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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Centre moves to simplify medical device regulations

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has proposed amendments to Rule 44 and Rule 63 of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, adding the European Union to the list of jurisdictions whose regulatory approval India recognises for faster market entry. The Medical Devices Rules, 2017 currently grant an expedited licensing route in India to devices already approved by a short list of recognised foreign regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration. Adding the European Union’s regulatory approval to that recognised list extends the fast-track route to a much larger set of globally marketed devices.

    What do Rule 44 and Rule 63 currently govern?

    1. Rule 44, predicate device and approval-based licensing: Rule 44 of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 sets out the conditions under which a device already approved in a recognised foreign jurisdiction can secure an Indian manufacturing or import licence through a faster review, rather than a full fresh evaluation.
    2. Rule 63, licensing timelines and reliance on foreign approval: Rule 63 governs the timelines and documentary requirements for import licences, with reliance on foreign regulatory approval used to compress India’s own review period for devices from recognised jurisdictions.
    3. Currently recognised jurisdictions are limited: The existing fast-track list includes major regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration, but has not included the European Union’s regulatory framework, requiring EU-approved devices to go through India’s standard, longer review.

    Why add the European Union to the recognised list?

    1. The EU covers a large share of globally marketed devices: A significant share of medical devices sold worldwide first secure approval under the European Union’s regulatory framework, so recognising EU approval widens the pool of devices eligible for India’s fast-track route considerably.
    2. Reduces duplicate testing for already-approved devices: Recognising EU approval avoids re-running clinical and safety evaluations in India for a device that has already cleared a comparably rigorous regulatory process abroad.
    3. Intended to speed access to newer medical technology: A faster licensing route is expected to bring newer diagnostic and treatment devices to the Indian market sooner than the standard review timeline would allow.

    Conclusion

    The proposed amendments to Rule 44 and Rule 63 extend India’s fast-track medical device licensing route to European Union-approved devices, alongside the jurisdictions already recognised. The amendments are at the proposal stage, with the next step being their formal notification under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017.

    Back2Basics: Medical Devices Rules, 2017

    1. Notified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 created a dedicated regulatory framework for medical devices, distinct from the drug-licensing framework they had earlier been regulated under.
    2. Classify devices by risk into four classes, A to D, with review stringency rising with the device’s risk class.
    3. Are administered by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, the national regulator for drugs and medical devices.
    4. Recognise approval from specified foreign regulators to allow an expedited licensing route for devices already cleared in those jurisdictions.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the
    experiences in recent past.”

  • Smart glasses highlight gaps in privacy laws

    Why in the News

    Meta’s smart glasses, which can discreetly record video and audio of anyone around the wearer, have renewed concerns over surveillance and consent, and over how far the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 actually protects a bystander who never agreed to be recorded. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held privacy to be a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21, developing a three-part legality-necessity-proportionality test for any restriction on it. Wearable recording devices normalised for everyday use test that framework in a setting the 2017 judgment did not anticipate: a bystander with no relationship to the device’s owner, and no practical way to know they are being recorded.

    Why do smart glasses expose a specific gap in India’s privacy framework?

    1. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is built around consent, which a bystander cannot give: The Act’s core protection mechanism requires a data principal’s consent before personal data is processed, a structure that assumes a data subject who is a party to the transaction, not a bystander recorded without their knowledge by someone else’s device.
    2. No dedicated framework for covert or discreet recording devices: Existing privacy protections address data processing by an identifiable data fiduciary, typically a company or platform, not the diffuse, device-level recording enabled by consumer wearables carried by private individuals.
    3. Enforcement depends on the bystander detecting the recording: Because smart glasses are designed to record discreetly, a bystander has no practical way to exercise any of the rights the 2023 Act grants a data principal, since exercising those rights first requires knowing that one’s data was processed at all.
    4. Cybercrime figures already show a rising surveillance-adjacent harm pattern: National Crime Records Bureau data has recorded a rising trend in cybercrime cases involving unauthorised recording and image-based harassment, a pattern smart-glasses-style wearables are positioned to accelerate.

    Conclusion

    Smart glasses expose a structural gap between a consent-based data protection framework and a recording technology that operates on people who never consented to anything. Closing that gap requires provisions specific to covert or ambient recording devices, rather than relying on the same consent architecture built for data fiduciaries processing information from their own users.

    What is the Right to Privacy, and what does it protect?

    1. About: The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty, protecting an individual’s control over personal information, bodily integrity, and personal decisions from unjustified interference by the State.
    2. Rationale: The right exists because personal autonomy, from choice of partner to control over one’s own data trail, is treated as intrinsic to human dignity rather than a privilege the State may withdraw.
    3. Named typology: The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) recognised several strands within the right: informational privacy over personal data, decisional autonomy over intimate personal choices, bodily integrity against intrusive procedures, and digital privacy against online surveillance.
    4. Proportionality test for restrictions: Any state action restricting privacy must meet a three-part test: legality (backed by law), a legitimate aim, and proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
    5. Institutional gap in independent oversight: Agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Investigation Agency operate without a dedicated, independent body reviewing their surveillance activity for privacy compliance.
    6. Colonial-era laws still authorise interception: Provisions in the Telegraph Act continue to authorise phone tapping under standards that predate the Puttaswamy proportionality test, creating a mismatch between old authorisation powers and the newer constitutional standard.
    7. Corporate data harvesting outside individual awareness: Technology platforms collect and monetise personal data at a scale most users do not track or understand, a form of privacy erosion the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 only partially addresses through its consent and purpose-limitation provisions.
    8. Low digital literacy limits the exercise of privacy rights: Citizens frequently do not know what data they have given consent to share, or how to invoke the correction and erasure rights the 2023 Act grants them.

    Challenges in protecting the right to privacy

    1. Mass surveillance without independent judicial oversight: Interception and surveillance decisions in India are authorised through executive processes rather than prior judicial warrant. Eg. Allegations around the use of Pegasus spyware against journalists and activists in 2021 raised exactly this oversight gap. Fix. Introduce a judicial or quasi-judicial warrant requirement before any interception order takes effect, replacing the current executive-only authorisation.
    2. National-security exemptions in the 2023 Act draw criticism: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits government agencies to be exempted from several of its obligations on national security and public-order grounds. Eg. Government bodies notified under the Act’s exemption provisions are not bound by the same data-minimisation and purpose-limitation duties private data fiduciaries face. Fix. Require any national-security exemption to be time-bound and reviewed periodically by an independent oversight body rather than granted as a standing exemption.
    3. Corporate surveillance through data-driven advertising: Large technology platforms build detailed behavioural profiles from data users hand over without meaningfully understanding the trade-off. Eg. Targeted political and commercial advertising built on granular user profiling has drawn regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. Fix. Mandate clear, layered consent disclosures under the 2023 Act’s rules that separate necessary data use from optional profiling-based use.
    4. Health data retention concerns from pandemic-era tools: Contact-tracing and health applications built during the COVID-19 pandemic raised unresolved questions about how long the government retains the health data those apps collected. Eg. Aarogya Setu’s data retention and sharing practices drew sustained criticism from privacy researchers. Fix. Set a statutory data-retention ceiling for any health-emergency application, with automatic deletion once the stated public-health purpose ends.
    5. No dedicated authority solely focused on privacy enforcement: The Data Protection Board established under the 2023 Act adjudicates complaints but does not function as a proactive privacy regulator auditing surveillance practices across government and industry. Fix. Expand the Data Protection Board’s mandate to include periodic, unprompted audits of large-scale surveillance and data-processing systems, government and private alike.

    Back2Basics: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    1. India’s first standalone law on personal data processing, built around consent as the primary legal basis for processing, with defined exceptions for legitimate uses such as employment and government functions.
    2. Creates the Data Protection Board of India as the adjudicatory body for data-protection complaints and penalties.
    3. Grants data principals rights to access, correct, and erase their personal data, and imposes purpose-limitation and data-minimisation duties on data fiduciaries.
    4. Permits the government to exempt specified agencies from several of the Act’s obligations on national security and public-order grounds, a provision that has drawn criticism for its breadth.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”

  • What has fuelled the backlash against Flock cameras in the U.S.?

