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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • Dignity in death: Supreme Court upholds hanging under Article 21

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has dismissed a public interest litigation arguing that death by hanging is scientifically unreliable and violates the right to a dignified death under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling holds that a method of execution devised in colonial India still satisfies the constitutional promise of dignity, while leaving the question open to a future challenge built on fresh scientific material.

    What is the long drop method of hanging?

    1. The colonial inheritance: Hanging is the prescribed method of executing death sentences in India and derives from British Common Law.
    2. The older short drop method: Historically, hanging was carried out through a short drop, which causes death by asphyxiation.
    3. What the long drop is meant to do: A longer drop is calibrated to snap the second and third cervical vertebrae, the C2 and C3, and with them the spinal cord, rendering the person immediately unconscious.
    4. Why calibration decides the outcome: The drop must be matched to the individual’s weight and height, since a drop that is too short causes prolonged strangulation and one that is too long risks decapitation.
    5. The protocol afterwards: Standard prison protocols require the body to be left hanging for 30 minutes after the trap door opens.

    What is the current status of capital punishment and the right to die with dignity in India?

    1. Executions carried out: 971 executions have taken place in India between 1947 and 2025.
    2. Executions in this century: Only six executions have taken place since 2001, the most recent in 2020, of the four convicts in the Delhi gang rape and murder case.
    3. Sentences imposed: 1,281 convicts were sentenced to death between 2016 and 2025, which is far larger than the number of executions carried out.
    4. The sentencing threshold: The death penalty may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases, the standard laid down in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980).
    5. The statutory command: Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides that where a person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
    6. How old the clause is: The clause has barely changed since it was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1861 and has survived multiple amendments.
    7. The recognised right: The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity and consequently to die with dignity.
    8. The limits on that right: The right to die with dignity does not extend to a right to take one’s own life, and its recognised application is to end of life decisions rather than to the manner of a lawful execution.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Capital Punishment

    1. Article 21: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, and this procedure must be fair, just and reasonable.
    2. Article 14: Requires that the classification of offences and offenders attracting the death penalty be reasonable and non arbitrary.
    3. Article 20(1): Bars the imposition of a penalty greater than that prescribed by the law in force at the time the offence was committed.
    4. Article 22: Provides procedural protections on arrest and detention, including the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner.
    5. Article 72: Empowers the President to grant pardon, reprieve, respite or remission of punishment, and to suspend, remit or commute a sentence of death.
    6. Article 161: Empowers the Governor to grant pardon and to commute sentences, though the power to pardon a death sentence rests with the President.
    7. Article 134: Provides an appeal to the Supreme Court in a criminal proceeding where a High Court has reversed an acquittal and imposed a death sentence.
    8. Article 136: Provides for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against any judgment or order in any cause or matter.
    9. Article 137: Provides the power of review, under which death row convicts are entitled to an open court hearing of a review petition.
    10. Concurrent List, Entry 1 and Entry 2: Place criminal law and criminal procedure in the Concurrent List, so both Parliament and State legislatures may legislate on them.

    What did the petition argue?

    1. The relief sought: A declaration that the provision prescribing hanging is unconstitutional, on the ground that Article 21 includes a right to die through a dignified procedure.
    2. The characterisation of the method: The method was described as accompanied by intense physical torture and pain, and as inherently unpredictable.
    3. The scientific material relied on: A 1992 study of the remains of 34 people hanged in England between 1882 and 1945.
    4. What the study found: Fractures at C2 and C3 were common, but the hangman’s fracture, assumed to cause near instant death, appeared in only three of the 34 cases, and six died of asphyxiation instead.
    5. The inference drawn: Hanging is therefore neither quick nor controllable in the way the law assumes it to be.
    6. The intervenor’s evidence: The Executive Director of a university death penalty clinic that intervened in the proceedings stated that researchers examining the remains of executed prisoners found that people had not died by an instant breaking of the neck, and that a range of painful and long drawn causes had produced their deaths.

    Why did the Court decline to revisit the 1983 precedent?

    1. The binding precedent: A three judge bench in Deena vs Union of India (1983) had upheld hanging as a constitutional mode of execution.
    2. What Deena examined: That bench considered medical evidence, expert opinion and comparative execution methods before ruling.
    3. What Deena held: Hanging, when properly administered, is a quick and certain method, causes no greater pain than any other known method, and avoids barbarity, torture and degradation.
    4. The legislative hurdle: Parliament chose to retain hanging while enacting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which is a recent legislative reaffirmation of the method.
    5. The evidentiary finding: The new scientific material did not displace the basis on which Deena was decided.
    6. The comparative finding: The material did not establish that lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas or shooting offered any advantage over hanging.
    7. The constitutional conclusion: The existing method continues to satisfy the State’s obligation to carry out a death sentence with decency and decorum and without degradation or brutality.

    What is the Union government’s position?

    1. The claim made: Hanging remains the safest and quickest available method of execution.
    2. The domestic record cited: No botched execution has ever been recorded in India.
    3. The comparative argument: Lethal injection in the United States carries a well documented history of failures.
    4. What this position implies: The burden of demonstrating that an alternative is measurably less painful and more reliable rests on the challenger, not on the State.

    What did the Court leave open?

    1. No permanent closure: The bench stopped short of treating the question as settled forever.
    2. The ground for a future challenge: Constitutional law evolves, and a future challenge may succeed if new scientific, medical or empirical material fundamentally alters the assumptions on which Deena was decided.
    3. The executive route: The Court left it open to the Union government to examine alternative methods of execution should it choose to do so.
    4. What this means in practice: The method now depends on the state of the evidence rather than on the age of the precedent.

    What do other countries’ execution methods show about the search for a humane method?

    1. Hanging’s reach: A 2012 Cornell Law School database identified 60 countries that authorised hanging as a method of execution, concentrated in jurisdictions influenced by British Common Law, including India, Singapore and Japan.
    2. Lethal injection: The primary method in several United States states where the death penalty is allowed and heavily used in China, administering an anaesthetic, then a paralytic, then potassium chloride, and frequently botched where venous access is compromised.
    3. Shooting: Used in China, North Korea, Somalia and parts of West Asia, visually violent and traumatic for executioners, with proponents citing near instantaneous cardiac or neurological destruction.
    4. Beheading: Carried out with a sword in Saudi Arabia, and reliant entirely on the executioner’s precision.
    5. Nitrogen hypoxia: Recently introduced in the United States, using inhalation of pure nitrogen to cause asphyxiation without triggering the hypercapnic alarm response, the panicked sensation of suffocation, and criticised as insufficiently vetted and amounting to human experimentation.
    6. The abolition trend: More than two thirds of the world’s nations, around 113, have ended the death penalty in law or in practice, according to Amnesty International.
    7. The countervailing trend: A 2025 Amnesty International report recorded a 12 percent increase in executions over the previous year, so fewer states execute while those that do execute more.
    8. The 2025 concentration: The countries recording the most executions in 2025 were Iran at 2,159 or more, Saudi Arabia at 356 or more and Yemen at 51 or more, with China’s total running into the thousands and not published.
    9. What the comparison establishes: Every available method carries its own scientific and ethical controversy, which is why no alternative could be shown to be superior to hanging.

    Major debates surrounding capital punishment and the method of execution

    1. Retribution against reform: The claim that the gravest offences require the ultimate sanction stands against the claim that the state’s own conduct must not replicate the violence it punishes.
    2. Deterrence unproven: The deterrent effect of capital punishment has not been empirically established, which weakens the principal utilitarian justification offered for it.
    3. Two rulings in tension: Gian Kaur (1996) recognises a right to die with dignity within Article 21, while Deena (1983) holds that a method causing potential asphyxiation satisfies the same Article, and the present ruling resolves that tension in favour of the earlier precedent.
    4. Judge centric sentencing: The rarest of rare test is applied unevenly across benches, which makes the sentence depend in part on the composition of the court.
    5. Delay as cruelty: Prolonged delay in deciding mercy petitions has been held to be a ground for commutation, which converts the length of the process itself into a constitutional question.
    6. Socio economic profile of death row: A disproportionate share of death row prisoners come from poor and marginalised backgrounds with inadequate legal representation, which raises an equality question under Article 14.
    7. Irreversibility and wrongful conviction: The penalty cannot be corrected after execution, and acquittals in appeal after years on death row demonstrate that error occurs.
    8. The evidence gap the present dispute turns on: No systematic post mortem study of executions in India exists, so both the State’s claim of no botched execution and the petitioner’s claim of prolonged suffering rest on foreign data.
    9. Legislative expansion against judicial restriction: Parliament has extended the death penalty to more offences while the courts have narrowed the circumstances in which it may be imposed.

    Challenges to ensuring a constitutional mode of execution

    1. No Indian evidence base: India has no published forensic study of executions, so the constitutional question is argued on English data from 1882 to 1945. e.g. the 1992 study relied on by the petitioners examined 34 remains from England, not from any Indian prison.
    2. Calibration depends on execution skill: The drop length must be computed for each individual, so the outcome varies with the competence of prison staff. e.g. the official drop tables in use derive from colonial era manuals rather than from contemporary biomechanical evidence.
    3. Every alternative carries its own failure mode: No method has been shown to be reliably painless. e.g. lethal injection executions in the United States have taken over an hour where venous access failed.
    4. Absence of monitoring: No independent medical observation or record of the execution process is published. e.g. prison protocols require the body to hang for 30 minutes without any requirement to record the time or cause of death.
    5. Delay converts the sentence into a separate punishment: Prisoners spend years under sentence while appeals and mercy petitions are pending. e.g. the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan v Union of India (2014) commuted 15 death sentences on the ground of inordinate delay in deciding mercy petitions.
    6. Unequal access to competent defence: The quality of representation at the sentencing stage decides who receives the sentence. e.g. mitigating circumstances are often not placed on record at all in trial courts, which the Supreme Court addressed in Manoj v State of Madhya Pradesh (2022).
    7. Legislative expansion without sentencing guidance: New offences attract the death penalty without any accompanying sentencing framework. e.g. the death penalty was extended to the rape of a child below twelve years by the amendment to the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in 2019.

    Conclusion

    The Court has held that hanging under Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 remains constitutional, on the twin grounds that Deena (1983) has not been displaced and that Parliament reaffirmed the method when it enacted the new Sanhita. The scientific material placed before it was found insufficient to dislodge the assumptions on which the 1983 ruling rests, and no alternative method was shown to be superior. The petition is dismissed, but the question is not closed, since a future challenge may succeed on fresh scientific, medical or empirical material. The Union government has also been left free to examine alternative methods of execution should it choose to do so.

    What is the rarest of rare doctrine?

    1. About: The rarest of rare doctrine is the sentencing standard under which the death penalty may be imposed only where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
    2. Rationale: It exists because the Constitution permits capital punishment while Article 21 requires that its imposition be exceptional, reasoned and non arbitrary, so life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception.
    3. Where it comes from: Laid down in Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980), which upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty by a majority while confining it to the rarest of rare cases.
    4. The named typology it rests on:
      • Aggravating circumstances: Factors relating to the crime, such as extreme brutality, premeditation and the vulnerability of the victim, which weigh in favour of the maximum sentence.
      • Mitigating circumstances: Factors relating to the offender, such as age, mental condition, socio economic background and the probability of reform, which weigh against it.
      • The five categories in Machhi Singh v State of Punjab (1983): Manner of commission, motive, anti social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime, magnitude of the crime, and personality of the victim.
      • The balancing requirement: The court must weigh aggravating against mitigating circumstances and record why life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

    Laws Governing Capital Punishment in India

    1. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: The procedural code governing trial, sentencing, confirmation and execution of the death sentence, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
    2. Section 393(5): Directs that a person sentenced to death be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
    3. Confirmation requirement: A death sentence passed by a Sessions Court has no effect until it is confirmed by the High Court.
    4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: The substantive penal code listing the offences that carry the death penalty, including murder, waging war against the Government of India, and certain aggravated forms of rape.
    5. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Provides the death penalty for a terrorist act resulting in death.
    6. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Provides the death penalty for repeat offences involving specified commercial quantities, made discretionary rather than mandatory after judicial challenge.
    7. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: As amended in 2019, provides the death penalty for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.
    8. Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018: Extended the death penalty to repeat rape offences and to the rape of a child below twelve years respectively.
    9. Army Act, 1950, Navy Act, 1957 and Air Force Act, 1950: Provide the death penalty for specified offences under military law, where the alternative method of shooting is available.
    10. Prisons Act, 1894 and State prison manuals: Govern the conditions of confinement of death row prisoners and the procedure at the place of execution.

    “[2023, GS2, 15 marks] “The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society”. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.”

  • Palestine backs India’s bid for non-permanent Security Council seat

    Why in the News

    Palestine has backed India’s bid for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat for 2028-29. The support came during India’s renewed diplomatic engagement with Palestine, including plans for a new India-funded hospital in the West Bank and medical assistance for Gaza.

    Non-Permanent Seat of the UNSC

    • Composition: UNSC has 15 members: 5 permanent members with veto power and 10 non-permanent members.
    • Election: Elected by the UN General Assembly for a 2-year term with a two-thirds majority.
    • Distribution: Seats follow equitable geographical representation; India contests from the Asia-Pacific Group.
    • Rotation: 5 non-permanent seats are elected every year. A retiring member cannot be immediately re-elected.

