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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • CWMA upholds CWRC’s order to Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu

    Why in the News

    The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on 30 July upheld an order of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) directing Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water a day to Tamil Nadu for 15 days despite Karnataka’s own appeal citing drought. The ruling exposes that Karnataka and Tamil Nadu still have no agreed formula for sharing shortfalls in the Cauvery basin, years after the Supreme Court’s final verdict on the dispute.

    How does the Cauvery water sharing mechanism work?

    1. Two tier structure: The CWRC functions within the CWMA, which implements the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018.
    2. Composition: The CWRC is headed by the Member (Water Resources) of the CWMA and includes Chief Engineers of all basin states along with representatives of the India Meteorological Department (IMD), Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    3. Monitoring role: It tracks daily water levels, inflows and storage at eight reservoirs, four in Karnataka, three in Tamil Nadu and one in Kerala. It also issues seasonal water release directions for each basin state.
    4. Appeal route: A state aggrieved by a CWRC order can appeal to the CWMA. The CWMA, as the apex body monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, can uphold, modify or set aside the CWRC’s order.
    5. Unit of measure: Releases are set in cusecs, a rate of flow measured in cubic feet per second, while cumulative volume is tracked in thousand million cubic feet, referred to as tmc ft.

    Why did the CWRC order the release now?

    1. Deficient inflows: Karnataka’s four reservoirs recorded a combined inflow shortfall of about 60% against the 30 year average, and the deficit at the Biligundulu gauge, where Karnataka’s flow to Tamil Nadu is measured, was 90%.
    2. Storage position: As on 30 July, Karnataka’s four reservoirs held 65.34 tmc ft against a total capacity of 114.57 tmc ft.
    3. Forecast: The IMD gave no optimistic outlook for the following weeks, which shaped the CWRC’s view that Karnataka could still spare water.
    4. Buffer assessment: The CWMA noted Karnataka’s reservoirs stood to gain a minimum of 15 tmc ft in the next 15 days and that releasing 4.5 tmc ft would not affect Karnataka’s drinking water needs.

    Why do both states reject the outcome as unfair?

    1. Karnataka’s distress claim: Karnataka cited a super El Nino effect, said it had not begun irrigation releases this year, and argued Tamil Nadu would separately gain from the northeast monsoon later in the season.
    2. Karnataka’s carryover argument: Karnataka contended Tamil Nadu already held substantial carryover storage from earlier releases, reducing its immediate need.
    3. Tamil Nadu’s shortfall claim: Tamil Nadu sought 9.45 tmc ft over 15 days at 7,000 cusecs a day under the distress formula, arguing the ordered 3,500 cusecs was insufficient given a 90% deficit at Biligundulu.
    4. Tamil Nadu’s cultivation needs: Tamil Nadu’s ongoing kuruvai season needs at least 30 tmc ft against a Mettur storage of about 36 tmc ft, of which 10 tmc ft is reserved for drinking water. The following samba thaladi season needs a minimum of 180 tmc ft.
    5. Political fallout: Karnataka’s Chief Minister called an all party meeting in Bengaluru on 2 August to consider legal options, and farmer protests have already begun in the Cauvery basin against the release order.

    What are the challenges to the Cauvery dispute resolution mechanism?

    1. No distress sharing formula: Both the CWRC chief and Tamil Nadu’s position point to the absence of an agreed formula for splitting shortfalls in a deficient year, forcing an ad hoc order each time rainfall fails.
    2. Recurring litigation: Karnataka has approached the CWMA and is weighing further legal options, repeating a cycle of appeals seen in nearly every distress year since the tribunal’s award.
    3. Compliance risk: The CWMA can direct a release, but implementation still depends on Karnataka’s cooperation, a dependence that has previously produced Supreme Court contempt proceedings against Karnataka.
    4. Climate variability: A pattern of super El Nino effects and deficient monsoons increases the frequency of distress years, straining a formula built around long term averages rather than year on year swings.
    5. Political cost: A release ordered during an acknowledged drought risks becoming a flashpoint for farmer unrest and inter state friction, regardless of the technical merits of the CWRC’s assessment.

    Conclusion

    The CWMA’s ruling shows the institutional mechanism functioning as designed, yet satisfying neither riparian state. Karnataka calls the release unfair given its own distress, and Tamil Nadu calls the quantum inadequate for its cultivation needs. What remains unresolved is not whether the tribunal award should be enforced, but whether Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will ever agree on a distress sharing formula that removes the need for fresh litigation every deficient season. The CWRC is scheduled to meet again on 11 August to review compliance.