    Why in the News

    A backlash has grown in the United States against Flock Safety, a company supplying Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras, after reports that local police departments used the company’s camera network for purposes beyond its stated public-safety mandate, including tracking individuals without a warrant. Flock’s cameras were adopted by thousands of US municipalities on the promise of solving vehicle-related crime through license-plate matching. Evidence that police departments used the same network for broader surveillance, including in ways that reached beyond a single jurisdiction’s own authority, has turned a crime-fighting tool into a symbol of unchecked surveillance expansion.

    Why has Flock Safety specifically drawn this backlash?

    1. Scale of camera deployment across US municipalities: Flock Safety’s automated license-plate-reader cameras are installed across thousands of towns and cities in the United States, giving the company’s network a national footprint that few individual police departments could have built on their own.
    2. Cross-jurisdiction data sharing without matching oversight: Police departments using Flock’s network can search license-plate data captured by cameras in other jurisdictions, a capability that expands what a single local force can track well beyond its own legal boundary, without matching cross-jurisdiction oversight.
    3. Reported misuse beyond stated crime-fighting purpose: Instances have emerged of the camera network being used to track individuals in contexts such as reproductive-healthcare-related travel and immigration enforcement, uses that go well beyond the vehicle-theft and hit-and-run cases the system was marketed to solve.
    4. Absence of a federal framework governing ALPR use: The United States has no single federal law governing how automated license-plate-reader data can be collected, retained, or shared, leaving oversight to a patchwork of local ordinances and police department policy.

    What does this suggest for India’s own camera-based surveillance rollout?

    1. India is expanding AI-linked camera surveillance in parallel: Indian cities have been expanding networks of AI-enabled cameras for traffic and law-enforcement purposes, a rollout that mirrors the scale-up Flock’s network underwent in the United States before the current backlash.
    2. India’s privacy law does not yet address law-enforcement camera data specifically: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 governs personal data processing generally but does not set out a dedicated framework for retention limits, access logging, or cross-agency sharing of camera surveillance data collected for law enforcement.
    3. The US backlash offers a design lesson before scale, not after: The concern in the United States surfaced only after the network had scaled to thousands of jurisdictions with data-sharing already built into the product, a sequencing that leaves oversight design catching up to deployment rather than preceding it.

    Conclusion

    The backlash against Flock Safety’s cameras in the United States is a warning about what happens when a surveillance network scales faster than the oversight framework governing its use. India’s own camera-based surveillance expansion is at an earlier stage, leaving room to build retention, access, and sharing safeguards into the framework before, rather than after, the network reaches a comparable scale.

    Back2Basics: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR)

    1. A camera system that automatically captures and reads vehicle license plates, converting the image into searchable text data matched against watchlists or databases.
    2. Originally marketed for narrow uses such as locating stolen vehicles or vehicles linked to an active crime.
    3. Data captured by one camera can be pooled into a shared network, allowing a search across cameras operated by multiple, unconnected police jurisdictions.
    4. Raises retention and access-control questions distinct from a single fixed CCTV camera, because the data is structured, searchable, and easily aggregated across locations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”

  • It is wrong to cancel Telangana CM’s US visit

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of External Affairs denied political clearance for a United States visit by the Chief Minister of Telangana, A. Revanth Reddy, a visit that had included planned meetings with the Mayor of New York and the Vice-President of the United States. Indian States require political clearance from the Union government before a Chief Minister undertakes an official foreign visit, a longstanding practice meant to keep foreign policy under central control. Denying clearance for meetings with a State chief executive and senior foreign leaders sets up a tension between the Centre’s constitutional primacy over foreign affairs and the norm of allowing Opposition-ruled States a role in India’s outward-facing federalism.

    Why does a Chief Minister need Union clearance to travel abroad?

    1. Foreign affairs sit exclusively with the Union: Entry 10 of the Union List places foreign affairs, including all matters bringing the Union government into relation with any foreign country, exclusively within the Centre’s legislative and executive competence.
    2. Political clearance is an executive practice, not a statutory requirement: The requirement that a Chief Minister obtain the Ministry of External Affairs’ political clearance before an official foreign visit rests on executive instructions rather than a specific Act, developed to keep sub-national actors from appearing to conduct independent foreign policy.
    3. Distinct from clearance for private or non-official travel: Clearance requirements attach to visits with an official or government-to-government character, such as meetings with a foreign government’s officials, rather than to purely personal travel.

    Why is denying clearance in this instance being criticised?

    1. Meetings involved routine sub-national and diplomatic engagement: A meeting between an Indian Chief Minister and the Mayor of New York, or a courtesy meeting with the Vice-President of the United States, falls within the kind of city-to-state and state-to-country economic diplomacy the Centre has itself encouraged States to pursue for investment.
    2. Selective application undermines federal trust: Denial of clearance to an Opposition-ruled State’s Chief Minister, where clearance is routinely granted for similar visits by Chief Ministers of Union government-aligned States, reads as a partisan use of a foreign-policy gatekeeping power.
    3. Costs India’s global federal image: India projects itself internationally as a cooperative federal system encouraging States to compete for investment; blocking a State’s own outreach to a potential investment and diaspora hub like New York works against that projection.
    4. Undermines Centre-Opposition dialogue norms: Routine denial of clearance to Opposition Chief Ministers, without a stated security or diplomatic justification, erodes the norm that foreign-policy gatekeeping is applied on non-partisan grounds.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry of External Affairs’ denial of political clearance for the Chief Minister of Telangana’s US visit is criticised here as an overreach of a gatekeeping power meant to coordinate foreign policy, not to selectively restrict an Opposition-ruled State’s economic and diplomatic outreach. The episode is likely to recur with other Opposition-ruled States unless the Centre states clear, non-partisan criteria for granting or denying political clearance.

    Back2Basics: Political clearance for foreign travel by State functionaries

    1. An executive requirement, not a statutory one, under which a Chief Minister or other State functionary must obtain the Ministry of External Affairs’ approval before undertaking an official foreign visit.
    2. Rests on the Union’s exclusive constitutional competence over foreign affairs under Entry 10 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.
    3. Applies to visits with an official or government character; distinguished from private travel, which does not require the same clearance.
    4. Has periodically become a point of Centre-State friction when applied to Opposition-ruled States’ Chief Ministers.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character?
    (a) The independence of the judiciary is safeguarded.
    (b) The Union Legislature has elected representatives from constituent units.
    (c) The Union Cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties.
    (d) The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by Courts of Law.
    ANSWER: (a)”

  • 5 years on, how India has warmed up to the Taliban

    5 years on, how India has warmed up to the Taliban

    Why in the News

    The Afghanistan embassy in New Delhi marked “victory day” on 15 August 2026, five years after the Taliban’s takeover of the country. Indian diplomats and about two dozen foreign diplomats attended the event. The occasion sits against a reversal: on 17 August 2021 India hurriedly evacuated its entire embassy from Kabul after the Ashraf Ghani led government collapsed. That collapse came ahead of the 31 August deadline set by the United States President for the withdrawal of American troops. India now conducts business with the Islamist regime without granting it official diplomatic recognition. Indian officials describe this as “cautious engagement”, and critics describe it as “opportunistic”.

    What is engagement without official recognition?

    1. The status being withheld: Diplomatic recognition is a state’s formal acceptance that a given authority is the lawful government of a country, which allows full ambassadorial exchange and treaty dealings. India has not granted it to the Taliban.
    2. What India does instead: India deals with the Taliban as the effective administering authority, running missions, delivering aid and negotiating projects, without conceding legal status. Recognition can then be traded later for concessions.
    3. The visible marker of the gap: The Afghan missions in Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad are manned by Taliban appointed diplomats. The main flagpole of the Delhi embassy continues to fly the old Afghan Republic’s tricolour.

