSS data during the pandemic, leading to an unrealistic secular decline in NHA series.
    3. Ignoring insurance and premiums: Even after including premiums, NHA still shows a steep, unexplained fall in OOPE.
    4. Political convenience: Numbers risk being used for policy propaganda without reflecting ground-level hardship.

    What Are the Real Consequences of High OOPE?

    1. Poverty trap: Families borrow, sell assets, or cut consumption, leading to intergenerational poverty.
    2. Social impacts: Children drop out of school, women work longer hours, households skip meals.
    3. Rising health costs: Medicine prices and private care charges continue to rise, eroding household savings.
    4. COVID-19 experience: Families suffered catastrophic costs, which remain invisible in official accounts.

    What Is the Way Forward?

    1. Diversified data sources: Use CES, LASI, CMIE, NFHS, and private medical sales databases alongside NSS.
    2. Regular, timely surveys: Health rounds of NSS must be more frequent to capture shocks like pandemics.
    3. Integration with NIA: Align NHA estimates with National Income Accounts for consistency.
    4. Transparent policymaking: Avoid over-reliance on selective data that paints a rosy picture.

    Conclusion

    The debate over out-of-pocket health expenditure in India highlights the gulf between official statistics and lived realities. While the National Health Accounts show a sharp decline in OOPE, independent surveys and household-level data point towards rising medical costs and deepening financial distress. Over-reliance on a single survey base not only distorts the picture but also risks misleading health policy. For a country aspiring to achieve Universal Health Coverage, credible, diversified, and transparent data must form the backbone of decision-making. Without this, India risks celebrating statistical success while millions continue to be pushed into poverty and ill-health by catastrophic healthcare expenses.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Besides being a moral imperative of a Welfare State, primary health structure is a necessary precondition for sustainable development. Analyse.

    Linkage: The persistence of high out-of-pocket health expenditure (OOPE) despite claims of decline shows the weakness of India’s primary health structure, as families still bear catastrophic costs. A robust primary health system would reduce dependence on expensive hospitalisation and prevent poverty traps. Thus, strengthening primary health care is not just a welfare obligation, but essential for achieving sustainable and inclusive development.

  • Let Griger counters, not guesses, shape Iran Actions

    Introduction

    The nuclear question has once again moved to the forefront of global geopolitics. Following the U.S. strikes on Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordow in June 2025, the E3 (Britain, France, Germany) invoked the “snapback” clause of the 2015 nuclear deal, citing Iranian violations. If diplomacy falters, UN sanctions on enrichment, arms transfers, finance, and shipping will return, escalating global risks. The crisis is magnified by the absence of verified facts after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) staff withdrew from Iran. In this environment of speculation and heightened risks, verification, not guesswork, must anchor diplomacy.

    Why is this news significant?

    The crisis is not just another Middle Eastern standoff; it is unprecedented in multiple ways. For the first time since 2015, the snapback clause has been triggered, threatening the revival of stringent UN sanctions. The crisis has exposed the vacuum of verified facts, as IAEA inspectors have been expelled, leaving the world to act on rumors. The stakes are global from oil markets and shipping insurance to regional stability and nuclear proliferation. For India, the challenge is sharper: ensuring uninterrupted oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, stability in its extended neighborhood, and the safety of 8 million Indian citizens in West Asia.

    Why does the absence of IAEA verification matter?

    1. Verification as the hinge of diplomacy: IAEA access substitutes speculation with facts and provides baselines for negotiations.
    2. Market stability: Comparable IAEA presence in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia plant calmed global markets; similar oversight in Iran could reduce volatility.
    3. Iran’s sovereignty concerns: Iran argues that inspectors compromise sovereignty and risk enabling strikes — past Israeli and U.S. strikes followed IAEA disclosures.
    4. Parliamentary resistance: Such episodes have hardened Iranian domestic opposition to IAEA cooperation.

    What are the risks if Iran withdraws from the NPT?

    1. Legal vacuum: Withdrawal strips the IAEA of legal authority to inspect Iranian sites.
    2. Escalation to uncharted territory: Harder sanctions, further isolation, and the military option returning to the table.
    3. Global instability: From oil prices to nuclear proliferation, the fallout would be worldwide.

