PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2024] Discuss the merits and demerits of the four ‘Labour Codes’ in the context of labour market reforms in India. What has been the progress so far in this regard?
Linkage: Building directly on the same reform trajectory, the draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 extends the labour codes’ framework of ease of doing business over worker protection. This highlights continued informalisation and weak enforcement. |
Mentor’s Comment
India’s draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 arrives at a critical juncture, when over 90% of India’s workforce is informal, and 11 million people endure modern slavery-like conditions. While the government calls it a “rights-driven, future-ready” labour vision grounded in “ancient Indian ethos”, the policy remains mired in contradictions. Behind its digital optimism and flexibility rhetoric lie deep structural issues, casualisation, exclusion of women, erosion of unions, and poor enforcement of safety norms. This article analyses how the draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 attempts reform but risks widening inequality instead of bridging it.
Introduction
India’s labour force, the world’s largest after China, is undergoing unprecedented informalisation. A majority of workers remain without contracts, benefits, or occupational safety, particularly in construction, seafood, textiles, and stone quarrying. Against this backdrop, the government has unveiled the draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025, the first comprehensive labour and employment policy in independent India, aimed at aligning with India@2047 goals. Yet, its “future-ready” tone contrasts sharply with the daily struggles of India’s informal workers. The draft blends cultural nostalgia with digital platforms and flexible labour regimes, but experts warn that without strong safeguards, it may formalise exploitation under a new vocabulary of efficiency and empowerment.
Why is the draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 significant?
- First comprehensive labour policy: India has never had a single overarching labour and employment policy before; this is the first draft of its kind.
- Presented as “rights-driven” and “future-ready”: The draft positions itself as a framework for inclusive, dignified employment by 2047.
- Ground reality contrast: It appears while millions remain in debt bondage or unsafe informal work, revealing a sharp policy-practice gap.
- Cultural framing: It draws legitimacy from “ancient Indian ethos” and texts like Manusmriti, a move critics call regressive in a modern labour context.
Does the draft empower workers or employers?
- Contractual and casual labour domination: In several sectors (textiles, seafood, stone quarries), workers are hired by middlemen without contracts, paid daily wages, and denied ESI or PF benefits.
- Employer-biased flexibility: The draft promotes “ease of doing business” but underplays enforcement of worker rights, effectively institutionalising job insecurity.
- Constitutional dilution: The framework overlooks Articles 14, 16 and 21, which guarantee equality, opportunity, and dignity, replacing them with moral and cultural justifications.
- ILO mismatch: The policy ignores obligations under ILO Conventions 42, 155, and 156, especially concerning maternity protection, safety, and gender equity.
Can digital optimism bridge the informal-formal divide?
- Digital skilling and employment matching: The draft relies heavily on AI-driven National Career Service (NCS) and Skill India digital platforms, promising to reduce mismatches.
- Reality check: Digital literacy in India remains at 38%, and most informal workers, particularly women and the elderly, remain excluded from such systems.
- eSHRAM limitations: Despite over 30 crore registrations, payouts remain minimal and inconsistent, with large data gaps for unorganised workers.
- Algorithmic exclusion: Tech-based hiring may amplify caste and gender bias, lacking oversight on fairness, grievance redress, or algorithmic accountability.
Does the draft align with constitutional and global standards?
- Constitutional inconsistency: Ignores equality provisions (Articles 14-16) and fails to guarantee dignity (Article 21) by sidelining unionisation and inspectorate powers.
- ILO and OECD compliance gap: India risks non-alignment with ILO Conventions 87 and 98 (freedom of association and collective bargaining) and OECD recommendations on equitable labour transitions.
- Rights to collective action: Tripartite bodies (state, employer, worker) are mentioned but not institutionally strengthened, weakening labour representation.
What are the draft policy’s main areas of concern?
- Inspectorate dilution: Reduction in on-ground inspections under the garb of self-certification leads to unchecked safety violations.
- Gendered impact: While women’s participation is targeted to rise to 35% by 2047, no clear mechanism ensures safe, accessible, or equitable workplaces.
