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

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2

  • [18th February 2026] The Hindu OpED: The new world disorder, from rules to might

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2019] “The long-sustained image of India as a leader of the oppressed and marginalised Nations has disappeared on account of its new found role in the emerging global order”. Elaborate.

    Linkage: The question directly examines India’s transition within the evolving global order, mirroring the article’s theme of shifting from a rules-based to a power-centric system. It tests understanding of multilateralism, geopolitical realignment, and legitimacy in global governance.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The post-1945 international order, built on multilateralism, sovereignty, and rule-based conduct, faces structural erosion. Major powers increasingly privilege strategic convenience over institutional commitments. This article examines the weakening of global governance frameworks and its implications for sovereignty, multilateral legitimacy, and international stability.

    Why in the News?

    The article is significant amid rising global conflicts, weakening multilateral institutions, and increasing disregard for international law by major powers. The retreat from global agreements and selective respect for sovereignty mark a shift from a rules-based order to power-based geopolitics. This transition has direct implications for global stability and India’s foreign policy.

    Introduction

    The rules-based global order, institutionalized after 1945 under the leadership of the United States and embodied in the United Nations system, aimed to restrain power through law, multilateral institutions, and collective security. The foundational belief was that sovereignty carried responsibility, and no state could claim special privilege outside international law.

    Current geopolitical developments reflect a shift from rules to power politics. The retreat from multilateral agreements, selective enforcement of norms, and normalization of coercive statecraft signal structural stress within global governance institutions.

    Has the Rules-Based International Order Lost Institutional Credibility?

    1. Multilateral Retreat: Withdrawal from international agreements weakens collective governance; e.g., U.S. exit from climate and arms-control frameworks reduced institutional predictability.
    2. Norm Erosion: Non-aggression and territorial integrity principles face selective application; example: major power interventions without UN authorization.
    3. Legitimacy Deficit: Institutions retain formal mandates but lack enforcement capacity; UN Security Council paralysis illustrates structural limits.
    4. Fragmentation: Emergence of regional power blocs reduces universality of norms; example: competing economic corridors and trade alliances.

    Does Selective Sovereignty Undermine Constitutional Principles of International Law?

    1. Sovereign Equality Principle: UN Charter guarantees equal sovereignty; selective recognition violates foundational norms.
    2. Non-Aggression Norm: Prohibits territorial acquisition by force; current conflicts challenge enforcement credibility.
    3. Rule Consistency: Law loses authority when applied variably; example: differential responses to territorial disputes.
    4. Precedent Risk: Tolerated violations create normative cascades affecting smaller states disproportionately.

    How Has Unilateralism Impacted Global Regulatory Frameworks?

    1. Arms Control Weakening: Withdrawal from arms-control treaties reduces transparency and raises escalation risks.
    2. Trade Institutional Stress: WTO dispute resolution paralysis reduces enforceability of trade norms.
    3. Climate Governance Gap: Reduced cooperation delays coordinated mitigation targets.
    4. Pandemic Coordination Failure: Vaccine nationalism exposed limits of global health governance.

    Are Multilateral Institutions Structurally Equipped to Regulate Great Power Behaviour?

    1. Power Concentration: UN Security Council veto structure centralizes authority.
    2. Enforcement Limitations: Peacekeeping mandates depend on political consensus.
    3. Resource Constraints: Financial dependency on major contributors affects autonomy.
    4. Moral Authority vs Legal Authority: Institutions rely on compliance culture rather than coercive enforcement.

    Does the Shift from Law to Power Represent a Structural Reset of Global Governance?

    1. Transition Phase: Emerging multipolarity redistributes influence among regional actors.
    2. Institutional Adaptation Gap: Post-1945 architecture reflects bipolar Cold War realities.
    3. Competing Norm Systems: Divergent governance models challenge universal liberal norms.
    4. Long-Term Risk: Gradual institutional decay may normalize “might is right” doctrine.

    Conclusion

    The post-1945 rules-based order is experiencing structural erosion due to unilateralism, selective application of norms, and weakened multilateral institutions. The risk lies not in sudden collapse but in gradual institutional hollowing. Sustaining global stability requires renewed commitment to sovereignty, rule of law, and credible multilateral reform to prevent normalization of power-centric geopolitics.

  • India and France upgrade their ties to strategic partnership

    Why in the News?

    India and France have upgraded their ties to “Special Global Strategic Partnership” during high-level talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Emmanuel Macron in Mumbai in February 2026. The development is significant because it marks a qualitative shift from defence buyer-seller relations toward co-development, co-production, and technology transfer.