    How is India placed in this unfolding crisis?

    1. Bridge-builder role: As a long-standing IAEA Board member with ties across divides, India is well-positioned to facilitate consensus.
    2. SCO and BRICS engagement: India joined others in condemning U.S.-Israel strikes, supporting a multilateral call for technical IAEA access.
    3. Technical contribution: India’s IAEA-certified Tarapur facility could analyze samples under safeguards, providing credible support.
    4. Energy and diaspora stakes: Protecting oil supplies and ensuring the safety of Indians abroad makes stability in West Asia non-negotiable for New Delhi.

    What are the choices before the global community?

    1. Diplomatic opening: Iran’s recent agreement with the IAEA in Cairo (Sept 9, 2025) and allowing inspectors at Bushehr offer small openings.
    2. Snapback pause: If Iran extends verification to bombed sites, E3 may pause the snapback, shifting momentum back to diplomacy.
    3. Alternative — escalation: Failure of diplomacy risks sanctions, military standoffs, and cycles of strike and counterstrike.

    Conclusion

    The Iran nuclear standoff represents a defining moment for global non-proliferation and regional stability. What the world requires today is not speculation, but credible verification, structured dialogue, and sustained diplomacy. For India, the stakes go beyond principles of international order to immediate concerns of energy security, diaspora protection, and regional peace. By using its credibility in multilateral forums and offering technical expertise, India can position itself as a constructive stakeholder. Ultimately, the crisis will test whether global powers can rise above unilateralism and competing interests to uphold collective security and prevent a slide into escalation.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] In what ways would the ongoing US-Iran Nuclear Pact Controversy affect the national interest of India? How should India respond to this situation?

    Linkage: The ongoing U.S.-Iran nuclear pact controversy directly impacts India’s energy security, diaspora safety in West Asia, and regional stability. Escalation could disrupt oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and complicate India’s strategic balance between the U.S., Iran, and Gulf states. India must respond with measured diplomacy, supporting verification through the IAEA while safeguarding its vital national interests.

  • [pib] Swasth Nari, Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan (SNSPA)

    Why in the News?

    Prime Minister has launched the Swasth Nari, Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan (SNSPA) alongside the 8th Rashtriya Poshan Maah.

    [pib] Swasth Nari, Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan (SNSPA)

    About Swasth Nari, Sashakt Parivar Abhiyaan (SNSPA):

    • Launch: Introduced on 17 September 2025 by the PM, jointly led by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
    • Objective: Strengthen women’s, children’s, and family health services, focusing on rural, tribal, and underserved regions.
    • Scale: Over 10 lakh health camps at Ayushman Arogya Mandirs, Community Health Centres (CHCs), and District Hospitals.
    • Screenings: Anaemia, hypertension, diabetes, TB, breast and cervical cancers, sickle cell disease, reproductive health conditions.
    • Services offered: Maternal, child, adolescent health including antenatal care, immunisation, nutrition counselling, menstrual hygiene, mental health, lifestyle awareness.
    • Digital Monitoring: SASHAKT portal ensures real-time data tracking and transparency.
    • Jan Bhagidaari: Collaboration with private hospitals, SHGs, Anganwadis, Panchayati Raj institutions, volunteers.
    • Tribal Focus: Specialised medical services and tailored counselling for remote and tribal areas.

    What is Rashtriya Poshan Maah?

    • Overview: Part of POSHAN Abhiyaan (National Nutrition Mission); celebrated annually since 2018.
    • 2025 Edition: 8th Poshan Maah, aligned with SNSPA for synergised impact.
    • Aim: Mobilise communities to improve nutrition of children, pregnant women, lactating mothers, and adolescent girls.
    • Activities: Poshan Panchayats, health and nutrition camps, recipe demos, rallies, school-Anganwadi outreach, Jan Andolan approach.
    • Focus Areas (2025):
      • Anaemia Mukt Bharat and micronutrient awareness.
      • Complementary feeding practices for infants and toddlers.
      • Poshan-Vatika (nutri-gardens) for food security.
      • Promotion of traditional and regional diets for sustainable nutrition.
    [UPSC 2024] With reference to the ‘Pradhan Mantri Surakshit Matritva Abhiyan’, consider the following statements:

    1. This scheme guarantees a minimum package of antenatal care services to women in their second and third trimesters of pregnancy and six months post-delivery health care service in any government health facility.

