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

Civilsdaily

Login

Archives: News

  • Centre moves to simplify medical device regulations

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has proposed amendments to Rule 44 and Rule 63 of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017, adding the European Union to the list of jurisdictions whose regulatory approval India recognises for faster market entry. The Medical Devices Rules, 2017 currently grant an expedited licensing route in India to devices already approved by a short list of recognised foreign regulators, such as the US Food and Drug Administration. Adding the European Union’s regulatory approval to that recognised list extends the fast-track route to a much larger set of globally marketed devices.

    What do Rule 44 and Rule 63 currently govern?

    1. Rule 44, predicate device and approval-based licensing: Rule 44 of the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 sets out the conditions under which a device already approved in a recognised foreign jurisdiction can secure an Indian manufacturing or import licence through a faster review, rather than a full fresh evaluation.
    2. Rule 63, licensing timelines and reliance on foreign approval: Rule 63 governs the timelines and documentary requirements for import licences, with reliance on foreign regulatory approval used to compress India’s own review period for devices from recognised jurisdictions.
    3. Currently recognised jurisdictions are limited: The existing fast-track list includes major regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration, but has not included the European Union’s regulatory framework, requiring EU-approved devices to go through India’s standard, longer review.

    Why add the European Union to the recognised list?

    1. The EU covers a large share of globally marketed devices: A significant share of medical devices sold worldwide first secure approval under the European Union’s regulatory framework, so recognising EU approval widens the pool of devices eligible for India’s fast-track route considerably.
    2. Reduces duplicate testing for already-approved devices: Recognising EU approval avoids re-running clinical and safety evaluations in India for a device that has already cleared a comparably rigorous regulatory process abroad.
    3. Intended to speed access to newer medical technology: A faster licensing route is expected to bring newer diagnostic and treatment devices to the Indian market sooner than the standard review timeline would allow.

    Conclusion

    The proposed amendments to Rule 44 and Rule 63 extend India’s fast-track medical device licensing route to European Union-approved devices, alongside the jurisdictions already recognised. The amendments are at the proposal stage, with the next step being their formal notification under the Medical Devices Rules, 2017.

    Back2Basics: Medical Devices Rules, 2017

    1. Notified under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the Medical Devices Rules, 2017 created a dedicated regulatory framework for medical devices, distinct from the drug-licensing framework they had earlier been regulated under.
    2. Classify devices by risk into four classes, A to D, with review stringency rising with the device’s risk class.
    3. Are administered by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, the national regulator for drugs and medical devices.
    4. Recognise approval from specified foreign regulators to allow an expedited licensing route for devices already cleared in those jurisdictions.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[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.”

  • Smart glasses highlight gaps in privacy laws

    Why in the News

    Meta’s smart glasses, which can discreetly record video and audio of anyone around the wearer, have renewed concerns over surveillance and consent, and over how far the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 actually protects a bystander who never agreed to be recorded. The Supreme Court’s nine-judge Bench in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) held privacy to be a fundamental right intrinsic to Article 21, developing a three-part legality-necessity-proportionality test for any restriction on it. Wearable recording devices normalised for everyday use test that framework in a setting the 2017 judgment did not anticipate: a bystander with no relationship to the device’s owner, and no practical way to know they are being recorded.

    Why do smart glasses expose a specific gap in India’s privacy framework?

    1. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 is built around consent, which a bystander cannot give: The Act’s core protection mechanism requires a data principal’s consent before personal data is processed, a structure that assumes a data subject who is a party to the transaction, not a bystander recorded without their knowledge by someone else’s device.
    2. No dedicated framework for covert or discreet recording devices: Existing privacy protections address data processing by an identifiable data fiduciary, typically a company or platform, not the diffuse, device-level recording enabled by consumer wearables carried by private individuals.
    3. Enforcement depends on the bystander detecting the recording: Because smart glasses are designed to record discreetly, a bystander has no practical way to exercise any of the rights the 2023 Act grants a data principal, since exercising those rights first requires knowing that one’s data was processed at all.
    4. Cybercrime figures already show a rising surveillance-adjacent harm pattern: National Crime Records Bureau data has recorded a rising trend in cybercrime cases involving unauthorised recording and image-based harassment, a pattern smart-glasses-style wearables are positioned to accelerate.

