💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Archives: News

  • Gross FDI hit 15-year high of $30.7 billion in April-June 2026

    Gross FDI hit 15-year high of $30.7 billion in April-June 2026

    Why in the News

    Reserve Bank of India (RBI) data shows gross Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows reached $30.7 billion in April-June 2026, the highest quarterly figure in fifteen years. Net FDI, which nets out repatriation and disinvestment by existing foreign investors, turned positive again in June 2026 at $1.3 billion, after a period of elevated repatriation had kept it depressed. Singapore, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada led the inflows, concentrated in manufacturing. The tension is between the strength of the gross inflow figure and the much smaller net figure, since heavy repatriation by existing foreign investors has been offsetting fresh inflows for several preceding quarters.

    What does the data show?

    1. Fifteen-year high in gross inflows: Gross FDI of $30.7 billion in a single quarter is the highest recorded in fifteen years, reversing a period of relatively subdued inflows.
    2. Net FDI turns positive: Net FDI turned positive in June 2026 at $1.3 billion, after running negative or near zero in preceding months.
    3. Source and sector concentration: Singapore, the Netherlands, the United States and Canada were the leading source countries, with manufacturing the leading destination sector.

    Why does the gap between gross and net FDI matter?

    1. Repatriation pressure: A large gap between gross and net FDI signals that existing foreign investors have been exiting or repatriating profits at a pace close to new inflows. This is a different signal from headline inflow growth alone.
    2. Policy implication: A durable improvement in net FDI, not gross inflows alone, is the more reliable indicator of investor confidence in staying invested in India over the medium term.

    Gross FDI vs Net FDI

    • Gross FDI: Fresh foreign investment entering India.
    • Net FDI: Gross inflows after accounting for repatriation and disinvestment.
    • A large gap between gross and net FDI indicates that substantial investment is also flowing out through existing investors.
    • Therefore, high gross FDI does not necessarily mean high net FDI.

    “[2022] Which one of the following situations best reflects “Indirect Transfers” often talked about in media recently with reference to India ?
    (a) An Indian company investing in a foreign enterprise and paying taxes to the foreign country on the profits arising out of its investment
    (b) A foreign company investing in India and paying taxes to the country of its base on the profits arising out of its investment
    (c) An Indian company purchases tangible assets in a foreign country and sells such assets after their value increases and transfers the proceeds to India
    (d) A foreign company transfers shares and such shares derive their substantial value from assets located in India

  • SEBI’s ITRI: Global test for India’s future-ready financial architecture

    SEBI’s ITRI: Global test for India’s future-ready financial architecture

    Why in the News

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced an IT Resilience Index (ITRI) to assess the technological robustness of Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs), meaning stock exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations. The index responds to growing global concern about outages and cyberattacks at systemically important financial market infrastructure. It follows comparable resilience frameworks already adopted by regulators in the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia. The tension is between certifying resilience on paper through a scored index and ensuring MIIs make the operational investment the index is meant to incentivise.

    What does the ITRI assess?

    1. Nine weighted parameters: The index scores each market infrastructure institution across nine parameters covering system uptime, cyber-incident preparedness, disaster recovery capability and related technology governance measures.
    2. Comparative design: SEBI has drawn on resilience frameworks used by regulators in the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia in constructing the index.

    Why has SEBI shifted from compliance-checking to a quantitative resilience score for MIIs?

    • Systemic-risk trigger: Rising technological dependence in capital markets means even minutes of disruption at an MII can affect millions of investors and billions of rupees in trades.
    • Regulatory foundation: SEBI’s 2015 circular first classified MIIs as systemically important, mandating a robust cybersecurity framework.
    • Boardroom shift: Retail participation through online platforms, algorithmic trading volumes, and faster settlement cycles have made technology reliability inseparable from market efficiency.
    • Global first: ITRI is among the first attempts by any regulator to design a resilience barometer as measurable as capital adequacy is for banks.

    How does ITRI’s weighting structure reflect SEBI’s risk-prioritisation approach?

