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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • 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

     

  • In news: Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

    Why in the News?

    The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) has cautioned that record-high global share prices appear detached from concerns over rising government debt.

    About the Bank for International Settlements (BIS):

    • Establishment: Formed in 1930, making it the world’s oldest international financial institution.
    • Role: Known as the “central bank for central banks”, serving only central banks & international organisations, not private entities or governments.
    • Headquarters: Basel, Switzerland; offices in Hong Kong & Mexico City.
    • Membership: Owned by 63 central banks, covering ~95% of global GDP.
    • Purpose: Promotes international monetary and financial cooperation and ensures global monetary stability.
    • Functions:
      • Platform for policy coordination & information sharing among central banks.
      • Provides banking services: reserve management, gold/forex transactions, liquidity support.
      • Acts as trustee/agent in global financial operations.
      • Conducts research, training, and seminars on financial stability.
      • Hosts Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), which frames Basel norms.

    India and the BIS:

    • Membership: Represented by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as a full member.
    • Representation: RBI Governor participates in BIS Board of Governors meetings.
    • Participation:
      • Engages in BIS research & policy discussions.
      • RBI officials join working groups on supervision, stability, and fintech.
    • Basel Norms: India, via RBI, has adopted Basel standards on capital adequacy, liquidity & risk management.
    • Innovation Hub: Collaborates with BIS on digital payments, central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and cross-border fintech solutions.
    [UPSC 2015] ‘Basel III Accord’ or simply ‘Basel III’ often seen in the news, seeks to

    Options: (a) develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

    (b) improve banking sector’s ability to deal with financial and economic stress and improve risk management*

    (c) reduce the greenhouse gas emissions but places a heavier burden on developed countries

    (d) transfer technology from developed countries to poor countries to enable them to replace the use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration with harmless chemicals

     

  • Supreme Court Guidelines on DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has issued guidelines in the Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu Judgement to standardise DNA handling in criminal cases to prevent contamination and delays after evidence lapses in a major case.

    Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Guidelines:

    • Case Context: It involved rape, murder, and robbery. Court flagged delays in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) submission, lack of chain of custody, and risk of contamination.
    • Need: Lack of uniform procedures across states despite scattered rules. Since Police and Public Order are in the State List, Supreme Court intervened for national uniformity.
    • Guidelines Issued:
      • Collection and Documentation: Samples must be packaged properly, labelled with FIR details, and signed by medical officer, Investigating Officer, and witnesses.
      • Transportation: Investigating Officer (IO) must deliver samples to FSL within 48 hours. Reasons for any delay must be recorded.
      • Storage Pending Trial: Packages cannot be opened or resealed without trial court approval.
      • Chain of Custody Register: Maintained until conviction or acquittal. IO responsible for explaining lapses.

    Previous SC Observations on DNA Evidence:

    • Anil v. Maharashtra (2014): DNA reliable only if laboratory procedures are maintained.
    • Manoj v. Madhya Pradesh (2022): DNA rejected as recovery was from open area with contamination risk.
    • Rahul v. Delhi (2022): DNA held inadmissible after being kept in police custody for two months.
    • Pattu Rajan v. Tamil Nadu (2019): DNA value depends on corroborating evidence; absence not fatal.
    • Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003): DNA test orders valid; no violation of Article 21.
    • Das @ Anu v. Kerala (2022): DNA not self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Section 53A CrPC permits collection in rape cases.

    Back2Basics: DNA Profiling

    • Overview: DNA profiling, also called DNA fingerprinting, is a forensic technique to identify individuals by analysing unique DNA regions, mainly Short Tandem Repeats (STRs).
    • How it works: Human DNA is 99.9% identical; the 0.1% variability forms the basis of personal identification.
    • Sources: DNA can be extracted from blood, semen, saliva, hair, bone, skin, or even “touch DNA.”
    • Processes: The process includes isolation, purification, amplification, visualization, and statistical comparison of DNA markers.
    • Methods:  miniSTRs and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) help in degraded or limited samples.
    • Legal Status: Treated as expert opinion under Indian Evidence Act Section 45 (now BSA 2023 Section 39). DNA is corroborative, not substantive evidence.