    How did India move from evacuation to engagement?

    1. First official contact, 31 August 2021: Hours after the last United States military aircraft flew out of Kabul, ending a 20 year war, India made its first official contact with the Taliban. India’s Ambassador to Qatar met the head of the Taliban political office in Doha at the embassy.
    2. First acknowledgement, September 2021: India recognised the Taliban as “those in positions of power and authority across Afghanistan”, the first clear description of the group as a state actor.
    3. First aid consignment, December 2021: India sent its first consignment of medicines to Afghanistan under the new Taliban regime, choosing to distinguish the regime from the Afghan people.
    4. Technical team, late June 2022: India sent a “technical team” to the embassy in Kabul to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid.
    5. Ministerial contact opens, January 2024: The Taliban Foreign Minister met diplomats from regional nations including India in January 2024. The Foreign Secretary held a substantive meeting with him in Dubai in January 2025.
    6. Contact reaches Cabinet level, May 2025: The External Affairs Minister spoke to the Taliban Foreign Minister by phone on 15 May 2025. The call came days after India and Pakistan agreed to stop military strikes.
    7. Mission upgrade, April to October 2025: India sent the Joint Secretary in charge of the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran division of the Ministry of External Affairs to Kabul in April 2025. The Taliban Foreign Minister then visited India in October 2025, and both sides decided to upgrade their missions to embassy level and appoint charge d’affaires.

    Why is India deepening ties with the regime it once shunned?

    1. Protecting a sunk investment: India invested for years in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban in 2001, and the government concluded that it had to upgrade engagement or watch its USD 2 to 3 billion investment go down the drain.
    2. Leverage, not charity: The investment was meant for the people of Afghanistan and to create leverage and influence inside the country. Withdrawal would have surrendered both.
    3. Pakistan has become the Taliban’s adversary: The Taliban’s once benefactor and ally has turned into a deadly opponent, with multiple clashes along their contested border. New Delhi reads this as a window of opportunity.
    4. China is filling the Western vacuum: Beijing has started building bridges with the Taliban and is eyeing Afghanistan’s natural resources.
    5. Russia is the pacing partner: Russia is the only country to have established diplomatic ties with the Taliban, and Delhi has been working with Moscow on the Taliban to keep track of Chinese influence.
    6. Presence inside Delhi’s own calendar: The Taliban appointed Charge d’affaires, Mufti Noor Ahmad Noor, has attended the Prime Minister’s Independence Day address, the President’s At Home reception and a diplomatic event at the Norwegian embassy.

    What are India’s security concerns in Afghanistan?

    1. The operating principle: New Delhi has operated on the principle that Afghanistan’s territory should not be used for anti-India activities or for support to terrorist groups.
    2. The threat assessment is unchanged: An 10 August 2026 report of the United Nations Security Council’s 1267 sanctions committee stated that the terrorist threat emanating from Afghanistan remained largely unchanged.
    3. The de facto authorities cannot suppress it: The same report found that despite efforts by the de facto authorities to combat Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant-Khorasan (ISIL-K) and contain other groups, they were unable to suppress the terrorist problem. It also said Al-Qaeda’s status and strength in Afghanistan remains unchanged.
    4. What the report did not say: It carried no mention of anti-India terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, a silence New Delhi reads as relief rather than assurance.
    5. Assurances so far are verbal: Engagement has been “limited”, and the Taliban has indicated it will be “reasonable” in the way it “handles” Indian concerns. The security provided to Indian diplomats in Kabul has given the Indian establishment some confidence.
    6. The regime’s own pitch: The Charge d’affaires told the victory day gathering that Afghanistan’s geography “should not be a field for negative competition, but rather a bridge for connectivity, cooperation and shared prosperity”, a message read as directed at both India and Pakistan.

    What has India given up to secure this engagement?

    1. The aid record is substantial: Since August 2021 India has delivered 50,000 metric tonnes of wheat and over 445 tonnes of essential life saving medicines, vaccines and disaster relief material.
    2. The rights record is not: Since taking control the Taliban has eroded the rights of Afghanistan’s 22 million women, barring school access for girls over 12, curbing travel without a male chaperone and bringing a law implying legal approval for child marriage.
    3. India once led on this at the United Nations: A Security Council resolution on 30 August 2021 on upholding human rights and women’s rights in Afghanistan was adopted under India’s rotating presidency. In December 2022 India expressed concern over the Taliban banning women from universities.
    4. The red lines have been dropped: Rights for minorities and women are no longer part of either the Taliban’s or India’s publicly stated red lines, and India has not insisted on the old positions.
    5. What replaced them: India has agreed to move forward on development cooperation for Indian funded projects and on visas for Afghans visiting India for medical treatment, business and education.

    Challenges to India’s engagement with the Taliban

    1. Recognition is a one way concession: Formal recognition is the only remaining bargaining chip, and granting it removes India’s last point of leverage over the regime’s conduct. Eg. The Delhi embassy’s flagpole still carries the Afghan Republic’s tricolour, the single visible marker of what has not yet been conceded. Fix. Tie any move on recognition to specified, verifiable commitments on counter terrorism access and on women’s education, published as conditions rather than expectations.
    2. Assurances rest on no verification mechanism: India has no independent means of confirming that Afghan territory is not being used against it, and depends on United Nations monitoring reports issued months apart. Eg. The 1267 committee’s own assessment says the de facto authorities were unable to suppress the terrorist problem. Fix. Seek a standing bilateral security channel with agreed reporting on named groups, modelled on India’s existing joint working groups on counter terrorism.
    3. The rights silence carries a reputational cost: India’s abandonment of the positions it advanced at the Security Council in 2021 weakens its standing as a votary of rules based conduct. Eg. India’s own presidency delivered the 30 August 2021 resolution on women’s rights that it no longer presses. Fix. Separate the humanitarian and development track from the political track, so aid continues while India keeps stating the rights position in multilateral forums.
    4. Projects have no legal protection: Indian funded assets sit in a country whose government India does not recognise, so no treaty or investment protection framework covers them. Eg. Development cooperation on Indian funded projects has restarted without any bilateral investment instrument in force. Fix. Route new project commitments through United Nations agencies and multilateral funds that carry their own immunities and audit trails.
    5. The Pakistan window can close: The engagement rests on the Taliban’s current estrangement from Pakistan, which is a function of border clashes rather than of any settled alignment. Eg. Both sides have seen multiple clashes along their contested border. Fix. Build the relationship on connectivity and trade assets India controls, such as Chabahar port access, which survive a swing back in Kabul’s alignment.

    Conclusion

    India has completed a strategic embrace of the Taliban in everything except name, trading its 2021 human rights positions for security assurances and the protection of a two to three billion dollar investment. The engagement is now institutional, with Taliban appointed diplomats manning three Afghan missions in India and both sides committed to embassy level representation. What remains unresolved is recognition itself, and with it the only leverage India still holds over the regime’s conduct on terrorism and on women’s rights.

    [2026] “Match List I with List II and select the answer using the code given below the Lists:
    List I (Project Supported by India)List II (Country)
    A. Mangdechhu Hydroelectric Project1. Maldivas
    B. Restoration of Stor Palace2. Afghanistan
    C. District Hospital at Dickoya3. Bhutan
    D. Institute of Security and Law Enforcement Studies4. Sri Lanka
    Code: A B C D

    [A] 1 4 2 3

    [B] 3 2 4 1

    [C] 3 4 2 1

    [D] 1 2 4 3

  • When the inspector leaves: Can food safety become a daily habit?

    Why in the News

    Food safety compliance in Maharashtra has risen sharply since inspection drives intensified in May, with more than 3,000 inspections producing 165 licence suspensions and 750 improvement notices between 25 May and 31 July. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drive follows the appointment of a new State Commissioner, and restaurant associations have been sending compliance reminders to members in response. The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) separately revised its turnover based licensing categories with effect from 1 April this year. Compliance that improves when inspections intensify is not compliance embedded in daily operation, and the regulatory question is whether safe practice survives once the drive ends.