    Significance of Palestine’s Support for India

    • Palestine supports India’s 2028-29 candidature and has also expressed support for India having a permanent UNSC seat.
    • It views India’s economic and political weight as important for advancing Palestinian interests.
    • Palestine expects India to use its relations with Israel to facilitate the peace process.
    • The endorsement strengthens India’s image as a country capable of engaging both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    India’s Development Assistance to Palestine

    • West Bank: India is finalising an India-funded hospital.
    • Vocational training: Support for a vocational training centre.
    • Gaza: Discussions on artificial limbs for amputees.
    • Medical equipment: Talks on supplying dialysis machines and other equipment, potentially through Jordan.

    India’s Position on Palestine

    • India has consistently supported:
      • A negotiated two-state solution.
      • An independent Palestine coexisting peacefully with Israel.
      • Development and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people.
    • The recent visit to Ramallah marked India’s first high-level visit to the affected region since the October 2023 conflict.

    India’s De-hyphenated Israel-Palestine Policy

    India follows a de-hyphenated approach, treating relations with Israel and Palestine independently.

    • Full diplomatic relations with Israel were established in 1992.
    • India has deepened strategic cooperation with Israel while continuing to support Palestinian statehood.
    • India has continued supporting Palestinian-related resolutions at the UN.
    • This balancing gives India diplomatic credibility and leverage with both sides.

    “[2009] The Security Council of UN consists of 5 permanent members, and the remaining 10 members are elected by the General Assembly for a term of

    (a) 1 year

    (b) 2 years

    (c) 3 years

    (d) 5 years

  • From scientific research to geopolitics: Why India needs a clear ‘Arctic narrative’

    Why in the News

    A report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, titled “India’s Role and Presence in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions”, asks what India’s narrative on the Arctic actually is. The tension it exposes is that India holds a 1920 treaty entitlement, a permanent research station and a national Arctic Policy, yet funds Arctic activity at a level that contradicts every one of those claims.

    What is the Svalbard Treaty of 1920 and what does it give India?

    1. The instrument: The Svalbard Treaty of 1920 recognises Norwegian sovereignty over the Svalbard archipelago while granting all signatory states equal rights of access and economic activity there.
    2. India’s standing: India, then part of the British Dominion, was among the original 14 signatories of the Treaty.
    3. The practical entitlement: The Treaty entitles an Indian to visit Svalbard, an archipelago located between mainland Norway and the North Pole, without a visa and to engage in commercial ventures.
    4. What India built on it: India remains one of only two developing countries with a permanent scientific presence in the region, through the Himadri research station at Ny-Alesund in Svalbard.

    What is India’s Arctic Policy of 2022?

    1. The framework: India notified an Arctic Policy in 2022, setting out its objectives across science, climate and environmental protection, economic and human development, transportation and connectivity, governance and international cooperation, and capacity building.
    2. The gap it left: The Policy provided the framework but India still lacks a dedicated senior official responsible for Arctic affairs.

    What is the Arctic and Indian monsoon teleconnection?

    1. The mechanism: Rapid Arctic warming and declining sea ice alter atmospheric circulation patterns, and those altered patterns influence monsoon behaviour across South Asia.
    2. What it affects: The chain runs from Arctic ice loss to rainfall patterns, agricultural productivity, food security and economic growth in India.

    Why does the Arctic matter to India’s climate security?

    1. Monsoon dependence is structural: India’s dependence on the monsoon remains profound, with nearly 70 percent of India’s annual rainfall coming from the southwest monsoon.
    2. The economic base at risk: Agriculture still accounts for roughly 18 percent of India’s gross domestic product and supports more than half of its population.
    3. The scientific link is now established: Scientific studies increasingly point to an Arctic and Indian monsoon teleconnection, so Arctic ice loss is a direct input into Indian rainfall variability.
    4. Sea-level rise is the second pillar: The Arctic is a major contributor to global sea-level rise, and on current trends entire low-lying island states such as the Maldives face existential threats.
    5. The regional exposure: Large parts of Bangladesh and significant stretches of India’s coastline could experience recurrent flooding and displacement, with more than 250 million people in vulnerable coastal regions of South Asia affected by mid-century.
    6. The security consequence: Large-scale climate-induced migration from neighbouring regions would create humanitarian, social and security challenges of an unprecedented order, which moves the Arctic out of the environmental file and into the security file.

    Why has the Arctic become a geopolitical arena rather than only a scientific one?

    1. India’s partners are Arctic states: Two of India’s closest strategic partners, the United States and Russia, are Arctic nations, so Arctic policy is inseparable from India’s core bilateral relationships.
    2. The adversary is already inside: China, described as India’s principal long-term adversary, has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, research and shipping despite being an extra-regional state.
    3. The convergence of stakes: The Arctic is emerging as a battleground for major powers, with maritime access, energy security and critical mineral supply chains intersecting in the same space.
    4. India’s existing goodwill: India maintains friendly relations with other Arctic nations, evident in the recent India-Nordic Summit.
    5. The unanswered question: The open issue is whether India is prepared to engage at a scale commensurate with the interests it has declared.

    What does China’s polar build-up show about the scale India is not matching?

    1. China, acquisition then indigenisation: China acquired a second-hand icebreaker from Ukraine and then developed indigenous icebreaker building capability from it.
    2. China, current fleet: China today operates several polar-capable vessels, giving it access to the wider Arctic Ocean that India lacks.
    3. China, the next tier: China is the second country after Russia to be building a nuclear icebreaker, which is the class of asset that permits sustained independent high-latitude operations.
    4. China, non-vessel presence: China has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure, research and shipping despite having no Arctic coastline of its own.
    5. Russia and the United States, incumbency: Both are Arctic littoral states and therefore hold rights in the region by geography rather than by treaty accession, which is the position India can never occupy.

    What structural gaps does the Committee identify in India’s Arctic engagement?

    1. Fragmented ownership: Responsibility for Arctic affairs is fragmented across multiple divisions of the Ministry of External Affairs, with Arctic states and Arctic Council matters handled by four different territorial and functional divisions.
    2. No single point of accountability: The fragmentation makes a coherent whole-of-government Arctic engagement difficult, and India still lacks a dedicated senior official responsible for Arctic affairs despite having had an Arctic Policy since 2022.
    3. No ice-class vessel: Without an ice-class research vessel, India’s scientific footprint in the Arctic remains largely confined to Svalbard.
    4. Dependence on others for access: Access to the wider Arctic Ocean depends on collaboration with foreign partners and on the availability of chartered vessels.
    5. The vessel that never arrived: An indigenous Polar Research Vessel (PRV), a dedicated ice-capable ship required for meaningful pan-Arctic research, was sanctioned in 2014 and is expected to be delivered only towards the end of this decade.

    Why does the funding figure undercut the stated policy?

    1. The headline number: India spent just Rs 17.53 crore on Arctic activities in 2024-25.
    2. The internal comparison: That is less than one-tenth of India’s expenditure on Antarctica, despite the Arctic carrying the monsoon and sea-level linkages.
    3. The external comparison: It is less than the cost of building a single kilometre of a flyover.
    4. The exposure it is set against: The same region affects sea-level rise along India’s 11,098 km coastline and is simultaneously a climate and a geopolitical hotspot.
    5. The contradiction stated: If the Arctic warrants a national policy, a dedicated parliamentary study and repeated diplomatic engagement with Arctic states, the budgetary commitment suggests the opposite conclusion.

    Conclusion

    India’s Arctic problem is not an absence of standing but an absence of capability matched to that standing. A 1920 treaty entitlement, a permanent station at Ny-Alesund and a 2022 Arctic Policy establish the claim, while four scattered ministry divisions, no dedicated official, no ice-class vessel and Rs 17.53 crore a year establish the limit. The Parliamentary panel has identified the gaps, and the outstanding task is the conversion of policy into capability.

    “[2018, GS1, 10 marks] Why is India taking keen interest in resources of Arctic Region?”

  • An institution in freefall: Parliament is all dressed up with nowhere to go

    Why in the News

    The recently concluded session of Parliament ended in sustained disruption rather than debate, with sitting time, public money and scrutiny all lost. The deadlock has exposed a single conflict: disruption is now the Opposition’s only means of being heard, and it is also what is emptying the institution of purpose.

    Which parliamentary instruments does disruption trade away, and what replaces them?

    1. Question Hour: The first hour of a sitting is set aside for members to question ministers on the working of their departments. Supplementary questions asked on the floor are the point of pressure, since the minister cannot prepare for them in advance.
    2. Zero Hour: The period immediately after Question Hour allows a member to raise a constituency or local matter without prior notice. It is an Indian innovation and finds no mention in the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
    3. Rule 377: Rule 377 lets a member place on record a matter of public importance that no other procedural device covers. The member reads a short submission, no discussion follows, and the concerned ministry responds separately.
    4. Debate on a bill: Members place their views on a bill on record before the House votes on it. A bill passed amid noise goes through without that record ever being created.
    5. Calling attention motion: Under Rule 197 a member draws a minister’s attention to a matter of urgent public importance, and the minister must make a statement in reply. It is a one member device and needs no supporting members.
    6. Adjournment motion: Under Rule 56 a member seeks to set aside the entire day’s listed business to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance. Fifty members must rise when the Chair reads the notice, and the motion ends in a vote.
    7. Short duration discussion: Under Rule 193 a member with two supporters seeks a discussion on an urgent matter of public importance, running to no more than two and a half hours. It concludes without a vote.
    8. No confidence motion: Under Rule 198 a member of the Lok Sabha moves against the entire Council of Ministers, and fifty members must rise for leave to be granted. It states no reasons and is decided by a simple majority of members present and voting.
    9. Rule 373 and Rule 374: Under Rule 373 the Speaker directs a grossly disorderly member to withdraw for the remainder of the day’s sitting. Under Rule 374 the Speaker names a member who persistently obstructs business, and the House then votes on suspension.
    10. Rule 374A: Inserted in 2001, it suspends a member automatically for five consecutive sittings or the remainder of the session, whichever is less, for entering the well or persisting in disorder after a warning. No motion is moved and no vote is taken.

    Why has the working relationship between government and Opposition broken down?

    1. Courtesy across the benches: Atal Bihari Vajpayee recounted the courtesy shown to him by the first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, when he sat as a young Opposition backbencher. That civility operated independently of political disagreement.
    2. Care extended to a political rival: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi arranged for the same Opposition member to receive medical treatment in the United States.
    3. An Opposition member sent to represent India: Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao despatched that Opposition member to Geneva to represent India at a critical United Nations (UN) summit on Kashmir.
    4. Mutual demonisation: Each side now claims sole possession of virtue and writes the other off as beyond redemption. Dissent is branded anti national by the ruling side.
    5. The Opposition’s self image: The Opposition presents itself as an outnumbered force fighting a ruthless and better resourced establishment, using the Mahabharata’s image of the Pandavas ranged against the Kauravas.
    6. The presumption of good faith: Democratic functioning rests on the belief that a rival cares about national welfare even where it disagrees profoundly on method. Treating adversaries as existential enemies removes the common ground that governance requires.

    Is disruption the Opposition’s last instrument of accountability or the thing destroying Parliament?

    1. Disruption as the only remaining lever: An Opposition refused a hearing on the issues it names has no procedural route left, so it withholds the House’s ability to function at all. The tactic is defended as the enforcement of executive accountability.
    2. The same tactic as the injury: Every sitting lost to organised shouting removes the scrutiny the Opposition claims to be defending. The instrument and the damage are the same act.
    3. The case argued from the Opposition benches: The charge that disruption is hollowing out Parliament is pressed by a fourth term Opposition member of the Lok Sabha, not from the treasury benches. It places the Opposition’s own tactic under scrutiny by someone who depends on it.
    4. Reciprocal hypocrisy: Leaders who championed parliamentary obstruction as a vital accountability tool in Opposition treated it as an unpardonable sin once in office. The Opposition, having suffered those tactics for years, rejects the argument now made against them.
    5. The operating code: The reciprocity of the traditional golden rule has been replaced by a rule of retaliation, doing to the other side what was done to one’s own.
    6. A collective failure: The breakdown of democratic trust cannot be assigned to one side. Both have used the same instrument and both have condemned it from the opposite bench.

    Why does poor parliamentary performance carry no electoral cost?

    1. Re-election turns on other things: Members are elected and re-elected for reasons that have almost nothing to do with their performance in the House. Voters judge them on constituency services rendered and on raw local political strength.
    2. Debating skill has no electoral value: The ability to press a minister during Question Hour or to take apart a flawed bill does not convert into votes. That removes any incentive to acquire the skill.
    3. Talent has moved to the studio: The debating ability that would once have been displayed on the floor of the House is now displayed in television studios. The audience that rewards it is not in the chamber.
    4. Party whips direct the disruption: Members are corralled into the well of the House to disrupt proceedings through organised shouting rather than reasoned debate. The instruction comes from the party, not from the individual member.
    5. Parties reward aggression over excellence: By issuing that instruction, party leaderships signal that partisan aggression is valued far above parliamentary skill. The signal then shapes who rises within the party.

    What is lost when the politics of the street occupies the space of parliamentary politics?

    1. Two distinct political skills: Parties once valued mass mobilisation, the politics of the street, and debating prowess, the politics of Parliament, as separate competences. Leaders were assessed on both.
    2. One has displaced the other: The politics of the street has moved inside the chamber, leaving the politics of Parliament with no place to operate.
    3. Consequence for national consensus: Democratic discourse is impoverished and agreement across parties on any question of national progress becomes unattainable.
    4. Committees still function: Substantive work continues in parliamentary committees, which meet away from the media glare and without cameras. The absence of cameras removes the premium that disruptive grandstanding otherwise carries.
    5. What the public actually sees: The visible record is disruption, the absence of dialogue and a complete breakdown in communication. Disillusionment with the functioning of Parliament is rife across the country.

