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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • India-China: the making of a border

    Introduction

    The India–China boundary, stretching for about 3,488 km, is one of the longest disputed borders in the world. Unlike clearly demarcated international frontiers, this boundary runs through the Himalayas and remains unsettled in large parts. The two major areas of dispute are Aksai Chin in the western sector, occupied by China but claimed by India, and Arunachal Pradesh (particularly the Tawang tract) in the eastern sector, claimed by China but under Indian control. Rooted in the legacies of the British and Manchu empires, the boundary was never precisely defined. After independence, India relied on British-era maps while China pressed for historical and strategic claims. This divergence led to the 1962 war and continues to shape relations between the two Asian powers.

    Why the India–China border issue matters

    The unresolved India–China border remains a major geopolitical challenge in Asia. Unlike other international boundaries, this border runs through inhospitable Himalayan terrain where neither country historically maintained a permanent presence. The 1962 war, following India’s rejection of Chinese proposals, left scars of mistrust. Later attempts, such as Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 Beijing visit, restored engagement but not resolution. The dispute is about sovereignty, strategy, and national prestige, making it a flashpoint with global implications.

    The imperial legacy and a contested border

    1. Colonial inheritance: The India–China border was a product of the British and Manchu empires, drawn imprecisely through the Himalayas.
    2. Absence of settlement: After independence, India relied on colonial maps and dismissed Chinese calls for negotiations.
    3. Strategic miscalculation: India’s faith in maps was not supported by control on the ground, leaving space for China’s proactive steps in Aksai Chin.

    The emergence of conflict in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh

    1. Chinese presence in Aksai Chin: China constructed a highway from Xinjiang to Tibet through Aksai Chin, asserting de facto control.
    2. Indian assertion in Tawang: India occupied Tawang citing the 1914 Simla Convention and the McMahon Line signed with an independent Tibet.
    3. Proposals for compromise: In 1959, Beijing suggested a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with a 20 km troop pullback; in 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed a swap—Aksai Chin for Arunachal recognition.
    4. Breakdown and war: India rejected these offers; attempts to reclaim Aksai Chin triggered the 1962 war, where India lost ground in Ladakh but retained the McMahon Line in the east.

    Post-war developments and early engagement

    1. Dormancy period: After 1962, both sides avoided border contact for more than a decade.
    2. China Study Group: In 1975, India formed this high-level body to map the border with satellite imagery and direct patrolling.
    3. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s outreach: In 1979, Vajpayee visited Beijing, the first senior Indian leader to do so since 1962, initiating cautious normalisation.
    4. Revival of Chinese proposals: Deng Xiaoping in 1980 reiterated Zhou’s swap idea, but India, led by Indira Gandhi, rejected it due to mistrust.

    The stalemate in negotiations during the 1980s

    1. Unproductive talks: From 1981, both sides engaged in negotiations—India sought sector-wise talks, while China insisted on a package deal.
    2. Demand for Tawang: By 1985, Beijing linked concessions in Ladakh with Indian concessions over Tawang, central to China’s Tibet policy.
    3. Operation Falcon: In 1986, India forward-deployed troops at Namka Chu, displaying improved military preparedness since 1962.
    4. De-escalation: Both sides eventually pulled back, but the demand for Tawang revealed fundamental divergence.

    Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit and a new framework

    1. Strategic reset: Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing marked a shift from linking normalisation to border resolution.
    2. Framework for dialogue: Both sides agreed to restore relations while deferring the border issue to a Joint Working Group (JWG).
    3. Principle of accommodation: Premier Li Peng emphasised “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation (MUMA),” while Gandhi sought a “fair and reasonable” settlement.
    4. Peace as priority: Peace and tranquillity were prioritised, enabling cooperation in other fields despite the unsettled boundary.

    Conclusion

    The India–China border dispute is a story of missed chances, mistrust, and strategic recalibration. From Aksai Chin to Tawang, an imperial legacy evolved into a sovereignty dilemma. While Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi shifted the relationship towards peace, fundamental differences endure. History shows that strategic patience, military preparedness, and calibrated diplomacy remain the keys to managing this difficult relationship.

    Value Addition

    Institutional Mechanisms

    1. China Study Group (1975): Established by India to monitor the border with satellite mapping and patrolling points.
    2. Joint Working Group (1988): Created after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to sustain structured dialogue on the boundary issue.
    3. Later confidence-building agreements (1993, 1996, 2005): Though not in this article, they flowed from this trajectory and institutionalised border management.