    What is the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)?

    1. A statutory regulator under the health ministry: FSSAI is an autonomous body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 to protect and promote public health through food regulation.
    2. Its core powers: It frames standards for food products, regulates their manufacture, storage, sale and import, and grants licences to food businesses based on compliance with those standards.
    3. Enforcement is shared with the States: FSSAI sets standards centrally, and inspection, sampling and prosecution are carried out by State food safety commissioners and their food safety officers.

    What do the revised turnover based licensing slabs require?

    1. Registration for the smallest businesses: Food businesses with an annual turnover of up to Rs 1.5 crore must obtain FSSAI registration.
    2. State licence for the middle tier: Businesses with a turnover between Rs 1.5 crore and Rs 50 crore require a State FSSAI licence.
    3. Central licence at the top: Businesses with turnover above Rs 50 crore require a Central FSSAI licence.
    4. The slabs are a proxy for reach, not risk: The distinction matters because India’s food sector ranges from small local vendors and retailers to large restaurants, manufacturers, importers and exporters, and turnover is the only variable the tiering uses.
    5. The licensed base is already large: FSSAI has issued around 26,000 licences across Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa and Madhya Pradesh, covering five-star restaurants as well as importers and exporters handling essential commodities through various ports.
    6. A licence establishes presence, not practice: A licence establishes that a business sits within the regulatory system. It does not establish that safe practices are being consistently followed.

    What do the Maharashtra inspection figures show?

    1. Statewide drive since May: More than 3,000 inspections were conducted across Maharashtra between 25 May and 31 July, which is the whole period since the drive began.
    2. Statewide outcomes: Those inspections resulted in 165 licence suspensions and 750 improvement notices, so the great majority of adverse findings were correctable rather than disqualifying.
    3. Pune leads on complaints: Pune recorded the highest number of complaints among the State’s divisions, which is what directed the drive’s field effort towards that division.
    4. Pune division activity: Between 25 May and 19 August the Pune division alone saw 691 inspections, with 53 licences suspended and 408 improvement notices issued.
    5. The regional baseline: Inspections in the western region identified around 2,300 improvement notices last year, and those findings arose even among larger and licensed businesses.
    6. The trigger was administrative: Inspection drives intensified after a new Maharashtra FDA Commissioner took charge in May, which ties the enforcement level to a posting rather than to a system.

    Why does compliance rise with inspection intensity and fall without it?

    1. The checklist does not verify itself: A refrigerator may have to be maintained at a prescribed temperature, an employee may have to follow a hygiene protocol and an outlet may have to maintain a register. The existence of a checklist does not guarantee that any of it happens when an inspector is absent.
    2. Enforcement is treated as preventive health by the regulator: The State FDA Commissioner has framed food safety as part of the non-communicable disease burden, on the position that a significant portion of that burden comes from what is consumed.
    3. Established operators run their own parallel systems: A 90-year-old Pune restaurant carries out pest control twice a month, checks refrigerator temperatures, cooking oil registers and staff training, and maintains hand-wash stations, exhaust systems and insect-proof doors and windows.
    4. Industry associations act as a second layer: The Pune Restaurants and Catering Association has been circulating compliance reminders and double-checking member compliance with both FDA and FSSAI requirements.
    5. The industry asks for proportionality, not leniency: The association has urged a “rational” approach in which minor compliance issues attract time to correct rather than public shaming, with the distinction drawn between a correctable deficiency and a violation that poses a public health risk.
    6. The stated goal is sustained compliance: The association’s own position is that the real challenge is sustained compliance without making the system dependent on periodic crackdowns.

    Why is training not producing behaviour change?

    1. Certification is not a precondition to a licence: Food safety training and certification, known as FoSTaC, is not currently mandatory before a food licence is issued, so an operator can be licensed before being trained.
    2. Awareness of the requirement is itself missing: Many food operators lack awareness of food safety laws and do not know that FoSTaC exists.
    3. Training risks becoming a document: Businesses must actually understand and implement what they have been taught, or the certificate becomes another compliance document rather than a mechanism for changing behaviour.
    4. The regulator’s own diagnosis agrees: The FSSAI regional director for the western region identifies lack of awareness and education as the major cause of non-compliance.
    5. Outreach has been substantial: Over the past three to four years FSSAI has trained street vendors, students and other groups to detect adulteration, with around 10,000 street food vendors trained in Mumbai and over 60 officer-led training programmes on street hygiene.
    6. Visible practice has shifted at the margin: Vendors are reported using headgear, steel chopping boards and smarter waste disposal methods, alongside farmer-connect programmes linking food businesses and farmers.

    Should enforcement be a numbers game or risk-based?

    1. Visibility works, delay undoes it: A former FSSAI Chief Executive Officer holds that visible and credible action of the kind seen in Maharashtra can change behaviour, and that long delays between violation detection and final accountability weaken deterrence.
    2. Violations are not equal in risk: Not all violations pose the same health risk, so regulatory effort should be prioritised rather than spread evenly across the licensed base.
    3. Prioritisation should follow hazard, not visibility: Effort should target foods, establishments and supply chains with the highest risk, including microbial and chemical hazards that are not always visible during an inspection.
    4. The remedy set is procedural: Faster case adjudication, credible evidence, proportionate penalties and transparency about outcomes are what convert detection into deterrence.
    5. Transparency must cover acquittals too: Outcomes should be published including where allegations do not hold, so publicity is not itself the penalty.

    What do international results show about restaurant focused food safety?

    1. Restaurants are a concentrated transmission point: Food is prepared in large quantities and served to many people, so an outlet level failure reaches a population rather than a household.
    2. Los Angeles County, United States, graded hygiene publicly: A publicly displayed restaurant hygiene grading system was introduced in 1998, and foodborne-disease hospitalisations were compared against trends elsewhere in California.
    3. The measured effect was large and durable: After adjustment for baseline temporal and geographic trends, the grading programme was associated with a 13.1 per cent reduction in foodborne-disease hospitalisations in the first year, sustained over two years.
    4. Training and systems show similar gains: A 2022 systematic review and meta-analysis of food safety interventions in catering establishments found a 28.6 per cent reduction in microbial contamination, from interventions involving food-handler training and food safety systems.
    5. The pathogen list is specific: Restaurant level food safety has been effective against norovirus, Salmonella Typhi which causes typhoid fever, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli which affects the kidney, Shigella which infects the intestinal lining, hepatitis A which affects the liver, and Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter which trigger gut infection.

    What does the detection and laboratory gap add?

    1. Elaborate rules, weak implementation: India’s food safety regulations are elaborate, and implementation is weakened by poor enforcement, manpower shortages, inspection capacity limits, delayed test results and lack of coordination among agencies.
    2. A violation must be provable, not merely observed: The capacity to detect and establish a violation is a separate constraint from the capacity to inspect, and it sits with accredited testing laboratories.
    3. Delay destroys the deterrent: A regulator can inspect a food business, and if laboratory results are delayed or enforcement action takes too long, the deterrent effect is weakened.
    4. Manpower limits targeting: If inspection teams do not have the manpower to identify the highest-risk businesses and supply chains, the existence of detailed rules matters little.
    5. The requirement is a shift in approach: The recommendation is to move from a reactive, routine approach to a risk-based system focused on high-risk foods, supply chains and repeat violators, supported by robust laboratory infrastructure, advanced analytical capacity and speedy access to test results.

    What lies beyond kitchen hygiene?