- Wage inequality and gig exclusion: Wage Code 2019 is silent on platform workers’ benefits, leaving gig labourers outside social protection systems.
- Union erosion: By promoting individual “digital dashboards” over collective negotiations, the draft undermines trade union power and collective action.
What should guide India’s final labour framework?
- Universal social protection floor: Extend ESI, EPFO, and health coverage to informal and gig workers.
- Reinstate labour inspectorates: Institutionalise independent audits for occupational safety and minimum wage compliance.
- Gender-responsive budgeting: Make gender equity measurable through labour audits, wage reporting, and leadership representation.
- Digital inclusion safeguards: Ensure data privacy, algorithmic fairness, and accessibility for low-literacy workers.
- Constitutional morality over cultural ethos: Replace rhetoric with enforceable rights, ensuring compliance with Articles 14, 19, 21, and 23 (prohibition of forced labour).
Conclusion
The draft Shram Shakti Niti 2025 aspires to modernise India’s labour market, but its moral overtones and digital bias risk leaving the poorest behind. Without strong enforcement, union empowerment, and gender-sensitive safeguards, this “future-ready” vision may perpetuate rather than resolve inequality. India’s final policy must reflect constitutional morality, not cultural nostalgia, ensuring labour dignity remains the cornerstone of economic growth.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Introduction
Tribunals were established to reduce case pendency and offer specialized adjudication. However, the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and earlier ordinances have led to repeated confrontations between the judiciary and the executive. The heart of the issue is who controls tribunal appointments, tenure, and conditions of service, key determinants of their independence.
Why in the News
The Supreme Court’s hearing of petitions challenging the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, has revived tensions between the judiciary and the executive. The Act reintroduced provisions similar to those struck down in 2021, raising serious questions on legislative overreach and separation of powers.
The friction highlights a persistent constitutional conflict, whether the government can re-legislate provisions nullified by the judiciary, thereby potentially undermining judicial independence.
Legislative-Judicial Tug of War
- Recurring Conflict: The 2021 Act was re-enacted despite similar provisions being struck down in the Madras Bar Association cases.
- Old Tussle: The conflict dates back to the Finance Act, 2017, which merged and restructured tribunals, transferring appointment powers to the executive.
- Judicial Stand: The Supreme Court, through Rojer Mathew v. Union of India (2019), emphasized that executive control compromises judicial independence.
Why Tribunals Matter
- Quasi-judicial bodies: Provide speedy, specialized dispute resolution in fields such as taxation, company law, and environmental regulation.
- Caseload reduction: Designed to reduce the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court.
- Constitutional relevance: Operate within the framework of Articles 323A and 323B, upholding efficiency while ensuring justice.
Key Provisions under Scrutiny
- Four-year tenure: Petitioners argued that short tenures for tribunal members increase executive dependence and curb independence.
- Minimum age of 50: Limits the entry of younger judges and advocates, discouraging fresh perspectives.
- Centre’s ordinance powers: By re-promulgating similar provisions struck down earlier, the executive bypassed judicial verdicts, violating separation of powers.
- Judicial recommendation ignored: Despite the Supreme Court’s suggestion for five-year terms and reduced executive control, the Centre retained earlier structures.
Centre’s Counter-arguments
- Efficiency claim: The Union Government maintained that its framework ensures administrative uniformity and timely appointments.
- Vacancy delays: The government cited delays due to tribunal restructuring, e.g., 22 vacancies each in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) as of 2022.
- Assurance of autonomy: Claimed that the Act “balances independence with accountability,” keeping tribunals within executive purview but without judicial interference.
The Larger Constitutional Question
- Judicial Independence: Re-enactment of struck-down provisions challenges the finality of judicial pronouncements under Article 141.
- Separation of Powers: Raises concerns over legislative encroachment into the judicial domain.
- Checks and Balances: Highlights the tension between Parliament’s sovereignty and constitutional supremacy.
Broader Implications for Governance
- Precedent for defiance: If sustained, it may embolden future legislations to circumvent judicial review.
- Public trust erosion: Undermines citizen confidence in the impartiality of quasi-judicial institutions.