    Policy Evolution

    1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Over-reliance on colonial maps and dismissal of negotiations.
    2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Cautious outreach to normalise ties in 1979 despite tensions.
    3. Indira Gandhi: Strong mistrust post-1962, refusal to accept “territorial swaps.”
    4. Rajiv Gandhi: Pragmatic reset in 1988, separating normalisation from boundary resolution.

    Line of Actual Control (LAC)

    1. Definition: The de facto boundary separating Indian and Chinese forces, first formally acknowledged in 1959 by China.
    2. Nature: Not mutually agreed or demarcated on the ground, leading to “differing perceptions.”
    3. Relevance: Key to understanding recurring standoffs such as Galwan (2020), though beyond this article’s timeframe.

    Case Study Relevance

    1. Aksai Chin: Illustrates how geography and strategic imperatives (road connectivity to Tibet) drive China’s claims.
    2. Tawang: Demonstrates cultural and religious dimensions (Tibetan Buddhism, Dalai Lama’s birthplace links).
    3. Operation Falcon (1986): A case study in how improved military readiness altered China’s calculus.
    4. Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit: A model of pragmatic diplomacy—normalisation without immediate resolution.

    Way Forward

    1. Institutional strengthening: Reviving and empowering mechanisms like the Joint Working Group and Special Representatives dialogue.
    2. Confidence-building: Expanding agreements on patrolling norms, hotlines, and disengagement to avoid clashes.
    3. Strategic balance: Maintaining military preparedness (as shown in Operation Falcon) while keeping diplomacy open.
    4. Engagement beyond the border: Deepening cooperation in trade, technology, and multilateral forums to build trust.
    5. Mutual accommodation: Drawing from Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi’s vision of a “fair, reasonable, mutually acceptable” settlement to guide long-term resolution.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] ‘China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor.

    Linkage: China’s occupation of Aksai Chin and insistence on Tawang show how strategic control is tied to economic leverage, such as road connectivity and infrastructure. Its trade surplus with India fuels military modernisation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). For India, this creates a dual challenge of managing unresolved borders while countering China’s economic–military power projection in Asia.

  • In news: Strait of Malacca

    Why in the News?

    Singapore’s PM has acknowledged India’s intent to join the Malacca Straits Patrol (currently undertaken by Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore).

    In news: Strait of Malacca

    About Strait of Malacca:

    • Location: Narrow waterway in Southeast Asia, between the Malay Peninsula (northeast) and Sumatra, Indonesia (southwest).
    • Length & Width: Extends about 800–900 km; width varies from 65 km in the south to 250 km in the north.
    • Depth: The southern end is narrow and shallow, usually less than 37 m deep, posing navigational challenges.
    • Geological Setting: Part of the Sunda Shelf formation, created after post-glacial sea level rise around 2.6 million years ago.
    • Key Ports: Hosts major hubs like Singapore, Port Klang, Penang, and Melaka, making it one of the busiest shipping lanes globally.

    Strategic and Economic Importance:

    • Global Chokepoint: Links the Indian Ocean (Andaman Sea) with the Pacific Ocean (South China Sea), forming a vital maritime chokepoint.
    • Trade Corridor: The shortest sea route between the Middle East/Africa and East Asia, critical for global commerce.
    • Volume of Trade: Handles about 60% of world maritime trade, including large-scale oil shipments from the Middle East to China, Japan, and Southeast Asia.
    • Economic Impact: Any disruption could severely affect supply chains and energy security worldwide.
    • Geopolitical Significance: Attracts competing interests of India, China, the US, and ASEAN states, making it a hotspot for regional and global strategic rivalry.
    [UPSC 2010] Which one of the following can one come across if one travels through the Strait of Malacca ?

    Options: (a) Bali (b) Brunei (c) Java (d) Singapore*

     

  • Highlights of the Global Peace Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    India has ranked 115th in the Global Peace Index, 2025 published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

    About Global Peace Index (GPI):

    • Publisher: Released annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), Sydney.
    • Coverage: Ranks 163 countries/territories, representing 99.7% of world population.
    • Indicators: Based on 23 metrics grouped under three domains:
      • Societal Safety & Security (crime, terrorism, political stability).
      • Domestic & International Conflicts.
      • Degree of Militarisation (defence spending, arms imports, personnel).
    • Launch: First published in 2007; now a key global benchmark for peace, stability, and security.