    1. The definition of food safety is wider than the kitchen: Food safety is not merely about clean kitchens, pest control or properly stored ingredients. It also concerns what consumers are told about food and how products are marketed.
    2. Deceptive practice is a safety question: The convenor of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi), a network of public health professionals working on nutrition policy, holds that food safety means protection from deceptive practices by food manufacturers.
    3. The data gap on ultra-processed foods: Immediate action is needed to assess risks and generate data about consumption of ultra-processed foods in India.
    4. Two consumer protections remain pending: Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL) and tighter restrictions on marketing of ultra-processed and high-fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods have not been notified.
    5. Regulatory gaps defeat the compliance drive: Major regulatory gaps of this kind will defeat the purpose of normalising clean dining, because the risk migrates from preparation to composition.
    6. The product mix keeps moving: Complexity is increasing as the food industry expands into nutraceuticals and functional foods, which sit between food and medicine in the standards framework.

    Challenges to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

    1. No statutory definition of high-fat, salt and sugar foods: FSSAI has not precisely defined the HFSS category, so restrictions cannot be enforced against a class of products that has no legal boundary. Eg. The Indian Nutrition Rating star scheme has been under consultation without notification. Fix. Notify threshold values for salt, sugar and fat per 100 grams first, and attach the labelling scheme to those thresholds.
    2. Laboratory capacity limits prosecution: A limited number of notified food laboratories causes delays in sample analysis, and a delayed report weakens the case at trial. Eg. Sample results in adulteration cases routinely arrive after the statutory reporting window. Fix. Accredit private laboratories under the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories to a published turnaround standard and pay them per sample.
    3. Approval delays for new formulations: Lengthy approval of proprietary food formulations delays market entry and pushes products into the unregulated segment. Eg. Nutraceutical and functional food products face repeated re-submission. Fix. Introduce a deemed approval on lapse of a notified timeline, with post-market surveillance replacing pre-market delay.
    4. Weak enforcement allows recurring adulteration: Poor field monitoring lets known adulteration patterns persist across cycles. Eg. Cases of synthetic milk and spurious honey recur across States. Fix. Publish a State-wise repeat violator register so a business cannot re-register under a fresh licence after suspension.
    5. Industry resistance to disclosure: Packaged food makers resist front-of-pack labelling on the expectation that it reduces sales, and consultation stretches indefinitely. Eg. Debate continues between star ratings and clearer warning labels of the Nutri-Score type. Fix. Fix a statutory deadline for notification, with the warning label design applying by default if no consensus design is notified by that date.
    6. Marketing to children is unregulated: Endorsements associate unhealthy products with aspiration at an age when food preference is formed. Eg. Celebrity endorsement of high sugar beverages remains permitted. Fix. Prohibit celebrity and cartoon endorsement of products crossing the HFSS thresholds once those thresholds are notified.

    Conclusion

    Maharashtra’s inspection drive has produced a measurable rise in compliance, and the drive itself is tied to a change of Commissioner rather than to a permanent system. The current status is that FSSAI’s revised turnover based licensing slabs are in force from 1 April this year, with Front-of-Pack Labelling and restrictions on HFSS marketing still pending notification. The next milestone is whether FoSTaC certification is made a precondition to licensing and whether enforcement is reorganised around risk rather than inspection count. The evidence from graded hygiene systems elsewhere shows that a design change in how compliance is displayed and adjudicated moves outcomes more than the number of inspections does.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”

  • Over 13,000 UG seats still up for grabs at Delhi University

    Over 13,000 UG seats still up for grabs at Delhi University

    Why in the News

    The University of Delhi has declared 13,344 undergraduate seats vacant for the 2026-27 intake and invited students to a spot admission round on the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS) portal. The vacancies survive multiple rounds of allocation run on Common University Entrance Test (CUET) scores. The first round of seat allocation began on 16 July and the academic session commenced on 28 July. The university has separately opened undergraduate admission on Class 12 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) scores instead of CUET results, at a list of colleges that has been expanded three times since 20 August. A single national entrance test built to standardise central university admission is being set aside mid-session by the largest of those universities.

    What is the Common Seat Allocation System (CSAS)?

    1. A single centralised admission portal: CSAS is the online platform through which the University of Delhi allocates undergraduate seats across all its colleges from one common applicant pool.
    2. Preference plus score based allocation: An applicant registers once, submits a ranked list of college and programme combinations, and is allotted a seat by merit against those preferences.
    3. Multiple rounds with a spot round at the end: Allocation runs in successive rounds as candidates accept, decline or upgrade. A spot round is opened at the close to fill seats no earlier round could clear.

    Where are the vacant seats concentrated?

    1. Scale against total intake: The university has approximately 71,600 undergraduate seats, so the vacancy stands at 13,344 as of 1 p.m. on Sunday.
    2. Reserved categories carry the largest share: Other Backward Classes-Non-Creamy Layer accounts for 4,133 vacant seats, Scheduled Tribes for 2,476 and Scheduled Castes for 2,038.
    3. General and Economically Weaker Section vacancies: The general category has 2,113 seats available and the Economically Weaker Section 1,791.
    4. Minority quota vacancies: The Sikh minorities category has 566 vacant seats and the Christian minorities category 316.
    5. Language programmes dominate the gap: Most vacant seats sit in BA (Hons) courses in various languages, including Sanskrit, Tamil and Bengali.
    6. North Campus colleges are not insulated: St. Stephen’s College, Hindu College, Hansraj College and Kirori Mal College all carry seats available in BA and B.Sc. (Hons) science subjects, in languages and in the BA programme.

    What does the shift to Class 12 CBSE score based admission signal?

    1. A second entry route opened mid-session: The university introduced undergraduate admission based on Class 12 CBSE scores as an alternative to CUET results, after the session had already commenced.
    2. The eligible college list keeps widening: A list of 11 colleges with vacant seats admitting on CBSE results was released on 20 August, four more colleges were added on 21 August, and the list was expanded again on 23 August.
    3. Established women’s colleges have joined: Indraprastha College for Women and Gargi College commenced admission to the BA (Hons) Sanskrit programme on CBSE results.
    4. The entrance test is not the binding constraint: Seats remain empty at colleges with high demand, so the shortfall reflects programme preference rather than an absence of qualified applicants.
    5. Administration reads it as a scheduling matter: The Dean of Admissions stated that the spot admission round was announced on schedule and that the university expects to fill all remaining seats.

    Challenges to the Common Seat Allocation System

    1. Preference locking traps candidates in low demand programmes: An applicant who ranks a prestigious college above a preferred subject can be allotted a course they will not join, which converts an accepted seat into a later vacancy. Eg. Language honours programmes at North Campus colleges carry the bulk of this year’s vacancies. Fix. Allow a subject first preference stream alongside the college first stream, so a candidate declares which of the two is binding.
    2. Multi-round upgrades leave seats stranded late in the cycle: Every upgrade vacates a seat downstream, and seats vacated in the final rounds arrive after the session has begun. Eg. The academic session commenced on 28 July while allocation continued past 23 August. Fix. Cap the number of upgrade rounds and hold a mandatory physical reporting deadline before the session opens.
    3. Reserved category seats do not migrate: Unfilled Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes seats cannot be converted to other categories, so they persist across rounds. Eg. Other Backward Classes-Non-Creamy Layer alone accounts for 4,133 of this year’s vacancies. Fix. Publish category wise applicant to seat ratios before allocation opens, so candidates can target categories with genuine headroom.
    4. A single test date compresses the eligible pool: Candidates who miss or underperform in one CUET sitting have no second attempt in the same cycle, unlike the multiple sittings offered by other national tests. Eg. The Joint Entrance Examination (Main) is conducted in two sessions a year with the better score counted. Fix. Move CUET to two sittings a year with the higher score taken.
    5. Parallel admission routes weaken the common merit standard: Admitting to the same programme on CUET in one college and on Class 12 board marks in another creates two different entry bars for one degree. Eg. BA (Hons) Sanskrit is now open on CBSE results at colleges where CUET based rounds could not fill it. Fix. Notify in advance the vacancy threshold at which a board score route opens, so the fallback is a published rule rather than a mid-session decision.