    How has the executive reduced Parliament’s place in the constitutional scheme?

    1. Contempt for the legislature: The government prefers to ride roughshod over the Opposition rather than engage it, and treats accommodation of even some of its demands as unnecessary.
    2. Attendance of the head of government: The first Prime Minister attended Parliament daily and treated it as the beating heart of Indian democracy. The current Prime Minister is rarely present in the House.
    3. From consultative chamber to noticeboard: Parliament’s function has shifted from deliberation to the announcement of decisions the executive has already taken.
    4. From scrutiny to legalisation: The House is used to give legal form to those decisions rather than to test them. That converts the vote into a formality.
    5. Custodians permitting the hollowing out: The institution is being emptied of purpose by the very people responsible for protecting it. The end point is a public that no longer misses it once it is rendered meaningless.

    Do other parliamentary democracies show that guaranteed Opposition time is workable?

    1. The comparative reference is general: The proposal of dedicated Opposition time is described only as successfully used elsewhere, with no country named and no design detail supplied. The comparative case therefore rests on the standing practice of other Westminster legislatures.
    2. United Kingdom, Opposition Days: Standing Order No. 14 of the House of Commons reserves twenty days in each session for Opposition business. Seventeen are at the disposal of the Leader of the Opposition and three at the disposal of the second largest Opposition party.
    3. Canada, allotted days: The House of Commons sets aside a fixed number of allotted days in each supply period on which an Opposition party chooses the subject of debate. A motion moved on such a day may be made votable.
    4. Australia, Matter of Public Importance: The House of Representatives sets aside time on sitting days for a Matter of Public Importance proposed in writing to the Speaker. The discussion is time limited and ends without a vote.
    5. The common design feature: In each case the time is fixed by standing order rather than negotiated session by session. The Opposition’s access does not depend on the government’s willingness in a given week.

    What would restore the balance between contestation and cooperation?

    1. Conviction during elections, cooperation after: Democratic functioning requires fierce ideological conviction at the time of an election and active cooperation once the ballots are cast.
    2. National interest above partisan rivalry: Where both sides concur that national interests outrank party rivalries, governance shifts from zero sum obstructionism to constructive collaboration.
    3. Not an abandonment of ideology: The approach requires no party to give up its ideology or its principles. Parties offer different routes to the same destination of national welfare, safety and prosperity.
    4. A fixed slot for the Opposition: Granting the Opposition one day a week, or two hours a day, to raise any issue it deems essential would let the rest of Parliament’s business proceed undisturbed.
    5. The missing ingredient is willingness: The compromise needs no constitutional amendment and no new institution. It needs a government prepared to imagine and concede the time.

    Conclusion

    Parliament’s decline is a failure of the presumption of good faith between government and Opposition, not a failure of procedure, and disruption has become both the Opposition’s only instrument and the agent of the institution’s hollowing out. The remedy identified is small and does not require a constitutional change. It requires guaranteed time in which the Opposition can be heard, and a government willing to concede it. Without that concession the House will continue to meet, pass bills and adjourn, and the deliberative function that gives it authority will not survive.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017] The Parliament of India exercises control over the functions of the Council of Ministers through 1. Adjournment motion 2. Question hour 3. Supplementary questions Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: (d)”

    “[2020] Consider the following statements: 1. The President of India can summon a session of the Parliament at such place as he/she thinks fit. 2. The Constitution of India provides for three sessions of the Parliament in a year, but it is not mandatory to conduct all three sessions. 3. There is no minimum number of days of that the Parliament is required to meet in a year. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 2 and 3 only Answer: (c)”

    “[2014] Consider the following statements regarding a No-Confidence Motion in India: 1. There is no mention of a No-Confidence Motion in the Constitution of India. 2. A motion of No-Confidence can be introduced in the Lok Sabha only. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: (c)”

    “[2021, GS2, 10 marks] To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?”

    “[2019, GS2, 15 marks] Individual Parliamentarian’s role as the national lawmaker is on a decline, which in turn, has adversely impacted the quality of debates and their outcome. Discuss.”

    “[2024, GS2, 10 marks] “The growth of cabinet system has practically resulted in the marginalisation of the parliamentary supremacy.” Elucidate.”

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] The role of individual MPs (Members of Parliament) has diminished over the years and as a result healthy constructive debates on policy issues are not usually witnessed. How far can this be attributed to the anti-defection law, which was legislated but with a different intention?”

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: A Palestinian state is the foundation for regional peace

    Question (2018, GS2): “India’s relations with Israel have, of late, acquired a depth and diversity, which cannot be rolled back. Discuss.”
    Linkage: This question directly evaluates India’s strategic partnership with Israel. Historically, India’s West Asia policy was heavily anchored in support for the Palestinian cause and the two-state solution. This question asks candidates to analyze how India’s relations with Israel have de-hyphenated from its stance on Palestine, expanding into robust defense, agricultural, and technological cooperation.

    Mentor Comment:

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, established a Board of Peace for Gaza, and its annex acknowledges a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood once Gaza redevelopment advances and Palestinian Authority reform is carried out. The tension this exposes is that every subsidiary conflict in West Asia turns on a Palestinian state that the war since October 2023 has pushed further out of reach.

    What is the two-state solution, and what does it actually require?

    1. Core formula: The two-state solution proposes two sovereign states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in defined borders with mutual recognition.
    2. The asymmetry inside the phrase: One of the two states already exists, so the operative task is not maintaining a balance but creating a second state that does not yet exist.
    3. The three qualifying tests: A Palestinian state must be sovereign, independent and viable, meaning it must control its own territory, conduct its own external relations and possess an economic base capable of sustaining a state.
    4. The claimed consequence: Peace and stability in the region are treated as unattainable until this second state comes into being.

    What is Resolution 2803 and the Board of Peace?

    1. Instrument: United Nations Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted in November 2025, set up a Board of Peace (BoP) as the transitional oversight mechanism for the Gaza Strip.
    2. The statehood clause: Its annex states that while Gaza redevelopment advances and the Palestinian Authority (PA) reform programme is faithfully carried out, conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.

    Why are the region’s separate conflicts treated as one unresolved question?

    1. Gaza: Israel’s war on Gaza is framed not as a discrete security operation but as the most violent expression of an unsettled sovereignty question.
    2. Hezbollah: Hezbollah began launching rockets and missiles at Israel immediately after Israel’s Gaza campaign opened following 7 October 2023, tying the northern front directly to the Palestinian question.
    3. Iran: The Iran war, Iranian arms supply to Hezbollah and Iranian hostility to Israel are held to rest on the denial of Palestinian self-determination rather than on theological difference.
    4. The Houthi factor: The Houthi phenomenon in the Red Sea is treated as a further derivative of the same unresolved dispute.
    5. Arab normalisation: Israel’s relations with its Arab neighbours will remain strained until it accepts the reality of a Palestinian state, in the same way Arab states have reconciled to the reality of Israel.
    6. The secondary issues: Once an irreversible road map to Palestinian statehood is accepted by all parties, disputes such as freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz become far easier to resolve.

    What are the historical roots of regional hostility towards Israel?

    1. The Balfour Declaration, 1917: British support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine expressly limited the indigenous Arab population to civil and religious rights, converting a holy land claim into a homeland project.
    2. The founding grievance: Hostility rests on the fact that Israel was created and imposed on the region at the expense of the indigenous Arab population.
    3. The 1947 partition offer: Palestinians were offered a state under the United Nations resolution of 1947 and on later occasions and rejected each offer, a record an Israeli Foreign Minister summarised as the Arabs never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
    4. The counter-reading of that rejection: Rejection of a partial offer by a party that holds the underlying title is treated as a defensible refusal rather than as proof of intransigence, since the Zionist slogan itself described the territory as land without people for a people without land.
    5. The Holocaust and western guilt: Israel’s creation is attributed substantially to the Holocaust and to the sense of guilt felt by western countries, most of which, including the United States, had barred the entry of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany.
    6. No inherited religious enmity: Islam and Judaism carry no record of perpetual enmity, since the Koran names prophets and patriarchs from the Hebrew bible including Moses and Abraham, the Crusades were fought between Muslims and Christians with Jews not party to them, Jews were persecuted in countries professing Christianity, and the Arabs bore no responsibility for the Holocaust carried out by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.

    Why does a Shia axis support a Sunni movement?

    1. The alignment: Hezbollah, a Shia movement, and Iran, a Shia-majority country, both support Hamas, a Sunni movement.
    2. The explanation: The alignment rests on a shared commitment to the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people rather than on sectarian affinity.
    3. Where Israel sits in that logic: Israel attracts hostility as the only power standing in the way of an independent Palestine, not as a religious adversary.
    4. Iran was not always hostile: Under the Shah, Iran’s relations with Israel were cordial and a sizeable Jewish community lived in Iran.
    5. The residual community: About 15,000 Jews remain in Iran, and Iran’s Constitution reserves a seat for the Jewish community in Parliament.
    6. The conditional off-ramp: If Israel accepts a Palestinian state, Hezbollah loses its stated reason to disrupt life in northern Israel and Iran loses its reason to supply Hezbollah with weapons.

    Why has the war since October 2023 pushed statehood further away rather than closer?

    1. Collapse of domestic support: Whatever limited support existed within Israel for the concept of a Palestinian state has evaporated since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israeli civilians in October 2023.
    2. The cost of the response: Israel’s disproportionate and ruthless strikes on Gaza after 7 October have almost isolated Israel internationally.
    3. The physical precondition destroyed: The Gaza Strip has been devastated, and with it the territorial and administrative base on which a Palestinian state would have to be built.
    4. The time horizon pushed out: The possibility of Palestine emerging has receded by many years and possibly decades.
    5. The resulting deadlock: Peace and stability in the region have become an illusion precisely because the instrument that was to deliver security has removed the conditions for a settlement.
    6. The development cost: Without peace and stability, the region’s people cannot realise the development potential that new technologies offer.

    Why is external mediation, not bilateral negotiation, the only viable route?

    1. The bargaining asymmetry: The stronger side normally insists on a bilateral approach and the weaker side prefers an outside agency, which is why Israel has insisted on bilateral talks while simultaneously saying there is no one on the other side to negotiate with.
    2. The only power with leverage: The United States is the only external power with the required influence and residual goodwill with both sides.
    3. The honest broker objection answered: No broker is genuinely honest, but even a non-honest broker can sell a transaction to the satisfaction, or the equal dissatisfaction, of both parties.
    4. The single precedent that worked: The only period of real progress came with the Oslo Accord of 1993, negotiated through the mediation and good offices of Norway.
    5. What Oslo produced: Under Oslo the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formally recognised Israel and the Palestinian Authority was created, and it is a reformed version of that Authority that is now proposed as a caretaker government of Palestine.
    6. Oslo’s downstream effects: The Accords paved the way for Jordan’s recognition of Israel and eventually for the Abraham Accords.
    7. The second broker: The United Nations remains the other viable mediator, and although Israel has declared the United Nations Secretary-General persona non grata, Israel owes its existence to the United Nations, and positions in international relations evolve with situations.
    8. The leadership obstacle: The current Israeli Prime Minister voted against the Oslo Accords and remains opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state.

    Conclusion

    The West Asian conflict system is not a set of separate wars but one unresolved sovereignty question, and every subsidiary conflict persists because a sovereign, independent and viable Palestinian state has not been created. Resolution 2803 has restored a conditional pathway to statehood in Security Council language, but the material base for that state in Gaza has been destroyed. What remains unaddressed is the absence of leadership on any side willing to accept mediation and convert a conditional pathway into an irreversible road map.

    What is the Right of Self-Determination in International Law?

    1. About: Self-determination is the right of a people to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
    2. Rationale: It exists to convert the political fact of a distinct people under external or alien rule into a legal claim, so that statehood does not depend solely on the consent of the controlling power.
    3. Charter basis: It is recorded in Article 1(2) and Article 55 of the United Nations Charter and in Common Article 1 of the two 1966 International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
    4. External self-determination: The right of a people to determine its international status, including independence, association or integration with another state.
    5. Internal self-determination: The right of a people to choose its own government and to pursue development within an existing state, without a claim to secession.
    6. Uti possidetis juris: The principle that new states inherit the administrative boundaries existing at the moment of independence, which limits the redrawing of borders by force.

    Key Concerns Regarding the Right of Self-Determination

    1. Conflict with territorial integrity: The right runs directly against the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, and international law provides no settled test for which prevails.
    2. No agreed definition of a people: There is no accepted legal test for what constitutes a people entitled to the right, which allows both over-claiming and denial.
    3. Selective recognition: Recognition of statehood is a political act by individual states, so identical factual situations attract different outcomes depending on great power alignment.
    4. Enforcement gap: A recognised right of self-determination carries no enforcement mechanism where the controlling power is protected by a Security Council veto.
    5. Viability threshold: A territory may satisfy the legal criteria for statehood yet lack contiguous territory, revenue base or control over borders, leaving nominal sovereignty without effective sovereignty.