    Key Highlights of GPI 2025:

    • Top 10: Iceland (1st), Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia.
    • India’s Position: Ranked 115th (score 2.229), an improvement from 116th in 2024 (+0.58%).
    • Neighbour Comparison:
      • Pakistan – 144th (much lower).
      • Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh – higher than India, reflecting stronger peace metrics.
    • Least Peaceful: Russia, Ukraine, Sudan, DR Congo, Yemen, hit by wars, humanitarian crises, and instability.
    • Regional Insights:
      • Europe dominates top ranks.
      • Singapore is only Asian country in top 10.
      • South America shows gains (Argentina, Peru).
      • South Asia, Middle East, Africa remain volatile.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following pairs:

    1. North Kivu and Ituri: War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

    2. Nagorno-Karabakh: Insurgency in Mozambique

    3. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia: Dispute between Israel and Lebanon

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None*

     

  • [4th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Concealing a judge’s dissent, eroding judiciary’s authority

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy. Comment.

    Linkage: The 2023 PYQ on judicial independence as a prerequisite of democracy directly relates to the Collegium debate. Concealing Justice Nagarathna’s dissent shows how opacity undermines independence by eroding legitimacy and public trust. True independence requires not just freedom from external control but also internal transparency and accountability.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Transparency in judicial appointments is once again under scrutiny. The recent revelation of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on a Collegium recommendation, concealed from the public, has sparked fresh debate on the opacity of India’s judicial system. This piece examines why concealing dissent undermines the judiciary’s legitimacy, what is at stake for democracy, and how reforms could restore accountability in the higher judiciary.

    Introduction

    Constitutional democracies, as South African jurist Etienne Mureinik observed, thrive on a “culture of justification”, the principle that every exercise of public power must be explained and defended. Indian judges have often invoked this idea to hold governments accountable. Yet, when it comes to the judiciary’s own functioning, particularly the Collegium system of judicial appointments, this principle falters. The recent concealment of Justice B.V. Nagarathna’s dissent on the elevation of Justice Vipul M. Pancholi illustrates the problem starkly: the public is denied access to crucial reasoning behind decisions that shape the judiciary itself.

    Why is this news significant?

    The dissent of a sitting Supreme Court judge on a Collegium recommendation has surfaced through media leaks, not official disclosure. This is striking because the official resolution uploaded on the Court’s website suggested unanimity. The lack of transparency is troubling not just for one appointment but for the credibility of the entire judicial system. For a country where judges decide on critical questions of liberty and constitutional balance, secrecy corrodes legitimacy and deepens the democratic deficit.

    Opacity as the defining feature of the Collegium system

    1. Judge-made law: The Collegium emerged from the Second Judges Case (1993) and was reinforced in the Third Judges Case (1998).
    2. Private deliberations: Decisions are made by the five senior-most judges of the Supreme Court behind closed doors.
    3. Minimal disclosure: Until 2017, no explanations were given. Later, skeletal resolutions were published, with only brief reasons disclosed in 2018 before the practice was abandoned.
    4. Resistance to transparency: Concerns of reputational harm and political interference are cited as justifications for secrecy.

    The critical importance of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent

    1. Grave objections concealed: Reports suggest her reservations were serious, but neither her note nor the majority’s reasoning is accessible to the public.
    2. Unclear role of the executive: It is uncertain whether her dissent was even communicated to the Union government, which cleared the appointment within 48 hours.
    3. Democratic deficit: When even dissent within the highest court is hidden, the culture of justification collapses.

    Balancing transparency with fairness in judicial appointments

    International examples:

    1. Britain: Judicial Appointments Commission publishes criteria and detailed assessment reports.
    2. South Africa: Judicial Service Commission conducts public interviews of candidates.
    3. Indian reality: Transparency is avoided, and even dissent becomes visible only through leaks.
    4. Balancing act: Protecting reputations requires sensitive disclosure, not complete secrecy.

    Democratic stakes of a secretive Collegium process

    1. Shaping constitutional outcomes: Judges appointed today decide on civil liberties, executive powers, and Union–State relations.
    2. Institutional legitimacy: Without openness, citizens lose trust in the judiciary.
    3. Contradiction of standards: Courts demand accountability from governments but exempt themselves.