    • Nine-parameter design: ITRI rests on nine parameters, each weighted by a systemic-risk hierarchy, with sub-parameters to be defined by the Industry Standards Forum of MIIs.
    • Highest-weighted parameters: Availability and security carry the highest weight, at 20% each, as the first line of defence for market functioning.
    • Recovery-focused weighting: Business Continuity and Reliability carries 10% weight, reflecting a regulatory shift from preventing failures to absorbing shocks and recovering quickly.
    • Growth-risk calibration: Scalability carries only 5% weight, reflecting SEBI’s view that rapid market growth does not yet pose an immediate stability risk.
    • Early Warning System: MIIs will build an Early Warning System to detect parameter deterioration before it causes performance issues or disruptions.

    What do global resilience frameworks show about the alternatives to a single numeric index?

    • United Kingdom — FCA/PRA: Operational resilience rules require institutions to identify important business services and demonstrate recovery capability from severe shocks, without a single numeric score.
    • European Union — DORA: The Digital Operational Resilience Act functions as a regulatory rulebook rather than a numerical scorecard.
    • United States: No single resilience index exists for exchanges; technology resilience is embedded into general regulatory oversight instead.
    • Singapore — Monetary Authority of Singapore: Technology risk guidelines are considered particularly relevant to India given comparably high digital financial penetration and large retail investor bases.
    • Hong Kong: Cyber resilience assessment frameworks use measurable maturity levels, making them the closest structural parallel to SEBI’s numeric approach.

    Can a single numeric score capture resilience across MIIs with different technology architectures?

    • Architecture heterogeneity: Stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories operate different technology architectures and functions, raising doubts about a common index applying uniformly.
    • Weight uncertainty: Questions remain on the statistical estimation of the assigned weights, finalised through Technical Advisory Committee discussions rather than validated outage data.
    • Provisional status: The current weights are a starting framework that SEBI may have to refine using actual outage data, cyber incidents and stress tests.
    • Pace mismatch: Technology risks evolve faster than regulatory frameworks, making the index vulnerable to obsolescence even as it is being implemented.
    • Investment burden: Building automated monitoring systems, continuous testing and redundant infrastructure requires substantial investment from MIIs.

    Back2Basics: Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs)

    1. MIIs are the entities that provide the trading, clearing and settlement backbone of the securities market: stock exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations.
    2. They are classified as systemically important, since their failure or compromise can disrupt trading and settlement across the entire market rather than a single participant.
    3. SEBI regulates MIIs under the SEBI (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations and the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations.

    Conclusion

    SEBI’s ITRI converts technology resilience from a compliance checklist into a quantitative, weighted score, a model most global regulators have not attempted. Whether this scoring approach works depends on unresolved questions: the statistical basis of the weights, the comparability of a single index across MIIs with different architectures, and whether a high score actually translates into faster recovery during an actual technology shock. Until validated against real incident data, ITRI remains a measurement framework rather than a proven resilience guarantee.

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”

  • $100,000 fee for H-1B: The new legal route Trump is pursuing

    $100,000 fee for H-1B: The new legal route Trump is pursuing

    Why in the News

    The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed a new $103,265 fee on H-1B visa petitions, using a rulemaking route after a court struck down an earlier attempt to impose the same fee. The earlier fee had relied on a presidential proclamation, which a US court found exceeded executive authority. The administration is now pursuing the same outcome through a formal DHS rulemaking process instead. The move directly affects Indian workers, who receive the largest single-country share of H-1B visas, and sets up a tension between the United States’ stated intent to restrict low-cost skilled immigration and its technology sector’s dependence on Indian software professionals.

    What is the new legal route, and why does it matter?

    1. Rulemaking instead of proclamation: DHS is now proposing the fee through the standard federal rulemaking process, which carries stronger legal footing than a presidential proclamation but takes longer and includes a public comment period.
    2. Same fee, different vulnerability: A fee approved through rulemaking is harder to strike down in court than one imposed by proclamation, since it follows the procedure Congress has authorised for agency rule changes.

    What is the impact on Indian workers?

    1. Concentration of exposure: Indian nationals receive the largest single-country share of H-1B visas each year, so a steep new fee disproportionately raises the cost of hiring or transferring Indian technology professionals to the United States.
    2. Employer cost shift: US employers typically bear the H-1B fee, not visa applicants. The increase is likely to reduce new H-1B filings for Indian applicants rather than being absorbed by individual workers directly.

    Conclusion

    The Department of Homeland Security’s shift to a rulemaking process to reimpose the $100,000-plus H-1B fee is a more durable attempt to restrict skilled immigration than the earlier proclamation. The outcome for Indian workers now depends on the rulemaking’s public comment period and eventual finalisation, not merely a court challenge.