    Key Milestones in the Palestine Question

    1. 1917: The Balfour Declaration records British support for a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine.
    2. 1947: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 proposes partition of Mandate Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state with Jerusalem under international administration.
    3. 1948: The State of Israel is declared, followed by the first Arab-Israeli war.
    4. 1967: The Six Day War brings the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and Sinai under Israeli control, and Security Council Resolution 242 sets out the land for peace principle.
    5. 1993: The Oslo Accord, mediated by Norway, brings mutual recognition between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization and creates the Palestinian Authority.
    6. 1994: Jordan recognises Israel, following Egypt’s earlier recognition under the 1979 peace treaty.
    7. 2012: The United Nations General Assembly upgrades Palestine to a non-member observer State.
    8. 2020: The Abraham Accords normalise Israel’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, later extended to further states.
    9. 2025: Security Council Resolution 2803 creates the Board of Peace for Gaza and records a conditional pathway to Palestinian statehood.

    India’s Position on Palestine and the Two-State Solution

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx

    1. Long-standing principled support: India maintains a long-standing principled support for the Palestinian cause and for a negotiated two-state solution.
    2. De-hyphenation: India separates its Israel policy from its Palestine policy, engaging each on its own terms rather than treating support for one as opposition to the other.
    3. Recognition timeline: India recognised the State of Israel in 1950 but withheld full diplomatic relations for four decades, shaped by its support for the Palestinian cause, its ties with Arab states and its energy dependence on West Asia.
    4. Normalisation in 1992: Full diplomatic relations were established in January 1992, in the post-Cold War context and alongside India’s economic liberalisation.
    5. The 2017 signal: The first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel, in July 2017, elevated the relationship to a Strategic Partnership and notably did not include Ramallah, which signalled de-hyphenation.
    6. Voting record: India has continued to vote for Palestinian causes at the United Nations even while deepening its ties with Israel.
    7. The Gulf balance: India’s energy imports, remittance inflows and a large diaspora in Gulf states require its Israel ties to be balanced against Arab partners.
    8. Strategic autonomy: India frames the Israel relationship as issue-based cooperation and not as alignment against any third party.

    Back2Basics: The Palestinian Authority

    1. Origin: The Palestinian Authority was created under the 1993 Oslo Accord as an interim self-governing body for parts of the West Bank and Gaza.
    2. Parent body: It was established by the Palestine Liberation Organization, which formally recognised Israel under the same Accord.
    3. Mandate: It exercises civil and, in designated areas, security administration, with the Oslo framework dividing the West Bank into Areas A, B and C by degree of Palestinian and Israeli control.
    4. Interim design: It was designed as a transitional arrangement pending a final status agreement covering borders, Jerusalem, refugees and settlements, which was never concluded.
    5. Current relevance: A reformed Palestinian Authority is the body named in Resolution 2803 as the vehicle through which a pathway to statehood would run.
    6. Territorial split: Its writ has not extended to Gaza since the 2007 split with Hamas, which is itself a constraint on any single Palestinian government.

    Challenges to a Two-State Settlement

    1. Absence of contiguous territory: A viable Palestinian state requires territorial contiguity that settlement expansion has progressively removed, e.g. the West Bank’s division into Areas A, B and C leaves Palestinian-administered zones as separated enclaves.
    2. Physical destruction of the state base: Reconstruction must precede governance, since the administrative and economic base has been destroyed, e.g. the devastation of the Gaza Strip after the campaign that followed 7 October 2023.
    3. Divided Palestinian leadership: No single Palestinian authority commands both territories, e.g. the Palestinian Authority governs parts of the West Bank while Gaza has been under Hamas control since 2007.
    4. Collapse of political constituencies: Domestic support for a Palestinian state has evaporated inside Israel, e.g. the shift in Israeli opinion after the Hamas attack on Israeli civilians in October 2023.
    5. Leadership opposition at the top: The settlement requires assent from leaders personally committed against it, e.g. the current Israeli Prime Minister voted against the Oslo Accords and remains opposed to Palestinian statehood.
    6. Veto-protected deadlock: Security Council action is constrained by permanent member vetoes, e.g. repeated vetoes of ceasefire and membership resolutions have prevented enforceable outcomes.
    7. Spoiler incentives on both flanks: Armed actors gain standing from continued conflict and lose it from a settlement, e.g. Hezbollah’s rocket campaign against northern Israel began only after the Gaza war opened.
    8. Refugee and Jerusalem questions unresolved: Final status issues deferred at Oslo remain untouched, e.g. the right of return and the status of East Jerusalem were left to a final agreement that was never negotiated.

    Way Forward

    1. Convert the conditional clause into a road map: Translate the Resolution 2803 annex language on a credible pathway into a sequenced, dated and irreversible road map accepted by all parties.
    2. Restore a single Palestinian administration: Complete the Palestinian Authority reform programme so that one reformed administration can serve as a caretaker government across both territories.
    3. Anchor mediation in an external broker: Retain United States mediation, supplemented by United Nations involvement, rather than allowing a return to bilateral talks that the bargaining asymmetry makes unproductive.
    4. Sequence reconstruction with governance: Tie Gaza reconstruction financing to the standing up of civil administration, policing and revenue functions, so that physical rebuilding creates state capacity rather than only shelter.
    5. Use regional normalisation as leverage: Make further Arab normalisation with Israel conditional on measurable progress on the statehood pathway, so the Abraham Accords framework reinforces rather than bypasses the Palestinian question.
    6. Sustain India’s dual-track engagement: Maintain principled support for a negotiated two-state solution alongside development assistance to Palestine and cooperation with Israel, which protects India’s standing across West Asia.

    “[2018] The term “two-state solution” is sometimes mentioned in the news in the context of the affairs of (a) China (b) Israel (c) Iraq (d) Yemen Answer: (b)”

  • India to build hospital in West Bank, seeks to deploy field hospital in Gaza

    Why in the News

    India and Palestine broke ground on 19 August for a 200 seat super speciality hospital in Arrabeh city in the Jenin Governorate of the northern West Bank, during the first high level Indian visit to the affected region since the conflict broke out in October 2023. India simultaneously sought the deployment of an Indian field hospital in the Gaza Strip and reiterated its support for a negotiated two state solution. Palestine used the visit to back India's bid for a non permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for 2028 to 2029.

    What does India's development package for Palestine cover?

    1. The hospital: A 200 seat super speciality hospital funded by India, to be built in Arrabeh city in the Jenin Governorate of the northern West Bank, with construction work launched jointly on 19 August.
    2. The field hospital: India has sought the deployment of an Indian field hospital in the Gaza Strip, discussed with Palestinian officials during the visit.
    3. Health sector support: Essential medicines and anti cancer drugs, an Artificial Limb Fitment Camp, and a consignment of medicines handed over to the Palestinian Ministry of Health during the visit.
    4. Beyond health: A vocational training centre, the provision of artificial limbs for amputees in Gaza, and talks on medical equipment including dialysis machines, some of which are expected to be moved into Palestine through Jordan.

    What is the two state solution?

    1. The proposition: It is the framework under which an independent State of Palestine would exist alongside the State of Israel, with agreed borders, security arrangements and a settlement on Jerusalem and refugees.
    2. India's position on it: India supports a negotiated two state solution, and has restated that position through every phase of the current conflict.

    What did the Ramallah visit deliver?

    1. The rank of the visit: The Secretary in charge of Consular, Passport, Visa and Overseas Indian Affairs in the Ministry of External Affairs is the highest ranking Indian diplomat to visit the West Bank since the attack of 7 October 2023.
    2. Where it took place: Ramallah, the administrative headquarters of the Palestinian Authority, with a meeting held there with the Palestinian Foreign Minister.
    3. The officials met: The Minister of Health and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the State of Palestine, and a call on the Prime Minister of Palestine on 19 August.
    4. The positions restated: India's consistent support for the Palestinian people, its support for a negotiated two state solution, and a pitch for addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza.
    5. The deliverable launched: The groundbreaking ceremony for the super speciality hospital in Jenin, carried out jointly by the Indian and Palestinian teams.
    6. What Palestine asked for: The Palestinian Ambassador to India said Palestine welcomes New Delhi's help towards key infrastructure projects in the region.

    Why does Palestine's backing of India's UNSC bid matter?

    1. The specific endorsement: The Palestinian Ambassador to India said Palestine backs India's bid for a non permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council for the 2028 to 2029 term.
    2. The wider position stated: Palestine has appealed, as a country of the global South, for India to be among the countries holding a permanent seat on a reformed Council.
    3. The reasoning offered: The endorsement was tied to India's global standing as a major economy and a political power.
    4. What Palestine seeks in return: Palestinians hope India will use its influence, including its ties with Israel, to push forward the peace process.
    5. Why it counts in a Council election: A non permanent seat requires a two thirds majority in the General Assembly, so endorsements from within the Asia Pacific group and the wider global South build the coalition a candidacy needs.

    How does India balance its Palestine policy with its Israel ties?

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx, supplemented

    1. The stated policy: India maintains long standing principled support for the Palestinian cause and a two state solution, balanced against deepening ties with Israel, a policy described as the de hyphenation of Israel from Palestine.
    2. When de hyphenation was signalled: The first ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in July 2017 elevated the relationship to a Strategic Partnership, and notably did not include Ramallah.
    3. What the Israel relationship carries: Israel is among India's top defence suppliers alongside Russia, France and the United States, with merchandise trade anchored in diamonds, chemicals, defence equipment, high technology and agriculture, and a Free Trade Agreement under negotiation.
    4. Where the friction sits: Reports of Indian military shipments to Israel during the Gaza conflict draw domestic and diaspora criticism, and India's energy imports, remittances and large diaspora in the Gulf require careful balancing of Israel ties with Arab partners.
    5. How India frames it: India describes the relationship as issue based cooperation rather than alignment against any third party, which is its strategic autonomy formulation.
    6. What the present visit adds, supplemented: Restoring a high level Indian presence in Ramallah after nearly three years, and pairing it with a physical asset in the West Bank, gives the Palestine half of the balance a visible deliverable rather than a stated position alone.

    Challenges to India's engagement in Palestine

    1. Physical access to Gaza: A field hospital cannot be deployed without a functioning crossing and security guarantees from the parties in control of it. e.g. medical equipment including dialysis machines is expected to reach Palestine only through Jordan.
    2. Construction in a contested territory: Building in the northern West Bank exposes a project to demolition orders, permit refusals and military operations. e.g. the Jenin Governorate, where the Arrabeh hospital is sited, has been the site of repeated large scale Israeli operations.
    3. Balancing against defence ties with Israel: Visible development assistance to Palestine sits beside a defence relationship with Israel that domestic critics read as inconsistent. e.g. reports of Indian military shipments to Israel during the Gaza conflict drawing domestic and diaspora criticism.
    4. Fiscal and delivery capacity of the Palestinian Authority: A completed hospital requires recurrent staffing and operating budgets from an authority under fiscal stress. e.g. the vocational training centre and artificial limb programmes also depend on Palestinian institutions for continuity after handover.
    5. Gulf balance: India's energy imports, remittances and a large diaspora in Gulf states constrain how far it can lean toward either party. e.g. India's calibrated positions at the United Nations through successive phases of the Gaza conflict.
    6. Dependence on a stalled peace process: Development assistance cannot substitute for a political settlement, so the same infrastructure is at risk in the next round of hostilities. e.g. the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor, announced at the 2023 G20 New Delhi Summit, whose progress regional conflict has slowed.
    7. Competing donor crowding: Reconstruction finance in Gaza and the West Bank is dominated by much larger Gulf and Western donors, which limits the visibility of Indian contributions. e.g. India's assistance is delivered through discrete projects rather than through a large reconstruction fund.

    Conclusion

    India's Palestine policy has for two decades rested on a stated position on the two state solution, and this visit converts part of that position into physical assets in health and vocational training. Palestine's endorsement of India's non permanent Security Council candidature for 2028 to 2029, coupled with its request that India use its ties with Israel to advance the peace process, prices that assistance in diplomatic terms. The next milestones are the finalisation of modalities for the Gaza field hospital deployment and the completion of the Jenin hospital construction.

    India-Israel Relations

    Source: Backgrounder, India-Israel Relations Backgrounder.docx

    1. Recognition and normalisation: India recognised the State of Israel in 1950 but withheld full diplomatic relations for four decades, and full ties were established in January 1992, when India opened its embassy in Tel Aviv and Israel opened its mission in New Delhi.
    2. Elevation to Strategic Partnership: The relationship was elevated to a Strategic Partnership during the first ever visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Israel in July 2017, followed by a reciprocal visit by the Israeli Prime Minister in 2018.
    3. Defence as the anchor: Israel is among India's top defence suppliers, with cooperation covering the Barak-8 medium range surface to air missile jointly developed with the Defence Research and Development Organisation, Heron and Searcher unmanned aerial vehicles, Harop and Harpy loitering munitions, radars, electronic warfare systems and precision guided munitions.
    4. The Kargil precedent: Cooperation proved decisive during the 1999 Kargil conflict, when Israel supplied laser guided munitions and reconnaissance support at short notice.
    5. Trade profile: Bilateral trade grew from about 200 million United States dollars in 1992, largely diamonds, to several billion dollars diversified across refined petroleum, chemicals, textiles and machinery from India, and defence equipment, high technology, potash and fertilizers from Israel.
    6. Agriculture and water: The India Israel Agricultural Action Plan operates Centres of Excellence across Indian States transferring drip irrigation, precision farming and protected cultivation, alongside Israeli expertise in desalination and wastewater recycling.
    7. Minilateral and connectivity architecture: The I2U2 grouping of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the United States, launched in 2021 to 2022 for food security and clean energy, and the India Middle East Europe Economic Corridor announced at the 2023 G20 New Delhi Summit, with Israel as a key transit node.
    8. The Abraham Accords effect: The normalisation of Israel's ties with several Gulf states in 2020 eased India's balancing act between Israel and the Arab world.