    The urgent need for reform in the Collegium system

    1. Self-accountability: A judiciary that explains its decisions strengthens, not weakens, its independence.
    2. Preserving legitimacy: Concealment erodes public trust, while openness anchors authority in people’s confidence.
    3. Past failures: Transparency initiatives have been sporadic and quickly rolled back.
    4. Future imperative: Without reform, the judiciary risks losing moral authority, the very foundation of its role in democracy.

    Conclusion

    The concealment of Justice Nagarathna’s dissent is not an isolated event but a symptom of the deeper opacity in judicial appointments. If the judiciary insists on accountability from other state organs, it must hold itself to the same standards. A transparent Collegium process will not diminish judicial independence; it will enhance legitimacy, anchor democracy in trust, and ensure that the culture of justification applies to all.

  • Should reservations exceed the 50% cap?

    Introduction

    Reservations have always stood at the crossroads of social justice and equality of opportunity in India. While Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India empower the state to address historical discrimination, the judicially imposed 50% cap has often clashed with demands for greater inclusivity. Recent developments, from Maharashtra’s acceptance of Maratha demands to calls for caste census and creamy layer reform, have amplified questions on whether the reservation system remains equitable, representative, and sustainable.

    The Current Moment of Reckoning

    The debate has reached a critical juncture because:

    1. Political promises like Bihar opposition leader Tejashwi Yadav’s proposal for 85% reservations directly challenge the 50% ceiling.
    2. Judicial scrutiny continues, with the Supreme Court questioning whether creamy layer exclusion should extend to SCs and STs.
    3. Empirical concerns such as 40–50% of reserved seats remaining unfilled, and the Rohini Commission’s revelation that 97% of OBC benefits are cornered by 25% castes, highlight structural inequities.

    This combination of political assertion, judicial intervention, and social critique makes the issue highly consequential.

    Articles 15 and 16: The constitutional basis of equality and reservation

    1. Equality mandate: Article 15 guarantees equality in state actions, including education; Article 16 guarantees equality in public employment.
    2. Special provisions: Both allow the state to make reservations for OBCs, SCs, and STs.
    3. Present levels: At the central level, reservations stand at 59.5% (OBC – 27%, SC – 15%, ST – 7.5%, EWS – 10%).

    Judicial rulings on reservation and equality

    1. Balaji vs State of Mysore (1962): Reservations must be “within reasonable limits” and capped at 50%; seen as upholding formal equality.
    2. N.M. Thomas (1975): Saw reservations as a continuation of equality of opportunity (substantive equality), but gave no ruling on the cap.
    3. Indra Sawhney (1992): Upheld 27% OBC quota, reaffirmed 50% ceiling, and introduced creamy layer exclusion for OBCs.
    4. Janhit Abhiyan (2022): Validated 10% EWS quota; held that 50% limit applies only to backward classes.
    5. Davinder Singh (2024): Suggested considering creamy layer exclusion for SCs and STs.

    Challenges to the 50% ceiling on reservations

    1. Population logic: Backward classes form a larger share than reflected in current quotas; caste census demanded to get exact numbers.
    2. Unfilled vacancies: 40–50% of reserved seats for OBC/SC/ST remain unfilled at the central level.
    3. Sub-caste concentration: Rohini Commission showed extreme skew in OBC benefits—about 1,000 communities have zero representation.

    The problem of concentration of reservation benefits

    1. OBCs: 97% benefits go to ~25% sub-castes.
    2. SCs/STs: Similar skew; absence of creamy layer exclusion means relatively better-off sub-castes capture opportunities.
    3. Policy vacuum: Despite judicial nudges, the Centre reaffirmed in August 2024 that creamy layer does not apply to SC/ST.

    The way forward for India’s reservation system

    1. Balancing equality: Increasing quota to 85% may violate equality of opportunity, but substantive equality demands better targeting.
    2. Caste census 2027: Could offer empirical basis for restructured reservation.
    3. Sub-categorisation: Rohini Commission’s recommendations need urgent implementation.
    4. Two-tier system: Priority for the most marginalised within SC/STs could prevent elite capture.
    5. Beyond reservation: Skill development and private sector opportunities are crucial, given shrinking public jobs.

    Conclusion

    India’s reservation policy is at an inflection point. Expanding quotas without reforming their structure risks perpetuating inequity within communities. A nuanced approach, backed by caste census data, sub-categorisation, and skill-building, can ensure that reservations remain a tool for empowerment rather than a political slogan. The challenge lies in balancing constitutional guarantees of equality with the imperative of social justice in a diverse democracy.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2019] Performance of welfare schemes that are implemented for vulnerable sections is not so effective due to absence of their awareness and active involvement at all stages of policy process, Discuss.

