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

Civilsdaily

Login

Archives: News

  • Kashmir’s willow bat industry strains under cleft shortage, smuggling and wetland loss despite the 2025 GI tag

    Why in the News

    Kashmir’s ₹700 crore cricket bat industry supports around 50,000 livelihoods, but faces a shortage of quality willow. English willow prices have risen from ₹300 to ₹4,250 per foot since 2021.

    Key Facts

    1. Raw material: Mainly Salix alba (English willow).
    2. Industry: 195 registered manufacturers and around 150 cleft dealers.
    3. Production: Around 30 lakh bats annually.
    4. Trees: Nearly 1.2 lakh mature trees are felled annually.
    5. Maturity: Willow requires about 12 to 15 years to reach harvest maturity.
    6. Smuggling: Over 25 lakh clefts are reportedly smuggled out annually.
    7. GI Tag: Kashmir willow bats received a GI tag in 2025.

    Why is the industry facing a crisis?

    • Scarcity of quality willow
    • Wetland and spring degradation
    • Smuggling of clefts
    • Long 12 to 15 year plantation cycle
    • Inconsistent timber quality

    What does the GI Tag do?

    • Protects the Kashmir willow name from misuse.
    • Enhances product reputation and market value.
    • Provides legal protection to registered producers.
    • Does not increase willow supply or shorten the growth cycle.

    Government Response

    • Plantation of 2.2 lakh willow trees across 200 hectares.
    • Introduction of improved willow clones.
    • Identification of new plantation sites.
    • Greater farmer participation and scientific plantation management.

    Prelims Pointers

    • GI Act: Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
    • First Indian GI: Darjeeling Tea, 2004.
    • GI validity: 10 years, renewable indefinitely.
    • GI ownership: Collective, not individually transferable.
    • Kashmir willow species: Salix alba.

    [2018] India enacted The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in order to comply with the obligations to
    (a) ILO
    (b) IMF
    (c) UNCTAD
    (d) WTO

  • Monsoon session passes Bills with minimal deliberation as legislative scrutiny weakens

    Why in the news?

    The monsoon session that began on 20 July passed nine of its eleven Bills with only the minister in charge speaking, and recorded a productivity rate of 15 per cent. Legislation that redraws Centre State powers over minerals therefore cleared Parliament without the examination the House exists to provide. Two further proposals, on delimitation and on foreign contributions, were stalled rather than scrutinised, and both remain alive.

    What is the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014?

    1. About: It is a policy of the Department of Legal Affairs requiring every department to place a draft Bill in the public domain before it is introduced in Parliament.
    2. What must be disclosed: The draft, an explanatory note in simple language, the financial implications, and an estimate of the impact on the environment, fundamental rights and livelihoods.
    3. Consultation period: A minimum of thirty days is to be given for public feedback, and a summary of the responses received is to be published.
    4. Link to the House: The summary of feedback is to be placed before the departmentally related standing committee that examines the Bill.
    5. Status: The policy is executive and not statutory, so it carries no enforcement mechanism and departments comply selectively.

    What is a Joint Parliamentary Committee?

    1. About: It is an ad hoc committee constituted by a motion adopted in one House and concurred in by the other, carrying members from both Houses.
    2. Function: It examines a specific Bill or subject, takes evidence from officials, experts and the public, and reports its recommendations to Parliament.
    3. Composition: Membership is proportional to party strength, which gives the ruling party a majority within the committee.
    4. Binding force: Its recommendations are advisory, and the government may accept or reject them when the Bill returns to the House.

    What is delimitation?

    1. About: It is the redrawing of the boundaries and the allocation of parliamentary and Assembly constituencies to reflect population change.
    2. Machinery: A Delimitation Commission constituted under a law made by Parliament carries it out, and its orders cannot be called in question in any court.
    3. The freeze: The 42nd Amendment froze seat allocation on the 1971 Census, and the 84th Amendment, 2001 extended that freeze until the first Census taken after 2026.
    4. Why it is contested: States that reduced fertility fastest stand to lose relative weight in the Lok Sabha once the freeze lapses, which makes the design of the exercise a federal question.

    What is the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010?

    1. About: It regulates the acceptance and use of foreign contributions and foreign hospitality by persons, associations and companies in India.
    2. Mechanism: It requires registration or prior permission from the Ministry of Home Affairs, and after the 2020 amendment every contribution must first be received in a designated State Bank of India, New Delhi account.
    3. Restrictions: The 2020 amendment barred the transfer of foreign contributions to any other person and capped administrative expenses at 20 per cent.
    4. Why it recurs: Cancellations and refusals of renewal have repeatedly been challenged as a control on civil society rather than a check on funding.

    How is parliamentary productivity measured?

    1. About: It is the ratio of the time a House actually transacts its listed business to the time for which it was scheduled to sit.
    2. What lowers it: Adjournments caused by disruption, sittings cut short, and business dropped without being taken up.
    3. What it does not capture: A Bill passed in minutes without discussion raises legislative output while reducing scrutiny, so productivity and deliberation can move in opposite directions.

    What did the monsoon session pass and what did it leave pending?

    1. Session dates: The session began on 20 July.
    2. Volume and debate: Nine of the eleven Bills passed had only the minister concerned speaking on them.
    3. Productivity: The session recorded a productivity rate of 15 per cent.
    4. National song Bill: A Bill was passed facilitating the operation of a February guideline of the Ministry of Home Affairs on mandatory singing of the full version of Vande Mataram, the national song, at state functions.
    5. Mines and minerals: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill was passed amid Opposition protests.
    6. Examinations: The session legislated stronger measures against malpractices in examinations, in an effort to address student anger.
    7. Delimitation: An attempt to rush through a new architecture for the delimitation process did not entirely materialise.
    8. Foreign contributions: The Bill to amend the law on foreign contributions was not passed and stands referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee.
    9. Both alive: Neither the delimitation proposal nor the foreign contribution amendments have lapsed, and both can be brought back.

    Why did the session’s political context override its legislative function?

    1. The trigger: The student protest demanding the resignation of the Union Education Minister gathered momentum just as the session began.
    2. The governing party’s expectation: The ruling party entered the session with the context and the confidence to make it a theatre of triumph, powered by its victory in the West Bengal Assembly election.
    3. What reversed it: Public reaction to the crackdown on the protesting students by the Delhi Police, with police personnel filmed assaulting and attempting to sexually abuse young people.
    4. Accountability gap: No accountability has yet been fixed for those blatant violations of the law by police personnel.
    5. Absent leadership: The Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister barely attended the proceedings.
    6. The one resolution: The Union Education Minister eventually resigned during the session.

    What does hurried lawmaking do to federalism?

    1. The specific Bill: The mineral law amendment was passed without addressing its potential to undermine federalism.
    2. Whose rights were skipped: The concerns of those living on resource rich land were not examined during its passage.
    3. The pattern: Hurried lawmaking has accompanied a continuing expansion of the powers of the central government at the cost of States and local communities.
    4. Why deliberation matters here: A Bill that redistributes power between the Union and the States requires the States to be heard, which only committee examination provides.
    5. The missing step: No all party meeting and no consultation with State Chief Ministers preceded either this Bill or the delimitation proposal.

    Why does a single minister speaking on a Bill amount to a scrutiny failure?

    1. What passage then means: The House records its assent without testing the Bill against any competing view or amendment.
    2. Whose loss it is: The electorate is deprived of its representatives’ scrutiny, which is the service a legislature exists to deliver.
    3. Disruption as an alibi: Disruption is routinely blamed, but a 15 per cent productivity rate points to a structural failure rather than an episodic one.
    4. Committee substitution: Referral to a committee is the standard remedy for a truncated floor debate, and it was used for only one of these Bills.
    5. Consequence for the statute: A Bill passed without debate leaves no legislative record from which courts can read its purpose when it is later challenged.

    Is a stalled Bill a win for parliamentary scrutiny?

    1. The case for the Opposition: It prevented passage of the delimitation architecture and the foreign contribution amendments without examination.
    2. The case against triumph: Blocking a Bill is not the same as examining it, and both proposals remain alive for reintroduction on the same terms.
    3. The committee risk: The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the foreign contribution Bill can be reduced to a mere numbers game in which the majority records its own view.
    4. The reversibility point: Political circumstances turn rapidly, as the governing party discovered within this very session.
    5. What is actually needed: An all party meeting, circulation of draft legislation and consultation with State Chief Ministers, none of which a stalling tactic delivers.
    6. The framing error: Treating the House as a gladiatorial arena where one side vanquishes the other removes the possibility of a collective solution.

    What would genuine consultation on these two proposals look like?

    1. All party meeting: The Centre convening a meeting of all parties before introducing the delimitation architecture.
    2. Draft in the public domain: Circulation of the draft legislation so that affected parties can respond before introduction rather than after passage.
    3. Consulting the States: Consultation with State Chief Ministers, since delimitation redistributes representation between States.
    4. Substance in committee: The Joint Parliamentary Committee on the foreign contribution Bill taking evidence from affected organisations rather than voting on party lines.
    5. Transparency of feedback: Publication of the responses received and the reasons for accepting or rejecting each substantive objection.

    Challenges to Parliamentary Scrutiny of Legislation

    1. Falling committee referrals: The share of Bills sent to departmentally related standing committees has collapsed, e.g. about 16 per cent of Bills were referred in the 16th Lok Sabha against 71 per cent in the 15th.
    2. Passage without debate: Bills clear the House in minutes when it is in disorder, e.g. nine of the eleven Bills of this monsoon session were passed with only the minister in charge speaking.
    3. The Money Bill route: Certifying a Bill as a Money Bill removes the Rajya Sabha’s power to amend it, e.g. the Aadhaar Act, 2016, whose certification was referred to a larger Bench in Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank (2019).
    4. Ordinance dependence: The executive legislates between sessions and seeks ratification later, e.g. the Supreme Court in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017) held that repeated re promulgation of ordinances is a fraud on the Constitution.
    5. Shrinking sitting days: The House now sits far fewer days than in its early decades, e.g. average annual sittings have fallen from over 120 days in the 1950s to around 60 days in recent years.
    6. Anti defection chill: The Tenth Schedule ties a member’s vote to the party whip, which removes the incentive to argue a case on the floor, e.g. a member voting against a party direction on a Bill faces disqualification.
    7. No review after enactment: No standing mechanism examines whether an enacted law achieved its stated purpose, e.g. the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014 carries no compliance audit and is bypassed routinely.

    Conclusion

    A session that passed nine of eleven Bills with a single speaker each and closed at 15 per cent productivity did not fail merely because of disruption; it failed because passage was decoupled from examination. Blocking two proposals gave the Opposition a tactical result without restoring scrutiny, since both remain available for reintroduction unchanged. What must change is procedure rather than temper: mandatory committee referral, circulation of draft legislation, and consultation with the States before any Bill that alters their powers is introduced.

    What is Executive Accountability to the Legislature?

    1. About: It is the principle that the council of ministers holds office only while it retains the confidence of the popularly elected House and must answer to it for every executive act.
    2. Rationale: In a parliamentary system the executive is drawn from the legislature, so scrutiny by the House is the only continuous check between two elections.
    3. Collective responsibility: Article 75(3) makes the council of ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, which is the constitutional root of the principle.
    4. Question Hour and Zero Hour: Members question ministers on administrative action, and raise urgent matters without prior notice.
    5. Motions: Adjournment motions, calling attention notices, censure motions and the no confidence motion allow the House to force a discussion or remove the government.
    6. Financial control: Cut motions, the demands for grants, and the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports examined by the Public Accounts Committee control the executive’s use of money.
    7. Committee scrutiny: Departmentally related standing committees, joint committees and select committees examine Bills, budgets and departmental performance away from the floor.

    Key Concerns Regarding Legislative Oversight

    1. Guillotine on budget scrutiny: Most demands for grants are voted without discussion when the guillotine is applied at the end of the budget session.
    2. Truncated Question Hour: Question Hour is frequently lost to disruption or curtailed by the presiding officer, which removes the routine accountability mechanism.
    3. Committee reports without follow up: Recommendations are advisory, and no mechanism tracks whether the government acted on them.
    4. Weak research support: Individual members lack dedicated legislative research staff to interrogate a technical Bill.
    5. Party control over speech: The whip system converts a member’s vote into a party decision, which removes the incentive to examine a Bill independently.
    6. Declining sittings: Fewer sitting days compress every function of oversight into a shorter window each year.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Parliamentary Lawmaking and Oversight

    1. Article 75(3): Makes the council of ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People.
    2. Article 79: Constitutes Parliament as the President, the Council of States and the House of the People.
    3. Article 85: Requires that six months not elapse between two sittings, and governs prorogation and dissolution.
    4. Article 93: Provides for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the House of the People.
    5. Article 100: Governs voting, the quorum of one tenth of the total membership, and the effect of vacancies.
    6. Article 105: Confers freedom of speech in Parliament and the privileges of the Houses and their members.
    7. Article 107: Governs the introduction and passing of Bills in both Houses.
    8. Article 108: Provides for a joint sitting of both Houses to resolve a deadlock over a Bill.
    9. Articles 109 and 110: Define a Money Bill and confine the Rajya Sabha to recommendations on it.
    10. Article 111: Governs assent, withholding of assent and the return of a Bill by the President.
    11. Article 117: Requires the President’s recommendation for financial Bills.
    12. Article 118: Empowers each House to make rules of procedure for the conduct of its business.
    13. Article 122: Bars courts from inquiring into proceedings of Parliament on the ground of irregularity of procedure.
    14. Article 82: Requires readjustment of seats and constituencies after every Census, which is the basis of delimitation.
    15. Article 148: Establishes the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose reports anchor financial oversight.
    16. Tenth Schedule: Provides for disqualification on the ground of defection, which binds a member to the party whip.