    2. Under this scheme, private sector health care providers of certain specialities can volunteer to provide services at nearby government health facilities.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only* (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies

    Why in the News?

    The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies has entered into force on 15 September 2025, three years after adoption in June 2022.

    What is the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies?

    • Nature: First WTO treaty centred on environmental sustainability, designed to reduce harmful subsidies that drive illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and overfishing.
    • Core Prohibitions:
      • Subsidies for IUU fishing vessels or operators.
      • Subsidies for fishing in overfished stocks, unless linked to recovery plans.
      • Subsidies for high-seas fishing in areas outside coastal state jurisdiction or Regional Fisheries Management Organizations.
    • Transparency: Members must provide detailed reports on fish stocks, fleets, catch volumes, and subsidies.
    • Transition Period: Two years allowed for developing countries and least developed countries before full implementation.
    • Phased Approach: Called “Fish One”, to be followed by “Fish Two” covering overcapacity and fleet subsidies.
    • Global Significance: Contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 14.6, which seeks elimination of harmful subsidies to protect global fish stocks.

    India and this Agreement: 

    • Position: India welcomed the treaty, noting it is one of the lowest fisheries subsidizers despite its large fishing community.
    • Equity Argument: Urged that historic subsidizers and industrial fishing nations take greater obligations, based on polluter pays principle and common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR).
    • Sector Context: India’s fisheries are dominated by millions of small-scale, traditional fishers dependent on coastal resources, requiring fair treatment.
    • Benefits for India:
      • Curbing IUU fishing by foreign industrial fleets, protecting coastal livelihoods.
      • Allowing space for stock-rebuilding subsidies tied to sustainability.
      • Ensuring fair competition for Indian traditional fishers in global trade.
    [UPSC 2015] The terms ‘Agreement on Agriculture’, ‘Agreement on the application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures’ and ‘Peace Clause’ appear in the news frequently in the context of the affairs of the

    Options: (a) Food and Agricultural Organization (b) United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (c) World Trade Organization* (d) United Nations Environment Programme

     

  • [17th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Judicial Experimentalism versus the Right to Justice

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.

    Linkage: The recent “cooling period” ruling in Shivangi Bansal (2025) shows the judiciary’s proactive, sometimes overreaching, role in experimenting with safeguards beyond legislative intent. While judicial activism has often upheld democracy by protecting rights (e.g., Kesavananda Bharati, Arnesh Kumar), such interventions can also compromise access to justice. Thus, the case illustrates both the potential and pitfalls of judicial activism in strengthening democratic ideals.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Supreme Court’s recent endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s guidelines introducing a “cooling period” before action in matrimonial cruelty cases (formerly Section 498A IPC, now Section 85 BNS) has sparked a heated debate. While the move aims to check misuse of law, critics argue it undermines a victim’s right to prompt justice. This article analyses the issue through the lens of judicial experimentalism, statutory intent, and the balance between liberty and justice, an important discussion for UPSC aspirants studying the interface of law, rights, and institutional reforms.

    Introduction

    Section 498A IPC was enacted to protect women from cruelty in matrimonial settings. However, fears of its misuse led courts and lawmakers to build safeguards against arbitrary arrests and frivolous cases. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Shivangi Bansal vs Sahib Bansal (2025) has endorsed a two-month “cooling period” and referral to Family Welfare Committees (FWCs) before action is taken on complaints. While it echoes earlier judicial experiments, critics highlight that such directions compromise victims’ right to timely justice and extend judicial power beyond legislative intent.

    Judicial Experimentalism Versus Right to Justice

    Why is this ruling in the news?

    The ruling is significant because, for the first time since the rollback of Rajesh Sharma guidelines in 2018, the Supreme Court has revived the idea of FWCs and delayed coercive action through a “cooling period.” This marks a sharp contrast with previous judicial positions that upheld victims’ right to prompt redressal. The problem is big: over 1.4 lakh cases registered under Section 498A in 2022 (NCRB) yet with declining arrests, showing safeguards were already in place. Introducing new hurdles raises questions on judicial overreach and justice delivery.

    Why was Section 498A enacted?