    Conclusion

    Smart glasses expose a structural gap between a consent-based data protection framework and a recording technology that operates on people who never consented to anything. Closing that gap requires provisions specific to covert or ambient recording devices, rather than relying on the same consent architecture built for data fiduciaries processing information from their own users.

    What is the Right to Privacy, and what does it protect?

    1. About: The Right to Privacy is a fundamental right, read into Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty, protecting an individual’s control over personal information, bodily integrity, and personal decisions from unjustified interference by the State.
    2. Rationale: The right exists because personal autonomy, from choice of partner to control over one’s own data trail, is treated as intrinsic to human dignity rather than a privilege the State may withdraw.
    3. Named typology: The Supreme Court in Puttaswamy (2017) recognised several strands within the right: informational privacy over personal data, decisional autonomy over intimate personal choices, bodily integrity against intrusive procedures, and digital privacy against online surveillance.
    4. Proportionality test for restrictions: Any state action restricting privacy must meet a three-part test: legality (backed by law), a legitimate aim, and proportionality between the means used and the aim pursued.
    5. Institutional gap in independent oversight: Agencies such as the Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Investigation Agency operate without a dedicated, independent body reviewing their surveillance activity for privacy compliance.
    6. Colonial-era laws still authorise interception: Provisions in the Telegraph Act continue to authorise phone tapping under standards that predate the Puttaswamy proportionality test, creating a mismatch between old authorisation powers and the newer constitutional standard.
    7. Corporate data harvesting outside individual awareness: Technology platforms collect and monetise personal data at a scale most users do not track or understand, a form of privacy erosion the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 only partially addresses through its consent and purpose-limitation provisions.
    8. Low digital literacy limits the exercise of privacy rights: Citizens frequently do not know what data they have given consent to share, or how to invoke the correction and erasure rights the 2023 Act grants them.

    Challenges in protecting the right to privacy

    1. Mass surveillance without independent judicial oversight: Interception and surveillance decisions in India are authorised through executive processes rather than prior judicial warrant. Eg. Allegations around the use of Pegasus spyware against journalists and activists in 2021 raised exactly this oversight gap. Fix. Introduce a judicial or quasi-judicial warrant requirement before any interception order takes effect, replacing the current executive-only authorisation.
    2. National-security exemptions in the 2023 Act draw criticism: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits government agencies to be exempted from several of its obligations on national security and public-order grounds. Eg. Government bodies notified under the Act’s exemption provisions are not bound by the same data-minimisation and purpose-limitation duties private data fiduciaries face. Fix. Require any national-security exemption to be time-bound and reviewed periodically by an independent oversight body rather than granted as a standing exemption.
    3. Corporate surveillance through data-driven advertising: Large technology platforms build detailed behavioural profiles from data users hand over without meaningfully understanding the trade-off. Eg. Targeted political and commercial advertising built on granular user profiling has drawn regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions. Fix. Mandate clear, layered consent disclosures under the 2023 Act’s rules that separate necessary data use from optional profiling-based use.
    4. Health data retention concerns from pandemic-era tools: Contact-tracing and health applications built during the COVID-19 pandemic raised unresolved questions about how long the government retains the health data those apps collected. Eg. Aarogya Setu’s data retention and sharing practices drew sustained criticism from privacy researchers. Fix. Set a statutory data-retention ceiling for any health-emergency application, with automatic deletion once the stated public-health purpose ends.
    5. No dedicated authority solely focused on privacy enforcement: The Data Protection Board established under the 2023 Act adjudicates complaints but does not function as a proactive privacy regulator auditing surveillance practices across government and industry. Fix. Expand the Data Protection Board’s mandate to include periodic, unprompted audits of large-scale surveillance and data-processing systems, government and private alike.

    Back2Basics: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    1. India’s first standalone law on personal data processing, built around consent as the primary legal basis for processing, with defined exceptions for legitimate uses such as employment and government functions.
    2. Creates the Data Protection Board of India as the adjudicatory body for data-protection complaints and penalties.
    3. Grants data principals rights to access, correct, and erase their personal data, and imposes purpose-limitation and data-minimisation duties on data fiduciaries.
    4. Permits the government to exempt specified agencies from several of the Act’s obligations on national security and public-order grounds, a provision that has drawn criticism for its breadth.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”

  • What has fuelled the backlash against Flock cameras in the U.S.?

