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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Indian Constitution has conferred the amending power on the ordinary legislative institutions with a few procedural hurdles. In view of this statement, examine the procedural and substantive limitations on the amending power of the Parliament to change the Constitution.

    The Indian Constitution, under Article 368, confers the power of amendment on Parliament. However, this power is neither absolute nor unlimited, being subject to procedural and substantive limitations.

    Procedural Limitations

    These are explicit constitutional conditions laid down in Article 368. Violation of any renders the amendment invalid.

    Special Majority Requirement – Majority of total membership of each House, and Two-thirds of members present and voting.

    Separate Approval by Each House – No joint sitting is allowed under Article 108.

    Ratification by Half States for Federal Provisions – Eg- 101st Amendment (GST) required ratification.

    Presidential Assent under Article 368(2).

    Bill must follow all legislative procedures – notice, debate, quorum, and voting. Procedural irregularities can invite judicial scrutiny (as per Raj Narain v. Indira Gandhi, 1975).

    Substantive Limitations on the Amending Power

    These are judicially evolved constraints that restrict Parliament from altering the core identity of the Constitution.

    Doctrine of Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973))

    Limited Amending Power Itself is Basic Structure (Minerva Mills, 1980) – Clauses (4) and (5) of Article 368 (inserted by the 42nd Amendment) were struck down.

    I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (2007) held that even laws placed in the Ninth Schedule after 1973 are open to Basic Structure review.

    Parliament cannot amend to abrogate or emasculate Fundamental Rights forming part of the Basic Structure (e.g., equality, liberty).

    Parliament cannot alter the essential federal balance between Centre and States. (Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006))

    Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)- Free and fair elections, rule of law, and judicial review are part of Basic Structure.

    Harmony between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles – Both must coexist; destroying one in favor of the other violates Basic Structure.

    Examination of limitations

    Thus, the limited amending power under Article 368 makes the Indian Constitution a living document, capable of growth yet immune from destruction.

  • Discuss the nature of Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly after the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. Briefly describe the powers and functions of the Assembly of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

    The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, following the abrogation of Article 370 and 35A, reorganized the former State of J&K into two Union Territories – Jammu & Kashmir (with legislature) and Ladakh (without legislature).

    Nature of J&K Legislative Assembly after the J&K Reorganization Act, 2019

    The UT of J&K Assembly resembles that of Delhi and Puducherry, functioning under Article 239A with limited law-making powers.

    The Lieutenant Governor (LG) is the head of the UT, appointed by the President, and wields greater authority than Governors of states.

    The Assembly has a five-year term (not six as earlier).

    Abolition of J&K Legislative Council – Bicameralism ended, Assembly became unicameral.

    Out of 107 seats in J&K Assembly-

    83 elected,

    24 reserved for Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK),

    5 to be nominated by the LG, including 2 women (as per the Act, 2019 amendment 2023).

    Powers and Functions of J&K Legislative Assembly

    Legislative Powers

    Can legislate on subjects of the State List, except public order, police and concurrent list subject.

    Section 36 – Financial Bills in J&K UT can be introduced or moved in the Legislative Assembly only on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor.

    Laws require assent of the LG, who may refer bills to the President.

    Executive Oversight

    The Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, is collectively responsible to the Assembly.

    The Assembly exercises oversight through questions, motions, debates, and budget control.

    However, Section 53 – LG acts in discretion on matters related to All India Services & Anti-Corruption Bureau.

    Financial Powers

    Can pass the annual budget and authorize expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of J&K.

    Money Bills require the prior recommendation of the LG.

    The J&K Legislative Assembly post-2019 is a restricted legislature, balancing democratic representation with the Union’s direct control over sensitive subjects.

  • “Constitutional morality is the fulcrum which acts as an essential check upon the high functionaries and citizens alike…” In view of the above observation of the Supreme Court, explain the concept of constitutional morality and its application to ensure balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability in India.

    Constitutional morality implies adherence to the core principles and spirit of the Constitution in a democracy. In the words of Ambedkar, “Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment. It has to be cultivated”.

    Constitutional morality as the fulcrum

    Checks on High Functionaries

    Supremacy of Constitution – Limits arbitrary use of executive or legislative power.

    Rule of Law – Ensures decisions are legal, not personal or political.

    Judicial Review – Eg- NJAC Judgment

    Equality & Non-discrimination – Prevents rulers from favouring particular groups.

    Democratic Accountability – Demands transparency and answerability in governance. Eg- D. C. Wadhwa Case – frequent promulgation of ordinance as “fraud on the Constitution.”

    Separation of Powers – Eg – Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) struck down 39th Amendment to protect judicial review.

    Spirit of Justice – Requires policies and judgments to align with fairness.

    Checks on Citizens

    Ensures public morality does not override rights and dignity of individuals. Eg – Navtej Johar (2018) decriminalised homosexuality, Sabrimala Judgment.