    Back2Basics: Parliamentary Committees in India

    1. Constitutional basis: Article 105 and Article 118 supply the privileges and the rule making power under which committees function.
    2. Two broad types: Standing committees, which are permanent and reconstituted every year, and ad hoc committees, which cease to exist once they report.
    3. Financial committees: The Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings.
    4. Public Accounts Committee: Constituted in 1921, it has 22 members and is chaired by convention by a member of the Opposition.
    5. Departmentally related standing committees: Introduced in 1993, now 24 in number, each with 31 members drawn from both Houses.
    6. Ad hoc committees: Select committees of one House and joint committees of both Houses, constituted to examine a particular Bill or subject.
    7. Nature of reports: Committee recommendations are recommendatory and do not bind the government.
    8. Value of the forum: Committees work outside the glare of the House, which allows cross party agreement that floor debate rarely produces.

    Government Initiatives for Legislative Process and Transparency

    1. Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, 2014: Requires publication of draft Bills with an explanatory note and a minimum thirty day window for public feedback.
    2. National e-Vidhan Application (NeVA): Makes legislatures paperless by digitising notices, questions, bulletins and Bills for members.
    3. One Nation One Application initiative: Brings all State legislatures and Parliament onto a common digital platform for legislative business.
    4. Digital Sansad: Provides public access to debates, member profiles, questions and legislative documents in searchable form.
    5. Parliamentary Research and Information Support to Members (PRISM): Supplies research responses to members on subjects of their choice through the Parliament Library.
    6. Parliamentary Research and Training Institute for Democracies (PRIDE): Trains members and legislature staff in parliamentary procedure and legislative drafting.

    Key Facts about the Parliament of India

    1. Composition: The President, the Rajya Sabha with a maximum of 250 members and the Lok Sabha with a maximum of 550 members drawn from States and Union Territories.
    2. Sessions: Three sessions each year by convention, namely budget, monsoon and winter, with the six month rule set by Article 85.
    3. Quorum: One tenth of the total membership of the House, under Article 100.
    4. Joint sitting: Provided by Article 108 and used three times, for the Dowry Prohibition Bill in 1961, the Banking Service Commission Repeal Bill in 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in 2002.
    5. Departmentally related standing committees: Introduced in 1993 and now numbering 24.
    6. Anti defection law: Introduced by the 52nd Amendment, 1985 through the Tenth Schedule, and amended in 2003 to remove the split exemption.
    7. New building: Parliament shifted to the new building in September 2023, with the Lok Sabha chamber seating 888 members.

    Challenges in Ensuring Legislative Scrutiny in India

    1. Disruption as a strategy: Both sides use disorder to avoid a debate they expect to lose, e.g. the monsoon session of 2026 closed at 15 per cent productivity with the presiding officers unable to restore order.
    2. Budget passed without discussion: The guillotine forces demands for grants through in a single vote, e.g. most ministry demands are guillotined every year with only a handful discussed on the floor.
    3. Weak private member legislation: Private member Bills are rarely taken up and almost never passed, e.g. only fourteen private member Bills have become law since 1952.
    4. Vacancy in the Deputy Speaker’s office: Article 93 requires the post to be filled, and prolonged vacancies weaken the presiding structure, e.g. the office remained vacant through the entire 17th Lok Sabha.
    5. Thin State legislature calendars: Many State Assemblies sit for a fraction of the days Parliament sits, e.g. several State Assemblies have recorded fewer than twenty sitting days in a year.
    6. Limited member capacity: Members lack dedicated legislative staff to examine technical Bills, e.g. a data protection or nuclear liability Bill reaches the floor with no independent member analysis available.
    7. Delayed committee constitution: Committees are reconstituted late in the parliamentary year, which shortens the time available to examine Bills referred to them.

    Way Forward

    1. Mandatory referral rule: Amend the rules of procedure so that every Bill stands referred to a committee unless the House expressly resolves otherwise, with reasons recorded.
    2. Statutory pre legislative consultation: Convert the 2014 policy into a binding requirement, with introduction barred until the consultation summary is tabled.
    3. Fixed legislative calendar: Adopt a minimum number of sitting days each year, fixed in advance, so that the executive cannot compress the session.
    4. Independent scheduling authority: Vest the power to convene sittings in a business advisory committee rather than in the executive alone.
    5. Automatic budget scrutiny: Require at least a fixed number of ministries’ demands to be discussed before the guillotine can be applied.
    6. Action taken discipline: Require the government to table a reasoned response to every committee recommendation within a fixed period.
    7. Strengthen member research: Fund dedicated legislative research staff for members and expand the Parliament Library’s analytical output on pending Bills.
    8. Federal consultation before federal Bills: Institutionalise consultation with State Chief Ministers through the Inter State Council before any Bill that alters State powers is introduced.

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

  • Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act as a takedown route that bypasses judicial scrutiny

    The Union government summoned senior staff of Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and reprimanded them over the brief removal in India of a video message by the Prime Minister. The confrontation exposed a takedown route under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which allows an agency to declare content unlawful without a court ever examining the claim. Content from the Jantar Mantar protests has already been erased or suppressed through a barrage of such notices.

    What is Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000?

    1. About: Section 79 grants an intermediary immunity from liability for content that its users post, and Section 79(3)(b) is the condition on which that immunity is lost.
    2. How it operates: The immunity ends if the intermediary fails to remove the content expeditiously after receiving actual knowledge or a notification from the appropriate government or its agency.
    3. What the notice contains: It records only that the reporting agency considers the content referred to it illegal.
    4. No judicial step: No court order and no reasoned adjudication is required before such a notice is issued.
    5. The incentive it creates: An intermediary that refuses risks losing safe harbour across its entire platform, so compliance is cheaper than contest.
    6. Distinction from Section 69A: Section 69A is a formal blocking power with a designated committee and recorded reasons, while Section 79(3)(b) carries none of that structure.

    What is an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000?

    1. Definition: Any person who receives, stores or transmits an electronic record on behalf of another person, or provides any service in relation to that record.
    2. Coverage: The term includes telecom and network service providers, search engines, online marketplaces, payment sites, cyber cafes and social media platforms.

    What is safe harbour?

    1. About: It is a statutory immunity that protects a platform from liability for third party content that it did not create, initiate or modify.
    2. Conditions: The platform must remain a passive conduit, must not select the receiver or alter the transmission, and must observe the due diligence and removal requirements the law imposes.

    What is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000?

    1. About: It empowers the Central Government to direct any agency or intermediary to block public access to information through any computer resource.
    2. Grounds and safeguards: Blocking is confined to the grounds in Article 19(2), the reasons must be recorded in writing, and the procedure is set by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)?

    1. Section 66A struck down: The provision punishing grossly offensive or menacing online messages was held void for vagueness and for travelling beyond Article 19(2).
    2. Section 79(3)(b) read down: Actual knowledge was confined to a court order or a government notification, so a private complaint alone cannot trigger a takedown obligation.
    3. Section 69A upheld: The blocking power survived because it is tied to the Article 19(2) grounds and requires written reasons.
    4. The governing test: A restriction on speech must have a proximate connection to public order, and advocacy or discussion remains protected.

    What is the current status of free speech online in India?

    1. The right: Article 19(1)(a) covers online expression, and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) held that expression and trade through the Internet are constitutionally protected.
    2. The limits: A restriction must fall within the eight grounds in Article 19(2) and must satisfy the proportionality test.
    3. The blocking regime: Section 69A survives with recorded reasons and a review committee, and blocking orders are treated as confidential under the 2009 Rules.
    4. The takedown regime: Section 79(3)(b) as read down requires a court order or a government notification, which agencies now issue at scale.
    5. The compliance layer: The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 require removal within 36 hours of a court order or government notice, and significant platforms must appoint a chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person and a resident grievance officer.
    6. The live dispute: The Karnataka High Court in 2025 rejected a platform’s challenge to the Sahyog portal, which lets authorised officers across States issue takedown notices, and the question remains under appeal.

    Which constitutional provisions govern freedom of speech and its restriction?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression to citizens.
    2. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions only on the grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.
    3. Articles 19(1)(g) and 19(6): Protect the right to carry on a business, which platforms invoke against arbitrary compliance burdens.
    4. Article 21: Covers privacy and the right to receive information, recognised in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017).
    5. Article 14: Requires that any classification of content or of speakers be reasonable and not arbitrary.
    6. Article 13(2): Voids any law that abridges a fundamental right, which is the basis on which takedown provisions are challenged.
    7. Articles 32 and 226: Provide the remedy against an unconstitutional restriction on speech.

    What triggered the confrontation between the government and the platform?

    1. The summons: The Union government called in senior staff of Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, and reprimanded them.
    2. The stated reason: The brief removal in India of a video message by the Prime Minister.
    3. The unstated objective: Pressure on the platform to suppress posts from protests such as the demonstration at Jantar Mantar.
    4. The scale of removal: A barrage of takedown notices has already erased or suppressed the more emblematic forms of those protests.
    5. Why the platform matters: Instagram Reels shows users automatically recommended posts from creators they do not follow, which has made it one of the most influential mass media formats in the country.

    Why does Section 79(3)(b) work as a censorship route without judicial scrutiny?

    1. The notice is an assertion, not a finding: It merely records that the reporting agency feels the content referred to is illegal.
    2. No court tests it: Posts taken down under this section almost never go to court, so the assertion is never examined.
    3. The platform bears the risk: Refusal exposes the intermediary’s safe harbour, while compliance costs it nothing.
    4. Volume replaces reasoning: A route that requires no order can be used at a scale that a blocking committee could never process.
    5. The speaker is not heard: The user whose content is removed is not a party to the notice and receives no reasons.
    6. No precedent is built: Because nothing is adjudicated, the boundary of lawful online speech is never judicially clarified.

    What do the Pakistani and Chinese examples show about where this path leads?

    1. Pakistan: TikTok was banned for a period in 2021 and restored only after the platform agreed to control content described as immoral or indecent, which made market access conditional on an editorial concession.
    2. China: A single party system with a stated ideological commitment to centralised control wipes out nearly all dissent within minutes of posting.
    3. The Chinese precondition: The conditions that enabled that level of censorship were fostered over the decades preceding the Internet’s growth, not built after it.
    4. What the comparison establishes: Seeking suppression of political speech on a recommendation driven platform would place India in the company of these two systems rather than that of open democracies.
    5. The limit of the comparison: Neither example carries a constitutional court that can strike down a restriction, which is the one structural difference India retains.

    Is the platform a target of state pressure or a participant in censorship?

    1. The case for target: The company was summoned and given a dressing down, and its safe harbour is the leverage being used against it.
    2. The case for participant: For months it has taken down every post referred to it under Section 79(3)(b) without contesting a single one.
    3. Compliance as a choice: The section requires expeditious removal on a valid notification, not uniform removal of everything referred.
    4. What the pattern created: Consistent automatic compliance established that pressure works, which set the stage for the current arm twisting.
    5. The central site problem: The platform was also the main venue for the mobilisations, so its compliance decisions determined what the protests looked like in public memory.
    6. The unresolved point: A platform that never litigates a takedown converts a contestable statutory condition into an unreviewable administrative power.

    Why does the absence of Chinese preconditions not make Indian speech safe?

    1. The structural argument: Without decades of conditioning before the Internet grew, and without a single party system committed to centralising control, the Internet cannot be tamed.
    2. The capacity gap: What currently limits Indian censorship is the inability to check posts in real time, which is a capacity constraint and not a legal safeguard.
    3. The technology that closes the gap: Automated screening supplies exactly the real time capacity that is missing, which makes it a destructive solution to that gap.
    4. The cultural harm: Warping the public’s cultural self perception damages society regardless of whether full control is ever achieved.
    5. The successor problem: A draconian power created without checks passes intact to every government that follows.
    6. The wrong lesson: Mass mobilisation is being treated as an aberration to be prevented, when it is the lifeblood of a democracy.

    What are the major debates surrounding online speech regulation in India?

    1. Actual knowledge after Shreya Singhal: Whether an executive notification under Section 79(3)(b) can carry the same force as a court order.
    2. Formal against informal blocking: Section 69A carries safeguards and Section 79(3)(b) carries none, and agencies prefer the route without safeguards.
    3. Confidentiality of blocking orders: Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules keeps blocking orders secret, which prevents the affected user from challenging them.
    4. Traceability and encryption: Rule 4(2) of the 2021 Rules requires significant messaging platforms to identify the first originator of a message, which is challenged as incompatible with end to end encryption and privacy.
    5. The Sahyog portal: Whether large numbers of authorised officers across States may issue takedown notices without a central record or a reasoned order.
    6. Government fact checking: The Bombay High Court struck down the 2023 amendment creating a government fact check unit for online content about government business in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2024).
    7. Proportionality in practice: Whether the least restrictive means test laid down in Anuradha Bhasin is actually applied to content removal.
    8. The future of safe harbour: Whether narrowing or removing intermediary immunity would increase platform accountability or simply increase over removal.