    What is the list of outcomes after the visit of the French President?

      1. Upgrading of the India-France relationship to “Special Global Strategic Partnership”
      2. Establishment of annual Foreign Ministers Dialogue for regularly reviewing implementation of the elevated partnership and Horizon 2047 Roadmap
    • Technology and Innovation
        1. Launch of the India-France Year of Innovation
        2. Launch of the India-France Innovation Network
    • Defence and Security
        1. Inauguration of H125 Helicopter Final Assembly Line at Vemagal, Karnataka
        2. Renewal of the Agreement between Government of India and French Republic on Defence Cooperation
        3. Joint Venture between BEL and Safran to produce HAMMER missiles in India
        4. Reciprocal deployment of officers at Indian Army and French Land Forces establishments
    • Critical and Emerging Technologies including defence.
      1. Constitution of a Joint Advanced Technology Development Group
      2. Joint Declaration of Intent for Cooperation in Critical Minerals and Metals
      3. Letter of Intent to establish a Centre on Advanced Materials between DST and CNRS

    How does the historical evolution of the Strategic Partnership institutionalize long-term strategic autonomy?

    1. Strategic Partnership Framework (1998): Establishes India’s first-ever Strategic Partnership; strengthens strategic independence through structured cooperation in defence, civil nuclear energy, and space.
    2. Core Pillars: Anchors cooperation in Defence & Security, Civil Nuclear Energy, and Space; expands to Indo-Pacific, maritime security, digitalisation, cyber security, and advanced computing.
    3. Shared Democratic Values: Reinforces rule-based international order, multilateralism, and respect for international law; strengthens convergence in global governance platforms.
    4. Horizon 2047 Roadmap (2023): Sets a 25-year structured cooperation plan aligning with the centenary of India’s independence and diplomatic ties; ensures long-term policy predictability.
    5. Reciprocal National Day Honours (2023-24): Marks unprecedented diplomatic signalling with both leaders serving as Guests of Honour at successive national celebrations; elevates symbolic and political trust.

    How does the upgraded partnership strengthen India’s defence indigenisation and manufacturing capacity?

    1. Defence Co-production: Expands joint manufacturing through Tata-Airbus collaboration for H125 helicopters; strengthens domestic aerospace ecosystem.
    2. Indigenous Content Enhancement: Raises Rafale aircraft indigenous component target up to 50%; reduces import dependence.
    3. MRO Infrastructure Development: Establishes aero-engine Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul facilities in India; improves lifecycle cost efficiency and strategic readiness.
    4. Technology Transfer: Facilitates access to advanced aviation and defence technologies; strengthens Atmanirbhar Bharat in defence.
    5. Export Capability: Enables India to manufacture and export helicopters globally; positions India as aerospace manufacturing hub.

    What governance and regulatory implications arise from expanding cooperation in critical minerals and technology sectors?

    1. Critical Mineral Security: Diversifies sourcing arrangements; reduces vulnerability to supply disruptions in rare earths and strategic minerals.
    2. Innovation Ecosystem Integration: Launches India-France Innovation Forum; supports startups and joint R&D pipelines.
    3. Digital and AI Collaboration: Expands cooperation in Artificial Intelligence and advanced digital science; strengthens regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies.
    4. Strategic Technology Safeguards: Enhances trusted supply chains; ensures compliance with global export-control regimes.

    How does the partnership advance economic diplomacy and industrial policy objectives?

    1. Industrial Capacity Expansion: Establishes National Centre of Excellence for Skilling in Aeronautics; develops skilled aerospace workforce.
    2. Investment Facilitation: Encourages joint ventures and long-term capital flows; strengthens Make in India manufacturing clusters.
    3. Health Technology Collaboration: Launches Indo-French Centre for Digital Science and Technology; promotes research collaboration in healthcare.
    4. Value Chain Integration: Connects Indian MSMEs with French global supply chains; increases technology absorption capacity.

    What does this upgrade indicate about India’s strategic autonomy in an evolving multipolar order?

    1. Balanced Foreign Policy: Deepens engagement with France independent of bloc politics; reinforces multi-alignment strategy.
    2. Defence Diversification: Reduces over-reliance on single-source suppliers; enhances bargaining leverage.
    3. Maritime Security Cooperation: Strengthens Indo-Pacific coordination; supports freedom of navigation and regional stability.
    4. Global Governance Role: Expands collaboration in climate action, space, and nuclear energy; aligns with India’s aspiration for leadership in Global South.

    How does institutional dialogue ensure accountability and continuity in bilateral relations?