    Equality & Non-discrimination – Binds citizens against practising caste, gender, or religious exclusion.

    Tolerance & Fraternity – Discourages hate speech, intolerance, or majoritarian excesses.

    Constitutional Patriotism – Promotes loyalty to constitutional ideals over narrow identity politics. Eg- Fundamental Duties

    Concept of constitutional morality

    George Grote, in his History of Greece, described constitutional morality as a “rare and difficult sentiment”–

    Paramount reverence for forms and procedures of the Constitution.

    Adherence to law while enabling open criticism of authority.

    Need for public reason, self-restraint, and trust in institutions.

    Application of Constitutional Morality in Balancing Judicial Independence and Accountability

    Judicial Appointments – Constitutional morality preserves judicial primacy in appointments (NJAC Case 2015), while demanding transparency and collegium reforms for accountability.

    Judicial Review – Protects independence of judiciary to strike down unconstitutional laws (Kesavananda Bharati 1973), yet requires judicial restraint to avoid overreach.

    Judicial Conduct – Ensures judges remain free from executive pressure, but also subject to scrutiny for corruption or misconduct (K. Veeraswami v. Union of India 1991).

    Public Trust – Judicial independence protects rule of law, while accountability ensures public confidence in the judiciary.

    Ensures Transparency and accountability – Subhash Agarwal Case- Brought CJI’s office under RTI.

    Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – Expands access to justice for the poor and marginalised, but constitutional morality demands avoidance of frivolous PILs to preserve judicial credibility.

    Contempt Powers – Secure judicial independence, but require tolerance of criticism unless it obstructs justice delivery. Eg- Prashant Bhushan Case

    As Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed, “Judicial independence is not a privilege but a responsibility owed to the Constitution.”

  • With the waning of globalization, post-Cold War world is becoming a site of sovereign nationalism. Elucidate.

    Thomas Friedman, (The Lexus and the Olive Tree), defines globalization as the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and technologies, making it farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper. However, at present, the world is witnessing ‘Deglobalisation’.

    Waning of Globalization

    Global trade as % of GDP peaked at 61% in 2008, declining to ~52% by 2024 (World Bank).

    Reversal of Liberalization- Trade wars, tariffs (US-China), and reshoring policies mark a retreat from free markets.

    The splinternet, 5G bans, and AI regulation indicate the politicisation of technology.

    Weakening of Global Institutions- paralysis of WTO, and unilateral sanctions. Eg- USA’s CAATSA

    Regionalism replacing globalization – RCEP, IPEF, BRICS+, EU strategic autonomy.

    Rise of Sovereign Nationalism

    Economic Nationalism – US “America First”, India’s Atmanirbhar Bharat, EU’s strategic autonomy.

    Resource Nationalism- Nations asserting control over rare earths, energy, and food exports. Eg- Indonesia’s nickel ban.

    Political Sovereignty – Brexit (2016) justified as “taking back control”.

    Identity Politics- Nationalist rhetoric linked to cultural, ethnic, or religious identity. Eg- rise of Neo Fascist powers in Europe.

    Strategic Assertion – Russia’s rejection of Western dominance through the Ukraine war.

    Digital Sovereignty – EU’s GDPR and DSA for data protection; China’s Great Firewall.

    Security Nationalism – Eg- Iran’s nuclear program

    Vaccine & Resource Nationalism during COVID-19

    Backlash Against Migration- Eg- Immigration controls in UK, EU, USA

    Public Opinion Shift- Global surveys (Pew, 2023) show declining trust in globalization and preference for domestic self-reliance.

    The retreat of globalization signals a transition from hyper-interdependence to guarded sovereignty and realist state-centric politics

  • “In contemporary development models, decision-making and problem-solving responsibilities are not located close to the source of information and execution, defeating the objectives of development.” Critically evaluate.

    Contemporary development models

    Neoliberal – privatization, and deregulation

    Technocratic Model – Data driven governance

    Donor-Driven Model

    PPP Model

    Participatory Development Model

    Decision-Making and Problem-Solving Not Close to Ground

    Centralized Policy Design, with limited input from grassroots institutions. Eg- Uniform guidelines under PMAY-Gramin

    Bureaucratic Hierarchies lead to delayed responses. Eg- delays in fund release under MGNREGA due to multi-tier approvals.

    Technocratic and Data-Centric Planning leads to exclusion of indigenous knowledge.

    Weak Decentralization – PRIs and ULBs lack fiscal and functional autonomy. Only 40% of states have functional District Planning Committees (NITI Aayog, 2022).

    Lack of Coordination – ministries and departments work in silos. Eg- Smart Cities Mission: 60% projects delayed due to poor coordination.

    Lack of Participatory democracy – Communities are treated as beneficiaries rather than partners in development.