    Challenges to the Section 79(3)(b) takedown framework

    1. Absence of a reasoned order: The notice states a conclusion without disclosing the legal ground, e.g. the removal of posts and reels documenting the Jantar Mantar protests, where users were given no ground for takedown.
    2. No hearing for the speaker: The person whose content is removed is never a party, e.g. Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules keeps orders confidential, so users blocked during the 2021 farm protest removals were never served the reasons.
    3. Over removal by platforms: The safe harbour risk pushes a platform to remove first and assess later, e.g. Meta’s uniform compliance with every referral made to it under this section over recent months.
    4. Decentralised issuing authority: A large number of officers can issue notices without a common standard, e.g. the Sahyog portal, whose challenge by X Corp was rejected by the Karnataka High Court in 2025.
    5. Automation risk: Machine screening at scale extends removal to lawful speech without human review, e.g. algorithmic suppression of Reels cuts reach without a formal takedown, leaving nothing for the user to challenge.
    6. Chilling effect on creators: Repeat removals lower a creator’s distribution, so creators censor themselves, e.g. accounts covering the protests reduced posting after the most emblematic footage was suppressed.
    7. Misuse after invalidation: An unchecked power outlives the government and even the statute that created it, e.g. arrests under Section 66A continued for years after it was struck down in 2015, until the Supreme Court issued fresh directions in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2021).

    Conclusion

    Section 79(3)(b) has become the preferred route for removing online speech precisely because it needs no court, no reasons and no hearing, and a platform that complies with every referral has converted a contestable statutory condition into an unreviewable administrative power. The outcome is not Chinese style control, which India lacks the political architecture to build, but a censorship practice that is invisible, unaccounted and inheritable by every future government. What must change is the trigger itself: a notification under this section must carry a reasoned order, a record open to the user, and a route of appeal.

    What is Intermediary Liability?

    1. About: It is the legal question of when a platform is answerable for content that its users create and publish.
    2. Rationale: Platforms cannot screen the volume of user content in advance, so the law exempts them from liability in exchange for cooperation with lawful removal.
    3. Conditional immunity: The exemption applies only while the platform remains a passive conduit and acts on a qualifying notice.
    4. Notice and takedown: The standard model requires removal on receipt of a qualifying notice, and jurisdictions differ on who may issue that notice.
    5. Due diligence obligations: The platform must publish rules, appoint officers, run a grievance process and file compliance reports to retain the immunity.
    6. Significant platforms: Larger platforms carry heavier obligations, which in India begin above a threshold of 50 lakh registered users.

    Key Concerns Regarding Intermediary Liability

    1. Privatised adjudication: A company decides what is unlawful, without the procedure and reasoning a court would apply.
    2. Asymmetric incentives: The cost of wrongful removal falls on the user, while the cost of wrongful retention falls on the platform, so removal is always the safer choice.
    3. Opaque enforcement: Neither the volume nor the grounds of removals are systematically disclosed to the public.
    4. Immunity as leverage: The threat of losing safe harbour can be used to obtain compliance on matters unconnected to the notice.
    5. Automated moderation: Scale forces machine decisions on speech whose legality depends entirely on context.
    6. Jurisdictional conflict: A global platform faces contradictory removal orders from different countries over the same content.

    Constitutional and Statutory Framework Governing Online Speech

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which extends to expression on the Internet.
    2. Article 19(2): Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom only on the eight enumerated grounds.
    3. Section 69, Information Technology Act, 2000: Allows interception, monitoring and decryption of information through a computer resource in specified circumstances.
    4. Section 69A, Information Technology Act, 2000: Empowers the Central Government to block public access to information, with reasons recorded in writing.
    5. Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000: Grants intermediaries immunity from liability for third party content.
    6. Section 79(3)(b), Information Technology Act, 2000: Withdraws that immunity if the intermediary does not expeditiously remove content after actual knowledge or a government notification.
    7. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Prescribe due diligence, a 36 hour removal timeline, grievance officers and a traceability requirement for significant messaging platforms.
    8. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009: Set the committee procedure, the hearing stage and the confidentiality of blocking orders.

    Laws, Acts and Rules Governing Online Content Regulation in India

    1. Information Technology Act, 2000: The parent statute covering electronic records, cyber offences, intermediary liability and blocking of information.
    2. Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008: Inserted Section 66A, Section 69A and the present safe harbour scheme in Section 79.
    3. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Created the due diligence, grievance redress and digital media ethics framework for intermediaries and online publishers.
    4. Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023: Created a government fact check unit for content about government business, struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2024.
    5. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009: Govern the process for orders under Section 69A.
    6. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Regulates processing of digital personal data and creates the Data Protection Board of India.
    7. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Replaced the Indian Penal Code and carries the offences of promoting enmity between groups and of statements prejudicial to national integration that are routinely invoked against online speech.
    8. Telecommunications Act, 2023: Allows suspension of telecom services and interception of messages on public emergency grounds, replacing the corresponding power in the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
    9. Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 and the Cinematograph Act, 1952: The older content regulation model on which the digital ethics code was patterned.

    Back2Basics: Information Technology Act, 2000

    1. Enacted: 2000, modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce, 1996.
    2. Purpose: Gave legal recognition to electronic records and digital signatures and created a framework for cyber offences.
    3. Major amendment: The 2008 amendment, brought after the Mumbai attacks, added Sections 66A and 69A and rewrote the safe harbour provision.
    4. Bodies under it: The Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) under Section 70B and the Controller of Certifying Authorities.
    5. Appellate route: The Cyber Appellate Tribunal’s functions were merged into the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal in 2017.
    6. Judicial history: Section 66A was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
    7. Extraterritorial reach: Section 75 applies the Act to offences committed outside India where a computer or computer network located in India is involved.

    Government Initiatives for Digital Content and Cyber Governance

    1. Sahyog portal: A central platform through which authorised officers of States and central agencies issue notices to intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b).
    2. Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C): Coordinates action against cybercrime across States and runs the national cybercrime reporting portal and helpline 1930.
    3. Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In): The national agency for cyber incident response, advisories and coordination under Section 70B.
    4. Grievance Appellate Committees: Constituted in 2023 under the 2021 Rules to hear user appeals against a platform’s content decision.
    5. Information Security Education and Awareness programme: Builds capacity and public awareness on safe digital practices.
    6. Digital India programme: The umbrella mission for digital infrastructure, services and literacy under which the intermediary framework operates.

    Key Facts about Online Speech Regulation in India

    1. Significant social media intermediary: A platform with more than 50 lakh registered users in India, which carries the additional obligations under the 2021 Rules.
    2. Removal timelines: 36 hours for a court order or government notice, 24 hours for non consensual intimate imagery, and 72 hours for information sought by an authorised agency.
    3. Compliance officers: A chief compliance officer, a nodal contact person and a resident grievance officer must be appointed by significant platforms.
    4. Landmark ruling: Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) struck down Section 66A and read down Section 79(3)(b).
    5. Follow up ruling: People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2021) directed States to stop registering cases under the struck down Section 66A.
    6. Internet shutdowns: India records among the highest numbers of Internet shutdowns in the world, and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) required shutdown orders to be published and periodically reviewed.
    7. Fact check unit: The government fact check unit under the 2023 amendment was struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2024.

    Challenges in Regulating Online Speech in India

    1. No independent oversight of removals: The executive is the issuing authority, the reviewing authority and the beneficiary of a takedown, e.g. review committees under the 2009 Blocking Rules are composed entirely of government officers.
    2. Scale of misinformation: Removal cannot keep pace with coordinated falsehood on closed messaging groups, e.g. the lynchings triggered by forwarded rumours in 2018, after which a limit on message forwards was introduced.
    3. Vague statutory grounds: Terms such as public order and decency are applied without a defined test, e.g. Section 66A was struck down in 2015 precisely for that vagueness, yet similar phrasing survives in the 2021 Rules.
    4. Encryption against traceability: A traceability mandate cannot be met without weakening security for every user, e.g. the challenge by WhatsApp to Rule 4(2) of the 2021 Rules pending before the Delhi High Court.
    5. Capacity of enforcement agencies: Police and prosecutors lack the technical training to distinguish unlawful speech from lawful criticism, e.g. arrests for social media posts continued under Section 66A for six years after it ceased to exist.
    6. Economic dependence of platforms: A large user market gives the state leverage that no legal safeguard offsets, e.g. TikTok’s restoration in Pakistan in 2021 only after it accepted content conditions.
    7. Absence of transparency data: Neither the number nor the grounds of Section 79(3)(b) notices are published, e.g. platform transparency reports record aggregate requests without disclosing the legal basis of each.

    Way Forward

    1. Require a reasoned order: Mandate that every notification under Section 79(3)(b) record the specific Article 19(2) ground and the material relied on.
    2. Notify the user: Require the intermediary to serve the ground of removal on the person who posted the content, so that a challenge becomes possible.
    3. Publish takedown statistics: Require the government and platforms to publish the number, source and legal ground of takedown notices at fixed intervals.
    4. Independent review: Reconstitute the review committee under the blocking rules with non official members, including a retired judge and a technical expert.
    5. Centralise issuing authority: Restrict the power to issue notices to a designated senior officer, ending the dispersal created by portal based issuance.
    6. Statutory appeal: Provide a time bound appeal against a takedown to a tribunal, rather than leaving writ jurisdiction as the only route.
    7. Codify proportionality: Write the least restrictive means test from Anuradha Bhasin into the rules, so that suspension of reach or a geographic block is preferred to full removal.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.”

  • Bar Council of India’s blanket enrolment bar on a law school batch tests the limits of the Advocates Act

    The Bar Council of India directed every State Bar Council to stop enrolling the 2026 graduating batch of the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, after about 450 of its students objected to the Chief Justice of India attending their convocation as chief guest. The directive was withdrawn within a day, but it had already treated a peaceful protest as a bar on entry to a profession, a ground the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise. The Supreme Court barred coercive action against the students and gave the Council two weeks to explain itself.

    What is the Bar Council of India?

    1. About: It is a statutory body established under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the legal profession and legal education in India.
    2. Composition: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India are ex officio members, and each State Bar Council elects one member to it.
    3. Core functions: It lays down standards of professional conduct and etiquette for advocates, exercises disciplinary jurisdiction, and recognises universities whose law degrees qualify a person for enrolment.
    4. Supervisory role: Section 7(1)(g) gives it general supervision and control over State Bar Councils.
    5. What it cannot do: No provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 gives it the power to enrol a person as an advocate.

    What is the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR)?

    1. About: It is a national law university at Hyderabad, created by a State Act in 1998, and among the earliest institutions built on the five year integrated law degree model.
    2. Relevance here: Its 2026 graduating batch was the subject of the enrolment freeze directed at all State Bar Councils.

    What is moral turpitude?

    1. About: It refers to conduct that is inherently base or depraved and contrary to accepted standards of honesty and justice, judged by the nature of the act rather than the length of the sentence.
    2. Statutory use: Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 bars enrolment of a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.

    What is a chilling effect?

    1. About: It is the deterrent effect a threatened penalty has on lawful speech, where a person stays silent to avoid risk rather than because the speech is unlawful.
    2. Why withdrawal does not cure it: The deterrent operates from the moment the threat is made, so revoking the order does not restore the confidence it removed.

    What is the current status of the right to practise a profession in India?

    1. The right: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees every citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
    2. Permissible limits: Article 19(6) allows reasonable restrictions in the public interest, including professional or technical qualifications prescribed by law.
    3. Entry to the Bar: Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961 fixes the qualifications for enrolment, which include Indian citizenship, completion of 21 years of age and a law degree from a recognised university.
    4. The only bars: Section 24A lists the disqualifications, and each of them lapses two years after the disqualifying event.
    5. The gatekeeper: Enrolment is granted by a State Bar Council under Section 6(1)(a), not by the Bar Council of India.
    6. The added filter: The All India Bar Examination must be cleared for a certificate of practice after enrolment.

    Which constitutional provisions govern free expression and entry to a profession?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes the right to protest peacefully.
    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, which covers student bodies and campus collectives.
    4. Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practise a profession.
    5. Article 19(2): Permits restrictions on speech only on eight enumerated grounds, and every restriction must be reasonable.
    6. Article 19(6): Permits reasonable restrictions on the right to a profession, including prescribed qualifications.
    7. Article 14: Bars arbitrary state action, which reaches a statutory body imposing a collective penalty.
    8. Articles 32 and 226: Provide direct recourse to the Supreme Court and the High Courts against the action of a statutory body.

    What exactly did the Bar Council of India direct, and how did it unravel?

    1. The first letter: The Council’s chairperson wrote to the NALSAR Vice Chancellor seeking a report identifying the persons who initiated, organised, coordinated or mobilised the campaign against the Chief Justice of India.
    2. The enrolment bar: The same letter prohibited State Bar Councils from enrolling any 2026 passed out student of NALSAR until further orders.
    3. The two hour reversal: A second communication issued within two hours declared the vast majority of NALSAR students innocent, while retaining the direction to hold an inquiry and submit a report.
    4. The university’s response: NALSAR stated that it would have to examine the constitutionality of such an inquiry.
    5. Full withdrawal: The Council withdrew both letters entirely the following day and closed the proceedings.
    6. The stated reason: The Council accepted that it was not proceeding under Section 24A, and argued that enrolment during a pending inquiry would create a fait accompli.

    Why does the power to enrol sit with State Bar Councils and not the Bar Council of India?

    1. Two tier design: Section 3 creates State Bar Councils and Section 4 creates the Bar Council of India, with distinct functions assigned to each.
    2. The enrolling authority: Section 6(1)(a) makes the admission of persons as advocates on its roll a function of the State Bar Council.
    3. The apex body’s list: Section 7 confines the Bar Council of India to professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils, promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
    4. No enrolment power: None of those provisions gives the Bar Council of India the power to enrol a person as an advocate.
    5. Individual assessment: Every application has to be dealt with independently, and an applicant who meets the statutory requirements is entitled to be enrolled.
    6. Limits of supervision: Section 48B permits directions to State Bar Councils, but a direction cannot create a bar that the Act itself does not contain.