    Back2Basics: H-1B visa

    1. The H-1B is a US non-immigrant visa category for foreign workers in speciality occupations, typically requiring at least a bachelor’s degree in a related field.
    2. It is issued under an annual numerical cap, allocated through a lottery when applications exceed the cap.
    3. Indian nationals have consistently received the largest single-country share of H-1B approvals, concentrated in information technology roles.

    “[2023, GS2, 10 marks] Indian diaspora has scaled new heights in the West. Describe its economic and political benefits for India.”

  • Centre-state compromise on mines, minerals is in tatters

    Centre-state compromise on mines, minerals is in tatters

    Why in the News

    An opinion piece argues that the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 (MMDR Amendment Act) has centralised mineral taxation authority at the expense of States. This disturbs a long standing settlement, dating to the original Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, under which States collected royalty on minerals within their territory without a corresponding compensation mechanism now built in. The piece contends this follows a pattern already seen in the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council, where States have progressively lost autonomous taxation power to a Union-dominated body. The tension is between the Union’s claim that uniform mineral taxation supports national resource planning, and States’ claim that this erodes a revenue base the Seventh Schedule recognises as theirs.

    What changed under the amendment?

    1. Centralised rate-setting power: The amendment shifts the power to determine certain mineral levies and cesses from State legislatures to the Union government, narrowing what States can independently tax.
    2. Erosion of a settled compromise: Mineral royalty had functioned as a relatively stable, State-collected revenue source since the 1957 Act. The amendment disturbs that settlement without a corresponding compensation mechanism.

    Why is this compared to the GST Council experience?

    1. Repeated pattern of centralisation: The piece argues that the GST Council, though structured as a joint Centre-State body, has in practice let Union preferences dominate rate decisions, and that the same dynamic is now repeating in mineral taxation.
    2. States left to negotiate after the fact: Under both regimes, States raise objections after a rate or rule is set centrally, rather than co-designing the rule up front.

    Current Status of Fiscal Federalism in India

    1. The Union controls the most buoyant tax sources, income tax, corporate tax and the dominant share of the GST base, while States carry larger expenditure responsibilities in health, education and welfare, producing a standing vertical fiscal imbalance.
    2. Devolution to States is currently governed by the 16th Finance Commission’s award, which fixed the States’ share of the divisible pool at 41 percent.
    3. Mineral royalty and cesses have historically sat with States as an independent, non-shared revenue source, which is the specific arrangement this amendment narrows.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Fiscal Federalism

    1. Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule: Distribute taxation and legislative subjects between the Union, State and Concurrent Lists, and mineral development is a subject that straddles Union and State competence under Entry 54 of the Union List and Entry 23 of the State List.
    2. Article 280: Establishes the Finance Commission to recommend the distribution of net tax proceeds between the Union and the States.
    3. Article 246A and Article 279A: Together create the GST regime and the GST Council as the joint body that recommends GST rates and administration.
    4. Article 293: Governs the Union’s control over State borrowing where a State remains indebted to the Union.

    Major debates surrounding Fiscal Federalism

    1. Divisible pool erosion through cesses and surcharges: Revenue the Union raises as a cess or surcharge does not enter the divisible pool the Finance Commission distributes, so a nominal 41 percent devolution understates the Union’s discretionary control over shared revenue.
    2. State taxation autonomy under GST: States gave up the power to independently tax goods and services on joining GST, leaving royalty and mineral levies among the few remaining independent State taxation instruments, which is precisely what this amendment now narrows.
    3. Weak third-tier finances: Local bodies devolved under the 73rd and 74th Amendments remain financially dependent on State and Union transfers, compounding the same imbalance one tier further down.

    Challenges in Fiscal Federalism

    1. No binding consultation requirement before a rate change: Neither the GST Council’s structure nor the MMDR Act requires the Union to secure State consent before altering a shared levy, only consultation. Eg. The GST Council’s voting structure gives the Union a one-third weightage sufficient to block any change it opposes. Fix. Amend Article 279A to require a demonstrated State revenue-neutral transition before a Council decision that narrows State taxation power takes effect.
    2. No compensation mechanism for a narrowed State tax base: Unlike the GST transition, which carried a five-year compensation guarantee for States, the MMDR Amendment Act, 2026 carries no equivalent revenue protection for States losing mineral levy autonomy. Eg. The GST Compensation Cess mechanism lapsed in 2022, and States have separately argued its withdrawal alone widened the same imbalance this amendment now adds to. Fix. Extend a time-bound compensation formula, indexed to each State’s historical mineral revenue, for a fixed transition period.