    Political and Fiscal Centralization through centrally sponsored schemes

    Regulatory Capture – Eg- Nexus of Bureaucracy-Politicians-Corporate. (Vohra Committee)

    Counter-Argument

    73rd & 74th Constitutional Amendments empowered PRIs and ULBs for local governance and participatory planning.

    Gram Panchayat Development Plans (GPDPs) institutionalized bottom-up planning in over 2.6 lakh Panchayats.

    Aspirational Districts Programme (ADP) – Promotes data-driven local governance with district-level flexibility and real-time monitoring.

    PM Gati Shakti National Master Plan – Integrates 16 ministries on a GIS-based platform to align planning and execution at ground level.

    Mission Karmayogi – Builds capacity of field-level officials for local problem-solving and citizen-centric service delivery.

    Cooperative Federalism via NITI Aayog – Governing Council enable state-specific and local feedback-based planning.

    Community-Led Models – Swachh Bharat Mission and Jal Jeevan Mission emphasize village-level implementation and monitoring.

    State Level Measures – Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign

    Way Forward

    Capability Approach – increase spending on Health (2.5%of GDP) and Education (6% of GDP)

    Adopt Best Practices – Participatory Budgeting in porto alegre brazil

    Decentralized Governance based on principle of subsidiarity.

    “Growth becomes meaningful only when it expands human freedom and capability.” – Amartya Sen

    For this, decision-making authority and problem-solving responsibilities should be at the grassroots level.

    Social Justice

    Government Policies and Interventions for Welfare Schemes for Vulnerable Sections

  • Discuss the ‘corrupt practices’ for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute ‘undue influence’ and consequently a corrupt practice.

    The Representation of the People Act, 1951 defines a set of “corrupt practices” (Section 123), violation of which can lead to disqualification of a candidate (Section 8).

    Corrupt Practices under RPA, 1951

    Bribery – Offering or accepting gratification (money, jobs, gifts, entertainment) to induce candidature, withdrawal, or voting/refraining from voting. Eg- Distribution of cash or liquor during elections.

    Undue Influence – Interference (direct or indirect) with the free exercise of electoral rights through threats, inducements, or pressure. Eg- Threats of social boycott or misuse of official authority.

    Appeal on Identity Grounds – Seeking votes based on religion, caste, community, race, or language, or using religious/national symbols.

    Promotion of Enmity – Spreading hatred between groups for electoral gains.

    False Statements – Publishing knowingly false information about a candidate’s personal character or conduct to prejudice election prospects.

    SC in 2023 held that providing false information about electoral Candidates Qualification is not a Corrupt Practice under RPA, 1951.

    Free Conveyance of Voters – Hiring vehicles/vessels for voters’ free transport to polling stations.

    Excessive Expenditure – Spending beyond limits prescribed under Section 77.

    Misuse of Official Machinery – Seeking help from government servants such as gazetted officers, judges, police, armed forces.

    Booth Capturing – Seizing polling stations or ballot boxes by force.

    Glorification of Sati or Regressive Practices – Using such appeals for electoral advantage.

    Assets of Legislators and the Question of Undue Influence

    Since 2004, under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, MPs must declare their assets and liabilities to the Speaker (Lok Sabha) or Chairman (Rajya Sabha) within 90 days of taking their seat.

    The Supreme Court, in Lok Prahari case, mandated that candidates disclose not only their assets but also the sources of income of themselves, their spouses, and dependents.

    It directed the Centre to amend election rules and nomination forms, and sought a permanent mechanism to probe disproportionate asset growth of legislators.

    The Court held that non-disclosure of assets or income sources amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123, RPA 1951.

    A legislator’s or associate’s increase in assets disproportionate to known income is also a matter of corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act (1988) or criminal misconduct under IPC/Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Section 8 (3) of the Act states that if an MP or MLA is convicted for any other crime and is sent to jail for 2 years or more, he/ she will be disqualified for 6 years from the time of release.

    Thus, the disqualification provisions ensure the trinity of Ethics, Accountability and Fairness of electoral process.

  • [22nd June 2026] The Hindu OpED: End the free rein of junk food advertising in India

    Mentor’s Comment

    India committed in 2017 to restrict the advertising of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and foods high in fat, sugar and sodium (HFSS) foods under the National Multisectoral Action Plan, but that commitment remains unimplemented. In February 2026, the Supreme Court of India weighed in on the issue through a PIL on front-of-pack warning labels, and the Economic Survey 2025-26 called for stronger regulation of UPF advertising, bringing the policy gap into sharp focus.

    What has made UPF and HFSS advertising a public health concern?

    1. Rising exposure: Children and adolescents encounter UPF advertisements across television, social media, sports broadcasts and influencers.
    2. Misleading health claims: Advertisements highlight selective attributes such as “baked”, “multigrain” or “12-grain” and conceal high sugar, salt and fat content.
    3. Targeted marketing: Celebrity endorsements and child actors increase product appeal among vulnerable consumers.
    4. Demand creation: Advertising does not merely reflect demand. It actively shapes consumer preferences and consumption patterns.
    5. Scale of advertising expenditure: In 2024, three major transnational corporations spent USD 13.2 billion on UPF advertising globally. In India alone, more than two lakh junk food advertisements appeared in a single month, backed by an advertising expenditure of approximately ₹170 crore.