    What are the only statutory grounds on which enrolment can be denied?

    1. Conviction for moral turpitude: Section 24A bars a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
    2. Untouchability offences: A conviction under the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 is a separate statutory bar.
    3. Dismissal from service: Dismissal or removal from government employment on a charge involving moral turpitude disqualifies a person.
    4. Time limit: The disqualification lapses two years after the release, dismissal or removal.
    5. Nothing on dissent: The list contains no ground relating to protest, opinion or a campus campaign.
    6. Conduct before enrolment: Such conduct becomes relevant only when it attracts a statutory disqualification, and a peaceful protest or an expression of opinion does not.

    Where does the Bar Council of India legitimately enter the enrolment process?

    1. The carve out: Section 26 requires a State Bar Council’s enrolment committee that proposes to reject an application to refer the matter to the Bar Council of India with a statement of the grounds of refusal.
    2. Binding opinion: Section 26(3) requires the State Bar Council to dispose of the application in conformity with the opinion of the Bar Council of India.
    3. Reasons in writing: Section 26(2) requires the State Bar Council to record its grounds for refusing enrolment in writing.
    4. Only after a proposed refusal: The referral arises only once a State Bar Council has decided to reject an individual application.
    5. No advance freeze: Section 26 does not contemplate a blanket bar on an entire graduating class before any application has been filed.
    6. Removal from the roll: Where a name already on the roll is to be removed for fraud or misrepresentation, the person must first be given a hearing.

    Why do the Council’s disciplinary powers not reach a law graduate?

    1. Chapter V: It deals with disciplinary proceedings, and Sections 35 to 37 cover misconduct by advocates, the powers of the disciplinary committee and appeals from disciplinary orders.
    2. Whom they bind: Those provisions apply only to persons already enrolled on a State roll.
    3. Status of a graduate: A law graduate who has not yet been enrolled is not an advocate.
    4. Consequence: The disciplinary framework does not extend to a student, so a campus protest cannot be treated as professional misconduct.
    5. Effect of the letters: They attempted to add the expression of dissent as a fresh ground of disqualification for enrolment.

    What did the Supreme Court settle when the Council last created a disqualification?

    1. The case: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    2. The rule struck down: The Court invalidated a Bar Council of India rule barring persons above 45 years of age from enrolment.
    3. The reasoning: Rule making power under Section 49 cannot be used to create an additional disqualification that the Advocates Act does not provide.
    4. The jurisdictional holding: Admission of persons to the roll and removal of their names lie within the exclusive domain of the State Bar Councils.
    5. The parallel: The age bar and the batch bar both add a disqualification by executive direction rather than by statute.

    How did the Court and the legal community respond this time?

    1. Interim protection: A three judge Bench barred the Council from taking coercive action against NALSAR students, faculty and administrators on the basis of the incidents named in the letters.
    2. Explanation sought: The Council was given two weeks to file an affidavit explaining its actions.
    3. The Court’s position: The fundamental right to a profession cannot be threatened for expressing dissent, and students have the right to protest.
    4. Jurisdictional rebuke: The Chief Justice of India described the Council’s intervention as unnecessary interference in a dialogue between the students and himself.
    5. The petitioners’ case: Neither the Advocates Act, 1961 nor the Rules of Legal Education permits the Council to regulate students’ conduct or to direct universities to inquire against them.
    6. Institutional criticism: The university’s alumni called the letters arbitrary and high handed, and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad asked the Council to act only on facts, due process and a fair inquiry.
    7. Editorial demand: The episode was described as a misuse of statutory power for which the chairperson’s exit is the minimum course correction.

    Does the withdrawal of the directive settle the question it raised?

    1. The case for closure: The letters stand withdrawn, the proceedings are closed, and the 2026 graduates may now seek enrolment in the ordinary course.
    2. The case against closure: A regulator has demonstrated that it will use enrolment as leverage over student speech, and that demonstration survives the withdrawal.
    3. Speed as the problem: The bar was imposed and lifted without any meeting of the full Council, using interim powers meant for supervisory emergencies.
    4. The absent remedy: No accountability attaches to a direction withdrawn before it is tested, so the cost of issuing it is zero.
    5. The deterrent that remains: A student weighing a future campus campaign now knows that entry to the profession can be made the subject of an inquiry.
    6. The unresolved question: Whether a supervisory power over State Bar Councils can ever be used to suspend a statutory function that those councils alone hold.

    What are the major debates surrounding regulatory control over entry to the legal profession?

    1. Supervision against exclusivity: Section 7(1)(g) and Section 48B give the Council supervisory control, while Section 6(1)(a) gives State Bar Councils exclusive power over enrolment.
    2. Rule making against statute: The 1995 ruling confines Section 49 rules to what the Act permits, and successive Council rules have tested that boundary.
    3. The Bar examination question: Bar Council of India v. Bonnie Foi Law College (2023) upheld the All India Bar Examination as a valid precondition for practice, unsettling the earlier view that only Parliament could add entry conditions.
    4. An elected regulator: The Council is elected by practising advocates, which makes independent enforcement of discipline against advocates contested.
    5. Education and practice in one body: The Council both recognises law degrees and regulates practitioners, concentrating academic and professional gatekeeping in a single institution.
    6. Speech of future professionals: How far a professional regulator may police the political expression of persons not yet within its jurisdiction remains untested.
    7. Opening the profession: The 2023 rules permitting foreign lawyers in non litigious matters reopened the question of who defines the boundaries of the profession.

    Challenges to the Bar Council of India

    1. Jurisdictional overreach: The Council repeatedly claims powers that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not confer, e.g. the rule barring entrants above 45 years of age, struck down in Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    2. Decisions by individual direction: Rule 18 interim powers of the chairperson allow directions of general effect without a Council meeting, e.g. the enrolment bar on the 2026 NALSAR batch, issued and withdrawn within a day in August 2026.
    3. Disciplinary delay: Section 36B transfers a misconduct case to the Council if a State disciplinary committee does not conclude it within a year, which pushes complaints further from the complainant, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recorded that this one year limit is routinely missed.
    4. Unverified enrolments: State rolls carry names that cannot be matched to verified degrees, e.g. the verification drive under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015 found large numbers of enrolled advocates who never filed verification papers.
    5. Strikes by the Bar: Court boycotts continue despite a binding ruling against them, e.g. the boycott by advocates in Delhi district courts after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019, which stalled hearings for several days.
    6. Legal education oversight: Approvals of law colleges have outpaced inspection capacity, e.g. the Council imposed a moratorium on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
    7. Collision with university autonomy: The education mandate is used to direct internal university action, e.g. the letter requiring NALSAR to inquire into and report on the students behind a campus campaign, which the university said raised constitutional questions.

    Conclusion

    The Bar Council of India used a supervisory power over State Bar Councils to suspend a function that only those councils hold, and it did so to penalise speech that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not recognise as a disqualification. The withdrawal closed the file without answering the question, because the deterrent created by a regulator that can threaten entry to a profession does not lapse with the letter. What must change is the source of the power: a disqualification can come only from statute, and an interim supervisory order cannot be used to manufacture one.

    Regulation of the Legal Profession in India

    1. About: The legal profession is a statutory self regulating profession governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, which created a single unified Bar for the whole country.
    2. Structure: State Bar Councils enrol and discipline advocates, and the Bar Council of India supervises them and sets professional standards.
    3. Scale: India has more than 15 lakh enrolled advocates and over 1,700 approved law colleges, among the largest legal professions in the world.
    4. Entry route: A five year integrated law degree after school or a three year degree after graduation, followed by enrolment with a State Bar Council and the All India Bar Examination.
    5. Single class of practitioners: The Act abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders and attorneys, leaving advocates as the only recognised class, divided into senior advocates and other advocates.
    6. National law universities: The model began with the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru in 1987 and now covers more than 25 such universities.

    Statutory Framework Governing Enrolment of Advocates

    1. Section 3: Constitutes a Bar Council for each State and sets its composition and term.
    2. Section 4: Constitutes the Bar Council of India, with the Attorney General and the Solicitor General as ex officio members.
    3. Section 6: Lists the functions of a State Bar Council, including the admission of persons as advocates on its roll under Section 6(1)(a).
    4. Section 7: Lists the functions of the Bar Council of India, including professional standards, supervision of State Bar Councils under Section 7(1)(g), promotion of legal education and recognition of universities.
    5. Section 24: Prescribes the qualifications for admission as an advocate on a State roll.
    6. Section 24A: Prescribes the disqualifications for enrolment and the two year period after which they lapse.
    7. Section 25: Names the authority to which an application for enrolment must be made.
    8. Section 26: Governs disposal of applications, reference of a proposed refusal to the Bar Council of India, and removal of a name obtained by misrepresentation.
    9. Sections 35 to 37: Govern punishment of advocates for professional misconduct, the powers of disciplinary committees and appeals to the Bar Council of India.
    10. Section 48AA: Allows the Bar Council of India or its committees, other than a disciplinary committee, to review any order within sixty days.
    11. Section 48B: Allows the Bar Council of India to give directions to a State Bar Council in exercise of its general supervision.
    12. Section 49: Confers general rule making power on the Bar Council of India to discharge its functions.

    Laws, Acts and Rules Governing the Legal Profession in India

    1. Advocates Act, 1961: Created a unified national Bar, established the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils, and consolidated the law on legal practitioners.
    2. Advocates Act, 1961, landmark change: It abolished the earlier categories of vakils, pleaders, attorneys and revenue agents, leaving a single class of advocates with an all India right to practise under Section 30.
    3. Bar Council of India Rules: Framed under Section 49, covering standards of professional conduct and etiquette, legal education and the internal working of the Council.
    4. Bar Council of India Rules, key provisions: Rule 15 gives the chairperson general control and supervision over the Council’s affairs, and Rule 18 allows interim orders in revisional and supervisory matters.
    5. Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, 2008: Govern recognition of law degrees, the five year and three year course structures, and inspection of colleges.
    6. All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010: Made the examination a condition for the certificate of practice for advocates enrolled after 2009.
    7. Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Created the National, State and District Legal Services Authorities and the Lok Adalat mechanism for free legal aid.
    8. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Defines civil and criminal contempt and governs the conduct of advocates before courts.
    9. Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955, renamed the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: A conviction under it is a statutory disqualification for enrolment under Section 24A.
    10. Bar Council of India Rules for Registration of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms, 2022, amended in 2023: Permit foreign lawyers to advise on foreign law and international arbitration in non litigious matters.
    11. Advocates (Amendment) Act, 2023: Repealed the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 and inserted provisions empowering courts to frame and act against lists of touts.

    Back2Basics: Advocates Act, 1961

    1. Enacted: 1961, on the recommendations of the All India Bar Committee, 1953 and the Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission of India.
    2. Purpose: Consolidated the law relating to legal practitioners and created a single class of advocates for the whole country.
    3. Bodies created: State Bar Councils under Section 3 and the Bar Council of India under Section 4.
    4. Right to practise: Section 30 gives an advocate on a State roll the right to practise before all courts, tribunals and authorities in India.
    5. Senior advocates: Section 16 divides advocates into senior advocates and other advocates, with designation by the Supreme Court or a High Court.
    6. Discipline: Chapter V provides for disciplinary committees, punishment for professional misconduct, and appeals to the Bar Council of India and then to the Supreme Court.
    7. Autonomy: The Bar Council of India is an independent statutory authority and not a department of government.

    Government Initiatives for Legal Education and Access to Justice

    1. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA): Provides free legal aid to eligible persons under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and organises Lok Adalats for settlement of pending and pre litigation disputes.
    2. Tele-Law: Connects citizens in rural areas to panel lawyers through Common Service Centres for free advice before litigation begins.
    3. Nyaya Bandhu: A pro bono legal services programme that links volunteer advocates with litigants who cannot afford representation.
    4. Legal Aid Defense Counsel System: Provides full time defence counsel at the district level for accused persons who cannot afford a lawyer.
    5. e-Courts Mission Mode Project: Digitises case records, enables virtual hearings and publishes case status through the National Judicial Data Grid.
    6. Nyaya Vikas: Centrally sponsored scheme funding court halls and residential units for judicial officers of district and subordinate courts.
    7. Pan India Legal Awareness and Outreach Campaign: A village level drive by NALSA to inform citizens of their legal entitlements and aid options.

    Key Facts about the Bar Council of India

    1. Established: 1961 under the Advocates Act, 1961, with its headquarters in New Delhi.
    2. Ex officio members: The Attorney General of India and the Solicitor General of India.
    3. Elected members: One member elected by each State Bar Council from among its own members.
    4. Office bearers: The chairperson and the vice chairperson are elected by the Council for a term of two years.
    5. All India Bar Examination: Introduced in 2010 and required for the certificate of practice.
    6. First national law university: National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, established in 1987.
    7. Landmark ruling on enrolment: Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India (1995).
    8. Landmark ruling on strikes: Ex-Captain Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) held that advocates have no right to strike or boycott courts.