    Back2Basics:

    Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)

    1. Established in June 2018 by the Union Jal Shakti Ministry to implement the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (2007) as modified by the Supreme Court’s verdict of the same year.
    2. Constituted under Section 6A of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, following the Supreme Court’s directions.
    3. Composition includes a Chairman, a Secretary and Members, including a full time Member (Water Resources) who also heads the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
    4. Jurisdiction covers water release, storage and supply regulation across the Cauvery basin states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
    5. Functions as the apex body for compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, with the CWRC as its technical monitoring arm.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.

    Linkage: It examines the effectiveness of constitutional and institutional mechanisms for resolving inter-state river water disputes. The article highlights recurring Cauvery disputes, the absence of a distress-sharing formula, and continuing litigation despite the CWMA framework.

  • Centre defends CEC panel without CJI

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.

    What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?

    The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
    • Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha

    What changed?

    • The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
    • This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.

    What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?

    • Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
    • Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
      • Prime Minister
      • Leader of the Opposition
      • Chief Justice of India
    • The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.

    Centre’s Arguments

    • Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
    • The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
    • Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
    • Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • The committee lacks a neutral member.
    • A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
    • Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.

    [2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
    1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners.
    2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections.
    3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 3 only

    [C] 2 and 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • A medical education more inclusive

    Why in the News

    The National Medical Commission (NMC) issued revised guidelines on 27 July 2026 for admitting persons with disabilities to MBBS courses, replacing certificate-based disqualification with a functional assessment of whether a candidate can acquire the competencies needed to practise medicine. The change follows repeated legal challenges, including before the Supreme Court, to the earlier guidelines’ blanket exclusions.

    Key Highlights

    • Shift to Functional Assessment
      • MBBS eligibility will now be based on an applicant’s functional ability rather than the disability certificate alone.
      • Assessment will determine whether the candidate can acquire the competencies required to practise medicine.
      • Designated medical boards will conduct individual functional assessments.
    • Recognition of Reasonable Accommodation
      • Disability itself is not a ground for disqualification.
      • The guidelines recognise that: Assistive technology. Institutional support. Accessible infrastructure can enable candidates to successfully complete medical education.

    Why Were the Earlier Guidelines Challenged?

    • Earlier guidelines relied on fixed disability categories and thresholds.
    • Candidates could be declared ineligible solely because of the nature or extent of disability.
    • Petitioners argued that such blanket exclusions violated the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
    • The Supreme Court observed that systemic discrimination against persons with benchmark disabilities should be eliminated.

    Significance

    • Promotes inclusive medical education.
    • Aligns with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
    • Shifts from a disability-based to a competency-based admission framework.

    Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016

    • Replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.
    • Expanded recognised disabilities from 7 to 21.
    • Provides 4% reservation in government jobs and 5% reservation in higher educational institutions for persons with benchmark disabilities.
    • Administered by the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

    National Medical Commission (NMC)

    • Established under the National Medical Commission Act, 2019.
    • Replaced the Medical Council of India (MCI).
    • Regulates medical education and medical professionals in India.

    [2026] Which of the following statements with regard to the persons with disabilities in India is/are correct?
    1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, an Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2018, mandates reservation in education and employment, places a legal duty on Governments to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination.
    2. The Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan focuses on achieving universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities across three key domains – built infrastructure, transport systems and information and communication technology.
    3. The National Divyangjan Finance and Development Corporation (NDFDC) is a public sector organization set up by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a not-for-profit company to promote entrepreneurship among Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).
    Select the answer using the code given below:

    [A] 1 and 2

    [B] 2 only

    [C] 1 and 3

    [D] 1 only

  • RS passes Bill to criminalise disrespect to Vande Mataram

    Why in the News

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 on 29 July 2026, in the absence of most Opposition members who staged a walkout. The Bill extends criminal punishment for disrespecting national symbols to the National Song, Vande Mataram, placing it on the same legal footing as the National Anthem for the first time since the original 1971 law.

    What does the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 change?

    1. Original law: The Bill amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, which criminalises insults to the National Flag, the Constitution and the National Anthem.
    2. New provision: The amendment extends criminal punishment to acts of obstruction or disturbance during the singing of the National Song, Vande Mataram.
    3. Penalty: Intentionally preventing the singing of the National Song, or causing disturbance to an assembly singing it, will be punishable with imprisonment up to three years, or a fine, or both.
    4. Legislative path: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July by Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai and will now go to the Lok Sabha for consideration and passage.