    1. Annual Defence Dialogue Mechanism: Institutionalizes periodic review of defence cooperation; ensures policy continuity.
    2. Joint Statements and Frameworks: Formalizes commitments through structured agreements; enhances transparency.
    3. Implementation Monitoring: Tracks indigenous production targets and technology-sharing commitments; ensures measurable outcomes.
    4. Sectoral Working Groups: Coordinates defence, minerals, health, and innovation cooperation through specialized channels.

    Conclusion

    India-France defence cooperation has evolved from a transactional buyer–seller model to a comprehensive strategic partnership anchored in co-development, technology transfer, and long-term industrial collaboration. The expansion into defence-space integration, Indo-Pacific maritime coordination, and advanced propulsion research reflects deep institutional trust and shared geopolitical convergence. By strengthening indigenous manufacturing, diversifying defence sourcing, and institutionalizing structured dialogue mechanisms, the partnership reinforces India’s strategic autonomy while contributing to regional stability in an increasingly multipolar and contested global order.
    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Critically analyse India’s evolving diplomatic, economic and strategic relations with the Central Asian Republics (CARs) highlighting their increasing significance in regional and global geopolitics

    Linkage: This PYQ tests ability to analyse strategic partnerships in a geopolitical framework. This is directly applicable to India-France ties, Indo-Pacific cooperation, and defence diplomacy.

  • Ramdev’s Personality Rights Plea before Delhi High Court

    Why in the News?

    Yoga guru Ramdev approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against parody accounts, memes and alleged unauthorised digital identities on social media platforms. The Court orally observed that public figures cannot be overly sensitive to satire or commentary.

    What are Personality Rights?

    • Personality rights refer to a person’s right to:
      • Protect their name, image, voice, likeness and identity
      • Prevent unauthorised commercial use
      • Stop misrepresentation or false endorsement
    • In India, personality rights are not codified in a single statute but are derived from:
      • Article 21 of the Constitution, Right to life and personal liberty
      • Law of torts
      • Passing off under trademark law

    Issues Raised in the Case

    • Objection by Petitioner

      • Parody accounts allegedly using his identity
      • Meme based political commentary
      • Digital identities created without consent
      • Alleged monetisation and product endorsement

    • Stand of Social Media Platforms

      • Satire, political commentary and fair comment must be protected
      • Not all parody violates personality rights
      • Some accounts already suspended or modified
    [2024] Under which of the following Articles of the Constitution of India, has the Supreme Court of India placed the Right to Privacy? (a) Article 15 

    (b) Article 16 

    (c) Article 19 

    (d) Article 21

  • Iran briefly closes the Strait of Hormuz amid US nuclear talks

    Why in the News?

    Iran announced a temporary closure of part of the Strait of Hormuz during indirect nuclear talks with the United States in Geneva, marking the first such announcement amid escalating tensions.

    About the Strait of Hormuz

    • Narrow maritime chokepoint between:
      • Iran
      • Oman
    • Connects:
      • Persian Gulf
      • Gulf of Oman and Arabian Sea
    • Around 20 percent of global oil trade passes through it.
    • Critical for exports from:
      • Saudi Arabia
      • United Arab Emirates
      • Iraq and Kuwait

    Background: US–Iran Nuclear Talks

    • Talks held in Geneva through Omani mediation.
    • Discussions focused on:
      • Iran’s nuclear programme
      • Sanctions relief
    • Iran insists it will not give up uranium enrichment.
    • US reportedly seeks to widen talks to include missile capability.
    [2024] Consider the following statements: 

    Statement-I: Sumed pipeline is a strategic route for Persian Gulf oil and natural gas shipments to Europe. 

    Statement-II: Sumed pipeline connects the Red Sea with the Mediterranean Sea. 

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements? 

    (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I 

    (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I 

    (c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect 

    (d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

  • Supreme Court on Fraternity & Public Speech by Constitutional Functionaries

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India orally observed that political leaders and holders of high public office must foster fraternity and adhere to constitutional morality while hearing a petition alleging stigmatizing and discriminatory public statements by Chief Ministers and senior officials.

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    • Preamble: Secures Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
    • Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
    • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression.
    • Article 19(2): Reasonable restrictions on speech.
    • Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
    • Article 51A(e): Fundamental duty to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood.

    Key Observations by the Court

    • Political leaders must promote fraternity in a 75 plus year old democracy.
    • Constitutional functionaries are not ordinary speakers as their words carry the imprimatur of the State.
    • Need for restraint in communally divisive and discriminatory speeches.
    • Court indicated willingness to consider guidelines, without imposing prior restraint.
    • Concern over “normalisation” of constitutionally unbecoming speeches.