    1. Objective: Punish cruelty against women in matrimonial homes.
    2. Protection intent: Safeguard women from physical, mental, and emotional abuse by husband and family.
    3. Concerns of misuse: Courts acknowledged misuse through false FIRs and arrests, which led to checks and procedural safeguards.

    What safeguards already existed against misuse?

    1. Lalita Kumari (2013): Classified matrimonial disputes under ‘preliminary inquiry’ before FIR registration.
    2. CrPC amendment (2008): Introduced the ‘principle of necessity’ in arrests.
    3. Arnesh Kumar (2014): Checklist for police; mandatory notice for appearance before arrest.
    4. Satender Kumar Antil (2022): Strengthened protection by ensuring bail if arrest directions were violated.
    5. Impact: NCRB shows while cases increased (1,13,403 in 2015 → 1,40,019 in 2022), arrests fell (1,87,067 → 1,45,095).

    How does the “cooling period” affect justice delivery?

    1. Delay in action: Victims must wait two months before any coercive step is taken.
    2. Denial of prompt redressal: Even after FIR, police cannot act, worsening victim’s plight.
    3. Institutional overreach: FWCs lack statutory backing, leading to ambiguity about their jurisdiction and powers.
    4. Historical lesson: Similar FWC directions in Rajesh Sharma (2017) were termed “regressive” and rolled back by Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).

    What does this mean for judicial experimentalism?

    1. Judicial innovation vs legislative intent: Experimentation may be progressive but must not override statutory design.
    2. Checks already in place: With safeguards from CrPC amendments, Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil, additional hurdles appear unnecessary.
    3. Risk of regressive rollback: Echoes earlier failed experiments that compromised women’s access to justice.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the Allahabad High Court’s “cooling period” in Section 498A cases reflects judicial anxiety over misuse of law but risks undermining victim protection, the very intent of the provision. With sufficient safeguards already in place, the ruling revives debates on judicial overreach and calls for revisiting its implications. Justice must balance the liberty of the accused with the victim’s right to immediate redressal, without diluting either.

  • [16th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Court’s nod to Mental Health as Right

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] In order to enhance the prospects of social development, sound and adequate health care policies are needed in the fields of geriatric and maternal health care. Discuss.

    Linkage: The 2025 Sukdeb Saha judgment extends the scope of Article 21 by making mental health a constitutional right, just as geriatric and maternal health are essential to social development. Both contexts highlight the need for sound, inclusive health policies that address neglected yet critical areas. The ruling reinforces the argument that without adequate mental healthcare, broader social development goals remain incomplete.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The recent Supreme Court judgment in Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2025) has elevated mental health to the level of a constitutional right under Article 21. More than a verdict on an individual tragedy, it has emerged as a landmark with systemic implications, redefining how student suicides, institutional neglect, and structural victimisation are understood in India. This article dissects the judgment, its social, legal, and criminological dimensions, and its significance for UPSC aspirants.

    Introduction

    In July 2025, the Supreme Court of India declared mental health to be an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. Triggered by the tragic suicide of a 17-year-old NEET aspirant in Visakhapatnam, the case (Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh) transcended individual loss to expose the systemic failures of India’s education ecosystem. For the first time, the Court explicitly linked student suicides with institutional neglect and structural violence, framing mental health as a public injustice rather than a private bereavement. This landmark ruling has far-reaching implications for governance, education, victimology, and social justice.

    Why is the Judgment in the News?

    The verdict is a constitutional milestone because it:

    1. Recognises mental health as a fundamental right under Article 21, not just a statutory right under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017.
    2. Issues binding Saha Guidelines mandating schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes to proactively create mental health support systems.
    3. Shifts accountability from individual students to institutions, framing neglect as a form of structural violence.
    4. Addresses India’s alarming student suicide epidemic, exposing deep systemic and cultural failures.
    5. This is the first time the Court has extended the doctrine of state responsibility to mental well-being, making it a case of historic significance.

    How does the case highlight structural victimisation?

    1. Structural neglect: Education systems, coaching centres, and hostels create conditions of high pressure with little support, making students vulnerable.
    2. State complicity: By failing to provide safeguards, institutions and the state become indirect perpetrators of harm.
    3. Victimology lens: Students are not merely individuals battling internal struggles; they are victims of systemic injustice and exploitative cultures.