    Government Initiatives for Fiscal Federalism

    1. Finance Commission: A constitutional body appointed every five years to recommend Union-State and inter-State devolution of tax proceeds and grants-in-aid.
    2. GST Council: The joint Union-State body under Article 279A that recommends GST rates, exemptions and administrative rules.
    3. District Mineral Foundation: A statutory trust under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 that channels a share of mineral royalty into welfare of mining-affected areas, funded from the same royalty base this dispute concerns.

    Back2Basics: Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

    1. The Act is the principal central law governing mineral concessions and mineral development in India, most recently amended in 2026.
    2. It empowers the Union to prescribe rates of royalty and dead rent on minerals, which States then collect.
    3. A 2015 amendment introduced auction as the mandatory mode of allocating mineral concessions, replacing the earlier discretionary allotment system.

    Conclusion

    The mineral taxation dispute is presented as further evidence that fiscal federalism in India increasingly follows a pattern of after-the-fact State objection to Union-set rules, rather than genuine ex ante bargaining. What remains unresolved is whether States will pursue a legal challenge or extract a compensation formula through political negotiation.

    “[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?”

  • India, China to advance boundary talks for ‘early harvest’, set up new LAC meeting points, hotlines

    India, China to advance boundary talks for ‘early harvest’, set up new LAC meeting points, hotlines

    Why in the News

    India and China have agreed to advance work on delimiting the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and to create new mechanisms for managing the border. The two sides reached this outcome at the conclusion of the 25th round of Special Representative (SR) talks, the designated channel between India’s National Security Adviser and China’s Foreign Minister for discussing a political framework for a boundary settlement. The talks follow the restoration of high level border diplomacy after the 2020 Galwan standoff, which had frozen the SR mechanism for several years. Eight outcome points have been agreed, including new military hotlines and meeting points, an expert mechanism on trans-border rivers, and a push toward “early harvest” delimitation in less disputed sectors, even as neither government has published a public roadmap for how full delimitation will proceed.

    What did the two sides actually agree to?

    1. New military hotlines and meeting points: The two sides will add direct communication lines and physical meeting points along the LAC to reduce the risk of miscalculation during patrols. Eg. Existing hotlines were credited with de-escalating stand-offs after 2020, and the new points extend coverage to previously uncovered stretches.
    2. Boundary delimitation working groups: Both sides will set up dedicated groups to work toward an “early harvest” agreement on sectors where the alignment is least contested, rather than attempting a single comprehensive settlement.
    3. Trans-border river mechanism: A joint expert mechanism will meet to share hydrological data on rivers that cross the border. This addresses a long standing Indian concern about upstream Chinese dam activity.

    Why does the lack of a public roadmap matter?

    1. Transparency gap: Neither government has released the substance of what an “early harvest” delimitation would cover or which sectors are prioritised. Parliament and citizens have no way to assess the trade-offs being discussed.
    2. Precedent for slippage: Past India-China dialogue mechanisms, including the Special Representative talks themselves, have lapsed for years after an initial burst of activity. An outcome document alone does not guarantee follow-through.

    Conclusion

    The 25th round of Special Representative talks has produced the most concrete institutional steps on the India-China boundary since the Galwan standoff, but a working roadmap for actual delimitation remains undisclosed. The next milestone is the first meeting of the delimitation working groups and whether the trans-border river mechanism produces a data-sharing protocol.

    Back2Basics: Line of Actual Control (LAC)

    1. The LAC is the de facto boundary separating Indian and Chinese controlled territory, distinct from an internationally recognised border.
    2. It is not a single demarcated line. Both sides hold differing perceptions of its alignment in several sectors, including eastern Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh.
    3. The Special Representatives mechanism, established in 2003, is the designated channel for discussing a political framework for a boundary settlement.