    Important Concepts for Prelims

    • Constitutional Morality: First articulated in Indian constitutional discourse in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2018). Refers to adherence to constitutional values over majoritarian impulses.
    • Fraternity: Ensures unity and integrity of the nation. Protects dignity of the individual. Linked to prevention of hate speech and social exclusion.
    • Constitutional Tort: Public law remedy where State action violates fundamental rights. Compensation may be awarded for violation of rights by public authorities.

    Free Speech vs. Accountability

    • No prior censorship advocated.
    • Focus on regulating consequences of speech when made by high public officials.
    • Balancing Article 19(1)(a) with Article 14 and Article 21.
    [2017] Which one of the following statements is correct? (a) Rights are claims of the State against the citizens. 

    (b) Rights are privileges which are incorporated in the Constitution of a State. 

    (c) Rights are claims of the citizens against the State. 

    (d) Rights are privileges of a few citizens against the many.

  • [17th February 2026] The Hindu OpED: India’s federalism is need of a structural reset

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What changes has the Union Government recently introduced in the domain of Centre-Stare relations? Suggest measures to be adopted to build the trust between the Centre and the States and for strengthening federalism.

    Linkage: This question directly examines contemporary shifts in Centre-State dynamics, aligning with the structural reset debate. It enables discussion on centralisation trends, fiscal federalism, and institutional trust, core themes of the article.

    Mentor’s Comment:

    This article addresses the structural evolution of Indian federalism, a core GS Paper II theme with direct constitutional and governance relevance. It equips aspirants to critically analyse Centre-State tensions beyond politics, linking doctrine, fiscal policy, and institutional accountability.

    Why in the News?

    The federalism debate has intensified after the Tamil Nadu-constituted Justice Kurian Joseph Committee submitted Part I of its report reviewing Union-State relations. The report questions the expanding legislative and fiscal footprint of the Union and argues that excessive centralisation is weakening functional federal balance. Since federalism forms part of the Constitution’s Basic Structure, the issue carries long-term institutional implications beyond routine political contestation.

    What Is the Current Constitutional Structure of Federalism in India?

    The current constitutional structure of Indian federalism is a “Union of States” (Article 1) featuring a dual polity with a strong centralizing bias, designed to balance regional autonomy with national integrity. It operates through a three-fold legislative distribution (Seventh Schedule), a written constitution, an independent judiciary, and emergency provisions (Articles 352-360) that can alter the federal balance. 

    Key components of this structure include:

    1. Quasi-Federal Design: Establishes a federal polity with a strong Union; sovereignty rests with the Constitution, not the States.
    2. Division of Powers: The Seventh Schedule divides subjects into the Union List (exclusive central power), State List (exclusive state power), and Concurrent List (shared power).
    3. Residuary Powers (Article 248): Vests residuary subjects in Parliament, strengthening central authority.
    4. Emergency Provisions (Articles 352, 356, 360): Enable temporary centralisation; Article 356 permits President’s Rule in States.
    5. Fiscal Federalism: The Finance Commission (Article 280) recommends tax revenue distribution between the Union and States.
    6. Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court (e.g., S.R. Bommai case) has declared federalism part of the “Basic Structure,” meaning it cannot be destroyed by constitutional amendment.
    7. Cooperative/Asymmetrical Federalism: Mechanisms include the Inter-State Council (Article 263) and special provisions for certain states (Schedules V and VI). 

    While often called “quasi-federal” due to these centralizing features, the system enables states to function as independent constitutional entities in ordinary times

    Why Is There a Need for a Structural Reset in India’s Federal Framework?

    1. Excessive Centralisation: Union intervention has expanded beyond constitutional limits. Example: Increasing central laws on education policy despite education being in the Concurrent List.
    2. Diminished State Autonomy: Legislative and administrative discretion of States has narrowed. Example: Uniform GST structure limits States’ independent taxation powers.
    3. Governor’s Expanding Discretion: Delays in assent affect State legislative functioning. Example: Delay in assent to Bills passed by the Tamil Nadu Assembly led to litigation before the Supreme Court.
    4. Overlapping Governance Roles: Union ministries operate in State-assigned sectors. Example: Central regulatory frameworks in health and agriculture influence areas primarily managed by States.
    5. Weak Institutional Dialogue: Federal mechanisms function less as consultative forums. Example: Limited effective use of the Inter-State Council under Article 263 for resolving disputes.

    Has Centralisation Distorted the Original Constitutional Balance?