- Administrative justice: Weakens the intent behind tribunals to provide independent, expert, and speedy justice.
Conclusion
The discord over tribunals reflects a larger struggle for institutional balance in India’s democracy. While the Centre seeks administrative control, the judiciary insists on independence as the bedrock of rule of law. The resolution of this dispute will determine how India upholds the integrity of constitutional institutions in the years ahead.
Value Addition
|
Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021
Background & Context
- The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 replaced the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.
- Aimed at streamlining tribunal functioning and reducing dependence on multiple bodies, but reintroduced provisions previously struck down by the Supreme Court in the Madras Bar Association cases.
Key Features of the Act
- Tenure: Chairperson, 4 years or till 70 years (whichever earlier); Members, 4 years or till 67 years.
- Minimum Age: Mandates a minimum age of 50 years for appointment, excluding younger judicial talent.
- Search-Cum-Selection Committee: Chaired by the Chief Justice of India or his nominee, but final appointments rest with the Central Government.
- Abolition of Certain Tribunals: Dissolved 9 appellate tribunals including the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal and Intellectual Property Appellate Board, transferring jurisdiction to High Courts.
- Uniform Terms & Conditions: Standardised salary, tenure, and service conditions across tribunals.
Landmark Judicial Interventions
- Rojer Mathew v. Union of India (2019): Directed review of tribunal reforms under Finance Act, 2017.
- Madras Bar Association v. Union of India (2021): Struck down provisions on tenure and appointment as unconstitutional.
- Union of India v. Madras Bar Association (2021, July): Reaffirmed judicial supremacy over tribunal independence.
Constitutional and Administrative Value
- Articles 323A & 323B: Empower Parliament and State Legislatures to create tribunals but subject to judicial review.
- Basic Structure Doctrine: Tribunal autonomy linked to independence of the judiciary, a basic feature of the Constitution.
- Rule of Law: Any dilution of independence violates constitutional morality and judicial accountability.
|
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2018] How far do you agree with the view that tribunals curtail the jurisdiction of ordinary courts? In view of the above, discuss the constitutional validity and competency of the tribunals in India.
Linkage: The question directly relates to the ongoing SC-Centre conflict over the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. This relates to the understanding of Articles 323A & 323B, judicial independence, and the balance between tribunal efficiency and constitutional validity.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Introduction
The Palk Bay, a narrow strip separating Tamil Nadu from Sri Lanka, has historically been a shared fishing zone. However, repeated arrests of Indian fishermen for crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) underline a persistent challenge. Bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice, has been the core issue fueling ecological degradation, diplomatic tension, and economic distress. The recent arrest on November 9, 2024, reopens the debate on reconciling traditional livelihoods with sustainable and legal marine resource use.
Why in the news?
The arrest of 14 Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy marks another flashpoint in the Palk Bay fishing dispute. This incident is significant because:
- Persistence of conflict: Despite decades of talks, fishermen from both nations continue to cross maritime boundaries for catch-rich zones.
- Scale of problem: Over 128 fishermen from Tamil Nadu remain in Sri Lankan custody, with boats seized.
- Diplomatic urgency: The issue features regularly in bilateral meetings, yet lacks a lasting policy resolution.
- Ecological threat: The practice of bottom trawling continues to damage coral beds and marine biodiversity, making it a cross-border environmental crisis.
Why do Tamil Nadu fishermen continue to cross the IMBL?
- Livelihood dependence: For thousands of families, fishing remains the only sustainable income source. The depletion of nearshore fish stocks has pushed them toward Sri Lankan waters.
- Cost-pressure fishing: Each voyage involves high operational costs, forcing fishermen to maximize yield through fast, large-scale trawling.
- Traditional persistence: The term “tradition” is often invoked to justify trawling, despite its destructive ecological footprint.
- Rapid voyages: Quick trawling runs enhance profitability but heighten the risk of arrest and confiscation.
What is bottom trawling and why is it destructive?
- Definition: Bottom trawling involves dragging weighted nets along the seabed.
- Ecological damage: It destroys coral reefs, seabed habitats, and fish spawning grounds.