    Why are UPFs increasingly linked to adverse health outcomes?

    1. Industrial formulation: UPFs contain additives, flavour enhancers, emulsifiers and refined ingredients designed for high palatability.
    2. Overconsumption effect: Their design encourages repeated consumption and reduces satiety.
    3. Diet displacement: UPFs replace traditional and minimally processed foods.
    4. Disease burden: Scientific evidence links high UPF consumption to obesity, hypertension, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
    5. Rising NCD challenge: Growing UPF consumption coincides with increasing obesity rates globally and in India.

    Why are existing regulatory safeguards proving inadequate?

    1. Policy implementation gap: The National Multisectoral Action Plan (2017-2022) envisaged restrictions on HFSS advertising, but implementation remains incomplete.
    2. Weak disclosure norms: Advertisements can omit critical nutritional information and still remain legally compliant.
    3. Limited consumer protection: Existing rules focus more on product safety than marketing practices.
    4. Judicial concern: The Supreme Court has highlighted the need for stronger consumer information measures such as front-of-pack labelling.
    5. Reliance on self-regulation: Industry-led safeguards have not substantially reduced child-targeted advertising.

    What Is the Constitutional and Legal Basis for Restricting UPF and HFSS Advertising?

    1. State duty to protect vulnerable groups: Children are especially vulnerable to food marketing, requiring state intervention to safeguard public health.
    2. Existing policy commitment: The NMAP (2017-22) envisaged restrictions on HFSS food advertising, but implementation remains pending.
    3. Advertising law as the key instrument: The proposed solution is amendment of advertising laws, a measure already contemplated by the government.
    4. Supporting legal measures: The Supreme Court (2026) endorsed front-of-pack labelling, while MPs have advocated warning labels and taxation of UPFs.
    5. Right to health framework: Regulation of unhealthy food advertising flows from the constitutional right to health and is supported by the Economic Survey 2025-26.

    Does nutrition education alone solve the problem?

    1. Information asymmetry: Consumers receive nutrition advice but are simultaneously exposed to aggressive food marketing.
    2. Behavioural influence: Marketing exploits emotional triggers that often outweigh rational dietary choices.
    3. Children’s vulnerability: Children lack the capacity to critically assess persuasive advertising.
    4. Environmental constraint: Food choices are shaped by the surrounding commercial environment, not only by awareness levels.
    5. Public health limitation: Education programmes cannot fully offset continuous exposure to unhealthy food promotion.

    What do international experiences demonstrate about food advertising regulation?

    1. City of San Francisco lawsuit against UPF manufacturers: In 2024, San Francisco filed a lawsuit against 10 major UPF manufacturers alleging child-targeted marketing, highly compelling product formulations, and inadequate health risk disclosure. The suit sought prevention of deceptive marketing and corrective measures for past false advertising.
    2. Chile: Strong statutory restrictions on unhealthy food advertising reduced reliance on voluntary industry commitments.
    3. Mexico: Regulatory interventions demonstrated greater effectiveness than self-regulation mechanisms.
    4. Global evidence: International experience shows enforceable legal measures outperform voluntary compliance frameworks.
    5. Lancet Series evidence (November 2025): Three papers published in The Lancet in November 2025 presented scientific evidence linking UPF consumption to poorer diet quality, displacement of real foods, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and other non-communicable diseases. The series argued that policymaking should not wait for further evidence.

    Why is this ultimately a state responsibility rather than a market choice?

    1. Right to Health: The state has a constitutional duty to protect public health when harms are foreseeable.
    2. Child protection principle: Children constitute a vulnerable group requiring enhanced regulatory safeguards.
    3. Market failure: Consumers often lack complete information about nutritional risks.
    4. Externalities: Rising obesity and NCDs impose social and healthcare costs beyond individual consumers.
    5. Public interest regulation: Restrictions on harmful advertising are comparable to other public health interventions.

    What policy changes are required?

    1. Advertising restrictions: Prohibit or significantly restrict child-targeted advertising of UPFs and HFSS foods.
    2. Front-of-pack labelling: Introduce clear warning labels to improve informed choice.
    3. Digital platform regulation: Extend restrictions to social media, influencers and online advertising.
    4. Stronger enforcement: Replace voluntary compliance with statutory obligations and penalties.
    5. Healthy food promotion: Incentivise marketing of minimally processed and nutritious foods.

    Conclusion

    The central issue is not consumer ignorance but the commercial environment that shapes food choices. Nutrition education cannot succeed when aggressive marketing continuously promotes unhealthy foods. India’s public health response must move beyond awareness campaigns and regulate the advertising ecosystem that drives UPF consumption, especially among children.