    1. Historical Design Bias: The Constitution adopted a federal structure with a strong Centre due to post-Partition insecurity and integration of 500+ princely States.
    2. Legislative Expansion: Expansion of Union legislation in Concurrent List subjects has reduced State autonomy.
    3. Subordinate Legislation: Union executive increasingly overrides State laws through procedural and regulatory mechanisms.
    4. Conditional Fiscal Transfers: Centrally Sponsored Schemes impose rigid templates, limiting State flexibility.
    5. Administrative Duplication: Expansion of Union ministries into domains traditionally managed by States creates functional overlap.

    Outcome: Centralisation increases reach but reduces contextual responsiveness.

    Does Judicial Doctrine Adequately Protect Federalism in Practice?

    1. Basic Structure Protection: Federalism declared part of Basic Structure in S.R. Bommai (1994).
    2. Plenary State Authority: States are not administrative appendages within their allotted spheres.
    3. Doctrinal-Practical Gap: Despite judicial affirmation, legislative and fiscal trends favour uniform national solutions over contextual diversity.
    4. Executive Overreach: Increasing preference for central regulation in health, education, and agriculture dilutes State discretion.

    Outcome: Constitutional doctrine protects federalism normatively; implementation trends weaken it functionally.

    Does Over-Centralisation Reduce Governance Effectiveness?

    1. Administrative Overstretch: Concentration of responsibilities burdens Union institutions beyond efficient supervisory capacity.
    2. Context Insensitivity: National policy frameworks fail to reflect linguistic, ecological, agricultural, and industrial diversity.
    3. Innovation Suppression: Uniform schemes restrict experimentation at State level.
    4. Evidence of Success:
      1. Tamil Nadu’s noon meal scheme originated as a State innovation before national expansion.
      2. Kerala’s public health and literacy models evolved from decentralised governance
      3. Maharashtra’s employment guarantee model preceded national adoption.

    Outcome: Decentralisation enables pilot-based policy diffusion and scalable innovation.

    Does Fiscal Federalism Adequately Empower States?

    1. Vertical Imbalance: States undertake major expenditure responsibilities (health, education, policing) but possess limited taxation powers.
    2. Centrally Sponsored Schemes: Rigid conditionalities reduce State fiscal discretion.
    3. GST Structure: Shared taxation reduces independent fiscal manoeuvrability.
    4. Expanding Mandates: Increasing regulatory complexity and expanding central schemes stretch State resources.

    Outcome: Fiscal dependency weakens accountability and policy autonomy.

    Does Capacity Argument Justify Intrusive Central Control?

    The Capacity Argument refers to the claim that many States lack adequate administrative, financial, or technical capability to effectively implement complex policies. On this basis, the Union justifies greater central intervention, standardisation, and control in governance domains.

    1. Capacity Paradox: Claims that States lack administrative capacity lead to central intervention.
    2. Dependency Cycle: Persistent intervention prevents States from developing institutional competence.
    3. Accountability Deficit: Decision-making shifts away from local voters toward distant central authorities.
    4. Comparative Federalism Insight: Decentralised federations globally deliver sustained quality, equity, and competitiveness through shared responsibility.

    Outcome: Capacity develops through responsibility, autonomy, and corrective feedback.

    What Institutional Reforms Are Being Proposed for Recalibration?

    1. High-Level Committee Review: Comprehensive review of Governors’ role, legislative competence, and fiscal relations.
    2. Right-Sizing Objective: Aligns authority with responsibility without weakening national unity.
    3. Structural Reforms: Calls for rebalancing rather than incremental adjustment.
    4. Federal Accountability: Emphasises trust-based partnership between Union and States.

    Outcome: Recalibration deepens unity by strengthening cooperative federalism.

    Conclusion

    India’s constitutional design created a Union with strength, not supremacy. Contemporary governance trends indicate a steady expansion of central authority across legislative, fiscal, and administrative domains. The Justice Kurian Joseph Committee’s intervention reframes the debate from political contestation to structural recalibration.

    A durable federal balance requires aligning authority with responsibility, restoring meaningful consultation, and strengthening institutional trust. Recalibration of Centre–State relations would enhance accountability, improve policy responsiveness, and preserve the constitutional promise of cooperative federalism.

  • A seperate classification for denotified tribes

    Why in the News?

    The issue is in the news because the Union Government has assured that Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes will be enumerated in the 2027 Census, raising fresh demands for a separate constitutional classification. Community leaders argue that despite past commissions and welfare schemes, these groups remain undercounted, under-recognised, and excluded from effective benefits.