    Linkage: The 2019 question highlights how welfare schemes for vulnerable sections often fail due to lack of awareness and skewed access. The same issue is reflected in India’s reservation policy: despite constitutional backing, 40–50% of reserved seats remain unfilled, and the Rohini Commission revealed that 97% of OBC benefits are cornered by just 25% sub-castes, leaving nearly 1,000 communities with no representation at all. This shows that affirmative action, much like welfare schemes, risks becoming ineffective unless equitable distribution, sub-categorisation, awareness generation, and active participation of the most marginalised are ensured.

  • [pib] Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) recently organized a national workshop on the e-SAKSHI web portal and mobile app for the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).

    About MPLADS:

    • Overview: A Central Sector Scheme, launched in 1993, to empower MPs to recommend developmental works in their constituencies, focusing on durable community assets addressing local needs.
    • Administration: Initially under the Ministry of Rural Development; Since 1994, managed by MoSPI.
    • Implementation:
      • State-level nodal department supervises implementation.
      • District authorities sanction projects, release funds, and ensure execution.
    • Funding:
      • Each MP gets ₹5 crore per year (since 2011–12).
      • Disbursed by MoSPI in two instalments of ₹2.5 crore each to district authorities.
      • Funds are non-lapsable i.e. carried forward if unutilized.
    • Targeted Allocation: Minimum 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs.
    • Special Provisions:
      • Up to ₹25 lakh annually can be spent outside constituency/state for national unity projects.
      • Up to ₹1 crore can be allocated nationwide during severe natural calamities.
    • Eligible Projects:
      • Durable community assets (e.g., libraries, community halls, ambulances, sports infrastructure, sanitation).
      • MPLADS funds can be converged with MGNREGS or integrated with Khelo India for asset creation.
      • Support allowed on lands of registered societies/trusts (3+ years old) engaged in welfare work.
      • Prohibited for societies/trusts where the MP/family are office-bearers.
    • Transparency Measures:
      • Plaque with MP’s name and project details must be installed at project sites.
      • Project details listed in district offices, MPLADS website, and accessible via RTI.
    • Monitoring & Audit:
      • District authorities inspect at least 10% of projects annually.
      • Funds audited by statutory auditors.
      • Regular review meetings at state and central levels.
    • e-SAKSHI platform: Enables MPs to digitally recommend, monitor, and track MPLADS projects, improving transparency, accountability, and efficiency in fund utilization.
    [UPSC 2020] With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct?

    1. MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc.

    2. A specified portion of each MP’s ‘fund must benefit SC/ST populations.

    3. MPLADS funds are sanctioned on yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year.

    4. The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 4 only*

     

  • Foreigners Tribunal (FT) can issue Arrest Warrants

    Why in the News?

    The Union Home Ministry empowered Foreigners Tribunals (FTs), especially in Assam, to detain suspected illegal immigrants in designated camps, a power earlier exercised only through executive orders.

    About Foreigners Tribunal (FT):

    • Nature: Quasi-judicial bodies constituted under the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, framed under the Foreigners Act, 1946.
    • Purpose: Decide whether a person is a foreigner/illegal immigrant, especially in the context of Assam’s border migration issues.
    • Cases handled:
      • References from border police against suspected foreigners.
      • Cases of “D” (doubtful) voters flagged by the Election Commission.
    • Composition: Members drawn from retired judges, advocates, and civil servants with judicial experience; capped at 3 members per tribunal.
    • Functioning:
      • FTs exercise powers of a civil court (summons, evidence, witness examination).
      • Required to dispose of cases within 60 days of reference.
      • Burden of proof lies on the individual to establish citizenship (Section 9, Foreigners Act).
    • Present Status: About 100 FTs operational in Assam (expanded after NRC-2019). No FTs in other states, where suspected foreigners are tried in local courts.