  • Cutting off online gaming with scissors of prohibition

    Introduction

    In a surprising move at the end of the Monsoon Session 2025, the Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The Act outlaws online real money games, citing societal harms such as addiction and financial ruin, while aiming to encourage e-sports. What makes this development significant is the abruptness of the ban, absence of stakeholder consultation, and the wiping out of a sunrise sector that had attracted heavy foreign investment and promised thousands of quality tech jobs.

    The Fallout of the Ban

    1. Job Losses: The industry was projected to employ 1.5 lakh people by 2025 in programming, design, analytics, and customer support. The ban curtails these opportunities in a job-scarce economy.
    2. Revenue Sacrifice: Online real money games were expected to generate ₹17,000 crore in GST revenues, benefiting both Centre and States. The ban erases this fiscal opportunity.
    3. Investor Confidence: Sudden policy reversals discourage foreign direct investment (FDI), raising doubts about India’s policy stability.
    4. Innovation Slowdown: Online gaming sits at the intersection of technology, payments, and digital content, key drivers of Digital India. The ban risks stifling entrepreneurship and innovation.

    Why Did the Government Ban Real Money Gaming?

    1. Societal Harm: The government argues online gaming has led to addiction, financial ruin, and behavioral issues comparable to drug dependence.
    2. Public Pressure: State-level cases of suicides and debt traps pushed policymakers to respond.
    3. Moral Positioning: The Centre framed the issue as a public health crisis requiring urgent intervention.

    Could Regulation Have Been a Better Alternative?

    1. Responsible Gaming Tools: Platforms had developed age-gating, self-exclusion, deposit/time limits, KYC/AML checks, and bot-detection to promote safer gaming.
    2. International Practices: Globally, ethical advertising and technological safeguards regulate the sector rather than outright bans.
    3. State Frameworks: States like Tamil Nadu were experimenting with balanced regulatory frameworks, creating scope for a middle path.

    Risks of the Ban

    1. Illegal Networks: Players may migrate to offshore and underground apps, which pay no taxes and are beyond Indian jurisdiction.
    2. Loss of Accountability: With regulated firms shut down, compulsive gamers are left vulnerable to fraud and unsafe practices.
    3. Federal Overreach: Betting and gambling fall under the State List; the Centre’s unilateral move undermines federalism.
    4. Constitutional Challenge: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the Fundamental Right to practice any trade or business. The ban raises issues of proportionality and constitutional validity.

    The Middle Ground

    1. Licensing System: Grant licenses to vetted firms with strict compliance norms.
    2. Clear Distinction: Differentiate between games of skill (legitimate) and games of chance (gambling).
    3. Taxation Regime: Ensure predictable and fair taxation, boosting both revenue and compliance.
    4. Capacity Building: Strengthen regulatory institutions instead of relying on prohibition.

    Conclusion

    The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, highlights the clash between state paternalism and economic freedom. While societal concerns around addiction are real, prohibition is a blunt instrument that risks pushing activity underground, sacrificing jobs, revenues, and investor trust. A regulatory middle path could have safeguarded both citizens and India’s economic interests.

    Value Addition

    Understanding the Online Gaming Sector

    1. E-sports: Organised competitive digital sports requiring strategy, coordination, decision-making; emerging as a legitimate sport.
    2. Online Social Games: Casual, skill-based games for recreation, learning, or social interaction; considered safe with minimal social risks.
    3. Online Money Games: Involve financial stakes (chance/skill/mixed); linked to addiction, financial losses, money laundering, and suicides.

    Game of Skill vs Game of Chance in India

    Game of Skill

    1. Outcome depends predominantly on knowledge, training, strategy, or judgment.
    2. Examples: Chess, Rummy, Fantasy sports (judicially recognised in some cases).
    3. Legal Status: Judicially upheld as legitimate business activity, not gambling. Protected under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/profession).

    Game of Chance

    1. Outcome depends mainly on luck or randomness, not player skill.
    2. Examples: Lotteries, Roulette, Dice-based betting.
    3. Legal Status: Considered gambling; regulated/prohibited by States (as per State List, Entry 34 of 7th Schedule).

    Regulation in India

    Judicial Precedents:

    1. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957) – distinguished games of skill from gambling.
    2. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) – horse racing recognised as a game of skill.

    Federal Context: Betting & gambling are State subjects; hence regulation differs across states.