  • Guardrails in AI growth to protect developing nations

    Why in the News?

    The United Nations General Assembly established a Global Dialogue on AI and an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI, marking the first attempt to create a global scientific body dedicated to this technology. This development has exposed a core tension: AI governance is simultaneously moving toward global coordination and fragmenting into competing national regulatory frameworks. The asymmetry between AI-capable and AI-dependent nations determines who controls both the risks and the benefits of this transition.

    What is the current global AI governance landscape and why is it structurally insufficient?

    1. Parallel and voluntary structures: Most existing frameworks have voluntary participation, varying legal force, and focus on specific aspects, safety, ethics, or standards, with no common binding floor.
    2. EU AI Act 2024: The most comprehensive binding framework to date. It prioritises safe, transparent, non-discriminatory, and environmentally friendly AI. Its extraterritorial reach is limited to EU-market participants.
    3. UN Global Dialogue on AI: UNGA invited every country to participate. An Independent Scientific Panel makes periodic assessments to inform the Dialogue. It lacks enforcement authority.
    4. Annual global AI summits: The most recent edition was held in New Delhi in February 2025. Outcomes remain consultative and have not produced enforceable international agreements.
    5. Regulatory fragmentation: Each country developing its own framework forces companies to satisfy differing requirements across geographies, creating pressure to favour permissive jurisdictions.
    6. Innovation slowdown risk: Companies may roll out services only in regulatory-friendly markets, deepening access inequality for developing nations.

    What makes global AI governance necessary?

    1. Cross-border technology: AI systems operate across jurisdictions and affect multiple countries simultaneously.
    2. Regulatory fragmentation: Different national regulations increase compliance costs and slow innovation.
    3. Unequal regulatory capacity: Many developing countries lack the expertise and institutions needed to regulate AI effectively.
    4. Global public impact: AI influences economic growth, governance, healthcare, education, and security.
    5. Need for common standards: Shared principles can improve safety, interoperability, and trust.

    How does regulatory fragmentation produce asymmetric harm for developing nations?

    1. Infrastructure concentration: A few countries already possess the computing, talent, and financial resources to support the entire AI ecosystem, before global rules are set.
    2. Regulatory capacity deficit: Many countries in Asia and Africa lack institutions to frame robust domestic AI regulations or protect their national interests in international negotiations.
    3. Data sovereignty trap: Insisting that all AI development remain within national boundaries accelerates power concentration rather than distributing it.
    4. Digital colonisation risk: Developing countries become consumers of AI systems designed elsewhere, with no input into their values, benchmarks, or constraints.
    5. Denial of transformative benefits: AI is a technology of the order of the steam engine. Excluding developing nations from its benefits is a disservice to humanity, not merely to affected countries.
    6. Minimum regulatory floor: A globally agreed set of minimum standards is the only mechanism that ensures developing countries benefit from AI advances without surrendering domestic policy space.

    Does global AI regulation resolve the equity problem or does it risk replicating the nuclear non-proliferation trap?

    The equity problem refers to the structural exclusion of predominantly the Global South from the economic benefits, decision-making processes, and capacity building surrounding artificial intelligence.

    1. Non-proliferation analogy: Global AI regulation could restrict unrestricted AI development to only certain countries or companies, creating a permanent hierarchy between technology producers and users.
    2. Nuclear regime parallel: This outcome embeds existing power differentials into binding international law, replicating a governance structure that legitimises asymmetry rather than correcting it.
    3. Biological and chemical weapons treaties: Existing international agreements already control dangerous dual-use technologies. Proposals may extend this logic to AI models and to the infrastructure required to build them.
    4. Logic of restriction: The case for restricting AI capable of enabling next-generation biological or chemical weapons is logically defensible. The risk is who draws the boundary and in whose interest.
    5. Political capture risk: “Responsible AI” defined by incumbent powers locks in first-mover advantage and treats developing nations as permanent recipients rather than co-producers of governance norms.

    What do international governance models demonstrate about the feasibility of a globally agreed AI floor?

    1. EU AI Act: binding regulatory precedent: Demonstrates that comprehensive, legally enforceable AI governance is achievable at supranational scale. Sets de facto global standards through market leverage.
    2. UN Global Dialogue: universalist participation model: Universal country invitation distinguishes it from club-based governance. Participatory architecture is its most relevant design feature for developing nations.
    3. Google AI Commons: private open-access precedent: Demonstrates that large AI actors can adopt open-access norms voluntarily. Lacks enforceable accountability.
    4. Trusted AI Commons: India-hosted hybrid model: A one-stop repository of tools, benchmarks, datasets, and protocols for testing AI deployment, with liberal licensing. Significant as a Global South-led governance mechanism.
    5. Limits of existing models: None produces a binding universal minimum floor. The EU Act covers only its market; the UN Dialogue lacks enforcement; Commons models are voluntary. The gap between architecture and enforceable standards remains open.