    What are Denotified Tribes (DNTs)?

    DNTs are communities originally labeled “born criminal” under the British-era Criminal Tribes Act of 1871, repealed in 1952, while Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic tribes (NT/SNT) move frequently for livelihood. Comprising roughly 10% of India’s population (~150 DNTs, 500+ NTs), these marginalized groups face stigma, lack of land rights.

    Key Aspects of DNT and Nomadic Tribes

    1. Definition & History: Denotified tribes (also known as Vimukta Jati) were branded criminals by the British; after 1952, they were “denotified” but often subjected to the Habitual Offenders Act. Nomadic tribes move regularly, while semi-nomadic tribes have less frequent, often seasonal, movement patterns.
    2. Population & Diversity: Approximately 10% of India’s population belongs to these groups. The Renke Commission (2005) estimated their population at 10.74 crore.
    3. Marginalization: Due to historical stigma and lack of permanent settlement, these communities often lack access to education, healthcare, and land ownership.
    4. Current Status & Welfare: The Development and Welfare Board for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Communities (DWBDNC) was established in 2019 to provide support and welfare.
    5. Initiatives: There is an ongoing push for inclusion in the 2027 Census for better representation and targeted welfare, following recommendations from the Idate Commission (2018).
    6. Examples: Groups include the Van Gujjars, Lambadis, and Gujjar-Bakarwals. 

    Key Commissions and Boards

    1. National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT)
    2. Idate Commission: Submitted a report in 2018 identifying 1,262 communities.
    3. Development and Welfare Board for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Communities (DWBDNC): Established in 2019 for the welfare of these communities

    How did colonial classification shape present governance challenges?

    1. Criminal Tribes Act, 1871: Legally notified certain communities as “addicted to crime,” enabling surveillance, forced registration, and restricted movement. Institutionalised stigma and collective punishment.
    2. Administrative Control Mechanisms: Enabled police monitoring and habitual offender tagging. Replaced community identity with criminal identity.
    3. Post-Independence Repeal (1952): Repeal of CTA did not remove stigma; many States enacted Habitual Offenders Acts, continuing surveillance under new terminology.
    4. Long-term Consequence: Absence of reparative constitutional recognition despite historical state-imposed criminalisation.

    Why has post-independence classification failed to ensure equitable inclusion?

    1. Fragmented Categorisation: DNTs distributed across SC, ST, OBC, and unreserved lists; prevents uniform access to benefits.
    2. Lack of Separate Enumeration: No exclusive census category; absence of accurate demographic data.
    3. Certification Gaps: Limited issuance of DNT certificates across States; administrative barriers restrict welfare access.
    4. Policy Dilution: Subsumption under broader OBC or SC lists reduces visibility and competition within quota frameworks.

    What did the Idate Commission recommend and how has implementation fared?

    1. National Commission for DNTs (2015-2018): Recommended identification of 1,200+ communities; estimated population above 10 crore.
    2. Separate Category Proposal: Suggested permanent institutional mechanism for DNT welfare.
    3. Institutional Integration: Recommended targeted development schemes and simplified certification.
    4. Implementation Deficit: No constitutional amendment; recommendations remain partially operationalised.

    Does the SEED Scheme address structural exclusion effectively?

    1. Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs (SEED): Launched by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for livelihood, education, housing, and health support.
    2. Digital Identification Requirement: Beneficiaries must provide caste certificates; excludes those lacking documentation.
    3. Low Financial Utilisation: Only a fraction of ₹200 crore reportedly spent over five years.
    4. Structural Limitation: Welfare scheme without constitutional backing limits transformative impact.

    Would a separate constitutional classification strengthen governance accountability?

    1. Equity Principle: Aligns with redistributive justice under Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4).
    2. Administrative Clarity: Enables uniform certification, enumeration, and targeted budgeting.
    3. Political Representation: Could ensure legislative and policy voice similar to SC/ST frameworks.
    4. Institutional Resistance: Government has indicated no proposal for separate classification; concerns over quota expansion and administrative complexity.

    How does the issue test constitutional morality and social justice commitments?

    1. Historical Reparative Justice: Addresses state-imposed criminalisation during colonial rule.
    2. Substantive Equality: Moves beyond formal equality to address structural stigma.
    3. Federal Coordination: Requires Centre-State harmonisation in certification and welfare delivery.
    4. Accountability Deficit: Lack of monitoring mechanisms for SEED utilisation reflects weak institutional oversight.