    Why in the News

    A backlash has grown in the United States against Flock Safety, a company supplying Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) cameras, after reports that local police departments used the company’s camera network for purposes beyond its stated public-safety mandate, including tracking individuals without a warrant. Flock’s cameras were adopted by thousands of US municipalities on the promise of solving vehicle-related crime through license-plate matching. Evidence that police departments used the same network for broader surveillance, including in ways that reached beyond a single jurisdiction’s own authority, has turned a crime-fighting tool into a symbol of unchecked surveillance expansion.

    Why has Flock Safety specifically drawn this backlash?

    1. Scale of camera deployment across US municipalities: Flock Safety’s automated license-plate-reader cameras are installed across thousands of towns and cities in the United States, giving the company’s network a national footprint that few individual police departments could have built on their own.
    2. Cross-jurisdiction data sharing without matching oversight: Police departments using Flock’s network can search license-plate data captured by cameras in other jurisdictions, a capability that expands what a single local force can track well beyond its own legal boundary, without matching cross-jurisdiction oversight.
    3. Reported misuse beyond stated crime-fighting purpose: Instances have emerged of the camera network being used to track individuals in contexts such as reproductive-healthcare-related travel and immigration enforcement, uses that go well beyond the vehicle-theft and hit-and-run cases the system was marketed to solve.
    4. Absence of a federal framework governing ALPR use: The United States has no single federal law governing how automated license-plate-reader data can be collected, retained, or shared, leaving oversight to a patchwork of local ordinances and police department policy.

    What does this suggest for India’s own camera-based surveillance rollout?

    1. India is expanding AI-linked camera surveillance in parallel: Indian cities have been expanding networks of AI-enabled cameras for traffic and law-enforcement purposes, a rollout that mirrors the scale-up Flock’s network underwent in the United States before the current backlash.
    2. India’s privacy law does not yet address law-enforcement camera data specifically: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 governs personal data processing generally but does not set out a dedicated framework for retention limits, access logging, or cross-agency sharing of camera surveillance data collected for law enforcement.
    3. The US backlash offers a design lesson before scale, not after: The concern in the United States surfaced only after the network had scaled to thousands of jurisdictions with data-sharing already built into the product, a sequencing that leaves oversight design catching up to deployment rather than preceding it.

    Conclusion

    The backlash against Flock Safety’s cameras in the United States is a warning about what happens when a surveillance network scales faster than the oversight framework governing its use. India’s own camera-based surveillance expansion is at an earlier stage, leaving room to build retention, access, and sharing safeguards into the framework before, rather than after, the network reaches a comparable scale.

    Back2Basics: Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR)

    1. A camera system that automatically captures and reads vehicle license plates, converting the image into searchable text data matched against watchlists or databases.
    2. Originally marketed for narrow uses such as locating stolen vehicles or vehicles linked to an active crime.
    3. Data captured by one camera can be pooled into a shared network, allowing a search across cameras operated by multiple, unconnected police jurisdictions.
    4. Raises retention and access-control questions distinct from a single fixed CCTV camera, because the data is structured, searchable, and easily aggregated across locations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 10 marks] Describe the context and salient features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023”

  • Rules at tribal hostels undermining dignity of students, says Rahul Gandhi

    Why in the News

    The Leader of the Opposition, Rahul Gandhi, raised concerns over conditions at government tribal hostels, known as Ashram Shalas, in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, citing hunger strikes by students and reported malnutrition and snakebite deaths at a hostel in Gadchiroli. Ashram Shalas are residential schools set up specifically to house tribal students, often from remote forested areas, so they can access schooling that would otherwise require an impractical daily commute. Reports of hunger strikes and deaths at these hostels raise the question of whether the facilities meant to widen tribal access to education are instead exposing students to conditions that undermine their basic dignity and safety.

    What specific conditions have been raised at the hostels?