    Digital Loophole: Many online games operate in a grey zone → recent legislation like the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 seeks to ban money games irrespective of skill/chance classification.

    Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Acy, 2025

    Why the Bill was Brought

    1. Addiction & Financial Ruin: 45 crore people affected; losses of over ₹20,000 crores due to online money games.
    2. Mental Health & Suicides: Financial distress linked to addiction resulted in suicides.
    3. Fraud & Money Laundering: Offshore platforms used for illegal financial flows.
    4. National Security Risks: Evidence of terror financing and illegal messaging.
    5. Closing Legal Loopholes: Existing gambling laws did not cover the digital domain.
    6. Balanced Approach: Distinguishes between exploitative money games and constructive e-sports/educational games.

    Key Provisions of the Bill

    1. Applicability: Applies to all of India, including offshore platforms targeting Indian users.
    2. Promotion of E-Sports: Recognised as legitimate sport; guidelines by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports; incentives, training, research centres.
    3. Promotion of Social & Educational Games: Registration of safe, age-appropriate games; focus on skill-building, culture, education.
    4. Ban on Online Money Games: Complete prohibition on games involving stakes (chance/skill/mixed); advertising and transactions banned.
    5. Online Gaming Authority: National regulator to register/categorise games, issue guidelines, handle grievances.
    6. Strict Penalties:
      1. Offering money games → up to 3 years jail + ₹1 crore fine.
      2. Advertising → up to 2 years jail + ₹50 lakh fine.
      3. Repeat offences → up to 5 years jail + ₹2 crore fine.
    7. Corporate Liability: Company officers accountable; independent directors exempt if due diligence is shown.
    8. Powers of Enforcement: Search, seizure, and arrests without warrant under BNSS, 2023.

    Complementary Measures Already in Place

    1. IT Act & Rules: Intermediaries must register; illegal platforms blocked (1,524 blocked between 2022–2025).
    2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 111 & 112 criminalise unlawful betting/cyber fraud.
    3. IGST Act, 2017: Offshore suppliers must register; GST Intelligence empowered to block non-compliant platforms.
    4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: CCPA cracks down on misleading ads and celebrity endorsements.
    5. Advisories: MoIB & Education Ministry issued guidelines on safe gaming practices.
    6. Cybercrime Portal & Helpline (1930): Citizens enabled to report fraud and financial scams.
    7. International Reference: WHO: Recognises gaming disorder in ICD classification – loss of control, neglect of daily activities, continuation despite harm.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2020] Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission. Discuss.

    Linkage: Both the RTI Amendments (2020) and the Online Gaming Bill (2025) highlight rising executive control at the cost of autonomy and federal balance. In RTI, the independence of Information Commissions was weakened; in Gaming, sweeping central powers risk arbitrariness and undermine states’ jurisdiction. Both raise questions of transparency, proportionality, and constitutional freedoms, showing a trend of centralisation in governance.

  • Scarborough Shoal in South China Sea

    Why in the News?

    China’s State Council has approved the creation of a national nature reserve at Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Dao in Chinese, Bajo de Masinloc/Panatag Shoal in the Philippines).

    About Scarborough Shoal:

    • Geography: A triangle-shaped chain of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea, about 200 km from Luzon (Philippines) and 800+ km from Hainan (China).
    • Status: Uninhabited but strategic, located near shipping lanes carrying $3 trillion in trade annually.
    • Significance: The lagoon shelters boats, and surrounding waters hold rich fish stocks vital for Zambales and Pangasinan communities.

    Disputes about it:

    • Sovereignty Claims: Both China and the Philippines claim ownership.
    • 2016 Arbitration Ruling: Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) held China’s nine-dash line claim invalid, declaring Scarborough a traditional fishing ground under UNCLOS; China rejected the verdict.
    • Philippines’ Grounds: Lies within Manila’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), making China’s reserve “illegitimate and unlawful.”
    • International Response: The US, Japan, Australia, and Canada conduct naval patrols/drills supporting the Philippines and freedom of navigation.
    [UPSC 2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news ?

    Options: (a) It is generally believed that they are artificial islands made by a country around South China Sea.

    (b) China and Japan engage in maritime disputes over these islands in East China Sea.*

    (c) A permanent American military base has been set up there to help Taiwan to increase its defence capabilities.

    (d) Though International Court of Justice declared them as no man’s land, some South-East Asian countries claim them.