    What is the historical background to Vande Mataram’s status?

    1. Origin: Vande Mataram was composed by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in 1875, but only two stanzas were adopted as the National Song.
    2. Adoption decision: Congress leader Jawaharlal Nehru limited the National Song to two stanzas in 1937, years before he became independent India’s first Prime Minister.
    3. Constituent Assembly reference: On 24 January 1950, Rajendra Prasad told the Constituent Assembly that Vande Mataram should be honoured on par with Jana Gana Mana, the National Anthem.

    What was the political dispute around the Bill’s passage?

    1. Government framing: Minister of State for Home Affairs Nityanand Rai said the Bill represents “India’s soul, national awareness, and cultural heritage” and accused the Congress of engaging in appeasement politics by opposing it.
    2. Opposition’s walkout reason: Nearly all Opposition members walked out demanding Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement on the police action against students protesting paper leaks at Jantar Mantar, rather than opposing the Bill’s substance.
    3. Cross-party support noted: The Aam Aadmi Party’s Sanjay Singh said his party supports the Bill while also demanding a law against insulting the National Anthem and the Tricolour.

    Conclusion

    The Rajya Sabha has passed the Bill giving Vande Mataram the same criminal protection as the National Anthem, with the Lok Sabha’s consideration as the next legislative step. The Opposition’s walkout centred on demanding accountability for the police action against student protesters rather than opposing the Bill on its merits.

    Back2Basics:

    Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    1. Enactment: The original Act was passed in 1971 to penalise insults to the National Flag, the Constitution of India, and the National Anthem.
    2. Scope: It covers acts such as burning, mutilating or defacing the National Flag, and preventing or disturbing the singing of the National Anthem.
    3. Amendment history: The Act has been amended before, including through the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2005, to add flag code violations.

  • IRDAI Reforms to Revamp the Insurance Sector

    Why in News?

    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) approved a series of reforms to modernise the insurance sector and implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    Key Highlights

    • Reforms aim to:
      • Improve ease of doing business.
      • Enhance insurance penetration.
      • Strengthen governance and policyholder protection.
      • Provide greater operational and financial flexibility to insurers.
    • Liberalised norms for Investments. Capital infusion. Corporate restructuring. Transfer of shares and amalgamation of insurers.
    • Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund (PEPF) operationalised under Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999 to Promote insurance awareness. Improve grievance redressal. Trace unclaimed insurance amounts. Enhance policyholder services.
    • Insurance intermediaries reforms:
      • Mandatory tagging of the authorised salesperson with every insurance proposal and policy.
      • Perpetual registration for intermediaries through an annual fee system, replacing periodic renewals.

    About IRDAI

    • Statutory regulator established under the IRDA Act, 1999.
    • Regulates, promotes, and ensures orderly growth of the insurance sector.
    • Headquarters: Hyderabad.

    Prelims Facts

    • IRDA Act, 1999 established IRDAI.
    • PEPF aims to strengthen insurance literacy and policyholder protection.
    • The reforms implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    [2019] In India, which of the following bodies/mechanisms review the functioning of independent regulators like PFRDA, IBBI, AERA, and PNGRB?
    1.Ad Hoc Committees appointed by the Parliament.
    2.Parliamentary Standing Committees.
    3.NITI Aayog.
    4.Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC).
    5.Finance Commission.
    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 1, 3, and 4

    [C] 2, 4, and 5

    [D] 2 only

  • Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in News?

    The Rajya Sabha passed the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026, extending legal protection to Vande Mataram by making its intentional disruption or prevention a punishable offence.

    Key Highlights

    • Amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.
    • Makes intentional disruption or prevention of the singing of Vande Mataram punishable.
    • Punishment: Imprisonment up to 3 years, or fine, or both.
    • Seeks to accord the National Song legal protection similar to the National Anthem (Jana Gana Mana).
    • Passed by the Rajya Sabha through a voice vote.

    About the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971

    • The Act penalises insults to: National Flag, Constitution of India, and National Anthem
    • The 2026 amendment adds protection for the National Song (Vande Mataram).

    Vande Mataram

    • Written by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • Originally appeared in the novel Anandamath (1882).
    • Adopted as the National Song on 24 January 1950.
    • Only the first two stanzas are accorded official status.

    Prelims Facts

    • National Anthem: Jana Gana Mana by Rabindranath Tagore.
    • National Song: Vande Mataram by Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay.
    • 24 January 1950: Constituent Assembly adopted Jana Gana Mana as the National Anthem while according Vande Mataram equal honour as the National Song.