    1. Hunger strikes reported by students: Students at tribal hostels in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have gone on hunger strikes to protest hostel conditions, an extreme form of protest by residents that itself signals that ordinary grievance channels were not working.
    2. Malnutrition deaths reported at a Gadchiroli hostel: Deaths attributed to malnutrition among students at a hostel in Gadchiroli, a tribal-majority district in Maharashtra, point to a failure in the hostel’s food quality or quantity standards.
    3. A snakebite death reported at the same hostel: A student death from snakebite at the Gadchiroli hostel points to inadequate hostel infrastructure and the absence of timely medical evacuation in a forested, remote location.
    4. Concerns framed as a dignity issue, not only a facilities issue: The complaint frames the hostel rules themselves, not merely infrastructure gaps, as undermining student dignity, pointing to disciplinary or restrictive practices inside the hostels as part of the problem.

    Why do tribal hostels carry this specific set of risks?

    1. Remote locations limit emergency response: Ashram Shalas are deliberately located in or near tribal habitations, which are often in forested, hard-to-access terrain where the nearest primary health centre may be hours away, turning a treatable snakebite into a fatality.
    2. Chronic underfunding of hostel messing and staffing: Tribal welfare hostels are frequently reported to run on messing grants that have not kept pace with food costs, and with warden-to-student ratios too thin to catch early signs of malnutrition or illness.
    3. Weak grievance redress inside a residential, closed setting: Students living inside the hostel have limited means to escalate a complaint beyond the hostel’s own staff, which is part of why a hunger strike, rather than a formal complaint, became the mode of protest.

    Conclusion

    The Leader of the Opposition’s intervention puts political attention on a welfare infrastructure gap that had, until the hunger strikes and deaths came to light, received limited scrutiny. Whether the State governments of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh respond with an audit of hostel messing, staffing and medical-evacuation arrangements will determine if this becomes a one-time political exchange or a lasting reform.

    Back2Basics: Ashram Shalas

    1. Residential schools established specifically for children from Scheduled Tribe communities, run by State tribal welfare departments with central assistance under centrally sponsored schemes for tribal education.
    2. Intended to widen access to schooling for tribal children in remote, forested habitations where a daily commute to a regular school is not feasible.
    3. Provide free boarding, lodging and schooling, funded through State messing and infrastructure grants supplemented by central tribal welfare allocations.
    4. Have periodically drawn scrutiny over understaffing, poor food quality, and inadequate health and safety infrastructure.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS1, 15 marks] Does tribal development in India centre around two axes, those of displacement and of rehabilitation? Give your opinion.”

  • It is wrong to cancel Telangana CM’s US visit

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of External Affairs denied political clearance for a United States visit by the Chief Minister of Telangana, A. Revanth Reddy, a visit that had included planned meetings with the Mayor of New York and the Vice-President of the United States. Indian States require political clearance from the Union government before a Chief Minister undertakes an official foreign visit, a longstanding practice meant to keep foreign policy under central control. Denying clearance for meetings with a State chief executive and senior foreign leaders sets up a tension between the Centre’s constitutional primacy over foreign affairs and the norm of allowing Opposition-ruled States a role in India’s outward-facing federalism.

    Why does a Chief Minister need Union clearance to travel abroad?

    1. Foreign affairs sit exclusively with the Union: Entry 10 of the Union List places foreign affairs, including all matters bringing the Union government into relation with any foreign country, exclusively within the Centre’s legislative and executive competence.
    2. Political clearance is an executive practice, not a statutory requirement: The requirement that a Chief Minister obtain the Ministry of External Affairs’ political clearance before an official foreign visit rests on executive instructions rather than a specific Act, developed to keep sub-national actors from appearing to conduct independent foreign policy.
    3. Distinct from clearance for private or non-official travel: Clearance requirements attach to visits with an official or government-to-government character, such as meetings with a foreign government’s officials, rather than to purely personal travel.

    Why is denying clearance in this instance being criticised?