    What is the Trusted AI Commons and does it constitute an adequate institutional response to the governance deficit?

    1. Definition: A repository of tools, benchmarks, datasets, and protocols needed to develop and deploy AI systems safely and responsibly. Functions as a one-stop shop for AI testing and deployment support.
    2. Institutional origin: Main outcome of the New Delhi AI Impact Summit, February 2026. Hosted and managed by India through India’s AI Mission.
    3. Licensing design: Open, accessible, with liberal licensing. Aggregates tools already developed worldwide, including by IIT Madras, rather than commissioning new ones.
    4. Practical function (example): A country testing an AI system for agriculture can use the Commons to locate available tools, benchmarks, datasets, and protocols in one place, without needing domestic AI infrastructure to find or validate them.
    5. Adequacy gap: Addresses the access and deployment deficit. Does not create a binding minimum floor. Does not build regulatory capacity in developing nations. Necessary but insufficient.
    6. India’s strategic significance: Hosting the Commons positions India as a norm-setter rather than a norm-follower, consistent with its broader foreign policy of strategic autonomy: the ability to act independently of major power blocs in international affairs. 

    The Trusted AI Commons

    1. It is an open, federated, and voluntary global platform designed to serve as a consolidated repository for AI safety benchmarks, evaluation tools, standards, and deployment frameworks.
    2. The initiative was integrated into the New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact.

    Core Objectives & Utility: The platform is designed to act as a “one-stop shop” for developers, researchers, and regulators to access non-proprietary resources.

    1. Open Accessibility: Provides tools under liberal, open-source licensing to prevent safety mechanisms from being locked behind big-tech barriers.
    2. Standardised Evaluation: Hosts cross-jurisdictional benchmarks to test AI behavior against bias, misalignment, and operational errors before deployment.
    3. Global Interoperability: Fosters cross-border collaboration by mapping technical safety frameworks across different international standards.

    Hosting and Management

    1. Initial Leadership: The Trusted AI Commons is initially hosted and managed by India under the auspices of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the IndiaAI Mission.
    2. Collaborative Network: Rather than building every mechanism from scratch, it aggregates tools from leading global research bodies, such as the Centre for Responsible AI (IIT Madras), the UK AI Security Institute, and Mozilla

    Conclusion

    Fragmented national AI regulation concentrates power in AI-capable nations and denies developing countries both protection and access. A globally agreed minimum regulatory floor is the necessary condition for equity but if framed through non-proliferation logic, it encodes existing power hierarchies into international law. The Trusted AI Commons addresses the access deficit but does not substitute for binding global governance. The central unresolved precondition is universal participation in the design of global AI rules, not merely in their implementation.

  • The key hurdle to climate targets: Electrification

    Why in the News?

    At the Bonn climate talks, Turkey proposed raising the global electrification target to 35% by 2035, ahead of hosting COP31 in Antalya with Australia in November. Electricity meets only a small fraction of the world’s energy needs, and most of that electricity is itself generated from fossil fuels. This exposes a gap between rising clean electricity generation and the much slower pace at which economies actually switch their energy consumption to electricity.

    Where does electrification fit among existing global climate goals?

    1. Paris Agreement temperature targets: The 2015 Paris Agreement commits the world to limiting the rise in global temperatures within 2 degrees Celsius, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius, from pre-industrial times.
    2. Renewable capacity target: Annual COP meetings have produced the goal of increasing the installed capacity of renewable energy.
    3. Net-zero target: COP meetings have also produced the goal of achieving a global net-zero emissions target.
    4. Climate finance target: Mobilising climate finance is a further goal that has emerged from COP meetings.
    5. Electrification as a new addition: The 35% electrification target, if agreed upon, would be one more addition to this existing set of climate-related global goals, all aimed at reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels and speeding up the energy transition.

    How is the progress of the energy transition measured?

    1. Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES): A measure of all energy available for use in an economy, including energy consumed in producing, transforming and transporting energy itself.
    2. Final Energy Consumption (FEC): A measure of energy ultimately used by end-consumers. It excludes energy burnt to produce electricity, energy used in refining petroleum, diesel burnt in transporting fuel, and transmission and distribution losses.
    3. Structural difference between fossil fuels and renewables: Fossil fuels are direct sources of energy and only require to be burnt to produce energy, whereas renewable sources such as solar, wind, nuclear or hydropower have to be converted into electricity before they can be put to use.
    4. Why electrification rate is the relevant metric: Because renewable sources require conversion into electricity before use, every final use of energy would have to be electrified for a complete transition away from fossil fuels to be possible.

    Why does electrification remain limited despite rising electricity demand?