    Why does the verdict matter legally?

    1. Constitutional elevation: Mental health is no longer a mere statutory right but a fundamental right under Article 21.
    2. Gap filling: The Mental Healthcare Act 2017 remains poorly enforced; the judgment provides a stronger normative benchmark.
    3. Legislative force: The Saha Guidelines have the same weight as law until Parliament enacts a mental health code.

    What are the “Saha Guidelines”?

    1. Institutional responsibility: Schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes must establish mental health support systems.
    2. Time-bound compliance: States and UTs must frame rules within two months.
    3. Monitoring mechanisms: Creation of district-level monitoring committees for accountability.
    4. Binding nature: These interim orders have legislative effect until codified.

    Can student suicides be seen as structural violence?

    1. Galtung’s theory: Structural violence occurs when societal structures systematically deprive individuals of basic needs.
    2. Application: Educational institutions that ignore psychological well-being indirectly inflict harm.
    3. Reframing suicides: Shifts the discourse from “personal failures” to systemic injustice requiring state intervention.

    What are the challenges in implementation?

    1. Institutional inertia: Schools and coaching centres often resist reform.
    2. Resource constraints: Lack of trained mental health professionals in India.
    3. Cultural barriers: Persistent stigma around psychological counselling.
    4. State responsibility: The verdict’s success depends on political will, monitoring, and investment in mental health infrastructure.

    Conclusion

    The Sukdeb Saha judgment is a watershed moment in constitutional jurisprudence. By recognising mental health as a core aspect of the right to life, it challenges society to confront uncomfortable truths about neglect, exploitation, and indifference in the education system. Yet, the ruling’s legacy will depend on whether the Saha Guidelines are translated into action or remain judicial rhetoric. For students, too often silenced by despair, this judgment is a promise of dignity, recognition, and justice.

  • SC on amended Waqf Act: What has been stayed, what remains

    Introduction

    The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, passed by Parliament earlier this year, faced widespread opposition from political leaders, religious organisations, and civil society. Over 65 petitions were filed, challenging its constitutional validity. On September 15, the Supreme Court issued an interim order staying several key provisions, particularly those expanding the powers of district collectors, imposing a five-year Islam practice condition for creating a waqf, and capping non-Muslim representation in Waqf boards. At the same time, the Court upheld other significant changes such as the removal of “waqf-by-user” and the applicability of the Limitation Act. This selective intervention reflects the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing equity, religious freedom, and governance.

    Waqf

    Why is the Supreme Court’s interim stay significant?

    1. First major judicial intervention: The SC’s order is the first substantive check on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 since its passage.
    2. Large-scale impact: With nearly 65 petitions filed, the matter affects thousands of properties and the rights of the Muslim community across India.
    3. Balance of powers: The Court flagged violation of the separation of powers doctrine by preventing revenue officers from adjudicating property titles.
    4. Guardrails against misuse: While not striking down the Act, the Court has added interim safeguards to prevent dispossession and misuse of powers.

    What powers of District Collectors were stayed?

    1. Section 3C inquiry power: District Collectors could declare that land claimed as waqf is government property. The SC stayed the clause that made waqf status cease immediately upon inquiry.
    2. Arbitrariness highlighted: Entrusting title determination to a revenue officer was held to be prima facie arbitrary.
    3. Safeguard applied: Waqf properties will retain their status until adjudicated by a Waqf Tribunal. However, no third-party rights can be created until final resolution.

    How did the Court deal with non-Muslim representation in Waqf Boards?

    1. Capping membership: Central Waqf Council (22 members) shall not have more than 4 non-Muslims; State Waqf Boards (11 members) shall not have more than 3 non-Muslims.
    2. Community rights upheld: This ensures that the Muslim community’s right under Article 26 to manage religious affairs is not diluted.
    3. Avoiding ambiguity: The SC clarified numbers to prevent misinterpretation of the law.

    What about the ‘five years of practising Islam’ rule?

    1. New definition of waqf: The 2025 Act required proof of practising Islam for five years to create a waqf.
    2. Provision stayed: SC stayed this rule until the government frames rules and mechanisms for proof.
    3. Judicial caution: The Court noted concerns of arbitrariness and discrimination, but also recognised historical misuse of waqf as a tool to evade creditors.