    Conclusion

    Delhi University’s undergraduate seat vacancy survived its CUET based rounds, and it has opened both a CSAS spot round and a parallel Class 12 board score route to clear it. The immediate status is that admission continues past the start of the academic session, with the CBSE score based college list still being extended. The next milestone is the close of the spot admission round and the university’s final seat matrix for 2026-27. Whether a single national entrance test can allocate seats in a university of this size within one session remains the open question.

    “[2022, GS2, 15 marks] The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 remains inadequate in promoting incentive-based system for children’s education without generating awareness about the importance of schooling. Analyse.”

  • Punjab SIR: Former envoy Navdeep Suri issued notice, told to ‘produce documents’

    Why in the News

    Former diplomat Navdeep Suri has raised concerns over the process of establishing citizenship during the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Punjab. He was issued a notice by the Election Commission of India (ECI) and asked to produce documents after discrepancies were flagged between his current details and his details in the 2003 electoral roll. Suri stated that he was not in India in 2003 and was posted at the Indian High Commission in London, so he did not participate in the SIR of that year, and that officials have therefore asked for his passport as proof. The Punjab Chief Electoral Officer has stated that his name was never removed and is part of the draft electoral roll published on 13 August 2026. The case turns on whether an elector absent from the 2003 roll can be required to establish citizenship afresh, and on what documents satisfy that requirement.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls?

    1. The exercise itself: A Special Intensive Revision is a house-to-house verification of every entry in an electoral roll, conducted against a stated earlier roll used as the reference base. It differs from a summary revision, which only processes fresh claims and objections.
    2. The reference roll in this round: The 2003 electoral roll is being used as the base against which current entries are mapped in Punjab. An elector mapped to a 2003 entry is carried forward without further documentation.
    3. What happens when mapping fails: An elector not mapped in the 2003 SIR receives a notice from the Electoral Registration Officer and is asked to submit documents. The Booth Level Officer, the field official who maintains a polling station’s roll, delivers the notice and collects the response.
    4. The stated purpose: The revision is intended to remove deceased electors, duplicate entries and shifted electors from the roll. The 2025 round covered 12 States and over 51 crore electors.

    Why did a former ambassador receive a notice?

    1. The 2003 mapping gap: His current details did not match his details in the 2003 electoral roll. The mismatch, not any allegation against him, generated the notice.
    2. The reason for the gap: He was not in India in 2003 and was serving at the Indian High Commission in London at the time. He did not participate in the SIR conducted in that year.
    3. The document then demanded: Officials asked for his passport as proof once he explained his absence. Documents he had uploaded in 2026 did not match his 2003 details.
    4. The procedural sequence he described: He was told to come and collect the notice from the Booth Level Officer. He was then to return with documents establishing that he is an Indian citizen, and the documents required were not specified at the point of the first instruction.
    5. His stated position: He holds documents other than a voter identity card and an Aadhaar card. He asked what the position of a common citizen would be where a person who represented India in three countries had trouble establishing citizenship.

    What did the Election Commission say in response?

    1. On removal: The Punjab Chief Electoral Officer stated that his name was never removed from the roll. It is part of the draft electoral roll published on 13 August 2026.
    2. On his registration: His vote was registered in Amritsar and continues to be registered there. No change of constituency was involved at any stage.
    3. On why the notice issued: He received a notice and was asked to submit documents because he was not mapped in the 2003 SIR. The trigger was the mapping gap rather than a challenge to his entry.
    4. On the outcome: His name was published as part of the electoral roll after the documents were received. The process concluded in his favour.
    5. On the standing of the draft roll: Publication in the draft roll on 13 August 2026 preserved his entry throughout the notice period. A notice under the revision does not by itself delete an entry.

    What does the case suggest about the burden on ordinary electors?

    1. Documentary burden falls on the elector: The revision places the obligation to produce proof on the person whose entry failed to map, not on the officer who flagged the mismatch. An elector without a document trail from 2003 has no way to discharge it.
    2. Absence abroad becomes a defect in the record: A person outside India in 2003 could not have been enumerated in that year’s roll. The design treats that absence as a discrepancy requiring citizenship proof rather than as an expected gap.
    3. The document list was not specified upfront: The elector was asked to return with unspecified documents showing Indian citizenship. Discretion over which document satisfies the requirement sits with the field officer.
    4. Uploaded records did not close the gap: Documents uploaded in 2026 did not match the 2003 details and did not resolve the flag. Digital submission therefore did not substitute for the passport eventually demanded.
    5. The professional case is the favourable case: A former ambassador holds a passport, service records and multiple identity documents. An elector whose only records are a voter identity card and an Aadhaar card, both of which the revision does not accept as proof of citizenship, faces the same demand with fewer means to meet it.

    Challenges to the Special Intensive Revision

    1. Citizenship determination sits outside the electoral machinery’s competence: The ECI registers electors under the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and does not adjudicate citizenship, which the Citizenship Act, 1955 governs. Eg. Field officers are asking electors to produce documents that show they are Indian citizens. Fix. Confine the revision to residence and identity verification and refer genuine citizenship doubts to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955.
    2. The reference roll excludes a whole class of electors: Anyone absent from the 2003 roll for legitimate reasons carries the documentary burden of the entire exercise. Eg. An elector posted abroad in diplomatic service in 2003 was flagged and asked for a passport. Fix. Publish an exhaustive and binding list of alternative documents in advance, with a stated procedure for electors with no 2003 entry.
    3. Selective disenfranchisement allegations follow the exercise: Concentrated deletions in particular areas invite the charge that the revision falls unevenly across communities. Eg. Opposition parties have alleged selective disenfranchisement in the States covered by the 2025 revision. Fix. Publish constituency-wise deletion and addition data with stated reasons, on a fixed schedule, so the pattern is auditable.
    4. Booth level capacity is the binding constraint: A house-to-house verification at the coverage the 2025 round reached rests on field officers holding other full-time posts. Eg. Booth Level Officers are drawn from teaching and revenue staff and handle notice delivery alongside their regular duties. Fix. Create a dedicated cadre of full-time roll verification staff for the duration of each revision, with a fixed elector-to-officer ratio.
    5. The appeal window is short relative to the burden: An elector must locate decades-old documents inside the claims and objections period fixed for the draft roll. Eg. In the Bihar revision of 2025 the draft roll was published on 1 August with claims and objections closing on 1 September, a single month in which an elector had to trace decades-old records. Fix. Extend the objection period where an elector has been served a notice, and require a written speaking order before any deletion.

    Conclusion

    An intensive revision that uses the 2003 electoral roll as its reference base converts the absence of a 2003 entry into a demand for proof of citizenship, and that demand fell on a former ambassador who was posted abroad in that year. The Election Commission’s response, recorded above, disputes the fact of removal rather than the documentary burden the process places on the elector. The unresolved question is what an elector with no 2003 entry and no passport is expected to produce. The next milestone is the disposal of claims and objections against the draft roll and the publication of the final Punjab roll.

    “[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”

  • Vande Mataram and the right to dissent

    Why in the News

    Parliament has given Vande Mataram the same criminal-law protection long enjoyed by the national anthem, through the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026. The amendment follows the government’s push, since late 2025 and around the song’s 150th anniversary, to popularise and even mandate all six stanzas at official functions. The amended text does neither of those things: it does not compel any citizen to sing, and it does not prescribe which stanzas of the song attract its protection. The contest is between that narrow statutory text and the political framing around it, with Bijoe Emmanuel & Ors. v. State of Kerala (1986) standing as the controlling precedent on whether a citizen can be compelled to join a patriotic recitation against conscience.

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

    1. What it amends: It substitutes Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, the statute that already protected the national anthem from disrespect.
    2. What it punishes: It punishes two things and only two things, in relation to both the national anthem and the national song: intentionally preventing their singing, and causing disturbance to an assembly engaged in singing them.
    3. The punishment: Up to three years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. A mandatory minimum of one year applies to repeat offenders.
    4. What it equalises: That punishment is now common to both compositions, so the national song carries the same criminal protection as the anthem.

    Why was Vande Mataram never made the national anthem?