    [2025] Consider the following pairs:
    Provision in the Constitution of India State under
    I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the Public services of the StateThe Directive principles of the State policy
    II. Valuing and preserving of the rich Heritage of our composite cultureThe Fundamental Duties
    III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factoriesThe Fundamental Rights
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] All the three

    [D] None

  • CPGRAMS Report for States/UTs (June 2026)

    Why in News?

    The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) released the 47th monthly report on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) for States/UTs for June 2026.

    Key Highlights

    • Public Grievances Received: 96,190
    • Grievances Redressed: 93,170
    • Pending Cases (30 June 2026): 2,16,032
    • 23 States/UTs have over 1,000 pending grievances.
    • Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest disposals (31,460), followed by Maharashtra (7,619).

    CPGRAMS

    • CPGRAMS is an online grievance redress platform of the Government of India.
    • Developed and monitored by DARPG.
    • Enables citizens to submit and track grievances against government departments.
    • Integrated with over 5 lakh Common Service Centres (CSCs) through 2.5 lakh Village Level Entrepreneurs (VLEs).

    Sevottam Scheme

    • Capacity-building initiative to improve public service delivery and grievance redress.
    • FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 (till June): 1,196 training programmes conducted. Around 39,509 officers trained.

    Other Highlights

    • 83,544 new users registered on CPGRAMS in June 2026.
    • Feedback Call Centre collected 75,318 feedbacks, including 33,092 from States/UTs.
    • 6,262 grievances were registered through CSCs.
    • A dedicated Review Module for senior-level monitoring has been operational since 6 June 2025.

    Prelims Facts

    • DARPG: Department under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
    • CPGRAMS: National online portal for public grievance redressal.
    • Sevottam Scheme: Focuses on improving service delivery and grievance redress mechanisms in government.

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 only

    [B] 2 only

    [C] Both 1 and 2

    [D] Neither 1 nor 2

  • [29th July 2026] The Hindu OpED: Iran’s Afghan balancing act amid regional upheaval

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2013]     The proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from Afghanistan in 2014 is fraught with major security implications for the counters of the region. Examine in light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.
    Linkage: The PYQ examines the regional security fallout of a foreign military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The article traces how the 2021 US withdrawal reshaped Iran’s Afghan calculus, a parallel instance of a withdrawal reordering regional strategic behaviour.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Delegations from both the Taliban and the rival Northern Alliance attended the funeral of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran. This dual presence exposed Iran’s continued refusal to fully commit to the Taliban government despite deep economic and diplomatic engagement with Kabul. The visit occurred while Iran was fighting a war in the west, raising the stakes of managing its eastern flank.

    Why does Iran’s history with the Northern Alliance still shape its Taliban policy today?

    1. Pre-2001 alignment: Iran backed the Northern Alliance against the Taliban through the 1990s, alongside India, Russia, and Tajikistan.
    2. Post-9/11 recalibration: Iran’s view of the Taliban shifted after the 9/11 attacks brought sustained Western military deployment to its borders.
    3. Non-recognition persists: Iran has built the strongest external influence in Kabul since 2021 but still withholds formal recognition of the Taliban government.
    4. Dual channel maintained: Iran hosted Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi alongside Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Massoud at the same funeral.

    How did the US withdrawal from Afghanistan reshape Iran’s regional calculus?

    1. Border threat removed: The August 2021 US withdrawal ended a two-decade military presence on Iran’s eastern border.
    2. Competing patronage exposed: Pakistan simultaneously backed the Taliban and the US-led war on terror, producing overlapping and contradictory interests.
    3. Contradiction on record: Osama bin Laden was found in Abbottabad in May 2011, in a house and not a cave, pointing to this dual role.
    4. A quieter front sought: Iran calculated that reducing conflict on its Afghan front would free up resources for other priorities.
    5. Limited patronage offered: Iran could offer the Taliban political legitimacy but only a limited amount of material patronage.

    Why does Iran keep hedging despite the Taliban’s declared wartime support?

    1. Support pledged: A Taliban spokesman close to emir Hibatullah Akhundzada said the group would support Iran if it came under attack. The extent of this support remains undefined.
    2. Access granted: The Taliban gave Iran access to Afghanistan’s civilian airports over the past year.
    3. Durability doubted: Iran treats an insurgency-turned-government as carrying a persistent question mark over its long-term stability.
    4. Internal fissures noted: Ideological and tribal divisions inside the Taliban require constant micromanagement.
    5. Power still consolidating: The Taliban is still solidifying control between Kabul, its political capital, and Kandahar, its ideological one.
    6. Institutional memory at play: Quds Force chief Esmail Qaani’s operational history traces back to the 1990s Taliban-Northern Alliance conflict. This history informs his current caution.