    Which provisions were not stayed?

    1. Abolition of ‘waqf by user’: The Court upheld its removal, citing misuse to encroach upon government lands.
    2. Applicability of the Limitation Act: Waqfs must now act within statutory limitation periods. This was upheld as removing previous discrimination.
    3. Registration compliance: SC emphasised that waqfs had 102 years (since 1923) to register, hence claims of arbitrariness were weak.

    What is the larger constitutional and governance context?

    1. Presumption of constitutionality: Laws passed by Parliament carry weight until struck down.
    2. Balancing equities: The SC avoided blanket suspension, staying only contentious clauses.
    3. Protection of minority rights: Ensures Article 26 freedoms are not eroded.
    4. Preventing property misuse: Legislative intent to protect government property and curb misuse was acknowledged.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s interim order on the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 reflects a nuanced judicial approach—protecting religious freedoms while respecting legislative authority. By drawing constitutional boundaries for state power and emphasising procedural fairness, the Court has reinforced its role as a guardian of equity and minority rights. The final verdict will have long-lasting implications for governance of religious endowments and minority trust in legal institutions.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of secularism.

    Linkage: The Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025 has been challenged for allegedly curbing the Muslim community’s right under Article 26 to manage its religious endowments, showing how state intervention can threaten cultural practices. The Supreme Court’s interim stay on provisions like non-Muslim majority in Waqf Boards and “five years of practising Islam” directly reflects the tension between secular governance and religious autonomy. Thus, the case exemplifies the broader challenge of balancing secularism with protection of cultural practices, as asked in the 2019 question.

  • India secures International Seabed Authority (ISA) exploration contract

    Why in the News?

    India has secured the world’s first International Seabed Authority (ISA) licence to explore polymetallic sulphur nodules in the Carlsberg Ridge, northwest Indian Ocean.

    India’s Engagement with ISA:

    • Exploration Contracts:
      1. 2002 – Polymetallic nodules, Central Indian Ocean Basin (valid till 2027).
      2. 2016 – Polymetallic sulphides, Indian Ocean Ridge (valid till 2031).
      3. 2025 – First global licence for polymetallic sulphides in Carlsberg Ridge.
    • Pending Application: Afanasy-Nikitin Seamount (ANS), Central Indian Ocean.
    • Strategic Goals:
      • Secure access to critical minerals (nickel, cobalt, manganese, copper).
      • Balance energy transition needs with environmental safeguards.
      • Counter competing claims (e.g., China in the Indian Ocean).
    • Role in ISA: Active participant in Mining Code negotiations; pushes for sustainable, equitable exploration.

    About International Seabed Authority (ISA):

    • Establishment: Created under UNCLOS (1982) and the 1994 Agreement on Part XI; Based in Kingston, Jamaica.
    • Membership: 168 States (including India) + EU; the US is NOT a member or party to UNCLOS.
    • Mandate:
      • Regulate exploration/exploitation of minerals in the Area (beyond national jurisdictions, ~54% of oceans).
      • Ensure benefits for all humankind.
      • Protect marine environment from mining impacts.
      • Promote marine scientific research.
    • Regulatory Framework: Guided by the Mining Code (licensing, EIA, sustainability standards).
    • Functions:
      • Grants 15-year exploration contracts (extendable).
      • Monitors compliance of contractors.
      • Balances resource use with environmental safeguards.

    About Carlsberg Ridge:

    • Location: A mid-ocean ridge in the northwest Indian Ocean (Arabian Sea region).
    • Extent: Covers ~3,00,000 sq. km, stretching from Rodrigues Island (SW Indian Ocean) to the Owen fracture zone.
    • Tectonic Setting: Boundary between the Indian Plate and the Arabian Plate.
    • Critical Minerals: Deposits contain manganese, cobalt, nickel, copper, vital for clean energy, electronics, and defence.

     

    [UPSC 2021] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Global Ocean Commission grants licenses for seabed exploration and mining in international waters.

    2. India has received licenses for seabed mineral exploration in international waters.

    3. ‘Rare earth minerals’ are present on the seafloor in international waters.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only* (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, and 3