    Key Facts about India and Palestine

    1. Early recognition of the PLO: India was the first non Arab state to recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, in 1974.
    2. Recognition of the State of Palestine: India recognised the State of Palestine in 1988.
    3. Representative Office: India opened its Representative Office to Palestine in Gaza in 1996, and shifted it to Ramallah in 2003.
    4. First Prime Ministerial visit: The first visit by an Indian Prime Minister to Palestine took place in February 2018, to Ramallah.
    5. Institutional gifts: Indian assistance has built the Palestine India Techno Park and a centre of excellence in information and communications technology at Al Quds University, along with a school in Abu Dis and support to the Palestine Institute of Diplomacy.
    6. Multilateral contributions: India contributes annually to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and extends training slots under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation programme to Palestinian officials.
    7. Voting record: India has consistently supported resolutions on Palestinian self determination at the United Nations General Assembly while abstaining on several resolutions that name parties for condemnation.

    Back2Basics: Non Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council

    1. What it is: The United Nations Security Council has fifteen members, five permanent with the veto and ten non permanent without it.
    2. Term: Non permanent members serve a term of two years and are not eligible for immediate re election.
    3. Who elects them: The United Nations General Assembly, by a two thirds majority of members present and voting.
    4. Regional distribution: The ten seats are allocated across the African group, the Asia Pacific group, the Latin American and Caribbean group, the Western European and Others group, and the Eastern European group, with five seats filled each year.
    5. India's record: India has served eight terms as a non permanent member, the most recent being 2021 to 2022, and is contesting the 2028 to 2029 term.
    6. What the seat carries: A non permanent member may preside over the Council in rotation, chair subsidiary bodies and sanctions committees, and vote on all resolutions, but holds no veto.
    7. The reform demand: India, along with Brazil, Germany and Japan in the G4 grouping, seeks permanent membership with expanded representation for Africa, Asia and Latin America.

    Way Forward

    1. Secure access guarantees for the Gaza field hospital: Modalities settled with all parties controlling the crossings are the precondition for deployment, without which the offer stays on paper.
    2. Build operating capacity alongside infrastructure: Pairing the Jenin hospital with training for Palestinian medical staff and a recurrent equipment supply line prevents a completed building without the workforce to run it.
    3. Route assistance through predictable channels: Formalising the Jordan transit route for medical equipment reduces the dependence on ad hoc clearances for each consignment.
    4. Sustain principled support for a two state solution: A consistent public position protects India's standing across West Asia irrespective of how the Israel relationship develops.
    5. Convert the Palestinian endorsement into a Council coalition: Following the endorsement with sustained outreach to the Asia Pacific group and the wider global South is what turns a statement of support into the two thirds majority the 2028 to 2029 election requires.
    6. Insulate long term cooperation from conflict cycles: Multi year funding commitments for health and vocational training projects prevent each round of hostilities resetting the assistance programme.
    7. Broaden beyond health: Extending assistance into water, agriculture and information technology training, where India already has delivery experience in Palestine, diversifies the partnership beyond a single sector.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018] The term "two-state solution" is sometimes mentioned in the news in the context of the affairs of (a) China (b) Israel (c) Iraq (d) Yemen Answer: (b)”

    # Compiled Articles, 20 August 2026 (Part 5, Items 25 to 30)

  • [20th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: The IISERs have a leadership problem

    Question (2014, GS2): “Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students? Discuss in light of the growing challenges.
    Linkage: This question directly addresses the central conflict in your prompt: the struggle of premier national science and technology institutes to maintain their academic independence and elite status when confronted with structural and administrative constraints.

    Mentor Comment

    Several of the seven Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research are operating under temporary, divided or incomplete leadership, with chairpersons holding simultaneous charge of two or three other institutions and nominated positions for eminent scientists lying vacant. The institutions were created to give students an intellectually vibrant research environment and prize autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, which sits against a statutory Board structure dominated by government officials and nominees.

    What are the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research?

    1. Why they were created: The Indian government created the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research (IISERs) to offer students an intellectually vibrant research environment and to bring them into research at a relatively early stage by the standards of the Indian system.
    2. What they prize: They treat autonomy as an essential ingredient of good science, specifically the ability of scientists to decide which questions are worth pursuing and with what resources, and top down control is inimical to that vision.
    3. Their statutory basis: They were brought within the framework of the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. How many there are: Seven IISERs are in operation, each with its own Board of Governors.

    How are IISER Boards of Governors constituted?

    1. The statutory requirement: The 2007 Act requires each IISER to have a Board of Governors that includes senior government officials and other government nominees.
    2. Named ex officio positions: The IISER statutes specify, among others, the secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru.
    3. The accountability rationale: Publicly funded science should be publicly accountable, which is the justification for the government presence on the Boards.
    4. Where the rationale runs out: Suboptimal appointments or outright vacancies are objectionable because they lead to policy paralysis at best, which is a failure of accountability rather than an exercise of it.

    What does the current composition of the seven Boards show?

    1. The IISc director’s spread: The director of the Indian Institute of Science is an ex officio member of most IISERs.
    2. IISER Pune: The chair of its Board is also the chairperson of the Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, Nagpur.
    3. IISER Berhampur: Its Board chair was given additional charge while also chairing the Board of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Guwahati. Nominated positions on the same Board lie vacant, including one for an Indian Institute of Technology director and two for eminent scientists.
    4. IISER Bhopal: Its current director is listed as director in charge, after the previous director left to join NITI Aayog in June.
    5. IISER Thiruvananthapuram: Its chairperson simultaneously chairs the Boards of the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Kottayam and the Indian Institute of Information Technology, Design and Manufacturing, Kurnool.
    6. The cumulative position: Interim appointments are routine and vacancies arise during transitions, and ex officio positions change when officials move between posts, but taken together several IISERs are operating under temporary or incomplete leadership.

    Who is leading India’s basic science institutions?

    1. IISER Pune’s chairperson: A retired Indian Administrative Service officer whose educational background is in commerce and journalism.
    2. IISER Pune’s director: A chemical engineer by training, whereas the IISERs have little focus on engineering.
    3. IISER Thiruvananthapuram’s chairperson: A surgeon.
    4. IISER Tirupati’s chairperson: A chemical engineer and the co founder of an industrial group.
    5. IISER Berhampur’s chairperson: An executive in the footwear industry.
    6. The measurable outcome: Going by awards, fellowships or global achievement and recognition, there are few outstanding scientists in positions of authority on the IISER Boards today.

    Why does the professional background of a chairperson matter for a basic science institution?

    1. There is no legal bar: No rule requires that the chairperson of a scientific institution must be a scientist.
    2. Why it matters regardless: It bears on each institution’s credibility and on its vision, both of which rest on who is seen to be setting the research direction.
    3. What the Boards do gain from outsiders: Expertise in administration, industry, finance and public policy is genuinely useful to a Board.
    4. What the case for scientists rests on: Institutions focused on basic science should draw their leadership from the scientific community, where many people combine distinguished research careers with substantial experience in running academic and research organisations.
    5. The practice that was dropped: The government had earlier appointed the finest scientists to the IISERs’ helm before discontinuing the practice.
    6. The question that actually arises: It is not whether the current leaders are competent, it is why India’s many accomplished scientists are not being asked to lead institutions whose central purpose is basic science.

    How does divided and interim leadership weaken institutional autonomy?

    1. Attention divided across institutions: Leaders whose attention is already split between two or three institutions cannot supply sustained direction to any one of them.
    2. Control shifting away from scientists: With outsiders and divided attention at the top, scientists have less control over decisions that affect their own work.
    3. Rotation instead of recruitment: The availability of a research cadre calls into question the practice of moving the same people between institutions rather than recruiting from the scientific community.
    4. Administration falling behind: People familiar with the IISERs’ functioning describe an administration losing its ability to keep up with students’ needs in respect of a good education in basic science.
    5. The internal assessment: A senior scientist at one of the IISERs described the position as one in which there is no vision or imagination and no sense of leadership propelling the institution towards its core goals of carrying out high quality frontier research in and teaching basic science at an international level.
    6. The powers that go unused: By design, the directors and the Board hold the power to institute positive changes, so the deficit is one of direction rather than of authority.

    Challenges to institutional autonomy in India’s basic science institutions

    1. Lagging decline masked by reputation: An institution whose governance has begun to decline can remain scientifically productive for years as long as the people who built its reputation remain and the institutional label is still valuable, which delays any corrective response. e.g. the IISERs continue to attract strong entrants through the joint admission route while several Boards run without full leadership.
    2. Concentration of authority: Weak collegial governance shifts decisions towards a small group at the top, reducing faculty participation in academic direction. e.g. the flagging of a risk of concentration of authority as a consequence of the IISERs’ present leadership arrangements.
    3. Risk averse research culture: Where leadership lacks a research background, funding and hiring decisions favour safe incremental work over frontier problems. e.g. the expectation of an increasingly risk averse institutional culture as the cumulative effect of the IISERs’ governance decline.
    4. Vacancies in nominated positions: Seats reserved for eminent scientists and institute directors go unfilled, removing the very expertise the statute intended the Board to carry. e.g. the IISER Berhampur Board, with one Indian Institute of Technology director position and two eminent scientist positions vacant.
    5. Interim leadership without a mandate: A director in charge cannot commit an institution to long horizon research investments. e.g. IISER Bhopal, run by a director in charge after the previous director left for NITI Aayog in June.
    6. Government nominee dominance: The statutory requirement of senior officials and nominees on the Board makes institutional direction dependent on the postings cycle of the civil service. e.g. the ex officio membership of the secretary of higher education on IISER Boards under the 2007 Act statutes.
    7. Underfunding of basic research: India’s gross expenditure on research and development remains below one per cent of gross domestic product, so institutional autonomy is further constrained by dependence on annual government grants. e.g. the persistent share of roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product against the two per cent and above spent by comparable research economies.
    8. Faculty attrition to better resourced systems: Weak governance and uncertain research support push early career scientists towards positions abroad or in the private sector. e.g. the reliance of schemes such as Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami fellowships on reversing exactly this outflow.

    Conclusion

    The IISERs were created on the premise that scientists deciding their own research questions produces better science than top down direction, and the statutory Board structure was the accountability counterweight to that autonomy. The counterweight has become the whole of it, with chairpersons drawn from outside the scientific community, ex officio members spread across several institutions, and seats reserved for eminent scientists left vacant. Restoring the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists to the helm, and filling the nominated positions the statutes already provide, requires no change in the law.

    Basic Scientific Research in India

    1. What it covers: Basic research is investigation directed at understanding fundamental phenomena without a specified application, distinguished from applied research and from experimental development.
    2. Institutional spread: It is conducted through the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research laboratories, the Department of Atomic Energy and Department of Space institutions, the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, the Indian Institute of Science, the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research and the central universities.
    3. Scale of national spending: India’s gross expenditure on research and development stands at roughly 0.64 per cent of gross domestic product, against about two per cent or more in most comparable research economies.
    4. Composition of that spending: The government accounts for the larger share of research spending in India, whereas in most leading research economies the private sector accounts for the bulk of it.
    5. Global standing on output: India ranks among the top three countries in the world by annual volume of scientific publications, and its citation impact remains below that publication rank.
    6. The IISER model: The IISERs were designed as a distinct category from the Indian Institutes of Technology, combining a five year integrated science programme with a research faculty, so that undergraduates enter laboratories early.
    7. The funding reform: The Anusandhan National Research Foundation, established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023, is intended to fund research across universities and colleges, with a substantial share of its corpus expected from non government sources.

    Government Initiatives for Science Education and Research

    1. Anusandhan National Research Foundation: Established under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation Act, 2023 as the apex body for seeding, growing and promoting research across the natural sciences, engineering, mathematics, environmental and earth sciences, health and agriculture, with a mandate to fund university and college research.
    2. INSPIRE: The Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research programme of the Department of Science and Technology offers scholarships to school students, undergraduate and postgraduate scholarships in the basic and natural sciences, and faculty fellowships.
    3. Kishore Vaigyanik Protsahan Yojana: A fellowship programme to identify and support students with an aptitude for research careers in the basic sciences, since merged into the INSPIRE stream.
    4. Ramanujan and Ramalingaswami Re entry Fellowships: Offered by the Science and Engineering Research Board and the Department of Biotechnology respectively to bring Indian scientists working abroad back into Indian institutions.
    5. PM Research Fellowship: Provides doctoral fellowships at institutions of national importance with an enhanced stipend and a research grant, to retain top undergraduates within the domestic research system.
    6. National Research Professorship and J.C. Bose Fellowship: Recognise and support distinguished scientists to continue active research beyond conventional retirement.
    7. Vigyan Jyoti and Women in Science and Engineering KIRAN: Target the participation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education and research careers.