    Why does Iran engage both the Taliban and its opposition at once?

    1. Hedging strategy: Engaging both the recognised Taliban government and the Northern Alliance lets Iran preserve influence regardless of which side gains ground in Afghanistan’s internal balance of power.
    2. Border security concern: Iran shares a long border with Afghanistan, and instability on either side directly affects Iranian security, giving Tehran incentive to maintain channels with all major Afghan actors.
    3. Pakistan factor: Iran’s Afghanistan policy is shaped in part by its complex relationship with Pakistan, which has its own competing interests in Afghan internal politics.
    4. Regional war context: The West Asia war constrains Iran’s bandwidth and resources, making a flexible, multi track Afghan policy more practical than committing exclusively to one Afghan faction.

    What does the Iran-Pakistan wartime “brotherhood” reveal about the limits of regional alliances?

    1. Mediator role assumed: Pakistan positioned itself as a mediator between Tehran and Washington during the war.
    2. Divergent aims surfaced: Pakistan seeks favour with the US and Gulf partners, shown by its troop deployment in Saudi Arabia.
    3. Instrumental use by Iran: Iran uses the relationship as a channel to reach the US through a neighbour it knows, though does not fully trust.
    4. Bilateralism made incidental: The Iran-Pakistan relationship itself is secondary to each country’s separate external objectives.

    Conclusion

    Iran’s simultaneous engagement with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance is a hedging strategy shaped by the West Asia war’s demands on its resources and by its complicated relationship with Pakistan. The approach preserves Iranian influence in Afghanistan without requiring Tehran to bet its regional position on one Afghan faction’s success.

    Back2Basics

      Key Terms

      1. IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps): Iran’s ideological military force, separate from its regular armed forces.
      2. Quds Force: IRGC’s branch handling external operations and foreign militant networks.
      3. Northern Alliance: A coalition of anti-Taliban Afghan factions, historically backed by Iran, India, and Russia.

    1. Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling offers a better path on copyright and AI than a training licensing regime

      Why in the News?

      The Delhi High Court’s ruling in ANI v OpenAI, addressing technological neutrality and the research exemption, offers a framework for copyright and AI. At the same time, there is a growing criticism about the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) committee’s proposed AI training licensing regime as potentially harmful to innovation.

      What did the Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling establish?

      1. Technological neutrality: The ruling applies existing copyright principles to AI training without creating a separate, more restrictive legal category just because the technology involved is new.
      2. Research exemption: The ruling recognises a research exemption relevant to how AI systems process copyrighted content during training, rather than treating every instance of AI training on copyrighted material as infringement by default.

      How is the DPIIT new hybrid licensing system (One Nation – One License – One Payment) different from the Delhi High Court (ANI v OpenAI) judgment?

      1. DPIIT Proposal: AI seeks to bring in a statutory licensing mechanism that requires companies to pay compensation (royalties) to content creators through a centralized government system.
      2. Delhi High Court verdict: The court in its latest order refused to impose any strict or prior licensing norms, stating that AI training can be considered ‘fair dealing’ (under research purposes).

      Why does the proposed licensing regime as a step backward?

      1. Compliance burden: A mandatory AI training licensing regime would require AI developers to negotiate and pay for licenses before training on copyrighted content, raising the cost of building AI systems in India.
      2. Innovation chilling effect: Smaller AI developers and startups, unable to absorb licensing costs at the scale large technology companies can, would face a higher barrier to entry than the court’s technological neutrality approach imposes.
      3. Inconsistency with the ruling: A DPIIT-driven licensing regime would move policy in a more restrictive direction than the judiciary’s own reading of technological neutrality and the research exemption, creating a mismatch between executive rule making and judicial precedent.

      Conclusion

      The Delhi High Court’s ANI v OpenAI ruling offers a workable copyright and AI framework built on existing legal principles rather than new restrictions. DPIIT’s proposed licensing regime would discard that workable framework in favour of a compliance heavy structure that risks innovation without a clear corresponding gain for rights holders.

      Back2Basics

      The Proposed Licensing system by DPIIT:

      The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) proposed a new hybrid licensing systemin December 2025 called “One Nation – One License – One Payment”. Its main purpose is to strike a balance between creators’ rights and technological innovation on the use of copyrighted content for artificial intelligence (AI) training.