    New Provisions under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025:

    • Replacement: Replaces the Foreigners (Tribunal) Order, 1964, now part of the comprehensive Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025.
    • Detention Powers: For the first time, FTs are empowered to detain suspected illegal immigrants in designated transit camps, a power earlier exercised through executive orders.
    • Judicial Authority:
      • Powers of a civil court under CPC, 1908.
      • Powers of a judicial magistrate (first class) under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — including issuing arrest warrants, ordering detention, and directing personal appearance.
    • Ex-parte Orders: Can be set aside if the appellant files a review within 30 days.
    • Scope: Though applicable nationwide, functional relevance remains in Assam.
    • Restrictions on Employment: Bars foreigners from working in strategic sectors (defence, nuclear energy, petroleum, power, water supply, space, human rights) without Central government approval.
    • Border Security Measures: Border forces/Coast Guard to record biometrics and demographic data of illegal entrants before pushing them back.
    • Grounds for Refusal of Stay: Foreigners convicted of terrorism, espionage, narcotics trafficking, organized crime, human trafficking, cybercrime, child abuse, crimes against humanity, etc., can be refused entry or deported.
    • Exemptions: Citizens of Nepal, Bhutan, Tibetans, and Sri Lankan Tamils exempted under a special 2025 order.
    [UPSC 2009] Consider the following statements:

    1. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) was set up during the Prime Ministership of Lal Bahadur Shastri.

    2. The Members for CAT are drawn from both judicial and administrative streams.

    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

     

  • [3rd September 2025] India needs more women judges in the Supreme Court

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Disucss the desirability of greater representation to women in higher judiciary to ensure equity and inclusiveness.

    Linkage: The acute gender imbalance in the Supreme Court, with only 11 women judges since 1950, directly reflects the inequity in higher judiciary appointments. Greater representation of women is not only about fairness but also about inclusiveness, diversity of perspectives, and legitimacy of justice delivery. This makes the 2021 UPSC question highly relevant as it highlights why institutionalising gender as a criterion in judicial appointments is essential.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The issue of women’s representation in the higher judiciary has resurfaced sharply after the recent appointments to the Supreme Court overlooked senior women judges and lawyers. Despite being the guardian of constitutional morality and equality, the apex court itself reflects a glaring gender imbalance. This article explores the extent of underrepresentation, the opacity in the appointment process, and why diversity on the Bench is not merely symbolic but essential for justice delivery.

    Introduction

    The retirement of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in August 2025 created an opportunity to address the deep gender imbalance in India’s Supreme Court. However, with the appointments of Justices Vipul Pancholi and Alok Aradhe, the Court continues to have only one woman judge—Justice B.V. Nagarathna. This exposes both a structural problem in the judicial appointment system and the reluctance to institutionalise gender as a criterion for higher judiciary appointments.

    The significance of gender imbalance in the Supreme Court

    1. Striking underrepresentation: Only 11 women judges out of 287 since 1950 (3.8%).
    2. Missed opportunity: Despite two vacancies in August 2025, no woman judge was appointed.
    3. Historical first ignored: The 2021 Collegium decision appointing three women judges at once raised hope of change, but the momentum has not continued.
    4. Symbolic contradiction: The Court upholds gender equality but does not reflect it internally.

    The historical trajectory of women judges in the Supreme Court

    1. First woman judge: Justice Fathima Beevi (1989).
    2. Trail of appointments: Only 11 till date, with short tenures limiting their influence.
    3. Tenure disparity: Women often appointed at a late stage in career, reducing chances of reaching the Collegium or CJI position.
    4. Upcoming first woman CJI: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, but for only 36 days (Sept–Oct 2027).
    5. Lack of caste and minority representation: Only Justice Fathima Beevi represented a minority faith; no SC/ST woman judge was ever appointed.

    Gender disparity in direct elevation from the Bar

    1. Male dominance: Nine men have been directly elevated from the Bar.
    2. Single woman appointee: Justice Indu Malhotra (2018) was the only woman elevated directly.
    3. Systemic discrimination: Despite women Senior Advocates being present, elevation remains blocked.
    4. Global comparison: Worldwide, the Bar is a major route to the higher judiciary, India lags in enabling women lawyers.

    The opacity of the judicial appointment process

    1. Collegium secrecy: No clarity on criteria or names under consideration.
    2. Inconsistent transparency: Collegium resolutions briefly made public in 2017 under CJI Dipak Misra, but not institutionalised.
    3. Regional and caste factors considered: Yet gender is ignored as a formal category.
    4. Violation of merit claims: Recent appointments skipped senior women High Court judges despite “seniority” being cited in the past as a hurdle.