    Key Facts about the IISERs

    1. Number and locations: Seven institutes, at Kolkata, Pune, Mohali, Bhopal, Thiruvananthapuram, Tirupati and Berhampur.
    2. Year of first establishment: The first two, at Kolkata and Pune, were established in 2006, followed by Mohali in 2007, Bhopal and Thiruvananthapuram in 2008, Tirupati in 2015 and Berhampur in 2016.
    3. Statutory status: They are Institutes of National Importance under the National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007.
    4. Administering ministry: The Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    5. Flagship programme: A five year BS-MS dual degree in the basic sciences, with admission through the IISER Aptitude Test and other channels.
    6. Governance structure: A Board of Governors chaired by a chairperson, with a director as the chief executive, and a Senate for academic matters.
    7. Named ex officio Board members: The secretary of higher education and the director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, among others.

    Back2Basics: National Institutes of Technology, Science Education and Research Act, 2007

    1. What it is: A central Act that declares certain institutions to be Institutes of National Importance and provides for their incorporation, governance and funding.
    2. Enacted: 2007, originally covering the National Institutes of Technology, and later extended to the IISERs and to the Indian Institutes of Engineering Science and Technology.
    3. What Institute of National Importance status confers: Autonomy to award its own degrees, direct central funding, and exclusion from the University Grants Commission’s affiliation framework.
    4. Governance it prescribes: Each institute has a Board of Governors as the principal executive body, a Senate for academic decisions, a chairperson, a director and a registrar.
    5. Composition requirement: The Board must include senior government officials and other government nominees, which is the provision that places the secretary of higher education and the Indian Institute of Science director on IISER Boards through the institute statutes.
    6. The Council: The Act also creates a Council for the institutes it covers, chaired by the Union Minister in charge, to coordinate across them.
    7. Why it governs this item: It is the statutory source of both the IISERs’ autonomy and the government dominated Board structure that the present appointments have made the operative feature.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore scientist leadership at the helm: Reviving the earlier practice of appointing distinguished scientists as chairpersons and directors requires no amendment to the 2007 Act, only a change in the selection practice.
    2. Fill the vacant nominated seats: Appointing to the eminent scientist and institute director positions already provided in the statutes restores the scientific expertise the Board structure was designed to carry.
    3. Bar simultaneous multiple chairmanships: A rule against holding the chair of more than one Institute of National Importance would end the divided attention that leaves several IISERs without sustained direction.
    4. Time bound filling of directorships: A fixed outer limit on how long an institute may run under a director in charge would prevent interim leadership becoming the standing arrangement.
    5. Publish selection criteria and search process: A transparent search committee process, with published criteria for research standing and institution building experience, would make appointments contestable on merit.
    6. Build a leadership pipeline from the research cadre: Structured administrative training for mid career scientists would widen the pool beyond the same individuals rotated between institutions.
    7. Strengthen Senate authority over academic direction: Vesting curriculum, faculty recruitment and research priorities firmly with the Senate would insulate scientific decisions from Board level turnover.
    8. Raise and stabilise research funding: Multi year block grants through the Anusandhan National Research Foundation would reduce the dependence on annual allocations that constrains long horizon research.

  • Census 2027: rights groups flag gaps in disability categories

    Why in the News

    Disability rights organisations have objected to the nine category disability question proposed for Census 2027, against the 21 specified disabilities recognised in law. The objection turns on a design choice, since the categories printed on the schedule decide which conditions can be counted at all, and a condition without its own box is recorded inside a broader one or not at all.

    What does Census 2027 propose to record on disability?

    1. The nine proposed categories: Seeing, hearing, speech, mobility, intellectual disability, mental illness, disability due to acid attack, disability due to chronic neurological disease, and blood disorder.
    2. What carries over from 2011: Six of the nine, namely seeing, hearing, speech, mobility, intellectual disability and mental illness, are the 2011 Census categories, with “mental retardation” renamed “intellectual disability”.
    3. What is new: Acid attack, chronic neurological disease and blood disorder are the three additions over the 2011 schedule.
    4. Multiple disability recording: The questionnaire allows up to three disabilities to be recorded for one person, entered in the order of severity.

    What are “specified disabilities” under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016?

    1. The statutory list: The Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 recognises 21 specified disabilities in its Schedule, covering physical, intellectual, mental, blood related and multiple disabilities.
    2. The expansion it made: The Act replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 and raised the recognised types from seven to 21, treating disability as a dynamic and evolving concept.

    Why do rights groups say the nine categories fall short?

    1. The assurance on record: The Union Minister of State for Social Justice and Empowerment stated in March 2026 that Census 2027 would capture data on all 21 disabilities.
    2. Conditions without a distinct box: Autism spectrum disorder, specific learning disabilities, dwarfism, leprosy cured persons and multiple disabilities including deafblindness are not distinctly placed under any proposed category.
    3. Distinct conditions collapsed into one: Thalassemia, haemophilia and sickle cell disease are reduced to the single category “blood disorder”, which erases the difference between three separate conditions with different prevalence and support needs.
    4. Other statutory conditions absent: Cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis are recognised in the Act but not separately represented in the proposed schedule.
    5. Scale of the objection: The statement of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled (NPRD), citing information from the Politics and Disability Forum, was endorsed by more than 400 signatories.

    What is the Registrar General’s defence of the design?

    1. Broad categories by design: The nine are described as broader categories that include other detailed specific disabilities within them.
    2. Severity ordering retained: The option to record up to three disabilities in order of severity is offered as the mechanism for capturing multiple disability.
    3. Consultation claimed: Categories were finalised after consultation with the Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and other stakeholders.
    4. Enumerator competence: Field functionaries are not technically qualified to assess or confirm a specific disability, which is the stated reason for keeping categories broad.
    5. Training provided: A three day training covering all aspects of the questionnaire is held for enumerators and supervisors.
    6. Comparison with 2011: The 2027 schedule enumerates a larger number of disabilities than the 2011 schedule did.

    Why does the classification itself decide the count?

    1. The instrument sets the ceiling: An enumerator can only record what the schedule offers, so a condition without a category is absorbed into a broader one and disappears from the published table.
    2. Untrained recognition: Broad categories without a notified training module on which specific disability sits under which head leave the classification to the enumerator’s judgement.
    3. The respondent’s own knowledge: A person who neither communicates nor understands the correct name of their disability cannot correct a wrong entry, which compounds the error.
    4. Self declaration and stigma: Census disability data is self reported, and households under reported disability in earlier rounds because of stigma, which a broad category does nothing to correct.
    5. Downstream consequence: Undercounting a specific group weakens the evidence base for scheme design, budget allocation and reservation entitlements tied to that disability.

    What did the 2011 Census record on disability?

    1. Total count: The 2011 Census counted 2.68 crore persons with disabilities, which was 2.21 percent of the country’s population.
    2. Categories used: The 2011 schedule carried six of the nine categories now proposed.
    3. Concentration of the count: Movement or locomotor, hearing and vision related disabilities together accounted for over half of the country’s population with disabilities.
    4. What the 2011 base implies: A count already limited to six categories in 2011 sets the comparison base against which any 2027 increase will be read.

    Challenges to accurate disability enumeration

    1. Self reporting and stigma: Households conceal disability, particularly mental illness and intellectual disability, to avoid social consequences for marriage and employment. e.g. the 2011 Census figure of 2.21 percent sits well below global disability prevalence estimates of around 15 percent of population.
    2. Untrained enumerators on clinical categories: A three day training cannot equip a field functionary to distinguish autism spectrum disorder from intellectual disability. e.g. specific learning disabilities are invisible without assessment and were absent from the 2011 count entirely.
    3. Severity capping at three: Persons with more than three conditions lose the rest of their profile, which particularly affects multiple disability. e.g. deafblindness combines two sensory disabilities and has no distinct category in the proposed schedule.
    4. No linkage to certification data: Census figures are not reconciled with the Unique Disability ID database, so the two official counts diverge. e.g. UDID certification is issued against the 21 statutory categories while the Census will record nine.
    5. Question placement and time: The disability question sits late in a long household schedule, where fatigue produces default negative answers. e.g. the 2027 self enumeration form is completed by the respondent without any enumerator prompt at all.
    6. Definitional change across rounds: Renaming and regrouping categories between censuses breaks comparability of the time series. e.g. “mental retardation” in 2011 becomes “intellectual disability” in 2027, and three blood conditions are merged into one new head.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is not about whether Census 2027 counts persons with disabilities but about whether its nine category schedule can carry the 21 categories the law recognises. The Registrar General’s position is that the nine are containers holding the specific conditions, and the rights groups’ position is that a container without a notified mapping and enumerator training will not produce disaggregated data. The self enumeration window for snowbound areas is open until 31 August 2026, with the second phase of population enumeration in those areas from 1 to 30 September 2026 and a revisional round from 1 to 5 October 2026. Any change to the disability question must therefore be made before the main enumeration schedule is frozen.

    “[2026] Which of the following statements with regard to the persons with disabilities in India is/are correct?

    1. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, an Act passed by the Parliament of India in 2018, mandates reservation in education and employment, places a legal duty on Governments to ensure accessibility and non-discrimination.

    2. The Sugamya Bharat Abhiyan focuses on achieving universal accessibility for Persons with Disabilities across three key domains, built infrastructure, transport systems and information and communication technology.

    3. The National Divyangjan Finance and Development Corporation (NDFDC) is a public sector organisation set up by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs as a not-for-profit company to promote entrepreneurship among Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).

    (a) 1 and 2

    (b) 2 only

    (c) 1 and 3

    (d) 1 only

  • Due diligence: curbs on surrogate advertising must avoid regulatory overreach

    Why in the News

    The Maharashtra Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner has begun summoning celebrity endorsers of a pan masala brand, treating the endorsement as a surrogate promotion of tobacco. The action moves enforcement from the manufacturer to the person who supplies the brand recall, and it tests whether the state can discharge the burden of proof that the courts have already placed on it.

    What is surrogate advertising?

    1. Definition: Surrogate advertising is the promotion of a banned product through a legally saleable substitute that carries the same brand name, packaging and visual identity.
    2. How it operates: A tobacco or liquor manufacturer registers an extension product such as elaichi, soda or music CDs, then advertises that extension so the parent brand stays visible where direct advertising is prohibited.
    3. The legal test: An advertisement becomes surrogate when the substitute product has no market identity independent of its association with the prohibited product.
    4. The case at hand: The FDA holds that the pan masala brand endorsed by three leading film actors has no identity independent of tobacco, so endorsing it amounts to endorsing tobacco.

    What is endorser liability?

    1. Meaning: Endorser liability is the statutory responsibility placed on a celebrity or influencer for a false or misleading claim made in an advertisement they lend their name to.
    2. Source of the duty: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 created this liability along with monetary penalties, which removes ignorance of the manufacturer’s intent as a defence.

    Why has enforcement shifted from the manufacturer to the endorser?

    1. The asymmetry named: The person carrying the persuasive power bears almost none of the health or economic cost of the product being consumed.
    2. Where the cost lands: The consumer absorbs that cost, and an underfunded public health system absorbs the treatment burden that follows.
    3. Why the manufacturer route stalls: Brand extension is legal on its face, so acting only against the manufacturer leaves the advertisement itself untouched.
    4. Why the endorser route bites: Requiring endorsers to explain their decision making applies the endorser liability principle at the enforcement stage rather than only after a complaint.
    5. The wider field: The same asymmetry runs through advertisements making unsubstantiated health claims such as “boosts immunity”, and through educational and financial products.

    What must the state prove before it can call an advertisement surrogate?

    1. The governing ruling: The Delhi High Court in DGHS vs Som Pan Product Pvt. Ltd. (2024) held that the state carries the responsibility of proving a case of surrogate advertising.
    2. Brand registration is not proof: The mere registration of an extension brand does not by itself establish that the advertisement is surrogate.
    3. Legality is not a shield either: The existence of a technically legal product does not automatically permit the particular advertisement built around it.
    4. What follows for the FDA: Suspicion must be converted into inquiries under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003 and its Rules and under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that survive judicial scrutiny.

    Why does the existing regulatory regime struggle with such advertisements?

    1. Fragmentation: Regulation is scattered across a series of Acts and Rules with no single authority owning the surrogate advertising question end to end.
    2. Forum shopping: Advertisers use the multiplicity of legal and administrative instruments to draw the judiciary into the dispute and stall enforcement.
    3. Definitional gap: No statute defines the threshold at which an extension product’s independent market identity becomes real rather than nominal.
    4. Health stakes: India carries the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is what makes treatment of these advertisements as unfair trade practices a consumer health question rather than a marketing dispute.

    Does tougher enforcement strengthen the rule or invite regulatory overreach?

    1. The case for acting: Penalties or prohibitions in this case would materially narrow the space that surrogate advertising currently exploits.
    2. The case for restraint: An action that fails the evidentiary standard set in 2024 becomes a precedent that advertisers cite in every later proceeding.
    3. The self defeating outcome: Enforcement seen as arbitrary strengthens the very practice it was meant to end, by converting a public health question into a dispute about administrative excess.
    4. The distinction that matters: Targeting the marketing chain is legitimate, targeting individuals without completing the statutory inquiry is not.