      The important aspects and provisions of this proposed policy are as follows:

      Mandatory Blanket License

      1. Data usage rights: AI developers can use any copyrighted content that is legally accessible (for example, freely available online) to train their models without seeking separate permission. [1, 2]
      2. No Opt-Out: Content creators or organizations do not have the right to opt-out of having their content used for AI training.

      Royalty Structure

      1. Payment after commercialization: AI developers do not have to pay any fees upfront. Royalties apply only after the AI ​​tool or product starts generating revenue commercially.
      2. Centralized Body: The government will set up a non-profit centralized nodal agency called “Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training” (CRCAT) to collect royalties and distribute them to copyright holders .
      3. Pricing: Royalty rates are determined independently by a special expert committee appointed by the government

      Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT)

      1. It is a Union government department under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
      2. It is responsible for industrial policy, including the committee that proposed the AI training licensing regime referenced here.

      PYQ Relevance

      [UPSC 2024] What is the present world scenario of intellectual property rights with respect to life materials? Although India is second in the world to file patents, still only a few have been commercialized. Explain the reasons behind this less commercialization.

      Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s intellectual property rights framework and the balance between protection of intellectual property and innovation. The article discusses whether India’s copyright framework should promote AI innovation through existing legal principles or impose a mandatory licensing regime. It highlights the broader challenge of designing an IPR regime that protects creators without discouraging technological innovation.

    2. Political executive control over Delhi Police under Article 239AA comes under fresh scrutiny

      Why in the News

      The Supreme Court is hearing petitions on the police crackdown during the NEET protest. The case has brought attention to the political control over the Delhi Police under Article 239AA and renewed debate on police independence in light of the Ramlila Maidan and Prakash Singh judgments.

      What does Article 239AA provide for policing in Delhi?

      1. Definition: Article 239AA, inserted by the 69th Amendment Act, 1991, gives Delhi a Legislative Assembly and Council of Ministers but excludes police, public order and land from the elected government’s jurisdiction, keeping them with the Union government.
      2. Effect: Delhi Police answers to the Union Ministry of Home Affairs rather than the elected Delhi government, unlike police forces in full states.
      3. Ramlila Maidan precedent: The Supreme Court’s Ramlila Maidan ruling addressed the limits of police force against a peaceful assembly, a precedent invoked whenever Delhi Police’s crowd control conduct is questioned.
      4. Prakash Singh precedent: The Prakash Singh v Union of India ruling laid down police reform directions aimed at insulating police from political direction, directions Delhi Police’s Union government control tests differently than in the states.

      Why does this arrangement resurface during the NEET protest crackdown hearing?

      1. Command versus accountability: Delhi Police’s actions during the NEET protest crackdown are being scrutinised even though the elected Delhi government has no command authority over the force to answer for its conduct.
      2. Union political exposure: Because Delhi Police reports to the Union Home Ministry, its conduct during politically sensitive protests places the central government, not the local elected government, in direct line of accountability.

      Conclusion

      Article 239AA’s exclusion of police from Delhi’s elected government means every controversial policing decision in the capital, including the NEET protest crackdown, becomes a Union government accountability question by constitutional design. The Supreme Court’s hearing will test whether the Ramlila Maidan and Prakash Singh standards can be enforced within this centralised command structure

      Back2Basics

      Article 239AA:

      1. It was inserted by the 69th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1991.
      2. It grants Delhi a special Union Territory status with an elected Assembly, while reserving police, public order and land for the Union Government.

      Prakash Singh v. Union of India:

      It is a landmark 2006 Supreme Court of India public interest litigation judgment that issued seven binding directives to reform police forces, ensure fixed tenures for top officials, and insulate law enforcement from political control.

      Key Directives of the Judgment

      1. State Security Commission: Set up a body to check that state governments do not exercise unwarranted influence over the police.
      2. Fixed Tenure for DGP: Give the Director General of Police a minimum stable tenure of two years regardless of their retirement date.
      3. Fixed Tenure for Officers: Ensure field-level police officers (like SPs and SHOs) have a minimum two-year tenure on their postings.
      4. Separation of Functions: Separate the investigation of crime from day-to-day law and order duties.
      5. Police Establishment Board: Create a board to handle transfers, postings, and promotions for junior officers.
      6. Police Complaints Authority: Establish independent state and district bodies to handle public complaints against police misconduct.
      7. National Security Commission: Form a federal panel to pick and manage top-tier police standards at the national level.