- Stock depletion: Leads to overfishing and long-term decline of commercially valuable species.
- Conflict trigger: Sri Lankan fishermen, especially from the Northern Province, oppose bottom trawling as it depletes shared marine resources vital for their post-war recovery.
What are the diplomatic and institutional mechanisms in place?
- Joint Working Group (JWG) on Fisheries: Met in Colombo on October 29, 2024 to address arrests and sustainable fishing practices.
- Bilateral discussions: Fishermen’s representatives met counterparts in March 2024, but lacked formal sanction or actionable outcomes.
- Pending initiatives: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna-led People’s Power Party in Sri Lanka, in power for over a year, has yet to show urgency in resolving the dispute.
What policy solutions have been suggested?
- Research collaboration: Proposal for a Palk Bay Research Station for ecosystem monitoring and sustainable fishing methods.
- Technology transition: Gradual shift from bottom trawling to deep-sea fishing and small-boat operations.
- Incentivization: Financial and policy support to Tamil Nadu fishermen to switch to non-destructive gear and practices.
- Diplomatic liberalism: New Delhi may consider easing travel and fishing permits within limits to facilitate safe, sustainable livelihoods.
- Regulatory measures: Imposing a progressive ban on bottom trawling in Indian waters to signal intent and compliance.
Conclusion
The Palk Bay issue is not merely a border dispute, it is a test of India’s ability to balance livelihood protection with ecological responsibility and regional diplomacy. Persuading fishermen to abandon bottom trawling requires education, compensation, and innovation, not coercion. A cooperative framework, rooted in mutual trust and science-based regulation, can transform a contentious boundary into a shared zone of prosperity and peace.
PYQ Relevance
[UPSC 2013] In respect of India-Sri Lanka relations, discuss how domestic factors influence foreign policy.
Linkage: Domestic political pressures from Tamil Nadu fishermen and state parties shape India’s diplomatic stance toward Sri Lanka. This internal-external linkage influences how New Delhi balances livelihood concerns with bilateral maritime cooperation.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Why in the News?
As Bihar Assembly Election 2025 concludes, media houses released the exit poll results after 6:30 pm, following Election Commission of India (ECI) restrictions.
What are Exit Polls?
- Overview: Exit polls are post-voting surveys conducted immediately after voters leave polling stations to find out how they voted and what influenced their choice.
- Objective: To give an early indication of election outcomes and study voter behaviour, issues, and demographics before official results.
- Origin in India: First conducted in 1957 by the Indian Institute of Public Opinion during the 2nd Lok Sabha elections.
- Methodology: Randomly selected voters are interviewed anonymously after casting their vote; responses are aggregated and analysed statistically to predict seat shares and trends.
How are Exit Polls conducted?
- Sampling: Based on random or stratified sampling to reflect gender, caste, religion, and regional representation.
- Questionnaires: Ask voters which party or candidate they chose and gather demographic or opinion data.
- Data Collection: Conducted by trained field agents under strict non-interference rules at polling stations.
- Data Analysis: Responses are weighted and adjusted for turnout and demographics before generating projections.
- Confidentiality: All answers remain anonymous to preserve voting secrecy.
Regulation of Exit Polls:
- Constitutional Basis: Governed by Article 324, empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) to ensure free and fair elections.
- Statutory Law: Section 126A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 bans conducting or publishing exit polls from start of the first phase till 30 minutes after last phase ends.
- Penalties: Violation may lead to two years imprisonment, a fine, or both.
- Media Rules: Must disclose sample size, method, and margin of error when publishing results.
- Registration: Polling agencies must be registered with the ECI and follow official publication guidelines.
Recent Amendments and Practices:
- Monitoring: The ECI now closely monitors media and digital platforms to prevent early leaks of exit poll data.
- Digital Coverage: Restrictions apply to social media and online news during multi-phase elections.
- Publication Control: No state-wise or partial results can be released until polling ends nationwide.
- Transparency: Media houses must submit methodology and get ECI clearance before publishing exit poll results.
- Purpose: To prevent misinformation and voter influence during ongoing polling.