    Challenges to regulating surrogate advertising

    1. Proving the negative: The state must establish that a lawfully sold product has no independent market, which requires sales and distribution evidence that regulators rarely collect. e.g. brand extensions in elaichi and mouth freshener categories report genuine retail sales, which manufacturers cite as proof of independent identity.
    2. Split jurisdiction: Tobacco control sits with the health administration, food safety with the FDA and unfair trade practices with consumer authorities, so no single body carries the case through. e.g. the present action begins with a state FDA whose primary statute is the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, not COTPA.
    3. Digital advertising escapes the frame: Influencer posts and platform advertisements are transient and geo targeted, so they leave little evidence for a later inquiry. e.g. short video endorsements of betting and fantasy gaming platforms circulate widely without the disclosure labels print and television carry.
    4. Weak deterrence in practice: Penalties are small relative to advertising budgets and are contested for years. e.g. tobacco control prosecutions under COTPA are typically compounded at low fines rather than pursued to conviction.
    5. Sponsorship and event routes: Prohibited categories reach audiences through sports and cultural sponsorship where the brand appears without any product claim. e.g. surrogate liquor branding through music, soda and sporting event sponsorship has continued despite the advertising prohibition.
    6. Enforcement capacity: State drug and food administrations are staffed for sampling and licensing work, not for evidentiary media investigations. e.g. food safety officer vacancies in several States leave routine sampling targets unmet, before any advertising inquiry is added.

    Conclusion

    The action against celebrity endorsers is a defensible extension of endorser liability into the enforcement stage, and it addresses a real asymmetry between who persuades and who pays the health cost. Its survival depends entirely on whether the inquiry under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 meets the evidentiary standard the Delhi High Court fixed in 2024. A well grounded order would narrow the space for surrogate advertising across tobacco, health claims, education and finance. An unsupported one would leave the practice stronger than it found it.

    Advertising Regulation in India

    1. What it covers: Advertising regulation governs the content, placement and truthfulness of commercial communication, and reaches the advertiser, the agency, the publisher and the endorser.
    2. Mixed model: India uses statutory control for specific product categories alongside self regulation by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a voluntary industry body whose code is not itself law.
    3. Statutory anchor since 2019: The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, can order the discontinuation of a misleading advertisement and impose penalties on the advertiser and the endorser.
    4. Prohibited categories: Direct advertising of tobacco products is banned, and liquor advertising is restricted, which is precisely what creates the incentive for brand extension.
    5. Scale: India is among the world’s largest advertising markets by volume of impressions, with digital and influencer marketing now the fastest growing segment and the least documented.

    Laws and Rules Governing Advertising and Surrogate Promotion

    1. Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA), 2003: Prohibits direct and indirect advertisement, promotion and sponsorship of tobacco products and regulates sale to and around minors.
    2. Section 5: Bars advertisement of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including indirect advertisement, which is the provision surrogate advertising is tested against.
    3. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Defines misleading advertisement, creates the CCPA, and imposes liability and penalties on manufacturers and endorsers.
    4. Endorser penalty: Provides monetary penalty on an endorser for a false or misleading advertisement, with a prohibition on further endorsements for a stated period on repetition.
    5. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Regulates food product claims and advertising, and prohibits misleading claims about the nature, quality or health effect of a food.
    6. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995: Bars advertisement of prohibited products on cable television through the Advertisement Code framed under it.
    7. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954: Prohibits advertisements claiming cure for listed diseases and conditions.
    8. Central Consumer Protection Authority (Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements) Guidelines, 2022: Set conditions for a non misleading advertisement, regulate bait and surrogate advertisements, and fix due diligence duties for endorsers.
    9. Endorsement Know hows for digital advertising, 2023: Require celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers to disclose a material connection with the advertiser in a clear and prominent manner.

    Government Initiatives in Advertising and Consumer Protection

    1. National Tobacco Control Programme (NTCP): Implemented by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to enforce COTPA, run awareness campaigns and support cessation, targeted at tobacco users and youth.
    2. National Tobacco Quitline and mCessation: Provide telephone and mobile based cessation support to tobacco users seeking to quit.
    3. Jago Grahak Jago: Consumer awareness campaign of the Department of Consumer Affairs, aimed at informing consumers about misleading advertisements and grievance routes.
    4. National Consumer Helpline and the INGRAM portal: Give consumers a single point to lodge complaints against misleading advertisements and unfair trade practices.
    5. Eat Right India: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) campaign to curb misleading food claims and promote safe and healthy food, aimed at consumers and food businesses.

    Key Facts about Tobacco Control and Advertising Regulation

    1. World No Tobacco Day is observed on 31 May each year.
    2. India has the world’s largest burden of oral cancer, which is the health basis for the strict treatment of tobacco surrogate advertising.
    3. India is a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), the first international public health treaty, which India ratified in 2004.
    4. Pictorial health warnings must cover 85 percent of the principal display area on both sides of a tobacco product package in India, among the largest such requirements globally.
    5. The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) was set up in 1985 as a voluntary self regulatory body and its code has no statutory force of its own.

    Challenges in Advertising and Consumer Protection Regulation

    1. Self regulation without teeth: ASCI rulings bind only members and carry no penalty, so a non member advertiser faces no consequence. e.g. several offshore betting and crypto platforms advertising into India are outside ASCI’s membership entirely.
    2. Influencer economy outpaces disclosure rules: Paid endorsements are presented as personal opinion, and disclosure labels are omitted or hidden. e.g. financial influencers recommending securities without registration led the Securities and Exchange Board of India to restrict regulated entities from associating with unregistered advice givers.
    3. Dark patterns in digital interfaces: Design choices such as false urgency and forced action steer consumers without any express claim to test. e.g. the Department of Consumer Affairs notified guidelines in 2023 listing thirteen specified dark patterns on e commerce platforms.
    4. Regulatory capacity gap: The CCPA and State food and drug administrations have small investigation teams against a very large advertising volume. e.g. misleading claims in the coaching and edtech sector produced a separate CCPA advisory only after repeated complaints.
    5. Cross border advertising: Advertisements served from outside India for products banned within India are hard to reach through domestic statutes. e.g. offshore betting platforms advertise through surrogate news and sports content channels aimed at Indian audiences.
    6. Health claims without evidence: Immunity, weight loss and fortification claims sit between food law and drug law and are contested at the margin. e.g. claims on health supplements and nutraceuticals repeatedly draw FSSAI action for lacking substantiation.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)

    1. Governing Act: Established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
    2. Year established: Constituted in 2008, with the Act’s substantive provisions brought into force from 2011.
    3. Parent ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    4. Mandate: Lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, import and advertising.
    5. Composition: Headed by a Chairperson of the rank of Secretary to the Government of India, with a Chief Executive Officer and members drawn from States, industry, consumer groups and food technology.
    6. Enforcement structure: Implemented on the ground by State Food Safety Commissioners, Designated Officers and Food Safety Officers, which is why a State FDA leads the present action.

    Way Forward

    1. Complete the statutory inquiry: Convert the summons into a documented proceeding under COTPA, 2003 and the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 that records evidence of the extension product’s dependent market identity.
    2. Define independent market identity: Notify an objective test combining sales volume, distribution reach and advertising spend of the extension product relative to the parent brand.
    3. Single window coordination: Create a joint mechanism between the CCPA, the health administration and State food and drug administrations so one authority carries a surrogate advertising case to conclusion.
    4. Raise the penalty to advertising spend: Link penalties to the advertising outlay of the campaign so the fine is not absorbed as a cost of business.
    5. Mandatory pre certification for prohibited categories: Require prior vetting of advertisements for brand names shared with tobacco and liquor products before release.
    6. Extend disclosure enforcement to digital: Audit influencer endorsements for the material connection disclosure and publish enforcement outcomes so the rule becomes visible.
    7. Consumer side remedy: Publicise the CCPA and National Consumer Helpline routes so complaints against misleading endorsements do not depend on regulator initiative alone.

    “[2014, GS2, 12.5 marks] The setting up of a Rail Tariff Authority to regulate fares will subject the cash strapped Indian Railways to demand subsidy for obligation to operate non-profitable routes and services. Taking into account the experience in the power sector, discuss if the proposed reform is expected to benefit the consumers, the Indian Railways or the private container operators.”

  • Workers protesting for higher wages spent over 50 days in jail on average until courts intervened

    Why in the News

    An investigation into 222 bail orders arising from the April 2026 wage protests by factory workers in Noida found that relief was granted in 188 of them, or 84 per cent, after courts repeatedly held that mere presence in a protesting crowd is not evidence of criminal intent. The average protester nonetheless spent 53 days in custody before that relief arrived. Two protests over comparable grievances in the same month produced opposite outcomes, one ending in a ministerial resignation and an assurance of no prosecution, the other in mass arrests and preventive detention.

    What is the National Security Act, 1980?

    1. What it is: A central preventive detention law that allows the State to detain a person to prevent an apprehended act, without trial and without a criminal charge being proved.
    2. The period it permits: It allows detention for up to one year without trial.
    3. Who orders it: A district magistrate, a commissioner of police or the State government may pass the detention order, and the State government must confirm it.
    4. Its use in this case: Two of those arrested in the Noida protests were booked under the Act, a former journalist and a university graduate, and their pleas are pending before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court respectively.

    What is the current status of the right to protest in India?

    1. A derived right, not an enumerated one: The right to protest is not written into the Constitution as a separate right, it is derived from the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to assemble peaceably and without arms under Article 19(1)(b).
    2. The qualification on it: Both freedoms are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
    3. The peaceful assembly limit: Protection extends only to assembly that is peaceable and unarmed, so the State may act against an assembly once it turns violent.
    4. The bail standard courts applied here: Judges in these cases held that mere presence at a protest is not evidence to deny bail, that the absence of specific evidence outweighs the gravity of the charges, and that ordinary workers cannot be equated with those found organising or instigating violence.
    5. Preventive detention sits alongside it: A person may be detained without trial under a preventive detention law even where no offence has been proved, which is the route taken against two of the accused here.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Protest, Liberty and Preventive Detention

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, from which the right to protest is derived.
    2. Article 19(1)(b): Guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
    3. Article 19(1)(c): Guarantees the right to form associations or unions, the basis of the right to organise labour.
    4. Article 19(2) and 19(3): Permit reasonable restrictions on speech and on assembly in the interests of public order.
    5. Article 21: Guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, read to require a just, fair and reasonable procedure.
    6. Article 22(1) and 22(2): Guarantee an arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, to consult a legal practitioner, and to be produced before a magistrate within twenty four hours.
    7. Article 22(3): Expressly withdraws those protections from a person detained under a preventive detention law.
    8. Article 22(4) and 22(5): Cap preventive detention at three months unless an Advisory Board of persons qualified to be High Court judges reports sufficient cause, and require the grounds of detention to be communicated to the detainee.
    9. Entry 9, Union List and Entry 3, Concurrent List: Place preventive detention connected with defence and foreign affairs with the Union, and preventive detention for reasons connected with State security and the maintenance of public order on the Concurrent List.
    10. Article 23: Prohibits forced labour, the constitutional anchor of minimum wage jurisprudence.
    11. Article 43: Directs the State to secure a living wage and conditions of work ensuring a decent standard of life, as a Directive Principle.

    What triggered the Noida wage protests?

    1. Rising fuel costs: Rising liquefied petroleum gas cylinder prices amid the West Asia crisis, with workers additionally citing black market prices for cylinders.
    2. A rumour about the Labour Codes: WhatsApp rumours in late March that the new Labour Codes would raise minimum wages.
    3. A neighbouring wage settlement: Wage hike protests in Haryana's Manesar, which produced a settlement that workers in Noida then demanded for themselves.
    4. The underlying grievances: Workers cited unrealistic work targets, the absence of social security benefits such as provident fund, and hiring on a temporary basis through contractors.
    5. Working hours in practice: Workers said they were officially on eight hour shifts but routinely worked ten to twelve hours with few breaks, with safety, especially for women, a further concern.

    What did the wage revisions actually deliver?

    1. The Haryana settlement: After the Manesar protests, the State government announced a 35 per cent hike in minimum monthly wages on 9 April, backdated to 1 April.
    2. The Haryana figures: Rs 15,220.71 for unskilled workers and Rs 19,425.85 for highly skilled workers.
    3. The effect on Noida: The Haryana announcement intensified the Noida protests, which turned violent as workers and activists took to the streets.
    4. The Uttar Pradesh interim hike: Calm returned after the State announced its own interim revision on 14 April, raising unskilled wages from Rs 11,313 to Rs 13,690 and skilled wages from Rs 13,940 to Rs 16,868 in Gautam Buddh Nagar and Ghaziabad.
    5. The parallel warning: Authorities in Noida warned contractors that complaints against them would be dealt with harshly.

    What did the bail orders across the seven FIRs establish?