    “[2026] The Chancellor of Germany visited India in January 2026. Which of the following is/are NOT correct in terms of outcomes?
    1. MoU between All India Institute of Ayurveda and University of Hamburg
    2. MoU on Youth Hockey Development between Hockey India and German Hockey Federation
    3. Establishment of a bilateral dialogue mechanism on the Indo-Pacific
    4. Opening of an Honorary Consul of Germany in Lucknow
    (a) 2 and 3 (b) 1 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 (d) 1 only

  • UN panel flags ‘human rights violations’ in India, urges Delhi to suspend, review NRC

    UN panel flags ‘human rights violations’ in India, urges Delhi to suspend, review NRC

    Why in the News

    The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has released concluding observations, following its eleventh periodic review of India on August 11-12, criticising the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in Assam and calling for its suspension. This is a One development, one row item; The Hindu and The Indian Express both carried the Committee’s findings, and this entry is filed from the Indian Express account, which reports the call to suspend the NRC and the Committee’s specific concern about the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, in more detail.

    What did the Committee find, and what did it call on India to do?

    1. The Committee criticised the NRC’s implementation in Assam: It found that the process subjected Bengali-speaking Muslims to what it described as “systematic and structural racial discrimination,” and called for the NRC to be suspended and India’s legislative framework around it to be reviewed.
    2. The Special Intensive Revision process was separately flagged: The Committee raised concern that Bengali-speaking Muslim voters were reportedly disproportionately affected by the Election Commission’s SIR process in West Bengal and Assam.
    3. The Committee’s concern extends to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Rohingya refugees: It said it was “gravely concerned” about reports of large-scale violations by law enforcement officials against ethnic and ethno-religious groups, including Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes (particularly Dalits), and non-citizens, and cited allegations of racially motivated violence, excessive use of force, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence.
    4. It called for accountability, not merely acknowledgement: The Committee asked India to conduct prompt, thorough and impartial investigations into these allegations and ensure accountability for those responsible, and to urgently address hate speech and hate crimes against Rohingya, Bengali-speaking Muslims, migrants and asylum-seekers.
    5. India’s response came through its review delegation: India sent the Solicitor-General as head of delegation for the underlying periodic review held on August 11-12, ahead of these concluding observations.

    Conclusion

    CERD’s concluding observations place NRC suspension, a review of the associated legislative framework, and law enforcement accountability toward Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Rohingya refugees on record as a formal treaty-body finding against India, made under the same UN human rights review process, rather than as commentary on a single incident, with India’s substantive reply yet to be reported.

    Back2Basics

    1. UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD): The treaty body of independent experts that monitors States parties’ implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), which India ratified in 1968, through periodic reviews and concluding observations.
    2. National Register of Citizens (NRC), Assam: A register, first prepared in 1951 and updated under Supreme Court supervision, intended to identify genuine Indian citizens in Assam by excluding illegal migrants, particularly in the context of the Assam Accord (1985).
  • Fair pricing could help sustain UPI network

    Fair pricing could help sustain UPI network

    Why in the News

    The op-ed, by a NITI Aayog consultant, argues that the zero-Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) regime underpinning Unified Payments Interface (UPI)‘s free-to-use model is financially unsustainable, and proposes a differentiated pricing structure as the Department of Financial Services examines whether to restore MDR for high-threshold transactions or merchants. The piece is pegged to a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance report tabled this month, which cited an industry estimate of about Rs 20,700 crore in annual UPI operating costs against a Rs 2,000 crore government allocation under the zero-MDR regime.

    What is the fiscal problem with UPI’s current pricing model, and what does the op-ed propose?

    1. The cost-subsidy gap is large and quantified: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance’s report cited industry estimates of roughly Rs 20,700 crore in annual UPI operating costs, against a government allocation of only Rs 2,000 crore under the zero-MDR regime, with banks and payment companies absorbing the balance.
    2. Two restructuring options are formally under examination: The Department of Financial Services is examining restoring MDR for certain high-threshold transactions or merchants, and separately, phasing out government support through a tiered incentive structure.
    3. The op-ed’s proposed principle is differentiated, not uniform, pricing: It argues for keeping UPI free for consumers and small merchants while allowing a capped MDR for larger commercial users and higher-value transactions, on the basis that a uniform rate would be negligible for a large retailer but consequential for a street vendor.
    4. The author’s own research links merchant ecosystem formalisation to UPI adoption: Citing research with Sharon Buteau, the op-ed states that more formalised merchant ecosystems are associated with higher UPI use, and that MDR design should be calibrated to where acceptance networks are still developing rather than applied uniformly.
    5. Aggregated payment data is proposed as a second, non-MDR revenue and policy tool: The op-ed cites PhonePe’s PulsePro and a recent MoU with the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to integrate UPI transaction metrics into PM GatiShakti for infrastructure and economic planning, arguing that privacy-safe aggregated payment signals have public value independent of any pricing decision.