    Conclusion

    The question of a separate classification for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes ultimately tests India’s commitment to substantive equality and reparative justice. Enumeration in Census 2027 may improve visibility, but without institutional clarity, uniform certification, and stronger accountability in welfare delivery, historical stigma may persist in administrative form. A balanced approach combining accurate data, streamlined recognition, and targeted policy design is essential to translate constitutional promises into lived inclusion.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] “Development and welfare schemes for the vulnerable, by its nature, are discriminatory in approach.” Do you agree? Give reasons for your answer.

    Linkage: This PYQ links to DNTs as targeted welfare for historically criminalised communities requires differential treatment to achieve substantive equality. It also helps evaluate whether schemes like SEED correct structural exclusion or remain limited in impact due to weak implementation.

  • Supreme Court to Revisit Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance Regime

    Why in the News?

    A three judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has decided to take a fresh look at writ petitions and appeals concerning the ex post facto environmental clearance regime for construction and public projects. The matter has been scheduled for detailed hearing on February 25, 2026.

    What is Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance?

    • “Ex post facto” means after the event.
    • It refers to granting environmental clearance EC after a project has already commenced or been completed, instead of prior approval.
    • Under Indian environmental law, prior EC is generally mandatory before starting certain categories of projects.

    Background of the Case

    • May 16, 2025 Judgment

      • A Division Bench of the Supreme Court:
      • Struck down the Centre’s ex post facto EC regime.
      • Termed it a “gross illegality”.
      • Held retrospective clearances contrary to environmental jurisprudence.

    • November 2025 Judgment

      • A three judge Bench recalled the May 2025 judgment.
      • Majority held continued operation would cause economic disruption.
      • Cited impact on projects involving thousands of crores of investment.
      • Restored the petitions to file without conclusively deciding validity of Office Memorandums.
      • One judge recorded a dissent, stating that environmental principles were overlooked.

    Legal Issues Involved

    1. Validity of Office Memorandums of 2017 and 2021 allowing post facto regularisation.
    2. Whether retrospective EC violates principles of sustainable development.
    3. Whether such clearances defeat precautionary principle.
    4. Balancing environmental protection with economic development.

    Relevant Legal Framework

    • Environment Protection Act 1986.
    • EIA Notification 2006 requiring prior environmental clearance.
    • Constitutional basis:
      • Article 21 right to life includes right to healthy environment.
      • Article 48A directive principle on environmental protection.
      • Article 51A g fundamental duty to protect environment.
    [2012] The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 was enacted in consonance with which of the following provisions of the Constitution of India? 1. Right to healthy environment, construed as a part of Right to life under Article 21. 

    2. Provision of grants for raising the level of administration in the Scheduled Areas for the welfare of Scheduled Tribes under Article 275 (1). 

    3. Powers and functions of Gram Sabha as mentioned under Article 243(A). 

    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

  • DPDP Act vs RTI Act: SC Refers Challenge to Constitution Bench

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court of India has agreed to refer to a Constitution Bench petitions challenging Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023, which allegedly restricts disclosure of personal information under the Right to Information Act 2005.

    Core Issue

    • Petitioners argue that:
      • Section 44(3) creates a blanket prohibition on disclosure of personal information.
      • It amends Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
      • It weakens transparency and accountability.
      • It gives the government “unguided discretion” to deny information.

    Note: The Chief Justice observed that the matter raises complex constitutional questions, especially the meaning of “personal information”.

    What Changed?

    Original Position under RTI Act Section 8(1)(j)

    • Personal information could be denied if:
      • It had no relation to public activity, or
      • Disclosure caused unwarranted invasion of privacy.
    • However, disclosure was mandatory if larger public interest outweighed privacy concerns.
    • Decision taken by Public Information Officer after balancing privacy and transparency.

    After DPDP Act Amendment

    • Petitioners argue that the amendment removes the public interest override.
    • Allegedly creates wider restriction on access to personal information.

    Constitutional Provisions Involved

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Right to freedom of speech and expression, includes right to information.
    2. Article 14: Equality before law. Petition argues privacy of public officials cannot be equated with private citizens.
    3. Right to Privacy: Recognised as fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment 2017.

    Relevant Judicial Precedent

    • In Central Public Information Officer vs Supreme Court of India 2019, a Constitution Bench applied the proportionality test to balance RTI and privacy.
    • Verdict: Personal information remains private unless larger public interest justifies disclosure.

    Key Legal Questions Before Constitution Bench

    • What constitutes “personal information”?
    • Whether Section 44(3) violates Article 19(1)(a)?
    • Whether it fails the proportionality test?
    • Whether privacy can be invoked by the State?
    [2021] We adopted parliamentary democracy based on the British model, but how does our model differ from that model? 