    The importance of women’s representation on the Bench

    1. Unique perspectives: Women judges bring experiential diversity that shapes judicial outcomes.
    2. Public trust: Greater representation builds confidence in judicial impartiality.
    3. Truly representative court: The SC must reflect India’s social and gender diversity to strengthen legitimacy.
    4. Judicial precedents: The Court itself has mandated 30% reservation for women in Bar Association elections, but has no such rule for its own appointments.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s gender imbalance undermines its constitutional commitment to equality and inclusivity. Unless women are institutionalised as a criterion for judicial appointments, alongside caste, religion, and region, the credibility of India’s top court will remain in question. Representation is not tokenism; it is a constitutional necessity to ensure justice is dispensed through the lens of diversity, fairness, and lived realities.

    Value Addition

    Committees & Reports

    1. Law Commission 230th Report (2009): Recommended adequate representation of women and minorities in higher judiciary.
    2. Justice Verma Committee (2013): Strongly stressed the need for gender diversity in judiciary to handle women-related cases with sensitivity.

    International Comparisons & Norms

    1. Beijing Platform for Action (1995): Calls for women in decision-making positions, including judiciary.
    2. Canada & UK: Women form 40–50% of higher judiciary in recent years.
    3. South Africa: Institutionalised diversity (race + gender) as a mandatory criterion in judicial appointments.

     

  • Unmistakable shift (India signalled a change in foreign policy stance at SCO Summit)

    Introduction

    India’s foreign policy has historically oscillated between balancing great power politics and safeguarding its strategic autonomy. The 2025 SCO Summit in China witnessed a landmark moment: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first bilateral engagement with Chinese President Xi Jinping since the 2020 military standoff. The visit not only revived dormant dialogues but also underscored India’s shifting posture in a multipolar world marked by U.S. sanctions, instability in West Asia, and contestations within Eurasia.

    Significance of Indian Prime Minister’s Visit to China

    1. Seven-year gap: PM Modi had not travelled to China since 2017, making this a major diplomatic breakthrough.
    2. First bilateral since standoff: Meeting with Xi Jinping was the first since the 2020 military confrontation along the LAC.
    3. Three-year SCO absence: Modi’s return to SCO after three years shows India’s willingness to re-engage with a grouping seen as anti-Western.
    4. Optics of bonhomie: Images with Xi and Putin evoked memories of the inactive Russia-India-China trilateral, signalling recalibration.

    Revival of India-China Bilateral Engagement

    1. Troop disengagement: Both leaders endorsed the normalisation process initiated in October 2024.
    2. Boundary resolution: Agreed to fast-track talks between Special Representatives.
    3. Connectivity revival: Resumption of direct flights and visa facilitation announced.
    4. Economic ties: Leaders stressed on building trade relations to stabilise world commerce.
    5. Mutual trust rhetoric: Modi stressed ties based on “mutual trust, respect and sensitivity”, while Xi used the metaphor of “Dragon and Elephant” coming together.

    External Drivers of India’s Foreign Policy Recalibration

    1. U.S. tariffs and sanctions: American restrictions and mistrust of the Trump administration nudged India to diversify partnerships.
    2. Strategic compulsion: India managed to side-step concerns like China’s support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, UNSC/NSG opposition, and shielding of terrorists.
    3. Multipolar optics: India’s engagement at SCO signals balancing between West and Eurasia.

    Key Outcomes of the 2025 SCO Summit

    1. Tianjin declaration: Strong language against cross-border terrorism, including condemnation of the Pahalgam attack (India) and Balochistan attacks (Pakistan).
    2. West Asian crisis: SCO united on humanitarian crisis in Gaza and condemned U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.
    3. China’s push: Xi proposed an SCO Development Bank.
    4. India’s push: Modi proposed a Civilisational Dialogue among SCO members.
    5. India’s reservation: Continued opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) paragraph.

    Missed Diplomatic Opportunities at the Summit

    1. Skipped SCO Plus: Indian Prime Minister did not attend the extended “SCO Plus” Summit, limiting engagement with neighbourhood and Global South leaders.
    2. Regional bonding gap: While optics were strong, substantive regional outreach was diluted.

    Conclusion

    The SCO Summit underscored India’s willingness to recalibrate its foreign policy in a changing world order. Modi’s visit after years of distance marked a thaw with China, greater Eurasian engagement, and assertion of India’s independent foreign policy despite U.S. pressures. However, missed opportunities in broader outreach and unresolved trust deficits with China remain cautionary notes.