Back2Basics: Difference Between Exit Polls and Opinion Polls
- Timing: Exit polls are done after voting; opinion polls before voting.
- Purpose: Opinion polls measure intentions; exit polls reflect actual behaviour.
- Respondents: Opinion polls survey likely voters; exit polls survey actual voters.
- Influence: Opinion polls can affect undecided voters; exit polls occur after voting, posing no influence risk.
- Accuracy: Exit polls are generally more accurate as they are based on real votes.
- Regulation: Opinion polls are advisory-guided; exit polls are strictly regulated under Section 126A of the RPA, 1951.
|
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Why in the News?
A recently launched book claims that the Indian National Army (INA) was not founded by Subhas Chandra Bose or Captain Mohan Singh.
New Claims and the Caveats:
- Author’s Proposition:
- The INA was not originally founded by Subhas Chandra Bose, but by Japanese Army Intelligence in collaboration with Indian nationalists abroad before his arrival.
- A pre-war agreement between Major Fujiwara Iwaichi (Japan) and Giani Pritam Singh (Bangkok, 1941) laid the INA’s groundwork, India’s liberation in exchange for aid to Japan’s campaign.
- Captain Mohan Singh, not Bose, served as first commander, but his role was later overshadowed.
- Bose took over in 1943, providing global visibility, structure, and leadership to the existing army.
- Caution for students:
- INA’s history is already complex and contested; this new interpretation adds another layer but does not necessarily overturn all accepted facts (e.g., Bose’s later leadership as per our standard references, the INA’s role in Indian nationalist memory).
- Some aspects (e.g., precise agreements between Japanese intelligence and Indian nationalists) may remain debated or partially documented.
|
About the Indian National Army (INA):
- Origins: Formed during World War II to fight British rule, the INA emerged from collaboration between Japanese intelligence and Indian nationalists before Subhas Chandra Bose took command.
- Initial Formation: Conceived in a 1938 Tokyo meeting between Rash Behari Bose; using Indian POWs in Southeast Asia to aid Japan’s war and India’s liberation.
- Early Leadership: Captain Mohan Singh of the 14 Punjab Regiment became its first commander, recruiting about 40,000 POWs with Japanese support. Internal disputes led to his removal, after which Rash Behari Bose sustained the movement via the Indian Independence League (Tokyo, 1942).
- Rise of Subhas Chandra Bose: Bose escaped British custody in 1941, travelled through Berlin and Japan, and reached Singapore in July 1943, where Rash Behari Bose handed him INA leadership.
- Reorganization Under Netaji: On August 25, 1943, Bose became Supreme Commander and established the Provisional Government of Free India (Azad Hind) on October 21, 1943, recognized by nine countries including Japan and Germany. Under the “Chalo Delhi” campaign, INA forces entered Manipur, raising their flag at Moirang, but progress halted after Japan’s 1945 defeat.
- Collapse and Trials: Following Japan’s surrender (August 15, 1945), the INA disbanded. Bose reportedly died in a plane crash (August 18, 1945). Captured INA officers were tried at the Red Fort (1945–46), the Sehgal–Dhillon–Khan trial became a symbol of unity, with Nehru, Bhulabhai Desai, and Asaf Ali defending them.
Nationalist Uprisings and Impact:
- Symbol of Unity: The INA represented armed nationalism and secular unity, transcending caste, region, and religion; the slogan “Jai Hind” became a national salute.
- Mass Protests: The INA trials sparked nationwide agitation, uniting students, soldiers, and civilians in solidarity.
- Key Confrontations:
- Nov 21, 1945 – Calcutta police firing on INA protestors.
- Feb 11, 1946 – Demonstrations against Rashid Ali’s sentencing.
- Feb 18, 1946 – Royal Indian Navy (RIN) mutiny, with 20,000 sailors revolting in Bombay.
- Impact on British Rule: The INA’s defiance shattered British confidence in Indian troops’ loyalty. Even Clement Attlee (1956) admitted the INA and postwar unrest accelerated British withdrawal.