    Challenges in Regulating Legal Education and the Legal Profession in India

    1. Uneven quality of law colleges: Approvals have expanded faster than inspection capacity, so degree standards vary sharply, e.g. the moratorium the Council imposed on approving new law colleges after approvals crossed well over a thousand institutions.
    2. Fake and unverified degrees: Rolls carry entries that cannot be matched to a verified degree, e.g. the verification exercise under the Certificate and Place of Practice Verification Rules, 2015, in which lakhs of advocates did not submit verification papers.
    3. Cost of entry: Enrolment fees, examination costs and unpaid junior years restrict first generation entrants, e.g. the Supreme Court in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India (2024) capped State Bar Council enrolment fees at ₹750 for general category candidates and ₹125 for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates.
    4. Under representation of women: Women form a small share of the senior Bar, e.g. women constitute about 3.4 per cent of senior advocates in India.
    5. Court boycotts and strikes: Work withdrawal continues despite a binding ruling against it, e.g. the Delhi district courts boycott after the Tis Hazari clash in 2019.
    6. Case backlog and delay: Adjournment practice by the Bar contributes directly to pendency, e.g. more than five crore cases were pending across Indian courts as recorded on the National Judicial Data Grid.
    7. Regulatory overlap: Legal education is governed simultaneously by the Council and the University Grants Commission, e.g. the Law Commission’s 266th Report (2017) recommended a separate body for legal education to end the overlap.

    Way Forward

    1. Codify the limits of supervisory power: Amend Section 48B to state that a direction to a State Bar Council cannot suspend a function that Section 6(1)(a) confers on it.
    2. Require a Council resolution for general directions: Confine Rule 18 interim orders to individual revisional matters and require a full Council decision for any direction of general effect.
    3. Separate legal education from professional regulation: Create a distinct legal education council with academic membership, as recommended by the Law Commission’s 266th Report.
    4. Enforce time bound discipline: Make the one year limit in Section 36B operational through mandatory public reporting of pending complaints and their age.
    5. Publish enrolment data: Require every State Bar Council to publish the number of applications received, decided and refused, with the recorded grounds of refusal.
    6. Protect lawful student expression: Frame a rule under Section 49 stating that lawful expression before enrolment is neither a ground for refusal nor a basis for inquiry.
    7. Create an appellate route: Provide a statutory appeal against general directions of the Bar Council of India, so that every affected person is not forced to approach the Supreme Court.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to India, consider the following statements :
    1. Government law officers and legal firms are recognised as advocates, but corporate lawyers and patent attorneys are excluded from recognition as advocates.
    2. Bar Councils have the power to lay down the rules relating to legal education and recognition of law colleges.
    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: (b)”

  • Mines and Minerals Amendment Bill 2026 curbs State taxing powers over mineral rights

    Why in the News

    Parliament passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 on 13 August 2026, restricting the power of States to levy taxes on mineral rights and mineral bearing lands. The measure reverses in statute the fiscal gain that a nine judge Bench of the Supreme Court gave mineral rich States in 2024, and it has united ruling and opposition parties in Kerala, Odisha and Jharkhand against it.

    What is the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957?

    1. About: The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 is the central law regulating the grant of mineral concessions and the development of mines in India.
    2. The declaration it carries: Section 2 declares it expedient in the public interest that the Union take control of the regulation of mines and mineral development, which activates Entry 54 of the Union List.
    3. Royalty setting: Section 9 empowers the Central Government to fix and revise royalty rates, and revision is permitted not more than once every three years.
    4. Concession route: Since the 2015 amendment, mineral concessions are granted by States through competitive auction rather than by discretionary allotment.
    5. Local sharing: Section 9B requires a District Mineral Foundation in every district affected by mining, funded by a contribution linked to royalty.

    What is a royalty on minerals?

    1. Definition: Royalty is the payment a lessee makes to the owner of the mineral for the privilege of extracting and removing it, calculated on the quantity or value produced.
    2. Legal character: The Supreme Court has held royalty to be a contractual consideration flowing from the mining lease, not a tax levied by the state.

    What is a cess?

    1. Definition: A cess is a levy imposed for a specified purpose, with its proceeds earmarked for that purpose rather than merged into general revenue.
    2. Why it matters here: Mineral bearing States had imposed cesses on royalty and on mineral bearing land, and it is this class of levy that the amendment restricts.

    What is the District Mineral Foundation (DMF)?

    1. Definition: The District Mineral Foundation is a non profit trust established in every mining affected district to work for the benefit of persons and areas affected by mining.
    2. Funding: Lessees contribute a share of royalty to the Foundation, and the money is spent through the Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana on health, education, drinking water and livelihood in mining affected areas.

    What is the current status of State taxing power over mineral rights in India?

    1. Constitutional entry: Entry 50 of the State List gives States the power to tax mineral rights, expressly subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development.
    2. Judicial position since 2024: A nine judge Bench held that royalty is not a tax and that States retain legislative competence to tax mineral rights and mineral bearing land.
    3. Retrospective effect: The Court permitted recovery of dues from 1 April 2005, to be paid in staggered instalments over twelve years beginning 1 April 2026, without interest or penalty for the earlier period.
    4. State levies in force: Mineral rich States including Odisha, Jharkhand and West Bengal had enacted or revived levies on mineral rights in reliance on that ruling.
    5. The new limitation: The 2026 amendment now exercises the limitation power in Entry 50 to restrict those levies and vests sole authority to frame rules in the Centre.
    6. Central levies unaffected: Royalty under Section 9, the District Mineral Foundation contribution and the National Mineral Exploration Trust contribution of 2 per cent of royalty continue to be fixed centrally.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Mineral Rights and State Taxation

    1. Article 246: Distributes legislative power between Parliament and State legislatures through the three lists of the Seventh Schedule.
    2. Entry 54, Union List: Gives Parliament power over the regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent that such control is declared by law to be expedient in the public interest.
    3. Entry 23, State List: Gives States power over the regulation of mines and mineral development, expressly subject to Entry 54 of the Union List.
    4. Entry 18, State List: Places land, including rights in land and land tenures, within the exclusive competence of the States.
    5. Entry 49, State List: Gives States the power to tax lands and buildings, which covers mineral bearing land as a class of land.
    6. Entry 50, State List: Gives States the power to tax mineral rights, subject to limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development.
    7. Article 265: Provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
    8. Article 254: Governs repugnancy between a central and a State law on a concurrent subject, and gives the central law primacy.

    What does the 2026 amendment actually change?

    1. Restriction on State taxes: The Bill restricts the power of States to levy taxes on mineral rights and on mineral bearing lands.
    2. Restriction on cesses: The restriction extends to cesses and other levies imposed on the same subject matter.
    3. Rule making centralised: An amendment grants sole authority over the framing of rules to the Centre.
    4. The Centre’s stated purpose: The government has argued that the amendment will promote mineral production, ensure mineral security and create a more uniform regulatory framework.
    5. Passage: The Bill was cleared by the Rajya Sabha and passed by Parliament on 13 August 2026 amid Opposition protests.

    How did the 2024 nine judge ruling set up this legislative response?

    1. The question referred: Whether royalty under the 1957 Act is a tax, and whether States retain independent power to tax mineral rights and mineral bearing land.
    2. The holding: By a majority of eight to one the Court held that royalty is not a tax, and that State competence under Entry 50 survives.
    3. The precedent overruled: The 1990 ruling that had treated royalty as a tax, and had thereby denied States a separate taxing field, was overturned.
    4. The fiscal consequence: Mineral rich States became entitled to arrears accumulated since 2005, an amount running into more than a lakh crore rupees across States.
    5. The opening the Court left: The judgment expressly preserved Parliament’s power under Entry 50 to impose limitations on State taxation of mineral rights, and the 2026 amendment uses exactly that power.

    Why do mineral rich States say the Bill strips their revenue base?

    1. Encroachment on land: The Kerala Chief Minister described the legislation as a serious encroachment on the State’s constitutional powers over land and a grave threat to India’s federal structure, and said the State would mount political and, if necessary, legal opposition.
    2. Land is a State subject: The Leader of the Opposition in Kerala argued that land falls under Entry 18 of the State List and that taxation of land is also a State subject, so the restriction enters the States’ constitutional domain.
    3. Disproportionate impact: Odisha’s former Chief Minister wrote that the provisions would disproportionately impact mineral rich States and cause massive revenue losses that would stifle the State’s developmental agenda.
    4. What the revenue funds: He stated that mining revenue finances healthcare, education, welfare schemes and infrastructure development across the State, and demanded a special Assembly session and a unanimous resolution.
    5. Fiscal autonomy claim: He described fiscal autonomy as a constitutional principle built into the federal system, and said stripping States of the power to tax their own mineral bearing lands strikes at cooperative federalism.
    6. Protest in Jharkhand: The Jharkhand Chief Minister called it a black Bill and warned of protests in every district, block, panchayat and town of the State.
    7. The privatisation charge: The Kerala Opposition alleged that the larger objective was to weaken the public sector and create opportunities for corporates to earn windfall profits.

    How was the Bill carried through Parliament?

    1. Passage amid protest: The Bill was passed while the Opposition was protesting, and the concerns raised about federalism were not addressed on the floor.
    2. Rights of affected people: The legislation overlooks the rights of those living on resource rich land, who are the first to bear the cost of expanded extraction.
    3. A pattern, not an exception: The amendment follows an established pattern of hurried lawmaking and continuing expansion of central powers at the cost of States and local communities.
    4. Session context: The monsoon session that began on 20 July 2026 passed several Bills with inadequate deliberation.
    5. What deliberation would have required: An all party meeting, circulation of the draft and consultation with State Chief Ministers were available and were not used.

    Can a Bill be constitutionally valid and still weaken federalism?

    1. The text supports the Centre: Entry 50 has always made State taxation of mineral rights subject to limitations imposed by Parliament, so the amendment uses a power the Constitution itself confers.
    2. The Court anticipated it: The 2024 judgment recognised that parliamentary limitation was available, so the amendment is a legislative answer within the space the ruling left open.
    3. The effect side: A limitation that removes the entire field converts a qualified State power into no power at all, which is a different thing from regulating its exercise.
    4. Who bears the loss: The States that lose most are the poorest resource States, whose own tax base is narrow and whose transfers do not compensate for mineral revenue.
    5. The federal principle at stake: Fiscal autonomy is not merely a revenue question, because a State that cannot tax its own resource base cannot plan expenditure independently of central transfers.
    6. The objection is not uniformly principled: The Kerala Opposition itself pointed out that the State government’s Revised Budget and White Paper on State finances proposed full privatisation of beach sand mining, which is the same direction it attacks in the Centre.

    Major Debates Surrounding Mineral Taxation and Federalism

    1. Royalty as tax or consideration: The 1990 ruling treated royalty as a tax, the 2004 five judge ruling read that as a drafting error, and the 2024 nine judge ruling settled it as a contractual consideration.
    2. How far a limitation may go: Whether Parliament’s power to impose limitations under Entry 50 extends to extinguishing the State’s taxing field altogether remains contested.
    3. Retrospective recovery burden: The staggered recovery of arrears from 2005 falls heavily on public sector miners and steel producers, and industry has argued it will be passed into input costs.
    4. Uniformity against autonomy: The Centre’s case for a single national regulatory framework for mineral security runs directly against the States’ claim to price their own resource endowment.
    5. Resource curse: Mineral rich States record among the highest poverty rates despite the highest extraction, which raises whether royalty and District Mineral Foundation flows compensate the host population at all.
    6. Community consent: The rights of Scheduled Area residents under the Fifth Schedule and the 1996 Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act sit uneasily with a centralised concession regime, as the Samatha and Niyamgiri rulings demonstrated.
    7. District Mineral Foundation utilisation: Large unspent balances and expenditure outside mining affected areas have raised the question whether local sharing works in practice.

    Challenges to the Mineral Taxation Framework after the Amendment

    1. Revenue substitution gap: No mechanism replaces the levies the States lose, e.g. Odisha’s mining revenue funds a large share of its own tax receipts and no equivalent central transfer has been announced.
    2. Litigation risk: The amendment invites a fresh constitutional challenge, e.g. the Kerala Chief Minister has already said the State will consider legal opposition to the Act.
    3. Investment uncertainty: Repeated changes to the fiscal regime deter long lead mining investment, e.g. bidders in mineral auctions price in future levy changes through lower premium bids.
    4. Local community exclusion: Centralised rule making distances the decision from those displaced, e.g. Niyamgiri in Odisha showed that consent of gram sabhas can defeat a project cleared at higher levels.
    5. Auction premium distortion: High auction premiums already compress operating margins, e.g. several iron ore blocks won at premiums above 100 per cent of sale value have remained unoperated.
    6. Enforcement of illegal mining controls: Restricting State fiscal powers does not address extraction outside the legal framework, e.g. illegal sand and iron ore mining continues to be reported across multiple States despite the auction regime.
    7. Environmental cost transfer: The framework does not price ecological damage into the concession, e.g. mining in the Aravallis and in central Indian forest belts has continued alongside contested clearances.

    Conclusion

    Entry 50 always made State taxation of mineral rights subject to limitation by Parliament, so the amendment uses a power the Constitution grants. Its effect is to reverse in statute the fiscal gain that a nine judge Bench gave mineral rich States in 2024. What remains unresolved is whether a formally valid limitation that removes an entire revenue base is compatible with fiscal federalism, and that question is now headed back to the courts.

    What is Fiscal Federalism?