    Conclusion

    The op-ed’s position is that UPI’s zero-MDR model has reached a fiscal limit documented by Parliament’s own Standing Committee, and that a threshold-based, differentiated MDR, protecting small merchants and consumers while pricing larger commercial transactions, is a more sustainable path than either continuing an unfunded subsidy or imposing a uniform fee that would slow onboarding in less-formalised markets.

    Back2Basics

    1. Merchant Discount Rate (MDR): The fee a merchant pays to their bank or payment service provider for accepting digital payments, historically waived to zero on UPI and RuPay debit card transactions in India since January 2020 to encourage adoption.
    2. Unified Payments Interface (UPI): A real-time payment system developed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) that enables instant interbank transactions through a single mobile application.

    “[2023, GS3, 10 marks] What is the status of digitalization in the Indian economy? Examine the problems faced in this regard and suggest improvements.”

  • Simpler mining tax model can mean more revenue for states

    Simpler mining tax model can mean more revenue for states

    Why in the News

    The chairperson of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, argues that the recently passed Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026 replaces a fragmented mineral taxation system, up to 14 different taxes, charges, fees and levies across States, with a simpler, uniform and predictable framework, extending the certainty-over-discretion principle already applied to mineral block allocation in 2015 to mineral taxation itself.

    What does the amended Act change, and what does it retain?

    1. It targets fiscal fragmentation across States: The amendment addresses a landscape where mineral producers face up to 14 types of taxes, charges, fees and levies that differ by State, and aims to keep India’s mineral market integrated rather than fractured along State fiscal lines.
    2. The revenue-sharing formula with States is retained, not altered: Since the e-auction regime began in 2015, States have received more than Rs 7 lakh crore, about 90% of total revenue from the coal and non-coal sectors combined, through royalty, auction premium, District Mineral Foundation (DMF) contributions and GST; the amendment continues this formula, with 90 paise of every rupee earned from mineral production retained by the State.
    3. The reform is framed as continuing a 12-year trajectory: The op-ed traces the shift from a pre-2014 system of discretionary block allotment, marked by delay and opacity, to transparent competitive e-auctions, arguing that the new tax simplification extends the same certainty principle to fiscal treatment of mining.

    Conclusion

    The op-ed’s position is that a simpler, uniform mineral tax framework under the amended MMDR Act protects mineral-rich States’ own revenue pool while removing the fiscal fragmentation that has made India’s mineral market uncompetitive against import sources, an argument resting on the Act’s own revenue-sharing data rather than a general case for lower taxation.

    Back2Basics

    1. Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957: The principal central legislation governing regulation of mines and mineral development in India, under which State governments grant mineral concessions but the Centre sets the overarching regulatory and taxation framework.
    2. District Mineral Foundation (DMF): A non-profit trust set up in mining-affected districts under the Act to work for the interest and benefit of persons and areas affected by mining-related operations, funded through a share of royalty payments.

    “[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?”

  • Karnataka’s draft SIR rolls reveal alarming levels of deletion

    Karnataka’s draft SIR rolls reveal alarming levels of deletion

    Why in the News

    The draft electoral rolls released after the enumeration phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) show Karnataka’s rolls shrinking by 19.5%, a deletion of 1.08 crore names, the second-highest deletion rate among major States after Telangana. Constituency-level analysis shows the deletions concentrated overwhelmingly in Bengaluru’s urban core, and the Election Commission’s continuing refusal to release the electors-to-population ratio, combined with Karnataka’s own opaque disclosure practices, has deepened concerns about whether the exercise can be independently verified.

    What do the numbers show about how the deletions are distributed?