- Legacy: Unified militant and mass politics; inspired future Indian defense ethos; remains a symbol of courage and secular nationalism under Netaji’s leadership.
| [UPSC 2021] In the context of Colonial India, Shah Nawaz Khan, Prem Kumar Sehgal, and Gurbaksh Singh Dhillon are remembered as officers of the Indian National Army.
Options: (a) Leaders of the Swadeshi and Boycott Movement
(b) Members of the Interim Government in 1946
(c) Members of the Drafting Committee in the Constituent Assembly
(d) Officers of the Indian National Army* |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Why in the News?
The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) 2024 Emission Gap Report (“Off Target”) released before COP30, says India saw the world’s largest rise in greenhouse gas emissions in 2024, adding 165 MtCO₂e.
About the Emission Gap Report:
- Overview: It is an annual flagship publication by UNEP that measures the gap between current national emission pledges (NDCs) and the cuts required to meet the Paris Agreement goals of limiting global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C.
- Purpose: Evaluates global progress, national commitments, and policy effectiveness, recommending actions to close the “emissions gap.”
- Scope: Assesses emissions from energy, land use, and industry, comparing policy trajectories with required emission reduction pathways.
Key highlights of the 2024 Edition- “Off Target”:
- Core Message: Warns that the world remains far off track to achieve the 1.5°C limit.
- Global Emissions: Hit a record 57.7 gigatonnes CO₂ equivalent (GtCO₂e) in 2024, a 2.3% rise from 2023.
- Warming Projections:
- Current policies → ~2.8°C by 2100.
- Full NDC implementation → only 2.3–2.5°C limit.
- G20 Role: Account for 77% of global emissions, led by China, USA, India, EU, Russia, and Indonesia.
- NDC Submission: Only 64 countries (63% of global emissions) updated their NDCs by 2024; most G20 nations off-track for 2030–2035 goals.
- Sectoral Breakdown:
- Fossil fuels – 69% of total emissions.
- Methane – 16%.
- Land-use change – significant share of increase.
- Temperature Outlook: Predicts a temporary overshoot of 1.5°C by the early 2030s without rapid global action.
India-Specific Findings:
- Emission Growth: India saw the largest absolute rise in 2024, +165 MtCO₂e, the world’s highest single-country increase.
- Growth Rate: 3.6%, second only to Indonesia (4.6%).
- Per Capita Emissions: 3 tCO₂e, less than half the global average (6.4 tCO₂e).
- Global Ranking: 3rd-largest emitter, after China and the USA.
- NDC Commitments: Aims to reduce emission intensity by 45% (2005–2030) and achieve 50% non-fossil energy capacity by 2030.
- Progress: Overachieved by 15% on emission intensity but has not submitted an updated 2025 NDC.
- COP30 Outlook: India’s rapid emission rise and missed NDC update may invite scrutiny, though low per capita emissions and developmental equity support its climate position.
[UPSC 2024] Consider the following statements:
I. Carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions in India are less than 0.5 t CO2/capita.
II. In terms of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, India ranks second in Asia-Pacific region.
III. Electricity and heat producers are the largest sources of CO2 emissions in India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) I and III only (b) II only (c) II and III only * (d) I, II and III |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Why in the News?
This newscard is an excerpt from the original article published in The Hindu.
What is the Rare Earth Hypothesis?
- About: Proposed by Peter Ward (palaeontologist) and Donald Brownlee (astronomer) in 2000, it suggests that simple life (like microbes) may be common, but complex life (like plants and animals) is extremely rare in the universe.
- Core Idea: Earth supports advanced life because of a unique mix of conditions such as a stable orbit, a protective magnetic field, active plate tectonics, and giant planets like Jupiter that shield it from asteroids.
- Meaning: The Earth is not an ordinary planet; it is a special case where everything aligned perfectly to allow complex life to evolve.
How does it differ from other Theories?
- Drake Equation / Mediocrity Principle: Say that life should be common since there are billions of stars; the Rare Earth Hypothesis says complex life is rare even if basic life is not.
- Fermi Paradox: Asks “Where is everybody?” The Rare Earth answer is that complex intelligent life is rare, so we don’t see others.