    1. About: Fiscal federalism is the division of taxation powers, expenditure responsibilities and transfer mechanisms between the Union and the States in a federal system.
    2. Rationale: Revenue raising capacity is concentrated at the centre while service delivery responsibility sits with the States, so a transfer system is required to close the gap.
    3. Vertical fiscal imbalance: The mismatch between the Union’s revenue powers and the States’ expenditure responsibilities, corrected through tax devolution.
    4. Horizontal fiscal imbalance: The mismatch between States of differing income and need, corrected through the Finance Commission’s inter se distribution formula.
    5. Third tier imbalance: The mismatch at the level of panchayats and municipalities, whose own revenue is minimal and whose transfers depend on State Finance Commissions.

    Key Concerns Regarding Fiscal Federalism

    1. Shrinking divisible pool: Cesses and surcharges are not shared with States, so a growing share of central revenue sits outside the devolution formula.
    2. Loss of taxation autonomy under GST: States surrendered most of their independent indirect taxing power, leaving mineral rights and land among the few residual fields.
    3. Conditional transfers: Centrally sponsored schemes come with matching share and design conditions that constrain State expenditure choices.
    4. Weak third tier finance: Local bodies remain dependent on State transfers because property tax and user charge collection is under exploited.
    5. Borrowing limits: State borrowing under Article 293 requires central consent where the State is indebted to the Union, which constrains counter cyclical spending.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Mineral Rights and State Taxation

    1. Article 246: Distributes legislative competence between the Union and the States through the Seventh Schedule.
    2. Seventh Schedule: Contains the Union List, the State List and the Concurrent List that operationalise Article 246.
    3. Entry 54, Union List: Regulation of mines and mineral development to the extent declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
    4. Entry 23, State List: Regulation of mines and mineral development, subject to Entry 54 of the Union List.
    5. Entry 18, State List: Land, rights in land, land tenures and the relation of landlord and tenant.
    6. Entry 49, State List: Taxes on lands and buildings.
    7. Entry 50, State List: Taxes on mineral rights, subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development.
    8. Article 265: No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.
    9. The Mineral Area Development Authority line of cases: India Cement in 1990 treated royalty as a tax, Kesoram Industries in 2004 read that as a drafting error, and Mineral Area Development Authority in 2024 held by eight to one that royalty is not a tax and that Entry 50 competence survives.

    Laws and Rules Governing Mining in India

    1. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The parent statute for mineral concessions; its Section 2 declaration is what brings mineral regulation under Union control.
    2. MMDR Amendment Act, 2015: Introduced auction as the only route for granting mineral concessions and created the District Mineral Foundation and the National Mineral Exploration Trust.
    3. MMDR Amendment Act, 2021: Removed the distinction between captive and merchant mines and allowed transfer of statutory clearances with the lease.
    4. MMDR Amendment Act, 2023: Created the exploration licence and moved twelve critical and deep seated minerals, including lithium and beryllium, to central auction under a new Part D.
    5. Mines Act, 1952: Governs worker safety, working hours and welfare in mines, enforced through the Directorate General of Mines Safety.
    6. Offshore Areas Mineral (Development and Regulation) Act, 2002: Governs mineral rights in territorial waters and the exclusive economic zone, amended in 2023 to introduce auctions.
    7. Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, 2017: Prescribe scientific mining, mine closure and conservation obligations for lessees.
    8. Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and Forest Rights Act, 2006: Govern diversion of forest land and require settlement of individual and community forest rights before diversion.
    9. Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA): Requires consultation with the gram sabha before granting a mineral concession in a Scheduled Area.

    Back2Basics: Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024)

    1. Bench strength: It was decided by a nine judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, the largest bench to sit on the question.
    2. Majority: The ruling was by a majority of eight to one.
    3. Core holding: Royalty payable under Section 9 of the 1957 Act is a contractual consideration and not a tax.
    4. Competence upheld: States retain legislative competence under Entry 50 of the State List to tax mineral rights, and under Entry 49 to tax mineral bearing land.
    5. Precedent overruled: It overruled India Cement Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (1990), which had treated royalty as a tax.
    6. Limitation preserved: The Court recorded that Parliament may impose limitations on the Entry 50 power through a law relating to mineral development.
    7. Prospectivity ruling: In a separate order the Court allowed recovery of dues from 1 April 2005 in instalments over twelve years starting 1 April 2026, and waived interest and penalty for the period before the judgment.

    Government Initiatives for the Mineral Sector

    1. National Mineral Policy, 2019: Sets the policy framework for sustainable mining, exploration expansion and a right of first refusal in auctions for existing lessees.
    2. National Critical Mineral Mission: Launched to secure supply of critical minerals, targeting 1,200 domestic exploration projects by 2030 to 2031, production of 15 critical minerals and acquisition of 50 overseas assets.
    3. Khanij Bidesh India Limited (KABIL): A joint venture of three public sector undertakings to acquire mineral assets abroad, including lithium acreage in Argentina.
    4. Pradhan Mantri Khanij Kshetra Kalyan Yojana: Spends District Mineral Foundation funds on drinking water, health, education, sanitation and livelihoods in mining affected areas.
    5. National Mineral Exploration Trust: Funded by a levy of 2 per cent of royalty, it finances regional and detailed exploration by notified agencies.
    6. Mining Tenement System and Star Rating of Mines: Digitise concession records and grade operating mines on sustainable development performance.

    Key Facts about India’s Mineral Sector

    1. Production base: India produces 95 minerals, comprising fuel, metallic, non metallic, atomic and minor mineral categories.
    2. Global standing: India is the world’s second largest producer of coal and among the largest producers of iron ore and crude steel.
    3. Leading States: Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka and Rajasthan account for the bulk of the value of mineral production.
    4. Critical minerals list: India notified a list of 30 critical minerals in 2023, of which twelve were moved to central auction under the 2023 amendment.
    5. Foundation contribution: Lessees contribute 10 per cent of royalty to the District Mineral Foundation for auctioned leases and 30 per cent for older leases.
    6. Sector share: Mining and quarrying contribute roughly 2 to 3 per cent of gross value added, well below the share in comparable resource economies.

    Challenges in India’s Mining Sector

    1. Exploration deficit: Only a small fraction of the obvious geological potential area has been explored in detail, e.g. India still imports the bulk of its lithium, cobalt and rare earth requirement despite favourable geology.
    2. Land and forest clearance delays: Concession holders wait years for statutory clearances, e.g. blocks auctioned in central India have remained unoperated pending forest diversion approval.
    3. Displacement and rehabilitation: Mining displaces tribal populations without durable resettlement, e.g. the Niyamgiri hills case turned on the Dongria Kondh community’s rights over the proposed bauxite site.
    4. Illegal mining: Extraction outside the legal framework persists in high value and low value minerals alike, e.g. river sand mining continues to be reported across States despite auction and monitoring rules.
    5. Environmental damage: Overburden, dust and water table impact are inadequately priced, e.g. coal mining in the Singrauli belt has produced sustained air and water contamination.
    6. Occupational safety: Accident rates in mines remain high, e.g. rat hole coal mining in Meghalaya has caused repeated fatal flooding incidents despite prohibition.
    7. Value addition gap: India exports ore and imports processed metal, e.g. iron ore fines have historically been exported while high grade steel inputs are imported.

    Way Forward

    1. Compensate the fiscal loss: Route a defined share of central mineral levies back to producing States to replace the revenue the amendment removes.
    2. Legislate the limitation narrowly: Define the scope of the Entry 50 limitation in the statute so that the residual State field is stated rather than left to litigation.
    3. Institutionalise consultation: Refer contested federal legislation to a Joint Parliamentary Committee and consult State Chief Ministers before introduction.
    4. Strengthen local sharing: Audit District Mineral Foundation spending and restrict it to a defined radius around mining affected habitations.
    5. Expand exploration: Use the exploration licence route to bring private and junior exploration capital into deep seated and critical mineral search.
    6. Build processing capacity: Support domestic refining and separation of critical minerals so that concession reform translates into value addition rather than ore export.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?”

  • Draft rules under the SHANTI Act open nuclear power to captive industrial use and a composite licence

    Why in the News

    The Department of Atomic Energy released draft rules under the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act on 14 August 2026, opening nuclear power generation to private and captive users. Comments are invited until 4 September 2026.

    What is the SHANTI Act?

    • Replaces the earlier state monopoly framework with a licensing regime for non-government operators.
    • Covers private participation, captive generation, foreign reactor technology, safety and nuclear liability.
    • Provides a single composite licence for building, owning, operating and decommissioning a reactor.

    Key Provisions

    1. Captive nuclear power: Industries can generate nuclear electricity mainly for their own consumption.
    2. In-principle approval: Allows land acquisition and vendor negotiations before final licensing.
    3. Foreign technology: Imported designs must be certified by the regulator in the country of origin and already operational.
    4. Nuclear liability: Operators must maintain insurance or financial security; a Nuclear Liability Fund is proposed.
    5. Eligible users: Aluminium, cement, data centres, semiconductor fabs and Artificial Intelligence (AI) facilities.

    Key Concern

    • The country-of-origin certification may speed up safety approval but restrict technology sourcing to a few countries. Requiring continued support and retaining Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) with foreign developers could also limit technology transfer and indigenous reactor design.

    India’s Nuclear Programme

    • Stage 1: Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) using natural uranium.
    • Stage 2: Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) using plutonium.
    • Stage 3: Thorium-based reactors using Uranium-233 (U-233).
    • Target: 100 GW nuclear capacity by 2047.

    Challenges

    • Supplier liability concerns
    • Limited regulatory independence
    • Land and public acceptance
    • Uranium and fuel constraints
    • Nuclear waste management
    • High project costs and long construction timelines

    Prelims Pointers

    • DAE: Department of Atomic Energy
    • AERB: Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
    • NPCIL: Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited
    • BHAVINI: Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited
    • NPT: Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
    • NSG: Nuclear Suppliers Group
    • India is not a signatory to NPT and received an NSG waiver in 2008.

    [2018, GS3, 15 marks] With growing energy needs should India keep on expanding its nuclear energy programme? Discuss the facts and fears associated with nuclear energy.”

    [2020]  In India, why are some nuclear reactors kept under “IAEA safeguards” while others are not ?

    a) Some use uranium and others use thorium
    b) Some use imported uranium and others use domestic supplies
    c) Some are operated by foreign enterprises and others are operated by domestic enterprises
    d) Some are State-owned and others are privately-owned

  • Socialism as the shackle: revisiting the four decades before the 1991 reforms

    Why in the News

    India holds foreign exchange reserves of $700 billion, including 880 tonnes of gold, on its 80th Independence Day. In early 1991 the same reserves had fallen below $1 billion, and the escape required a Prime Minister formed in socialist politics to pledge the country’s gold to foreign banks.

    What was the licence permit quota system?

    1. About: The administrative regime under which a private firm needed a government licence to set up capacity, expand output, change product mix or import inputs.
    2. Legal basis: The Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 reserved industrial licensing to the Centre and listed the industries requiring approval.
    3. Delivery vehicle: Investment was allocated through five year plans, which placed the public sector first in the commanding heights of the economy.
    4. Effect on entry: Capacity was fixed by the licence rather than by demand, so a firm could not expand even when the market grew.
    5. Effect on competition: New entrants competed for approvals rather than for customers, which made the licence itself the scarce asset.

    What is a balance of payments crisis?

    1. Definition: A country cannot meet payments for imports and external obligations because its foreign exchange earnings and reserves fall short of what it owes.
    2. The operative measure: Severity is read in import cover, that is the number of weeks of imports the reserves can finance, not in the absolute size of the reserves.

    What was the socialist pattern of society resolution?

    1. Adoption: The Congress session at Avadi in Tamil Nadu in 1955 passed a resolution declaring a socialist pattern of society to be the goal of government policy.
    2. Content: It committed the government to state ownership and state direction of the principal means of production.

    What is the Bank for International Settlements (BIS)?

    1. Definition: A Basel based institution owned by central banks that functions as a bank to central banks, with operations that made it one of the two lenders against India’s gold in 1991.
    2. Function: It accepts deposits and gold from member central banks and extends short term credit against that collateral.

    What was the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976?

    1. Preamble change: It inserted the words socialist, secular and integrity into the Preamble of the Constitution.
    2. Wider effect: It also expanded the protection given to laws implementing Directive Principles and curtailed the scope of judicial review, and much of it was reversed by the 44th Amendment.

    Why did the 1991 crisis force India to pledge its gold?

    1. Reserve collapse: Foreign exchange reserves fell below $1 billion in early 1991, producing a full balance of payments crisis.
    2. Import cover: The remaining reserves covered only about two weeks of imports.
    3. The only option left: The Reserve Bank Governor advised that India’s gold be mortgaged to the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, and dollars borrowed against it.
    4. Quantum pledged: About 67 tonnes of gold moved out in two consignments during 1991.
    5. Closed markets: A downgrade below investment grade had shut India out of ordinary commercial borrowing, which left collateralised lending as the only route.

    How did socialism become the organising idea of Indian economic policy?

    1. 1927: A visit to Moscow for the decennial celebration of the October Revolution converted Jawaharlal Nehru to socialism.
    2. 1929: As president of the Indian National Congress he declared that India will have to go the socialist way.
    3. 1936: A revolt in the Congress Working Committee followed, in which seven senior leaders including Sardar Patel, Rajendra Prasad, C Rajagopalachari, J B Kripalani and Jamnalal Bajaj resigned.
    4. Gandhi’s condition: Mahatma Gandhi extracted a commitment that socialism would not become the Congress’s official policy, and it was honoured as long as Gandhi and Patel were alive.
    5. After 1950: The theme returned, and the 1955 Avadi resolution made a socialist pattern of society the declared goal of government.
    6. Instrumentation: The goal was executed through five year plans and the licence permit quota system, which emphasised state led growth and discouraged individual entrepreneurship.