    Value Addition

    Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

    Historical Background

    1. Successor to: SCO is the successor to the Shanghai Five, formed in 1996 between China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
    2. Formation: Established in 2001 in Shanghai by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
    3. Expansion: India and Pakistan joined as full members in 2017; Iran became a member in 2023.
    4. Observers & Dialogue Partners: Afghanistan, Belarus, Mongolia, and others engage as observers; several countries (e.g., Turkey, Sri Lanka) are dialogue partners.

    Strategic Importance of SCO for India

    1. Geopolitical Balancing: Provides a platform to engage with China and Russia while maintaining ties with the West (Quad, U.S.).
    2. Regional Security: Key forum for counter-terrorism cooperation, especially in light of cross-border terrorism and instability in Afghanistan.
    3. Eurasian Connectivity: Enhances India’s presence in Central Asia, a region rich in energy resources.
    4. Multipolar World Order: Strengthens India’s narrative of strategic autonomy and non-alignment in new form.

    Key SCO Mechanisms

    1. Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS): Headquartered in Tashkent, focuses on counter-terrorism intelligence sharing.
    2. Economic Cooperation: Proposals for SCO Development Bank, regional trade, and connectivity projects (though India resists BRI-linked initiatives).
    3. Cultural and Civilisational Dialogues: Shared platforms for people-to-people exchanges, education, and cultural diplomacy.

    India’s Challenges within SCO

    1. China Factor: Difficult to expand cooperation given border disputes and China’s Pakistan tilt.
    2. Pakistan Factor: Its membership often leads to diplomatic blockages on issues like terrorism.
    3. BRI Opposition: India consistently refuses to endorse the Belt and Road Initiative, creating friction.
    4. Russia-China Axis: Russia’s growing dependence on China may dilute India’s influence in the bloc.

    Contemporary Relevance

    1. Energy and Trade: Central Asia is crucial for energy diversification; SCO provides a gateway.
    2. Geopolitical Flux: With U.S.-China rivalry and West Asia instability, SCO’s role in Eurasian stability gains importance.
    3. Soft Power Opportunity: India uses SCO to promote civilisational dialogue, yoga, Ayurveda, and cultural diplomacy.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Critically examine the aims and objectives of SCO. What importance does it hold for India?

    Linkage: The article directly illustrates the objectives of SCO—counter-terrorism (Tianjin declaration), multipolarity, and Eurasian stability. It highlights India’s balancing act—reviving ties with China, opposing BRI, and pushing for civilisational dialogue. Thus, the SCO Summit outcomes reflect both the scope and constraints of SCO’s importance for India in strategic, economic, and security domains.

  • Appointment of Vice Chancellors by Governor

    Why in the News?

    A recent controversy arose in Kerala, where the Governor (ex-officio Chancellor of State Universities) urged the Supreme Court to exclude the Chief Minister from the process of selecting Vice-Chancellors (VCs).

    Who is the Vice-Chancellor?

    • Position: Serves as Principal Academic and Executive Officer of the university.
    • Functions: Bridges executive and academic wings; ensures compliance with Acts, Statutes, and Regulations.
    • Authority: Chairs key bodies such as the Executive Council, Academic Council, Finance Committee, and Selection Committees.
    • Qualities Emphasized: Historical commissions (Radhakrishnan 1948, Kothari 1964–66, Gnanam 1990, Ramlal Parikh 1993) stressed academic excellence, administrative skill, integrity, and vision.
    • Significance: Maintains quality, relevance, and reform in higher education.

    About the Role of Governor and President in Universities:

    1. State Universities:
      1. Chancellor’s Position: The Governor is ex-officio Chancellor, functioning independently of the State Cabinet in university matters.
      2. VC Appointment: As per UGC Regulations, 2018, the Chancellor appoints Vice-Chancellors from a panel recommended by a Search-cum-Selection Committee.
      3. Legal Supremacy: In conflicts between UGC regulations and State laws, UGC norms prevail under Article 254 of the Constitution.
    2. Central Universities:
      1. Visitor Role: The President of India is the Visitor under the Central Universities Act, 2009.
      2. Chancellor: A ceremonial head, appointed by the President.
      3. VC Appointment: The President selects from a panel suggested by a Search Committee and can demand a fresh panel if unsatisfied.
      4. Oversight Powers: The President can authorize inspections and inquiries into universities.
    [UPSC 2014] Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

    1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule

    2. Appointing the Ministers

    3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India

    4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    Options: (a) a) 1 and 2 only (b) b) 1 and 3 only (c) c) 2, 3 and 4 only (d) d) 1, 2, 3 and 4