    1. Meetings involved routine sub-national and diplomatic engagement: A meeting between an Indian Chief Minister and the Mayor of New York, or a courtesy meeting with the Vice-President of the United States, falls within the kind of city-to-state and state-to-country economic diplomacy the Centre has itself encouraged States to pursue for investment.
    2. Selective application undermines federal trust: Denial of clearance to an Opposition-ruled State’s Chief Minister, where clearance is routinely granted for similar visits by Chief Ministers of Union government-aligned States, reads as a partisan use of a foreign-policy gatekeeping power.
    3. Costs India’s global federal image: India projects itself internationally as a cooperative federal system encouraging States to compete for investment; blocking a State’s own outreach to a potential investment and diaspora hub like New York works against that projection.
    4. Undermines Centre-Opposition dialogue norms: Routine denial of clearance to Opposition Chief Ministers, without a stated security or diplomatic justification, erodes the norm that foreign-policy gatekeeping is applied on non-partisan grounds.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry of External Affairs’ denial of political clearance for the Chief Minister of Telangana’s US visit is criticised here as an overreach of a gatekeeping power meant to coordinate foreign policy, not to selectively restrict an Opposition-ruled State’s economic and diplomatic outreach. The episode is likely to recur with other Opposition-ruled States unless the Centre states clear, non-partisan criteria for granting or denying political clearance.

    Back2Basics: Political clearance for foreign travel by State functionaries

    1. An executive requirement, not a statutory one, under which a Chief Minister or other State functionary must obtain the Ministry of External Affairs’ approval before undertaking an official foreign visit.
    2. Rests on the Union’s exclusive constitutional competence over foreign affairs under Entry 10 of the Union List in the Seventh Schedule.
    3. Applies to visits with an official or government character; distinguished from private travel, which does not require the same clearance.
    4. Has periodically become a point of Centre-State friction when applied to Opposition-ruled States’ Chief Ministers.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021] Which one of the following in Indian polity is an essential feature that indicates that it is federal in character?
    (a) The independence of the judiciary is safeguarded.
    (b) The Union Legislature has elected representatives from constituent units.
    (c) The Union Cabinet can have elected representatives from regional parties.
    (d) The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by Courts of Law.
    ANSWER: (a)”

  • The fact is youth unemployment has a household cost

    Why in the News

    Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2025 data records youth unemployment at 14.8 percent and a Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) rate of 40.1 percent among the tertiary-educated, and the argument advanced from this data is that graduate joblessness is a household-level economic cost, not only an individual setback. A young person’s inability to find work does not only reduce that person’s own income, it removes an income the household had budgeted around, often after the household had itself financed the degree that produced no job.

    What is the household cost, distinct from the individual one?

    1. Sunk cost of financing the degree: Households that borrow or spend savings to fund a graduate’s education absorb that cost with no return if the graduate cannot find matching work, a loss the individual unemployment rate does not price in.
    2. Deferred contribution to household income: A household budgets around the expectation that an educated young adult will begin contributing income at a certain age; unemployment past that age forces the household to keep supporting a wage-earner it had expected to become a net contributor.
    3. Compounding effect on savings for other dependants: Money a household would have redirected toward a younger sibling’s education, a parent’s healthcare, or retirement savings instead continues to support an unemployed graduate.
    4. Psychological and bargaining costs within the household: Prolonged dependence on parents past the expected age of self-sufficiency affects a young adult’s standing and decision-making power within the household, a dimension PLFS-style employment data cannot itself measure but that the 40.1 percent NEET rate among the tertiary-educated makes newly visible.

    How does the tertiary-educated NEET rate compare with the general NEET pattern?

    1. Tertiary-educated NEET rate far exceeds the general rate: At 40.1 percent, the NEET rate among India’s tertiary-educated youth is markedly higher than the NEET rate among youth without a degree, inverting the usual expectation that more education reduces the risk of disengagement from work.
    2. Concentration in urban, aspirational households: The households most likely to have financed a tertiary degree, and to therefore carry the sunk cost described above, are disproportionately urban and lower-middle income, the segment for whom a graduate’s income was budgeted as a route out of that bracket.

    Conclusion

    Youth unemployment at 14.8 percent and a 40.1 percent NEET rate among the tertiary-educated do not describe an individual labour market outcome alone. They describe a household that financed an investment in education and is not yet receiving the income return it planned around, a cost that persists in household budgets even where it does not appear in an individual’s own unemployment statistic.