    What did four decades of state led growth actually deliver?

    1. Poverty rose: Decadal data published in 1965 showed the poverty rate had risen from 52.66 per cent to 58.60 per cent.
    2. Food rationing persisted: India was the only country still running food rationing two decades after the Second World War.
    3. Agriculture stagnated: Agricultural productivity remained among the lowest in the world.
    4. The income floor: In Parliament in 1963 it was asserted that 270 million Indians lived on three annas, that is 19 paise, a day while the Prime Minister’s pet dog cost nearly three rupees a day.
    5. Enterprise discouraged: Licensing made official approval rather than consumer demand the binding constraint on production.

    Where did ideological commitment collide with fiscal solvency?

    1. The formation: The Prime Minister of 1990 to 1991 had begun his political life under the socialist leaders Acharya Narendra Dev and Ram Manohar Lohia.
    2. The dilemma: Pledging national gold to foreign banks contradicted the economic doctrine he had held throughout that political life.
    3. The counter argument: The Reserve Bank Governor’s case was that the country ranked above the doctrine, and it prevailed.
    4. Who acted: A lame duck government running on a thin majority took the decision that kept India solvent until a reform government could be formed.
    5. Who is credited: The turnaround is attributed to the Prime Minister and Finance Minister who followed, not to the government that pledged the gold.

    How much of the 1991 collapse can be attributed to socialism alone?

    1. Oil shock: The Gulf conflict of 1990 raised crude prices and cut worker remittances from West Asia at the same time.
    2. Deposit flight: Non resident deposits were withdrawn rapidly as confidence in repayment fell.
    3. Fiscal position: The fiscal deficit had reached about 8.4 per cent of gross domestic product in 1990 to 1991, financed by borrowing.
    4. Political instability: Three governments in two years delayed every corrective decision.
    5. Model exhaustion: The licensing system had already produced four decades of low growth, so an external shock met an economy with no buffer.

    What did other countries do when the same model failed?

    1. China: The Four Modernisations introduced by Deng Xiaoping in 1978 opened agriculture, industry, defence and science and technology to market incentives, with special economic zones as the entry point for foreign capital.
    2. Soviet Union: The planned economy did not reform in time and collapsed along with the state itself in the early 1990s.
    3. Vietnam: The Doi Moi programme from 1986 replaced collective farming with household production and legalised private enterprise.
    4. Poland: The stabilisation programme of 1990 freed prices and made the currency convertible in a single step rather than in stages.

    Challenges to the post 1991 reform model

    1. Manufacturing share stagnation: Industry has not absorbed labour at the expected scale, e.g. manufacturing has remained near 17 per cent of gross value added against the 25 per cent target set under Make in India.
    2. Factor market reform stalled: Land and agricultural marketing reform remain politically blocked, e.g. the three farm laws enacted in 2020 were repealed in 2021 after a year of protest.
    3. Labour codes unimplemented: Consolidation of labour law has not translated into uniform practice, e.g. the four labour codes passed by 2020 waited years for States to notify matching rules.
    4. Disinvestment slippage: Public sector exits are announced faster than they are completed, e.g. the sale of Air India concluded in 2022 after two decades of failed attempts.
    5. Credit cycle damage: Directed and concentrated lending has repeatedly produced stress, e.g. the asset quality review of 2015 exposed non performing assets built up in infrastructure and power lending.
    6. Policy predictability: Retrospective changes deter long term capital, e.g. the retrospective tax amendment of 2012 triggered the Vodafone and Cairn arbitrations and was withdrawn only in 2021.

    Conclusion

    The crisis of 1991 was the terminal cost of a model in which official approval, not consumer demand, set the limit on production. The decisive moment came when a Prime Minister formed in socialist politics accepted that solvency outranked doctrine. Liberalisation removed the licence, but factor markets, manufacturing scale and policy predictability remain unresolved three decades later.

    What is Economic Liberalisation?

    1. About: Economic liberalisation is the removal of state controls on entry, capacity, prices and trade so that market signals rather than administrative permission allocate resources.
    2. Rationale: It addresses the shortages, rent seeking and low productivity that follow when output is capped by licence rather than by demand.
    3. Liberalisation: The first element removes industrial licensing, price controls and import restrictions on domestic producers.
    4. Privatisation: The second element transfers ownership or management of state enterprises to private hands and opens reserved sectors to private entry.
    5. Globalisation: The third element integrates the domestic economy with world markets through trade, investment and currency convertibility.

    Key Concerns Regarding Economic Liberalisation

    1. Jobless growth: Output growth has not produced proportionate formal employment, leaving a large workforce in low productivity informal work.
    2. Regional divergence: Investment concentrates in States with existing infrastructure, widening the gap with lagging States.
    3. Concentration of market power: Deregulation without strong competition enforcement allows dominant firms to entrench themselves.
    4. External vulnerability: Open capital accounts transmit global shocks quickly through portfolio flows and the exchange rate.
    5. Weak social protection: Removal of administered prices raises the burden on households where targeted transfers are incomplete.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Economic Policy in India

    1. Preamble: The word socialist, inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, declares a normative economic orientation without prescribing a specific model.
    2. Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade or business.
    3. Article 19(6): Permits reasonable restrictions on that freedom, including the creation of a complete or partial state monopoly in any trade.
    4. Article 39(b): Directs that ownership and control of material resources be distributed to best subserve the common good.
    5. Article 39(c): Directs that the operation of the economic system not result in concentration of wealth to the common detriment.
    6. Article 31C: Protects laws made to give effect to Articles 39(b) and 39(c) from challenge on specified fundamental rights grounds.
    7. Article 246 with Union List Entry 52: Places industries whose control by the Union is declared expedient in the public interest within Parliament’s exclusive competence, which is the basis of central industrial licensing.
    8. Article 301: Guarantees freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse throughout the territory of India.

    Laws and Rules Governing Industrial Policy in India

    1. Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951: Created the licensing system for industrial capacity; it remains in force but licensing now applies to only four industries.
    2. Industrial Policy Resolution, 1956: Classified industries into three schedules and reserved the commanding heights for the public sector.
    3. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969: Restricted expansion by large firms above an asset threshold, and was repealed and replaced by the Competition Act, 2002.
    4. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: Capped foreign equity and criminalised exchange violations, and was replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which shifted violations from crime to civil penalty.
    5. New Industrial Policy, 1991: Abolished industrial licensing except for a short list, opened reserved sectors and raised the automatic route for foreign investment.
    6. Competition Act, 2002: Shifted regulation from restricting size to prohibiting anti competitive agreements and abuse of dominance.
    7. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Created a time bound resolution process, which supplied the exit mechanism the licence era economy never had.

    Back2Basics: The 1991 New Economic Policy

    1. Trigger: Foreign exchange reserves below $1 billion and import cover of about two weeks.
    2. Gold pledge: About 67 tonnes of gold were pledged to the Bank of England and to a Swiss bank across two consignments in 1991.
    3. Devaluation: The rupee was devalued in two steps on 1 and 3 July 1991, by roughly 9 per cent and 11 per cent.
    4. External support: India drew on an International Monetary Fund standby arrangement, conditioned on fiscal correction and structural reform.
    5. Industrial delicensing: Licensing was abolished for all but 18 industries, a list since reduced to four.
    6. Trade and investment: Import tariffs were cut sharply and foreign direct investment up to 51 per cent was permitted through an automatic route in listed industries.

    Government Initiatives for Industrial Growth

    1. Make in India: Launched to raise manufacturing’s share of output and employment through sector specific facilitation.
    2. Production Linked Incentive schemes: Pay incentives on incremental sales in named sectors such as electronics, pharmaceuticals and solar modules.
    3. National Single Window System: Consolidates central and State approvals for a new industrial project into one application portal.
    4. PM GatiShakti National Master Plan: Coordinates infrastructure planning across ministries to reduce logistics cost for industry.
    5. Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023: Decriminalised a large number of minor business offences to reduce compliance risk.
    6. Startup India: Provides tax benefits, a fund of funds and simplified compliance for recognised new enterprises.

    Key Facts about the 1991 Reforms

    1. The Budget of 1991: The reform Budget was presented in July 1991 and paired fiscal correction with trade liberalisation.
    2. Licensing today: Only four industries still require an industrial licence, including alcoholic drinks, tobacco products, defence and aerospace equipment, and industrial explosives.
    3. Reserve position now: Foreign exchange reserves stand at about $700 billion, with gold holdings of 880 tonnes.
    4. Rate of change: Reserves more than doubled over the last twelve years.
    5. Preamble litigation: The presence of the word socialist in the Preamble has been repeatedly challenged, and the Supreme Court has declined to read it as mandating a specific economic model.

    Challenges in India’s Industrial Economy

    1. Scale deficit in manufacturing: Firms stay small to retain benefits tied to size, e.g. the majority of registered manufacturing units remain micro enterprises with fewer than ten workers.
    2. Import dependence in key inputs: Assembly has grown faster than component making, e.g. India still imports the bulk of active pharmaceutical ingredients and advanced electronic components from China.
    3. Logistics cost: Freight moves disproportionately by road, e.g. rail’s share of freight traffic has fallen steadily since the 1950s, raising delivered cost for bulk industry.
    4. Land acquisition friction: Project land remains slow and contested to assemble, e.g. the Nandigram and Singur episodes in West Bengal ended two large industrial projects outright.
    5. Skills mismatch: Formal training does not match employer requirements, e.g. employability surveys repeatedly report that a minority of engineering graduates are job ready without retraining.
    6. Power reliability and cost: Industrial tariffs cross subsidise other consumers, e.g. energy intensive units in several States run captive diesel or solar capacity to avoid grid interruption.

    Way Forward

    1. Complete factor market reform: Move on land assembly, tenancy and labour rule notification instead of amending statute without implementation.
    2. Tie incentives to competitiveness: Structure production incentives to expire on a fixed schedule so that supported sectors face world prices.
    3. Deepen component ecosystems: Extend support beyond final assembly to component, material and capital goods manufacturing.
    4. Cut logistics cost: Shift bulk freight to rail and coastal shipping through dedicated corridors and multimodal terminals.
    5. Stabilise tax and regulatory expectations: Rule out retrospective taxation by statute and publish advance rulings to reduce litigation.
    6. Align skilling with employers: Fund apprenticeships tied to firm level hiring rather than to enrolment targets.

    “[2017, GS3, 15 marks] “Industrial growth rate has lagged behind in the overall growth of Gross-Domestic-Product (GDP) in the post-reform period” Give reasons. How far the recent changes is Industrial Policy are capable of increasing the industrial growth rate?”

  • [15th August 2026] The Hindu OpED: [Financial femocracy, the Jan Dhan transformation]

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2016]     Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) is necessary for bringing unbanked to the institutional finance fold. Do you agree with this for financial inclusion of the poorer section of the Indian society? Give arguments to justify your option.
    Linkage: The PYQ tests whether PMJDY has translated bank-account access into substantive financial inclusion for the poor. The article extends the PYQ by examining the shift from account ownership to actual usage of savings, credit and insurance.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY) completed twelve years on Independence Day 2026, having crossed 58 crore accounts with deposits of about ₹3 lakh crore. The milestone exposes the distance between owning a bank account and actually using savings, credit and insurance through it.

    What is the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY)?

    1. About: National financial inclusion mission announced from the ramparts of the Red Fort on 15 August 2014 and formally launched at Vigyan Bhawan on 28 August 2014.
    2. Core entitlement: Every household in India was to have a bank account, a RuPay debit card and insurance cover.
    3. Zero balance design: The account can be opened and held without any minimum balance requirement.
    4. Credit attachment: An overdraft facility of up to ₹10,000 is attached to the account so that it functions as more than a deposit box.
    5. Administering authority: The Department of Financial Services, Ministry of Finance, runs the scheme through public and private sector banks.

    What is Antyodaya?

    1. Definition: The principle that the most deprived person is the most deserving claimant on the fruits of development.
    2. Origin: The concept was propounded by both Mahatma Gandhi and Deendayal Upadhyaya.

    What is the JAM trinity?

    1. Definition: The linking of Jan Dhan bank accounts, Aadhaar digital identity and Mobile connectivity into one delivery rail.
    2. Function: It allows a government payment to reach a verified individual account without passing through any intermediate handling point.

    What is Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)?

    1. Definition: The transfer of a subsidy or entitlement directly into the beneficiary’s bank account instead of through a physical distribution chain.
    2. Purpose: It removes the intermediate custody points at which cash and commodity leakage historically occurred.

    What is Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)?

    1. Definition: Publicly governed digital rails for identity, payments and data sharing on which both government and private services are built.
    2. The Indian stack: Aadhaar supplies identity, the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) supplies payments, and Jan Dhan accounts supply the account layer.

    Why did political independence not deliver financial access to millions of Indians?

    1. A distant formal system: Decades after 1947, a bank account, formal credit, insurance and a reliable channel to receive government support could not be taken for granted.
    2. Leakage in delivery: A former Prime Minister acknowledged that when a rupee was sent from Delhi, only 15 paise reached the intended recipient.
    3. No delivery address: Without an account, a citizen had no address to which government money could be sent directly.
    4. Exclusion by balance: Minimum balance requirements made the formal banking system unusable for people whose incomes were small and irregular.
    5. Incomplete freedom: Political freedom remains incomplete where a citizen cannot save securely, receive money directly or reach the institutions through which economic opportunity flows.

    Why is access to formal finance treated as a responsibility of the state?