    1. The question was left open almost to the end: India’s national anthem was left unsettled for nearly the entire life of the Constituent Assembly.
    2. It was settled by a statement, not a vote: The matter was resolved by a presidential statement on 24 January 1950, at the Assembly’s last sitting, declaring Jana Gana Mana the National Anthem of India.
    3. Vande Mataram was given equal status, not anthem status: The same statement said the song, “which has played a historic part in the struggle for Indian freedom, shall be honoured equally with Jana Gana Mana and shall have equal status with it.” It did not make it the anthem or a co-anthem.
    4. The Constitution is silent on a national song: The Constitution, which came into force two days later, contains no reference whatsoever to a “national song”, so the song’s status rests entirely on the 1950 statement and on subsequent convention.
    5. The restraint came from a 1937 decision: Objections from the Muslim League and others led the Congress Working Committee, in October 1937, to resolve that only the first two stanzas, pastoral, secular in imagery and free of any reference to a deity, would be sung at official gatherings.
    6. The objection was to the song’s source text: The later stanzas invoke the motherland in explicitly devotional, goddess-centred terms, and in the context of the 1882 novel Anandamath, from which the song is drawn, some verses were read as casting Muslims as adversaries.

    How was the Amendment passed?

    1. Introduction and passage: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 24 July 2026 and cleared both Houses within a week.
    2. The House dates: The Rajya Sabha cleared it on 29 July and the Lok Sabha on 30 July, each after only a brief discussion.
    3. The Opposition’s objection: The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Congress raised strong objections that the Bill was being used to advance a particular cultural agenda, and objected to its timing amid unrelated protests in the House.
    4. Assent: It received Presidential assent shortly after passage in both Houses.
    5. The scrutiny it received: It was one of 12 Bills passed in a Monsoon Session in which, by Parliament’s own record, most legislation went through with barely any discussion. For a law touching religious sentiment, free expression and criminal liability at once, that is remarkably little parliamentary scrutiny.

    What does the Amendment not do?

    1. It prescribes no version: Nowhere does the amended Act say which stanzas of Vande Mataram must be sung, or that all six stanzas must be sung, for the law’s protection to apply.
    2. It does not compel singing: The statute does not compel singing in the first place, by anyone, of any stanza.
    3. The obligation is conditional and negative: All the amended Section 3 requires is that if the national song is being sung, at whatever length and in whatever form, that rendition must not be intentionally prevented or disturbed.
    4. It is narrower than the framing around it: That is a materially narrower obligation than the political framing around the Bill, including the push since late 2025 to mandate all six stanzas at official functions, would lead the public to believe.
    5. What it actually penalises: The law penalises disrespect and disruption of a performance. On its text it does not mandate participation in one, and it does not fix which version of the song is entitled to protection.

    Why do the later stanzas raise a constitutional difficulty?

    1. The opening stanzas are pastoral: The commonly sung opening stanzas describe the motherland in pastoral terms: her waters, her fruit, her cooling breezes, her fields.
    2. The later stanzas change register entirely: In substance, and in every available English rendering, they describe the motherland as embodied in the Hindu goddesses Durga, Lakshmi and Saraswati, goddesses of power, wealth and learning.
    3. They read as prayer, not patriotic verse: They speak of her as an object of worship enshrined in temples, with “crores” of arms raised in her defence. On a plain reading this is a devotional address to a deity, structured in the grammar of prayer.
    4. Two fundamental rights are engaged: Article 25 guarantees freedom of conscience and the free profession, practice and propagation of religion. Article 26 guarantees a denomination the right to manage its own religious affairs without State interference.
    5. Coercive pressure is enough to raise the difficulty: For adherents of monotheistic faiths, being required to stand through an extended recitation addressed to Hindu goddesses, whether by direct compulsion or by a criminal statute looming over the assembly, raises a serious constitutional difficulty. That discomfort is exactly the conscientious objection Articles 25 and 26 exist to protect.
    6. An ordinary law cannot override a fundamental right: No ordinary legislation, however patriotically framed or however large its parliamentary majority, can override a fundamental right, so a law pressuring citizens into a devotional performance contrary to their faith would not survive Part III scrutiny.

    What did Bijoe Emmanuel hold?

    1. The facts: Three siblings, practising Jehovah’s Witnesses, stood respectfully and silently while their schoolmates sang Jana Gana Mana during morning assembly, since their faith forbade joining in what they understood as an act of worship of anyone or anything other than god. They were expelled for this.
    2. The High Court position: The Kerala High Court upheld the expulsion, holding that the Article 51A fundamental duty to respect the national anthem overrode any claim under Articles 25 and 26.
    3. The reversal: A Division Bench of the Supreme Court reversed the High Court in emphatic terms in 1986.
    4. The two rights engaged: The Bench held that compelling a person to join in singing despite a genuine, conscientiously held religious objection contravenes Article 19(1)(a), freedom of expression, which the Court held extends to the freedom to remain silent, and Article 25(1), the guarantee of freedom of conscience.
    5. Duties cannot cut down rights: The Court held that the fundamental duties enumerated under Article 51A cannot be used to cut down or override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III. A duty to respect national symbols cannot in law be turned into a licence to punish sincere religious dissent.
    6. The 1971 Act was read narrowly: The Court read the 1971 Act itself as requiring nothing more than respectful conduct, not active participation from anyone present. It closed by observing that the country’s tradition, philosophy and Constitution alike “practise tolerance”.

    What is the settled legal position now?

    1. The precedent stands: The 1986 ruling has never been overturned, and its logic transfers with full force to the national song.
    2. It applies with greater force here: The song’s later verses are, unlike the anthem, addressed to specific deities, so a citizen objecting to reciting them stands on stronger ground than the objector in the 1986 case did.
    3. Official recognition was always confined: The Constituent Assembly and the founding leadership deliberately confined official recognition to the first two, secular stanzas, which is precisely why the fuller devotional version was never made compulsory.
    4. No textual obligation to sing exists: The 2026 Amendment imposes no textual obligation on any citizen to sing any particular version of the song, let alone all six stanzas.
    5. Silent respect is not an offence: Standing respectfully, in silence, without disrupting others, is not an offence under the amended Act, was not an offence under the original 1971 Act, and cannot be made one merely by extending the statute to a new composition.

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

    1. “Disturbance” is left undefined: The offence turns on causing disturbance to an assembly, a term the statute does not define, which leaves its scope to the complainant and the investigating officer. Eg. A citizen who remains seated or silent during a recitation may be read as disturbing it, which is precisely what the 1986 ruling forbids. Fix. Insert a statutory explanation excluding silent non-participation and peaceful abstention from the meaning of disturbance.
    2. The political framing exceeds the text: Official messaging around the law suggests a duty to sing all six stanzas, so citizens act on the framing rather than on the statute. Eg. The Ministry of Home Affairs’ Orders relating to the National Anthem of India are executive instructions carrying no penal force, yet schools and public institutions routinely enforce them as though they were binding law. Fix. Issue an advisory to State governments and school authorities recording that the Act creates no obligation to participate in a rendition.
    3. It was passed without scrutiny: A law touching religious sentiment, free expression and criminal liability at once cleared both Houses within a week on brief discussion. Eg. It was one of 12 Bills passed in a Monsoon Session where most legislation passed with barely any debate. Fix. Refer any Bill creating or extending a criminal offence to a Standing Committee as a default rule of procedure.
    4. Cognisance risks vexatious complaint: A criminal provision available to any complainant against a person present at a public assembly invites use as a tool of local pressure. Eg. Cinema hall anthem prosecutions after 2016 produced repeated complaints against individuals who stayed seated for medical or conscientious reasons. Fix. Require prior sanction from a district level authority before a court takes cognisance of an offence under Section 3.
    5. A mandatory minimum removes judicial discretion: The one year minimum for repeat offenders forecloses proportionality in cases where the conduct is trivial or conscientious. Eg. A repeat conscientious abstainer wrongly booked twice would face the same floor as a deliberate disruptor. Fix. Replace the mandatory minimum with a graded sentencing guideline keyed to intent and to actual disruption caused.
    6. Enforcement asymmetry across compositions: Extending equal protection to a composition whose later verses are devotional creates unequal burdens on citizens of different faiths at the same public event. Eg. A monotheistic believer at a school function faces a choice the same statute does not impose on others present. Fix. Confine the protected rendition at State functions to the first two stanzas, as the 1937 Congress resolution and the 1950 statement already did.