    Youth unemployment in India

    1. About: Youth unemployment measures joblessness among the working-age population, typically 15 to 29 years, whose job search outcomes diverge sharply from the adult labour force.
    2. Rationale for tracking it separately: Youth unemployment behaves differently from the aggregate rate because young workers are more likely to be first-time job seekers with no accumulated informal-sector fallback, so a downturn hits them earliest and hardest.
    3. Recognised typology: Unemployment among India’s youth spans frictional joblessness during the transition from education to work, structural joblessness from a skills mismatch, and disguised underemployment in low-productivity family enterprises and agriculture.
    4. Jobless growth in services: Services drive the largest share of GDP growth but employ under 30 percent of the workforce, limiting the sector’s capacity to absorb new entrants.
    5. Skill deficit at graduation: Only about half of India’s graduates are assessed as readily employable, per employability surveys, pointing to a curriculum gap rather than a shortage of degree holders.
    6. Weak manufacturing absorption: Manufacturing contributes only 16 to 18 percent of GDP, well below the roughly 26 percent contribution in China, limiting the formal, labour-intensive job creation India’s youth bulge needs.
    7. Informality as the default outcome: Over 90 percent of India’s workforce remains informal, so even youth who do find work often find it without security, benefits, or a written contract.
    8. Female youth workforce deficit: Caregiving duties, domestic responsibilities, and mobility constraints keep young women out of paid employment at a much higher rate than young men.

    Challenges in addressing youth unemployment

    1. Survey methodology undercounts informal and gig work: PLFS-style surveys do not fully capture home-based, gig, or platform work within India’s overwhelmingly informal workforce. Eg. Platform-based delivery and ride-hailing work is not consistently classified in the survey’s job categories. Fix. Update survey instruments to explicitly capture gig, platform, and digital work categories, aligned with International Labour Organization and System of National Accounts definitions.
    2. Low-frequency rural data delays policy response: Rural employment data has historically been measured only annually, compared with quarterly urban estimates, masking rural distress in real time. Eg. A poor monsoon’s effect on rural non-farm employment often does not show up in national data until the following year’s release. Fix. Extend the quarterly PLFS survey design to rural areas at the same frequency as urban areas.
    3. Capital-intensive investment bias: Investment continues to flow toward capital-intensive sectors such as information technology and infrastructure rather than the labour-intensive sectors that absorb semi-skilled youth. Eg. Automation in manufacturing has reduced the labour intensity of new capacity even as output has grown. Fix. Direct production-linked incentives toward labour-intensive sectors such as textiles, leather, and food processing, alongside the existing electronics-focused schemes.
    4. Demographic dividend at risk of becoming a demographic trap: A youth bulge that cannot find work stops being an economic asset and starts becoming a fiscal and social liability as the cohort ages without having built savings or skills. Eg. State of Working India 2026 estimates 9.2 crore youth in the NEET category nationally. Fix. Expand the government’s employment-linked incentive schemes and apprenticeship mandates specifically targeted at the 21 to 29 age cohort.
    5. Weak coordination across employment data systems: Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation payroll data, the National Career Service portal, and PLFS survey data are not integrated, making it hard to track whether a given policy intervention is actually creating net new jobs. Eg. The Employment Linked Incentive scheme announced in 2025 tracks payroll additions but not whether they represent new jobs or reclassified existing ones. Fix. Build a single integrated employment data dashboard drawing on EPFO, NCS and PLFS data for real-time tracking.

    Back2Basics: NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training)

    1. An internationally used labour-market indicator that counts young people who are neither working, studying, nor undergoing any training, distinct from the unemployment rate, which only counts those actively seeking work.
    2. Captures discouraged job seekers and those who have withdrawn from the labour force entirely, a population the standard unemployment rate does not measure.
    3. The State of Working India 2026 report estimates roughly 9.2 crore Indian youth in this category.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 15 marks] Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.”

  • The other ‘NEET’ that India needs to address

    Why in the News

    Fresh Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) data on the Usual Employment and Unemployment Rate shows nearly 40 percent of Indian graduates aged 25 are unemployed, alongside an estimated 9.2 crore Indian youth falling into the Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) category. The State of Working India 2026 report situates this alongside India’s demographic dividend, the working-age population bulge the country has counted on as a growth advantage. A youth cohort large enough to drive growth is instead showing a graduate unemployment rate high enough to raise doubts about whether that dividend is being converted into productive work.

    What does the NEET measure capture that the unemployment rate does not?