    1. First Information Report 149 of 2026, Noida Phase III: 31 granted bail and 6 denied, on an allegation that 300 to 400 accused entered an electronics firm's premises in Sector 67 on 13 April carrying lathis, sticks, bricks, stones and deadly weapons and extended threats to kill. The sessions court held that the mere fact that an accused was part of the crowd cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that he possessed the same grave criminal intent, and found that the prosecution had described the crowd's acts in a collective manner without specifying individual roles. Fourteen further grants came from the High Court.
    2. First Information Report 151 of 2026, Noida Phase III: 37 granted bail, on an allegation of stone pelting with intent to cause death and vandalism of security gates, closed circuit television cameras, glass structures and office property. The prosecution relied on an informant's statement, an inspection of the site and closed circuit television footage, and the court found that no such footage or electronic record had been placed on record depicting the accused in any violent activity.
    3. First Information Report 163 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 3 granted bail and 10 denied, arising from protests by workers of three garment and apparel firms between 10 and 11 April. Bail went to three who had remained in judicial custody for a long period once the chargesheet was filed, and was refused to ten on prima facie allegations of an active conspiratorial role, including the creation of WhatsApp groups in the names of companies and the recovery of banners, posters and pamphlets from their residences.
    4. First Information Report 165 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 29 granted bail and 6 denied, on an allegation that 450 to 500 workers assembled in Sector 84 and elsewhere on 13 April over wages, overtime and bonuses, and that the protest turned violent between 8.30 am and 9.30 pm. The prosecution cited independent witnesses including a water vendor, a chowmein cart owner and a rickshaw puller, and the court found it was not clear how they were previously acquainted with or able to identify the accused, adding that the presence of an accused at a labourers' protest is not unnatural. Six further grants came from the High Court.
    5. First Information Report 169 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 26 granted bail and 1 denied, on an allegation that garment exporter employees blocked gates, restrained workers from entering and threatened vandalism and arson from 10 April. The court noted the First Information Report was lodged nearly ten days after the incident with several accused not named in it and no explanation for the delay, and that the complaint reflected no actual incident of arson or injuries. The single refusal rested on closed circuit television footage establishing a specific role.
    6. First Information Report 172 of 2026, Noida Phase I: 21 granted bail and 7 denied, on an allegation that workers of an auto components manufacturer blocked a public road, damaged government and company property and injured police personnel. The court held that the only allegation was presence in the protesting crowd, that the role of every person in a crowd cannot be treated the same, and that mere presence does not by itself make every accused equally liable where no specific act is attributed.
    7. First Information Report 164 of 2026, Noida Phase II: 41 granted bail and 4 denied, with 39 of the 41 grants coming from the Allahabad High Court, which applied a broad standard resting on the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence on record and grounds of parity.

    On what grounds was bail refused?

    1. The common accusation: Those denied relief face an alleged role in the conspiracy rather than an alleged act at the protest.
    2. Administering WhatsApp groups: Courts cited data showing certain accused were administrators of a WhatsApp group alleged to have been created to facilitate the commission of violence.
    3. Mobilisation from outside: Bail was refused to accused said to have called others to Noida for the protests or to have run groups to mobilise and instigate workers.
    4. Absence of an employment link: One court held that persons with no direct employment relationship with the companies concerned stand on a different footing from the companies' own workers.
    5. Statements of co accused: In one case bail was refused on the statements of co accused despite the defence pointing to the absence of prior criminal antecedents.
    6. Preventive detention instead of bail: On 13 May, nearly a month after the protests turned violent, the State invoked the National Security Act, 1980 against a 60 year old former journalist from Lucknow and a 25 year old Delhi University graduate, taking both outside the bail process altogether.
    7. The material cited in the detention orders: The grounds included membership of a political organisation, writing described as inciting a new generation to join a rebel organisation, joining a library run by a co accused, the recovery of a book on Indian revolutionaries described as a controversial work of literature, and participation in earlier protests over citizenship registration and over Gaza. One police report used the term andolanjeevi.

    What did the arrests cost the workers and their families?

    1. Time in custody: Across the 106 arrests carrying substantive allegations, ranging from rioting and arson to attempt to murder, the average period a protester spent in custody was 53 days.
    2. Arrest away from any protest: A 34 year old daily wage worker was picked up from Labour Chowk on 14 April while looking for work, and was released on bail 40 days later.
    3. Cost of the process itself: That worker's family, migrants from Bihar, spent nearly Rs 50,000 on jail and court visits alone, and his mother lost her factory job over the frequency of those visits.
    4. The scale of borrowing: The families of two young men aged 20 and 18 from Sitamarhi spent almost Rs 3 lakh between them on bail, and sought relatives' help for surety bonds.
    5. Length of detention for the young: One of those two completed three months and a day in jail, and was released two days after the other because of a documentation problem.
    6. The lasting effect: A 19 year old picked up on 14 April after stepping out of his workplace for a meal was released on 18 May, and reports that his parents now call six times a day fearing he will be picked up again.

    Why did two protests over comparable grievances end so differently?

    1. The first outcome: The Jantar Mantar protest demanding a leak proof examination system ended with the Union Education Minister's resignation and an assurance by the Centre and the States that the police would pursue no case against the protesters.
    2. The second outcome: The week long protest beginning 10 April by factory workers in Noida demanding higher wages drew a police crackdown, with up to 200 people taken into custody.
    3. The distinction was not the demand: Both protests raised a grievance against a State failure, one over examination integrity and the other over the statutory minimum wage.
    4. The distinction was the protester: The workers were largely contract hires, migrants and daily wagers with no institutional voice, which is what left them dependent on the courts for relief the other protesters received by executive assurance.
    5. The State conceded the demand anyway: Uttar Pradesh raised wages on 14 April, so the substance of the workers' claim was accepted while the workers themselves remained in custody.
    6. The relief was judicial, not political: Courts granted relief in 84 per cent of the bail pleas, which means the correction came from the judiciary rather than from the executive that had made the arrests.

    Major debates surrounding preventive detention and the right to protest

    1. Preventive detention inside a rights guaranteeing Constitution: India is among the few democracies to carry preventive detention in the Constitution itself, and Article 22(3) removes the very safeguards Article 22(1) and 22(2) create for an arrested person.
    2. Public order against ordinary law and order: Preventive detention is available only for a threat to public order, and the line between a law and order breach and a public order breach determines whether the ordinary criminal process or detention without trial applies.
    3. Collective liability against individual act: The prosecution treats the crowd as the accused while the courts require a specific act attributed to a named individual, and the bail record here shows the two standards producing opposite results.
    4. Bail as the rule and jail as the exception: The settled principle collides with a practice in which the average protester spent 53 days in custody before a court applied it.
    5. Speech and association as evidence: Books read, library membership, publishing and participation in earlier protests were cited in the detention grounds, which raises whether protected expression can supply the material for a preventive order.
    6. Advisory Board review against judicial review: Preventive detention is reviewed by an Advisory Board rather than by a trial, so the detenu's remedy is a writ petition, which is slower than a bail application.
    7. The right to strike: Indian law recognises no fundamental right to strike, so a wage agitation has no protected status independent of the general freedom of assembly.

    Challenges to protecting the right to protest

    1. Procedure as punishment: Even where charges fail, the time spent in custody before bail is itself the penalty. e.g. the 53 day average custody in these Noida cases against an 84 per cent eventual bail rate.
    2. Collective First Information Reports: Naming 300 to 500 unidentified persons in a single complaint makes individual defence impossible and shifts the burden onto the accused. e.g. First Information Report 149 of 2026, where the sessions court found the prosecution had described the crowd's acts in a collective manner without specifying individual roles.
    3. Preventive detention bypasses bail entirely: Once a detention order is passed, the bail jurisprudence stops applying and the detenu must approach a constitutional court. e.g. the two National Security Act, 1980 detentions of 13 May 2026, whose pleas remain pending before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court.
    4. Cost of accessing justice: Surety bonds, travel, lawyers and jail visits impoverish families whose original grievance was a wage below subsistence. e.g. one family spending nearly Rs 50,000 on visits and another almost Rs 3 lakh on two sons.
    5. Contract hiring removes institutional protection: Workers hired through contractors have no recognised union and no employer of record to negotiate on their behalf. e.g. courts here treated persons with no direct employer employee relationship with the companies as standing on a different footing when refusing bail.
    6. Delay in registering complaints: Complaints filed days after the event allow names to be added without contemporaneous evidence. e.g. First Information Report 169 of 2026, lodged nearly ten days after the incident with several accused not named in it.
    7. Unequal executive response: The executive can extend an assurance of no prosecution to one set of protesters and none to another, with no standard governing the choice. e.g. the Jantar Mantar assurance against the Noida crackdown in the same month.
    8. Absence of accountability for wrongful arrest: No consequence attaches to an investigating agency whose case collapses at the bail stage. e.g. senior police officers linked to this investigation declined comment on the findings.

    Conclusion

    The Noida record shows a criminal process in which the crowd, rather than a named individual with a proved act, was treated as the accused, and in which the correction came from the courts rather than from the agency that made the arrests. The State conceded the wage demand on 14 April while the workers who raised it remained in custody for weeks longer, so the substance of the grievance was accepted without any consequence for the arrests. The pending challenges to the two National Security Act, 1980 detentions, before the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court respectively, are the next milestone in the matter.

    What is Preventive Detention?

    1. About: Preventive detention is the confinement of a person to prevent an apprehended future act, rather than to punish a proved past offence, and it therefore involves no charge, trial or conviction.
    2. Rationale: It exists to allow the State to act on an anticipated threat to public order or State security in advance of the harm, on the reasoning that a completed offence would be too late to prevent.
    3. Punitive detention distinguished: Punitive detention follows conviction after a trial, preventive detention precedes any trial and rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
    4. The constitutional cap: Detention beyond three months requires an Advisory Board of persons qualified to be High Court judges to report sufficient cause, under Article 22(4).
    5. The grounds requirement: The authority must communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee and afford the earliest opportunity to make a representation, under Article 22(5).
    6. The judicial standard: Because the satisfaction is subjective, courts review the procedure and the relevance of the material rather than the sufficiency of the grounds themselves.

    Key Concerns Regarding Preventive Detention

    1. Constitutional safeguards expressly withdrawn: Article 22(3) removes the right to be informed of grounds of arrest, to counsel and to production before a magistrate for a preventively detained person.
    2. No requirement to prove an offence: Detention rests on apprehension rather than evidence of a committed act, so the ordinary standard of proof never applies.
    3. Executive rather than judicial review: An Advisory Board, not a trial court, examines the detention, and the detenu's only judicial route is a writ petition.
    4. Vague standards for public order: The distinction between a law and order breach and a public order breach is not statutorily defined, so classification is a matter of executive judgment.
    5. Successive detention orders: A fresh order can follow the revocation of an earlier one, extending confinement beyond the period any single order permits.
    6. Use against speech and association: Writing, publishing, reading and participating in earlier protests have been cited as material in detention grounds, converting protected expression into evidence of apprehended threat.

    Laws and Rules Governing Preventive Detention and Public Order in India

    1. Preventive Detention Act, 1950: The first post independence preventive detention statute, tested in A.K. Gopalan versus State of Madras in 1950, and allowed to lapse in 1969.
    2. Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971: Provided for preventive detention on internal security grounds and was repealed in 1978.
    3. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974: Permits preventive detention in smuggling and foreign exchange matters, and remains in force.
    4. National Security Act, 1980: Permits detention for up to one year to prevent a person from acting prejudicially to the defence of India, the security of the State, relations with foreign powers, the maintenance of public order, or the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community.
    5. Detention orders may be passed by a district magistrate, a commissioner of police or the State government, and must be confirmed by the State government.
    6. Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988: Provides preventive detention in narcotics cases.
    7. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Governs terrorist and unlawful association offences, with restrictive bail conditions in place of ordinary bail jurisprudence.
    8. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and carries the preventive powers of the police and the magistracy, including the dispersal of unlawful assemblies.
    9. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Carries the substantive offences of rioting, unlawful assembly, mischief and criminal conspiracy on which protest prosecutions are built.
    10. State security legislation: Several States operate their own public safety or goonda acts providing for preventive detention on locally defined grounds.

    Back2Basics: The Four Labour Codes

    1. What they are: Four consolidated central statutes that subsume 29 earlier central labour laws into a single framework covering wages, industrial relations, social security and workplace safety.
    2. Code on Wages, 2019: Merges four laws including the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and provides for a statutory floor wage set by the Centre below which no State may fix its minimum wage.
    3. Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Merges three laws on trade unions, standing orders and industrial disputes, and raises the threshold for prior government permission for retrenchment and closure to establishments with 300 or more workers.
    4. Code on Social Security, 2020: Merges nine laws on provident fund, gratuity, maternity benefit and employees' state insurance, and for the first time brings gig and platform workers within the definition of beneficiaries.
    5. Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020: Merges 13 laws on factories, contract labour, migrant workmen and specific hazardous sectors.
    6. Coverage of minimum wages: The Code on Wages, 2019 extends minimum wage entitlement to all employees in both organised and unorganised sectors, whereas the earlier law applied only to scheduled employments.
    7. Why they figure here: A rumour in late March 2026 that the Codes would raise minimum wages was one of the three stated triggers of the Noida protests.

    Way Forward

    1. Require individualised allegations in a First Information Report: A complaint naming an unascertained crowd should be treated as insufficient to sustain custody absent a specific act attributed to a named person.
    2. Apply a statutory bail timeline in protest cases: A fixed outer limit for the first bail hearing would prevent the process itself becoming the punishment, as the 53 day average shows it did.
    3. Restrict preventive detention to defined public order threats: A statutory definition distinguishing a law and order breach from a public order breach would narrow the discretion the National Security Act, 1980 currently leaves to the detaining authority.
    4. Bar expression and association as sole detention grounds: Books read, publications authored and participation in earlier lawful protests should not by themselves constitute material for a preventive order.
    5. Enforce the Code on Wages, 2019 floor wage: Timely notification and revision of minimum wages removes the grievance that produced the agitation, since Uttar Pradesh conceded the revision within four days of the protests.
    6. Regulate contract hiring: Registration of contractors and a statutory grievance route for contract workers gives them a channel short of street protest, addressing the absence of any union or employer of record.
    7. Institutionalise a protest response protocol: A published standard for how the police respond to a peaceful assembly, applied uniformly, would end the disparity between the assurance given at Jantar Mantar and the crackdown at Noida.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023] Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Constitution of India, the Central Government has a duty to protect States from internal disturbances. 2. The Constitution of India exempts the States from providing legal counsel to person being held for preventive detention 3. According to the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, confession of the accused before the police cannot be used as evidence. How many of the above statements are correct? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Answer: (a)”