    Conclusion

    The Amendment extends the anthem’s criminal protection to the national song without compelling anyone to sing it and without fixing which stanzas count. The three strands, the founding decision to recognise only the first two secular stanzas, the narrow text of the new Section 3, and the 1986 precedent on freedom of conscience, converge on a single conclusion: a citizen who declines to join in on grounds of conscience is under no legal obligation to participate, and needs no court to say so. The measure has received Presidential assent and is now in force, and the source records no further legislative milestone attached to it. What remains unresolved is application rather than text, since the danger lies in how a statute framed narrowly is enforced against those who exercise the silence the Constitution protects.

    “[2025] Consider the following pairs: Provision in the Constitution of India: Stated under

    I. Separation of Judiciary from the Executive in the public services of the State The Directive Principles of the State Policy

    II. Valuing and preserving of the rich heritage of our composite culture The Fundamental Duties

    III. Prohibition of employment of children below the age of 14 years in factories The Fundamental Rights

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    (a) Only one

    (b) Only two

    (c) All the three

    (d) None

  • Cong: LS not prorogued, is Shah still pushing delimitation Bill?

    Why in the News

    The Congress general secretary in-charge of communications has questioned why the Lok Sabha has not been prorogued ten days after being adjourned sine die. He asked whether the Union Home Minister was still in search of a two-thirds majority to get the Constitutional Amendment Bill on delimitation passed in a special session. The reference is to a twin legislative package: a Constitutional Amendment Bill to advance women’s reservation to 2029, and a Delimitation Bill to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha to up to 850 seats. A House that has been adjourned sine die but not prorogued remains technically in session, which leaves the Presiding Officer able to reconvene it without a fresh summons from the President. A former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha has stated that no clear rule fixes when Parliament should be prorogued after a House is adjourned sine die.

    What is prorogation?

    1. The act itself: Prorogation is the formal termination of a session of a House of Parliament by the President. It ends the session, unlike adjournment, which only suspends a sitting.
    2. Who exercises it: The President prorogues the House on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Prime Minister advises the President on summoning and proroguing Parliament and on dissolving the Lok Sabha.
    3. How it differs from adjournment sine die: Adjournment sine die is the termination of a sitting for an indefinite period, and it is done by the Presiding Officer of the House. The House remains in session until prorogation is notified.
    4. What it does to pending business: Prorogation ends all pending notices, including questions and motions, other than Bills, which do not lapse on prorogation. Bills lapse only on dissolution of the Lok Sabha, subject to the exceptions the Constitution provides.

    Why does the ten day gap matter?

    1. The normal interval: The time gap between the adjournment of the Lok Sabha sine die and its prorogation is generally two to four days. There are many instances when adjournment and prorogation have taken place on the very same day.
    2. The interval in this case: Ten days have passed since the House was adjourned sine die. No information on its prorogation has been made available.
    3. The longer precedents cited: The gap for the Monsoon Session was 28 days in 2015 and 20 days in 2021. The Congress position is that no comparable legislative move was pending on either occasion.
    4. What an unprorogued House permits: A House still in session can be reconvened by the Presiding Officer without the President issuing a fresh summons. The procedural cost of resuming business is therefore lower than convening a special session from scratch.
    5. The political inference drawn: The Congress reading is that the delay preserves the option of resuming the same session once the numbers for a Constitutional Amendment are assembled. The Union Minister of Parliamentary Affairs did not respond to a request for comment.

    What is the twin legislative package at issue?

    1. The Constitutional Amendment Bill: It seeks to advance the implementation of women’s reservation to 2029. The 106th Constitutional Amendment of 2023 provides 33 per cent reservation for women in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies, and ties implementation to the next Census and a fresh delimitation.
    2. The Delimitation Bill: It seeks to increase the strength of the Lok Sabha to up to 850 seats. A delimitation exercise would be required to give effect to that expansion.
    3. What delimitation is: Delimitation is the act of fixing the limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies to reflect population changes. Article 82 mandates Parliament to enact a Delimitation Act after every Census.
    4. The freeze the package would end: The 42nd Amendment of 1976 froze seat allocation on the 1971 Census until 2000, and the 84th Amendment of 2001 extended that freeze until the first Census after 2026. The proposed expansion is the first readjustment of Lok Sabha strength since that freeze was imposed.
    5. Why the majority threshold governs the timing: A Constitutional Amendment Bill requires a special majority, which includes a majority of the total membership of each House and two-thirds of members present and voting. The Bill cannot be moved to a vote until that support exists.

    Is there a rule the delay breaches?

    1. No fixed interval is prescribed: No clear rule states when Parliament should be prorogued after a House is adjourned sine die, in the assessment of a former Secretary General of the Lok Sabha. Prorogation is described as a routine practice rather than a timed obligation.
    2. The constitutional source of the power: Article 85(2)(a) empowers the President to prorogue the Houses from time to time. Article 85(2)(b) separately empowers the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha.
    3. The only hard timing rule: Article 85(1) requires that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next. That is the outer limit on the gap between sessions, not on the gap before prorogation.
    4. Where the discretion actually sits: The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers in exercising the power. The executive therefore controls both the summoning and the closing of a session.

    Challenges to prorogation as a procedural check

    1. The timing is entirely executive-controlled: No statute or rule of procedure obliges the government to advise prorogation within a stated period. Eg. The interval has ranged from the same day to 28 days for the Monsoon Session of 2015. Fix. Prescribe an outer limit in the Rules of Procedure requiring prorogation within a fixed number of days of adjournment sine die.
    2. Parliament cannot summon itself: Members have no mechanism to require a sitting where the executive does not advise one. Eg. The Article 85(1) six month rule is the only enforceable constraint, and it permits long stretches with no sitting. Fix. Adopt a statutory parliamentary calendar fixing the number of sitting days per year, as the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended in 2002 at 110 days.
    3. The special session route bypasses the ordinary calendar: A session convened outside the three-session cycle compresses notice, scrutiny and committee referral. Eg. The Women’s Reservation Bill in 2023 was introduced and passed within a special session convened for the purpose. Fix. Require that any Bill taken up in a special session first stand referred to a Departmentally Related Standing Committee.
    4. Prorogation ends scrutiny instruments without ending the government’s agenda: Questions and motions lapse on prorogation and Bills survive it, so the balance of the reset favours the executive. Eg. A pending starred question falls away while the Bill it concerned remains on the books. Fix. Carry over admitted questions and motions to the succeeding session on the model used for Bills.
    5. The ordinance route substitutes for a sitting House: A prorogued House allows the executive to legislate by ordinance under Article 123. Eg. Ordinances have been repromulgated across successive gaps between sessions rather than replaced by legislation. Fix. Enforce the bar on repromulgation laid down in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) by requiring a laid statement of reasons for every ordinance.

    Conclusion

    The Lok Sabha stands adjourned sine die and not yet prorogued ten days on, which keeps the session formally alive and the option of reconvening it open. No rule fixes the permissible interval, so the delay is unusual rather than irregular, and the objection raised is about intent rather than legality. The twin legislative package at issue, the Constitutional Amendment on women’s reservation and the Delimitation Bill that accompanies it, remains untabled for a vote. The next milestone is the notification of prorogation or the summoning of a session in which the Constitutional Amendment Bill is moved.

    “[2024] With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:

    1. Prorogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers.

    2. Prorogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die, but there is no bar to the President of India proroguing the House which is in session.

    3. Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 1 and 2

    (c) 2 and 3

    (d) 3 only