    1. Five constituencies lost more than half their electors: Bommanahalli (54.8%), Dasarahalli (52.1%), B.T.M. Layout (51.6%), Vijayanagar (51.1%), and C.V. Raman Nagar (51.1%) each saw over 50% of their rolls deleted, the first time any major State has recorded constituencies crossing that threshold during SIR enumeration, and all five sit in the core Bengaluru area.
    2. The deletions are heavily concentrated in a small number of seats: Half of the 1.08 crore deletions came from just 36 of Karnataka’s 224 Assembly Constituencies, of which 28 were in the core Bengaluru area.
    3. A structural gap against the eligible population persists: Karnataka’s draft SIR roll is at least 67 lakh short of the population eligible to vote as estimated by the Union government’s Technical Group on Population Projections, the largest shortfall among the major States compared in the underlying data.
    4. The “Shifted” category is unusually high even in rural constituencies: Unlike the urban-concentration pattern seen in other States, Karnataka recorded a high share of deletions marked “Shifted” even in predominantly rural constituencies.

    Why is the process itself under scrutiny, independent of the deletion numbers?

    1. The Election Commission has not released the electors-to-population ratio for any State during this SIR round: This ratio, mandatory during every roll revision, is the standard check on under- or over-enrolment, and its absence is attributed by the Commission to the lack of Census data.
    2. Karnataka’s disclosure practice is the weakest among major States: Unlike other States that host a searchable deletion list, Karnataka’s Chief Electoral Officer has hosted the deleted-voters list only as booth-wise documents on scattered Google Drive links, in English only, without old booth numbers, making verification difficult for affected voters.
    3. Gender-disaggregated data on deletions is missing: Karnataka has not released gender-wise deletion data, unlike other States, and the Chief Electoral Officer’s office has stated it does not hold this data.

    Conclusion

    The scale and concentration of Karnataka’s SIR deletions, combined with the Election Commission’s continuing non-disclosure of the electors-to-population ratio and Karnataka’s own weak search and disclosure infrastructure, leave roughly 44 lakh voters in the draft rolls facing discrepancy notices with no independently verifiable baseline against which the exercise’s accuracy can be tested.

    Back2Basics

    1. Special Intensive Revision (SIR): An intensive, house-to-house revision of electoral rolls carried out under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, distinct from the routine annual summary revision, undertaken to re-verify enrolment through fresh enumeration.
    2. Electors-to-Population (EP) ratio: The proportion of the population eligible to vote (18 years and above) that is actually enrolled on the electoral rolls; a low EP ratio indicates under-enrolment and a high one can indicate over-enrolment or padding.
  • Rajnath approves transfer of missile technology to domestic defence industry

    Rajnath approves transfer of missile technology to domestic defence industry

    Why in the News

    Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has approved the transfer of technology (ToT) for all conventional missile systems developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to the Indian defence industry, opening the way for domestic private production of these systems for the first time. Until now, production had rested with Defence PSU Bharat Dynamics Limited, DRDO’s own in-house facilities, and the India-Russia joint venture that builds the BrahMos cruise missile. This is a One development, one row item; both The Hindu and The Indian Express carried the decision, and this entry is filed from the Indian Express account, which names the specific missile systems and the strategic systems excluded from transfer.

    What does the transfer of technology actually change?

    1. A closed production model opens to private industry: Production of DRDO-developed conventional missile systems was previously confined to a defence PSU and DRDO’s own facilities; the ToT decision allows private companies, MSMEs, and other technology partners to manufacture these systems, subject to qualifications, certifications, and regulatory requirements.
    2. An initial set of named systems anchors the rollout: Officials cited the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile ASTRA, the anti-radiation missile RUDRAM, the short-range air defence system VSHORADS, the anti-tank guided missile NAG, and the Naval Anti-Ship Missile (NASM) as the systems the initiative could begin with, though the stated goal is to extend private production to all conventional missile systems.
    3. Strategic systems are explicitly carved out: The Agni series and the K-series missiles will not be part of this technology transfer, since they are classified as strategic missiles rather than conventional ones.
    4. The stated objective is industrial-scale transition: The Ministry of Defence framed the decision as enabling the transition of missile projects from the development stage to industrial-scale production, reducing import dependence and increasing indigenous value addition.

    Conclusion

    The decision restructures who is permitted to manufacture India’s conventional missile systems, shifting DRDO’s role from developer-cum-producer to developer-cum-technology-provider, and is intended to widen the industrial base, including private firms and MSMEs, that can supply the country’s expanding conventional missile requirements.