- Copernican Principle: Claims Earth is ordinary; the Rare Earth Hypothesis argues Earth is extraordinary and rare in its conditions.
Evidence supporting the Hypothesis:
- Exoplanet Studies (Kepler Mission): Thousands of Earth-sized planets found, but few have stable climates or protective atmospheres like Earth.
- M-dwarf Planets: Many orbit small stars and lose their atmospheres due to strong radiation.
- No Alien Signals: Breakthrough Listen and other searches found no technosignatures from intelligent civilizations.
- Earth’s Uniqueness: Plate tectonics and a carbon cycle help Earth keep a stable climate for billions of years; such conditions have not yet been found elsewhere.
Scientific Outlook and Future Research:
- Current View: Microbial life might exist on many planets, but stable, complex ecosystems like Earth’s are probably rare.
- Ongoing Studies:
- James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) searches for gases like oxygen, methane, and water on distant planets.
- Planetary models test if other worlds have tectonics or internal heat for climate balance.
- Technosignature surveys continue for traces of intelligent life.
- Future Missions: Extremely Large Telescope (ELT) and Habitable Worlds Observatory (HWO) will study exoplanet atmospheres more closely.
- Significance: The Rare Earth Hypothesis remains plausible but unproven, showing that life may be widespread, but Earth-like complexity could be one of the universe’s rarest achievements.
| [UPSC 2018] Which of the following phenomena might have influenced the evolution of organisms?
1. Continental drift
2. Glacial cycles
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2* (d) Neither 1 nor 2 |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
Why in the News?
The Union Ministry of Power has inaugurated India’s largest and first MWh-scale Vanadium Redox Flow Battery (VRFB) of 3 MWh capacity at NETRA, NTPC’s R&D Centre in Greater Noida.
About the Vanadium Redox Flow Battery (VRFB):
- Overview: A rechargeable flow battery that stores energy in liquid electrolytes containing vanadium ions in different oxidation states.
- Core Principle: Uses the same element vanadium for both electrolytes, preventing cross-contamination and extending operational life.
- Working Mechanism: Energy is stored through oxidation and reduction reactions of vanadium ions, where electrons are exchanged between two electrolyte tanks.
- Cell Design: Electrolytes circulate through a cell stack separated by an ion-selective membrane that enables ion movement while stopping mixing.
- Scalability: Energy capacity depends on electrolyte volume, while power output depends on cell stack size, allowing flexible scaling.
- Application Focus: Ideal for stationary, grid-scale energy storage, renewable energy integration, and backup power systems.
Benefits over Conventional Batteries:
- Independent Scalability: Energy and power can be scaled separately, perfect for large utility storage and renewable grids.
- Extended Lifespan: Can endure thousands of cycles since vanadium electrolytes don’t degrade or mix.
- Full Discharge Safety: Can be fully discharged (100%) without damaging capacity, unlike lithium-ion batteries.
- High Safety Level: Uses non-flammable, water-based electrolytes, eliminating risk of fire or explosion.
- Eco-Friendly: Recyclable and non-toxic electrolytes reduce environmental impact and support circular use.
- Long-Duration Storage: Provides 6–10+ hours of continuous energy, ideal for stabilizing solar and wind supply.
- Low Maintenance: Fewer mechanical parts and no thermal runaway risk ensure long-term durability.
- Fast Response: Reacts quickly to grid fluctuations, improving power quality and reliability.
Limitations:
- High Initial Cost: Requires expensive vanadium electrolyte and specialized components, leading to higher upfront installation costs than lithium-ion systems.
- Low Energy Density: Stores less energy per unit volume, making it unsuitable for mobile or space-constrained applications like electric vehicles.
- Complex Infrastructure: Needs large storage tanks, pumps, and control systems, which increase operational complexity and land requirements.
| [UPSC 2025] In the context of electric vehicle batteries, consider the following elements:
I. Cobalt II. Graphite III. Lithium IV. Nickel
How many of the above usually make up battery cathodes?
(a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three* (d) All the four |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Attend Now