    1. Slow movement in FEC share: Electricity’s share in FEC rose only from 17.7% in 2015 to 21% in 2025, a modest increase over a decade.
      1. Global electricity share in FEC: Electricity accounted for only 21% of total final energy consumption (TFEC) in 2025, according to the IEA.
      2. India’s electricity share in FEC: The corresponding figure for India is about 23%, according to government data.
    2. Rising generation volumes: Global electricity generation increased from about 24 terawatt-hours (TWh) in 2015 to over 32 TWh in 2025, a rise of nearly 33%.
    3. Generation growth has outpaced consumption-side electrification: Electricity output rose by a third over the decade while its share of final consumption rose by only about 3 percentage points.
    4. Hard-to-electrify sectors persist: Shipping, aviation, heavy-duty and long-haul trucks, high-temperature industrial processes in iron, steel, cement and ceramics, and many residential needs like heating remain largely unelectrified and cannot run on renewables.

    Which sectors remain difficult to electrify?

    1. Aviation: Long-distance air travel lacks commercially viable large-scale electric alternatives.
    2. Shipping: Heavy maritime transport depends on high-energy-density fuels.
    3. Heavy Industry: Steel, cement and chemicals require high-temperature industrial processes.
    4. Long-Haul Freight: Heavy trucks face battery and charging limitations.
    5. Energy-Intensive Manufacturing: Several production processes remain dependent on fossil fuels.

    Why does renewable energy success not automatically translate into climate success?

    1. Steady rise in clean generation share: The share of non-fossil sources (renewables, hydro and nuclear) in electricity generation rose from 33.6% in 2015 to 42.6% in 2025, according to the IEA.
    2. Electricity itself is still the majority fossil: In 2025, only about 42% of all electricity generated worldwide came from non-fossil sources, meaning most electricity generated is still fossil-based.
    3. Compounding effect on total energy use: Only 21% of total final energy consumption is met through electricity, and only about 42% of that electricity is clean.
    4. The reality-check figure: This means just over 8% of total energy consumed in the world is currently clean.
    5. Three decades of policy effort, limited consumption-side result: Nearly three decades of favourable policies, financial incentives and technology innovation to promote cleaner fuels have left more than 90% of current global energy use still dependent on fossil fuels.

    How ambitious is the proposed 35% electrification target?

    1. IRENA’s threshold for 1.5°C: The International Renewable Energy Agency states that a 35% electrification rate by 2035 is the minimum needed to keep any realistic hope of staying on the 1.5-degrees Celsius pathway.
    2. Investment requirement: Achieving that level of electrification requires about $1.2 trillion to be pumped into electricity systems every year.
    3. Accompanying requirements: Rapid expansion in renewables and battery storage systems must also happen alongside this investment.
    4. Scale of the gap from current trajectory: The IEA projects electricity’s share of global FEC will rise to only about 24% by 2030, against a target of 35% by 2035, even as non-fossil sources (renewables plus hydro and nuclear) are projected to supply nearly half of global electricity by 2030.

    What risks could derail even this limited trajectory?

    1. Geopolitical uncertainty: It is unclear how wars and geopolitical tensions will affect the pace of energy transition.
    2. Two opposing pressures: Greater uncertainty in fossil fuel supplies and rising oil prices may push some countries toward renewables, while the economic fallout of conflicts may squeeze budgets available for new technologies and infrastructure.
    3. Risk of reverting to convenient fuels: Countries may be tempted to use whatever energy source is easily available, regardless of its climate impact.

    What do international targets indicate about the future direction of climate policy?

    1. COP28 Consensus: Countries agreed to accelerate the global energy transition.
    2. IRENA Roadmap: The agency proposes raising electrification to 35% by 2035.
    3. Net-Zero Pathways: Most credible decarbonisation scenarios require major electrification gains.
    4. Renewables-Electrification Link: Renewable expansion and electrification must progress together.
    5. Long-Term Transition: Climate targets increasingly depend on transforming energy consumption patterns, not merely energy production.

    Conclusion

    Clean electricity generation has scaled steadily, but the constraint on climate targets has shifted to how much of total energy consumption is electrified, not how clean the electricity supply is. Only about 8% of global energy consumption is currently clean, and electricity’s FEC share is projected to reach just 24% by 2030 against a 35% by 2035 target. Hence, climate progress will remain limited unless transport, industry and buildings convert their direct fossil-fuel use to electricity at a much faster pace.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Do you think India will meet 50 per cent of its energy needs from renewable energy by 2030? Justify your answer.

    Linkage: The question examines India’s renewable energy transition and the feasibility of achieving climate commitments. The article argues that renewable energy expansion alone is insufficient; achieving climate goals also requires rapid electrification of final energy consumption.

  • Right of way

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the right to walk safely on demarcated footpaths is part of Article 21 and therefore a fundamental right. The judgment highlights the gap between constitutional recognition of pedestrian rights and the absence of adequate pedestrian infrastructure.

    What has the Supreme Court held on the right to walk?