    1. The Chanakya formulation: The launch invoked Sukhasya moolam dharmah, Dharmasya moolam artha, Arthasya moolam rajyam, that the root of happiness is dharma, the root of dharma is artha, and the root of artha is the state.
    2. The claim it carries: Economic means are fundamental to human well being, so creating access to those means is a state obligation and not a discretionary favour.
    3. The Antyodaya test: The architecture was built on the rule that the last person in the queue should not remain outside the system.
    4. Entry point, not benefit: The account was designed as an entry point into the formal economy, not as one more transfer to be received.
    5. A second independence: Sixty seven years after 1947, financial and digital literacy was placed at the centre of the Independence Day address as unfinished national business.

    How was the Jan Dhan account designed so that the poorest could keep it?

    1. No entry cost: The zero balance account meant that having little money was no longer a reason to stay outside the banking system.
    2. A usable instrument: The RuPay debit card converted the account from a passbook into a transacting instrument.
    3. Small credit line: The overdraft facility gave the holder a formal alternative to the moneylender for a consumption shortfall.
    4. Embedded insurance: A ₹2 lakh accident insurance cover was attached to the RuPay card without a separate premium payment.
    5. Household unit: Coverage was defined at the household level, so the target was universality rather than a beneficiary list.

    What do twelve years of numbers show about the scale of the first step?

    1. Account base: The scheme had crossed 58 crore accounts by July 2026.
    2. Deposits held: Balances in these accounts run into about ₹3 lakh crore.
    3. Women’s share: More than half of all Jan Dhan accounts are held by women.
    4. Geographic spread: Roughly three fourths of the accounts are in rural and semi urban areas.
    5. Average balance: The two figures together imply an average balance of about ₹5,200 per account.

    How did a bank account become the first layer of a national digital infrastructure?

    1. First layer of JAM: Jan Dhan supplied the account layer on which Aadhaar identity and mobile connectivity were stacked.
    2. A direct channel: Once accounts were linked to identity and mobile, the government gained a direct route through which benefits could reach a named individual.
    3. Transformed transfers: This changed what Direct Benefit Transfer could actually do, from a pilot idea to the default mode of payment.
    4. Continuity with UPI: The same infrastructure carried the Unified Payments Interface into everyday retail payments.
    5. Cross border reach: A merchant accepting a UPI payment in France in 2026 and a first time account holder of 2014 sit on the same financial infrastructure.

    Does opening accounts amount to financial inclusion?

    1. The ownership side: With 58 crore accounts and near universal household coverage, the question of formal access has been settled.
    2. The usage side: Financial inclusion means participation in savings, payments, credit, insurance and economic opportunity, which an account count does not measure.
    3. What the balances say: An average balance of about ₹5,200 indicates that the account works mainly as a receiving channel rather than as a savings instrument.
    4. The credit gap: The overdraft remains the least used component of the design, so formal credit has not displaced the informal lender for most holders.
    5. Dormancy: Close to a fifth of Jan Dhan accounts have been reported inoperative, which means the rail exists but is not always carrying traffic.

    Why does a bank account function as a marker of identity?

    1. Recognition with respect: The account gave people from marginalised sections a formal record of existence that the system had rarely offered them.
    2. Visibility: It made those on the periphery visible and counted within the financial system.
    3. The scheme’s own framing: The tagline Mera khaata, bhagya vidhata, my account the destiny maker, states the claim that the account itself changes standing.
    4. Forward link: Financial inclusion is now positioned as an input into the Viksit Bharat 2047 goal.

    What are the challenges to the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana?

    1. Inoperative accounts: A large share of accounts records no customer induced transaction for long periods, e.g. the Finance Ministry ran a nationwide fresh KYC drive in 2024 covering roughly 11 crore inoperative Jan Dhan accounts.
    2. Overdraft under use: Banks sanction the overdraft to a small fraction of eligible holders because these borrowers carry no credit score, e.g. lenders treat a zero balance account with irregular inflows as an unscorable credit risk.
    3. Last mile agent viability: Business correspondents earn thin commissions on low value transactions, e.g. Bank Mitras in remote blocks handle deposits too small to cover travel and cash carrying costs.
    4. Duplicate accounts: The 2014 enrolment drive produced multiple accounts per household, e.g. families opened a second account to capture the accident cover, inflating the headline count.
    5. Unclaimed insurance: The accident cover lapses through ignorance of its conditions, e.g. holders do not know the RuPay card must have been used within a qualifying period before the accident for the claim to stand.
    6. Misuse of dormant accounts: Idle zero balance accounts are rented out as conduits for fraud proceeds, e.g. mule account networks flagged by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre have used dormant no frills accounts.

    Conclusion

    Twelve years of Jan Dhan have settled the question of access and left the question of use open. The visible achievement is 58 crore accounts; the durable one is the rail that now carries Direct Benefit Transfer and UPI. The unfinished work is converting a receiving account into a working relationship with savings, credit and insurance.

    Back2Basics:

    What is Financial Inclusion?

    1. About: Financial inclusion is the delivery of banking, payment, credit, insurance and pension services to every section of society at an affordable cost.
    2. Rationale: Exclusion from formal finance forces households into informal credit at punitive rates and denies the state a clean channel to transfer entitlements.
    3. Access: The first dimension is the availability of a formal account and a service point within reach of the household.
    4. Usage: The second dimension is the actual frequency and depth of transactions, savings and borrowing through that account.
    5. Quality: The third dimension covers consumer protection, grievance redress and financial literacy, and it is the dimension the Reserve Bank of India Financial Inclusion Index weights lowest.

    Laws and Rules Governing Financial Inclusion in India

    1. Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934: Establishes the central bank and its power to direct banking policy, including branch authorisation and priority sector norms.
    2. Banking Regulation Act, 1949: Governs the licensing and conduct of banks, and is the basis for the Basic Savings Bank Deposit Account norms that permit zero balance accounts.
    3. Aadhaar Act, 2016: Section 7 permits the use of Aadhaar authentication as a condition for receiving a subsidy or benefit funded from the Consolidated Fund of India.
    4. Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007: Gives the Reserve Bank authority to regulate payment systems, and is the legal basis for the National Payments Corporation of India operating UPI, RuPay and the Aadhaar Enabled Payment System.
    5. Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Rules: Prescribe the customer identification and record keeping obligations that govern account opening and periodic verification.

    Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana

    1. Ministry or Department: Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services.
    2. Launch year: 2014, announced on 15 August and launched on 28 August.
    3. Aims and objectives: Financial inclusion through zero balance accounts, insurance, overdraft and micro pension, forming the first leg of the JAM trinity.
    4. Targeted beneficiaries: Unbanked adults, with a household level coverage target.
    5. Key features: Basic Savings Bank Deposit accounts, an overdraft of up to ₹10,000, an accident cover of ₹2 lakh, and RuPay and Aadhaar Enabled Payment System interoperability.
    6. Record: The scheme holds a Guinness World Record for the most bank accounts opened in a single week during its 2014 rollout.

    Government Initiatives for Financial Inclusion

    1. Pradhan Mantri Jeevan Jyoti Bima Yojana: Renewable one year life cover for account holders aged 18 to 50 at a low annual premium.
    2. Pradhan Mantri Suraksha Bima Yojana: Accident death and disability cover for account holders aged 18 to 70 at a nominal annual premium.
    3. Atal Pension Yojana: Guaranteed minimum pension for unorganised sector workers, delivered through the same bank accounts.
    4. Pradhan Mantri Mudra Yojana: Collateral free institutional credit to micro enterprises under the Shishu, Kishore and Tarun categories.
    5. Stand Up India: Bank loans for greenfield enterprises promoted by Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and women entrepreneurs.
    6. PM SVANidhi: Working capital loans to street vendors, extending formal credit to a category with no collateral.

    Key Facts about Financial Inclusion in India

    1. JAM as a term: The JAM trinity entered official vocabulary through the Economic Survey that followed the launch of Jan Dhan.
    2. Financial Inclusion Index: The Reserve Bank publishes an annual composite index built on Access, Usage and Quality, with Usage carrying the largest weight.
    3. Priority Sector Lending: Scheduled commercial banks must direct 40 per cent of adjusted net bank credit to priority sectors, including weaker sections.
    4. Payments banks: A separate bank category was licensed to accept small deposits and offer payments without lending, expanding the service point network.
    5. Aadhaar Enabled Payment System: It allows cash withdrawal at a business correspondent point using fingerprint authentication alone, without a card or a branch.

    Challenges in Financial Inclusion in India

    1. Thin rural service points: Banking outlets remain concentrated in towns, e.g. aspirational districts in central India depend on a single business correspondent covering several villages.
    2. Low insurance penetration: Micro insurance uptake stays low despite nominal premiums, e.g. renewal rates for the low cost life and accident schemes fall sharply after the first auto debit year.
    3. Weak grievance redress: New account holders rarely reach an effective complaint channel, e.g. unauthorised debit complaints from rural holders often stop at the branch level and never reach the Banking Ombudsman.
    4. Connectivity failures: Authentication depends on network availability, e.g. Aadhaar Enabled Payment System withdrawals fail in hilly and forest blocks where mobile data is intermittent.
    5. Financial literacy gap: Holders do not understand interest, penalty and claim conditions, e.g. overdraft users treat the limit as a grant rather than as a loan carrying interest.
    6. Gendered control of accounts: Women hold accounts that male household members operate, e.g. transfers under women centred schemes are frequently withdrawn by another family member at the agent point.

    Way Forward

    1. Shift the metric: Measure the scheme on transaction frequency, credit uptake and insurance claims settled rather than on accounts opened.
    2. Build alternative credit scoring: Use account transaction history and Account Aggregator consented data to underwrite the overdraft for holders with no formal credit record.
    3. Fix agent economics: Revise business correspondent commissions to reflect distance and transaction cost so that remote service points remain viable.
    4. Run a dormancy clearance cycle: Institutionalise periodic verification and reactivation drives instead of one off campaigns.
    5. Embed literacy in delivery: Attach a short standardised explanation of overdraft interest and insurance claim conditions to every account and card issued.
    6. Harden the rail against misuse: Apply transaction pattern monitoring to dormant zero balance accounts to detect mule account recruitment early.

  • WPI inflation eases to 9.78% in July, first month-on-month softening since October 2025

    Why in the News

    Wholesale Price Index (WPI) inflation eased to 9.78% in July 2026 from 9.87% in June, mainly due to lower fuel and power inflation.

    What is WPI?

    • Measures price changes of goods traded in bulk between businesses.
    • Covers only goods, not services.
    • Three groups: Primary Articles, Fuel & Power, Manufactured Products.
    • Base year: 2011-12.
    • Released by the Office of the Economic Adviser, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    • Weights: Manufactured Products 64.23%, Primary Articles 22.62%, Fuel & Power 13.15%.

    July 2026 Trends

    • Fuel & Power: 20.05%, down from 27.41%.
    • Manufactured Products: 8.29%, up from 7.48%.
    • Food Articles: 5.44%, marginally down from 5.49%.
    • PPI: Producer Price Index remained at 9.6%.

    WPI vs CPI

    • WPI: Wholesale prices of goods; excludes services.
    • CPI: Retail prices of goods and services; used as India’s inflation-targeting anchor.
    • CPI target: 4% with a tolerance band of ±2%.

    Why is inflation a concern?

    • Imported crude oil shocks
    • Food price volatility
    • Supply-chain constraints
    • Fertiliser import dependence
    • Input cost pressures

    “[2010] With reference to India, consider the following Statements:

    1. The Wholesale Price Index (WPI) in India is available on a monthly basis only

    2. As compared to Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI (IW)), the WPI gives less weight to food articles.

    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.

  • White House transshipment report places India in Tier 1 of illegal transshipment risk

    Why in the News

    A White House report, The Great Transshipment Scam, places India in Tier 1 for elevated illegal transshipment risk, alleging that some Chinese goods are routed through India to evade US tariffs.

    Key Definitions

    • Illegal Transshipment: Routing goods through a third country and making minimal changes to disguise their actual country of origin and avoid tariffs.
    • Tariff Arbitrage: Earning a profit by routing goods through a country with a lower tariff.
    • Rules of Origin: Rules used to determine the country of origin of a product, generally based on where substantial transformation occurs.
    • Substantial Transformation: A manufacturing process that changes a product sufficiently to give it a new identity, character or use.
    • Screwdriver Factory: A facility that mainly assembles imported components with minimal domestic value addition.
    • Section 301: US law allowing action against foreign trade practices considered unfair or discriminatory.
    • Trade Diversion: Shifting trade flows from one country or route to another due to tariffs, restrictions or other trade barriers.

    What does the US report allege?

    • India is placed in Tier 1.
    • The Pune, Gujarat and Chennai production belt is specifically mentioned.
    • Pumps and compressors are cited as examples.
    • India, Mexico and Vietnam together accounted for an estimated $67 billion of transshipped goods in 2025.
    • No punitive action has yet been announced.

    Why does it matter for India?

    • Greater scrutiny of Indian exports.
    • China Plus One manufacturing could face stricter origin verification.
    • Dependence on Chinese components may complicate origin claims.
    • Tariff action could affect India’s access to the US market.

    [2025, GS3, 10 marks] What are the challenges before the Indian economy when the world is moving away from free trade and multilateralism to protectionism and bilateralism? How can these challenges be met?”

    [2017] Consider the following statements:
    1. India has ratified the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) of WTO.
    2. TFA is a part of WTO’s Bali Ministerial Package of 2013.
    3. TFA came into force in January 2016.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 1 and 3 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3