     

  • [13th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission. Discuss.

    Linkage: The RTI’s strength lay in ensuring both citizens’ access to information and the independence of Information Commissions as watchdogs of transparency. Amendments such as those under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023–25, which expand the scope of “personal information” and override disclosure norms, severely limit this autonomy. This erosion risks converting RTI into a “Right to Deny Information,” thereby weakening institutional independence and citizen empowerment.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was once celebrated as a revolutionary step in India’s democratic journey, giving citizens a direct tool to hold the State accountable. But recent amendments through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 have been termed a “fundamental regression of democracy.” By transforming RTI into a potential “Right to Deny Information (RDI),” the amendments threaten transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption. This article unpacks the gravity of these changes, their implications for governance, and why the muted public response is a cause for deep concern.

    Introduction

    The RTI Act (2005) rests on the principle that in a democracy, government-held information belongs to the people. It has empowered ordinary citizens to expose corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness in governance. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, originally a balanced safeguard to protect personal privacy, has now been drastically curtailed by the DPDP Act, reducing it to six words. This shift fundamentally alters the spirit of transparency, tilting the Act from being a “Right to Know” towards a “Right to Deny.”

    Why is this in the news?

    For the first time since its enactment, the RTI Act faces a drastic truncation of one of its most crucial provisions. Section 8(1)(j), which earlier struck a delicate balance between privacy and transparency, has now been reduced in length and scope, effectively allowing authorities to deny a vast range of information. The problem is massive, nearly 90% of RTI requests could now be rejected as “personal information.” Yet, unlike earlier RTI amendments that triggered massive public protests, the current change has seen notable public and media apathy, making this a silent but severe assault on India’s democratic ethos.

    How has the original Section 8(1)(j) changed?

    1. Balanced safeguard: Earlier, information could be denied only if it had no connection to public activity or was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest was served.
    2. Acid test provision: Any information that could not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures could not be denied to citizens.
    3. Case-by-case privacy: Privacy, as acknowledged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, was contextual and evolving, requiring nuanced interpretation.
    4. New truncated version: Reduced to just six words, making it vague and easier for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to deny information.

    What is the ambiguity around ‘personal information’?

    1. Natural person view: “Person” means a normal human being.
    2. DPDP definition: Expansive—includes companies, firms, associations, Hindu undivided families, and even the State.
    3. Result: Almost all government-held information can be linked to some “person,” enabling blanket denials.
    4. Overriding clause: DPDP Act overrides all other laws, with penalties up to ₹250 crore for violations, making PIOs fearful and risk-averse.

    How does this impact transparency and anti-corruption efforts?

    1. Loss of citizen monitoring: Citizens as watchdogs against corruption lose power. Other mechanisms like vigilance bodies or Lokpal have been ineffective.
    2. Denial of essential documents: Even mundane details, like corrected marksheets or pension beneficiary lists, can be refused. Rajasthan’s earlier use of such data to weed out “ghost employees” will now be impossible.
    3. Scope for corruption: By labeling corruption-related details as “personal information,” the law makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.
    4. Larger public interest clause weakens: Though Section 8(2) allows disclosure in larger public interest, it is rarely applied (<1% of cases).

    Why is there limited public outrage?

    1. Guise of data protection: Amendments are packaged under “privacy,” which appears benign or even desirable.
    2. Ego-driven perception: People instinctively think their information should remain private, ignoring how transparency aids collective accountability.
    3. Muted media response: Compared to earlier protests (e.g., changes to Information Commissioner tenure and salaries), public discussion is minimal.

    What needs to be done?

    1. Media engagement: Widespread discussion in print, digital, and regional media.
    2. Political accountability: Citizens must push parties to commit reversal of amendments in manifestos.
    3. Public opinion building: Civil society must highlight the democratic regression caused.
    4. Recognising gravity: The assault on RTI must be treated as seriously as threats to any other fundamental right.

    Conclusion

    The RTI Act, 2005  is not just a legal framework but a democratic ethos, where citizens are owners, not petitioners, of government-held information. The DPDP Act’s amendment transforms this ethos into an ethos of denial, threatening both transparency and accountability. Unless citizens, media, and political actors mobilise to resist, India risks losing one of its most powerful democratic tools.