    1. Article 21 Protection: The Court held that safe access to footpaths forms part of the right to life and personal liberty.
    2. Pedestrian Dignity: Walking is not merely a mode of transport. It is a constitutional entitlement linked to safety and dignity.
    3. State Responsibility: Governments must ensure safe pedestrian infrastructure and cannot treat pedestrians as secondary road users.
    4. Compensation Jurisprudence: The ruling emerged from a case involving the death of a five-year-old child who was hit by a tanker lorry in Karnataka.

    Why Does India Lack Functional Pedestrian Infrastructure?

    1. No central law: No national law governs pedestrian rights or safety.
    2. Vehicle-Centric Planning: Urban transport systems prioritise road expansion and vehicle movement.
    3. Fragmented responsibility: Responsibility for pedestrian safety is split across municipal laws, town-planning statutes, and street design guidelines, with no single accountable authority.
    4. Minimal safety standard: Current practice treats pedestrians as safe if they face no immediate physical harm, not if they have usable, continuous infrastructure.
    5. Physical encroachment: Existing footpaths are frequently encroached by parking, vendors, utilities, and construction debris.
    6. Competing infrastructure priorities: Road-widening projects compete with footpath space, with roads typically winning.

    Why is recognition of a right insufficient by itself?

    1. Rights Need Infrastructure: A right becomes ineffective when the supporting public infrastructure is absent.
    2. Implementation Deficit: India often struggles with execution rather than legal recognition.
    3. Administrative Neglect: Urban local bodies frequently delay or abandon pedestrian projects.
    4. Funding Priorities: Public expenditure remains concentrated on road widening and motorised transport.
    5. Behavioural Norms: Motorists often view pedestrians as obstacles rather than legitimate road users.

    What Tension Does the Ruling Expose Between Rights Recognition and State Capacity?

    1. Right without infrastructure is hollow: If the state does not build footpaths, the citizen’s right to walk on them carries no practical content.
    2. Compensation is not prevention: A right enforced only through post-tragedy compensation does not change the conditions that caused the harm.
    3. Conflict with the Street Vendors Act: The new judgment is likely to generate disputes with the 2014 Act, since reclaiming footpaths for pedestrians can mean removing vendors the 2014 Act protects.
    4. Risk of gentrification: A state acting on this ruling could use it to clear footpaths of informal commercial activity, criminalising the survival strategies of the urban poor under the cover of a pedestrian-rights judgment.

    Does India’s Experience with Rights-Based Legislation Suggest that Legal Recognition Alone Is Insufficient?

    1. Street Vendors Act, 2014: The Act protects vendors’ right to trade under Article 19(1)(g). Implementation has lagged because surveys, Town Vending Committees, and vending zones remain incomplete. Municipalities continue eviction drives despite legal protection.
    2. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003: Public smoking declined through sustained enforcement, social messaging, and small immediate penalties. Behaviour changed because legal recognition was backed by continuous implementation.
    3. Swachh Bharat and Waste Segregation Laws: Citizens are required to segregate waste. Municipal systems often fail to collect segregated waste. The absence of supporting infrastructure weakens compliance.
    4. Implementation Gap: Rights and duties succeed only when governments create the institutions, incentives, and enforcement mechanisms needed to support them.
    5. Lesson for the Right to Walk: Pedestrian rights will remain symbolic unless cities build continuous, unobstructed footpaths and protect them from encroachment.

    What Precondition Determines Whether the Right Produces Real Change?

    1. Pedestrian Infrastructure as the Missing Link: Constitutional recognition cannot improve pedestrian safety unless cities build continuous and unobstructed footpaths.
    2. Funding Redirection as the Binding Constraint: The ruling’s success depends on shifting public expenditure towards pedestrian infrastructure rather than treating the judgment as a compensation mechanism.
    3. Risk of Legal Tokenism: If the right remains usable only for post-tragedy compensation claims, it produces no change in pedestrian mobility or safety.
    4. Cultural Internalisation of Right of Way: Pavements must be socially recognised as pedestrian space. Judicial declaration alone cannot alter road-use behaviour.

    What must change for the right to walk to become meaningful?

    1. Dedicated Pedestrian Infrastructure: Cities must invest in continuous and obstruction-free footpaths.
    2. Pedestrian-First Urban Design: Walking must become the foundation of street planning.
    3. Clear Space Allocation: Urban authorities must balance pedestrian access and vendor livelihoods.
    4. Municipal Accountability: Local bodies must be assessed on pedestrian safety outcomes.
    5. Stable Funding: Budget allocations must shift towards non-motorised transport infrastructure.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court has expanded constitutional protection for pedestrians, but rights alone cannot create safe streets. India’s challenge is not recognising the right to walk but building the footpaths, governance mechanisms and urban priorities that make that right real. The success of the judgment depends on shifting public investment and administrative attention towards pedestrian infrastructure rather than merely providing legal remedies after accidents.