    1. As regards legislation, the British Parliament is supreme or sovereign but in India, the power of the Parliament to legislate is limited. 

    2. In India, matters related to the constitutionality of the Amendment of an Act of the Parliament are referred to the Constitution Bench by the Supreme Court. 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • [16th Februrary 2026] The Hindu OpED: The UAE-India corridor is sparking a growth story

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] The question of India’s Energy Security constitutes the most important part of India’s economic progress. Analyze India’s energy policy cooperation with West Asian Countries.

    Linkage: Energy cooperation with West Asia forms the backbone of India’s external economic strategy and remains central to supply stability and growth. Deepening ties with countries like the UAE reflect India’s shift from transactional oil imports to structured energy, investment, and renewable partnerships within its broader West Asia policy.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India-UAE relations have transitioned from energy trade to a multi-sector strategic economic relation. The partnership now spans trade, infrastructure, digital governance, financial integration, and AI cooperation. The development has implications for India’s industrial strategy, West Asia policy, and global supply chain positioning.

    Why in the News?

    The Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between India and the UAE is witnessing rapid expansion beyond tariff reduction into infrastructure, energy transition, and digital cooperation. This reflects a structural shift in India’s West Asia policy toward deeper economic and strategic integration.

    What is the India-UAE CEPA?

    1. The India-UAE Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), became  effective from May 1, 2022.
    2. It has significantly boosted bilateral trade to over USD 80 billion by early 2025. 

    How does CEPA institutionalize trade liberalization and regulatory coordination?

    1. Trade Liberalization: It eliminates tariffs on 97% of UAE imports from India and 90% of India’s exports to the UAE, focusing on key sectors like gems, jewellery, textiles, and engineering. It accelerates non-oil trade growth. Example: $100 billion trade milestone achieved ahead of schedule.
    2. Regulatory Certainty: Ensures predictable investment conditions, strengthens long-term industrial commitments. Example: Revised target of $200 billion by 2030.
    3. Services Integration: Expands cooperation in financial services, logistics, and technology sectors.
    4. Energy Security Framework: Strengthens LNG supply chains through ADNOC-Indian Oil agreements.

    How does infrastructure collaboration strengthen supply-chain resilience?

    1. Logistics Expansion: DP World invests $5+ billion in Indian ports and logistics parks.
    2. Industrial Corridors: Facilitates warehousing, wholesale hubs, and regional export networks.
    3. Strategic Port Connectivity: Enhances India-West Asia-Africa trade flows.
    4. Urban Infrastructure Investment: Mubadala invests over $4 billion in renewable and technology sectors.

    How does the corridor reflect strategic autonomy and geoeconomic balancing?

    1. Diversified Partnerships: Reduces overdependence on traditional Western or regional trade blocs.
    2. West Asia Realignment: Aligns with India’s extended neighbourhood strategy.
    3. Diaspora Diplomacy: Utilizes 3.5 million Indian diaspora for economic and institutional integration.
    4. Energy-to-Technology Shift: Expands cooperation beyond hydrocarbons into AI and digital governance.

    How does digital and AI cooperation redefine bilateral governance architecture?

    1. Technology Integration: Establishes AI research collaboration including global AI summits.
    2. Digital Economy Expansion: Supports fintech, data centres, and digital trade frameworks.
    3. Regulatory Innovation: Promotes technology governance dialogue between emerging economies.
    4. Institutional Coordination: Strengthens policy synchronization in digital standards.

    How does financial integration enhance institutional accountability and capital flows?

    1. Sovereign Wealth Participation: Mubadala channels long-term capital into Indian growth sectors.
    2. Banking Sector Consolidation: Emirates NBD acquisition expands foreign banking footprint in India.
    3. Investment Diversification: Encourages renewable, healthcare, and technology investments.
    4. Financial Stability Linkages: Deepens cross-border capital market integration.

    What governance challenges arise from rapid corridor expansion?

    1. Regulatory Harmonization: Requires alignment in customs, standards, and dispute resolution.
    2. Energy Transition Balance: Ensures diversification beyond hydrocarbons.
    3. Strategic Risk Management: Balances geopolitical shifts in West Asia.
    4. Institutional Coordination: Requires Centre-State alignment in logistics and industrial corridors.

    Conclusion 

    The UAE-India corridor institutionalizes economic integration through trade liberalization, infrastructure expansion, financial interdependence, and digital cooperation. It strengthens India’s geoeconomic positioning in West Asia while demanding regulatory harmonization and strategic risk management.