    1. NEET counts withdrawal, not just joblessness: The unemployment rate only counts people actively seeking work; NEET (Not in Employment, Education or Training) also captures young people who have stopped searching or never entered education or the labour force, a group the standard unemployment rate misses entirely.
    2. 9.2 crore youth estimated in the NEET category: The State of Working India 2026 report’s estimate of 9.2 crore places the scale of youth disengagement well above what headline unemployment figures alone would suggest.
    3. Graduate unemployment concentrated among the young: Nearly 40 percent of 25-year-old graduates are unemployed, a rate far higher than unemployment among the working-age population as a whole, showing that a degree has not translated into a job for this cohort at the pace the labour market absorbs less-educated job seekers.
    4. Gender skew within the NEET population: Young women make up a disproportionate share of the NEET category, reflecting caregiving responsibilities and mobility constraints that keep them out of both education and paid work even when jobs exist locally.

    Why does graduate unemployment run higher than overall unemployment?

    1. Skill mismatch between degrees and job requirements: Employers report that a large share of graduates are not employable in the roles the formal sector is creating, because curricula have not kept pace with industry requirements.
    2. Weak absorption capacity in manufacturing: Manufacturing’s share of GDP has stayed well below the level needed to absorb a growing pool of educated job seekers into formal, better-paid work, pushing graduates toward informal or underemployed roles instead.
    3. Aspirational mismatch with available jobs: A graduate degree raises the reservation wage and the kind of work a job seeker will accept, so graduates wait longer for a suitable formal-sector opening rather than take the informal work a non-graduate would accept immediately.
    4. Delayed labour market entry compounds the count: Prolonged job searches by graduates keep them in the unemployed count for longer than less-educated job seekers, who exit into informal work faster even at lower wages.

    Conclusion

    The NEET count of 9.2 crore and the near-40 percent graduate unemployment rate among 25-year-olds point to a mismatch between what India’s education system produces and what its labour market currently absorbs. Closing that gap over the remaining years of India’s demographic dividend, rather than after it starts to narrow, is the reform window the data points to.

    Back2Basics: Periodic Labour Force Survey

    1. Conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, the principal source of employment and unemployment data in India.
    2. Uses the Usual Status approach, based on a person’s activity over the preceding 365 days, alongside the Current Weekly Status approach for more recent snapshots.
    3. Was redesigned to provide quarterly urban estimates in addition to the earlier annual survey, though rural high-frequency coverage remains thinner.
    4. Feeds the official Unemployment Rate and Worker Population Ratio figures cited in Parliament and used for policy design.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 15 marks] Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.”

  • Did Press Note 3 relaxations help attract more FDI?

    Why in the News

    The government’s March 2026 relaxation of Press Note 3 (2020) now allows the automatic route for foreign investors from land-border-sharing countries where the resulting stake is below 10 percent. Press Note 3 (2020) had required prior government approval for any foreign direct investment from an entity based in, or beneficially owned by, a country sharing a land border with India, a restriction imposed after India’s border tensions with China. Since the relaxation, 29 Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) projects together worth ₹4,895.65 crore have been reported as raised through the automatic route. The scale of that inflow is now being tested against whether it represents genuine new investment or capital that was already structured to qualify.

    What is Press Note 3 and why was it imposed?

    1. Origin in 2020 border tensions: The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade issued Press Note 3 in April 2020 requiring government approval for FDI from any country sharing a land border with India, a category that in practice targets China.
    2. Stated rationale of opportunistic acquisition: The measure was framed as a safeguard against opportunistic takeovers of Indian companies whose valuations had fallen sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    3. No de minimis threshold in the original rule: The 2020 version applied government-approval scrutiny regardless of the size of the resulting stake, so even a marginal shareholding increase by an investor linked to a bordering country required clearance.
    4. Applied to beneficial ownership, not just direct investment: The restriction reaches an investment structured through a third country if the ultimate beneficial owner is based in a bordering country, closing a routing loophole.

    What has the March 2026 relaxation changed?

    1. Automatic route restored below a 10 percent threshold: Investment from a bordering-country-linked entity resulting in a stake below 10 percent in the Indian company no longer requires prior government approval.
    2. Retains approval requirement above the threshold: Any investment crossing the 10 percent stake mark, or any greenfield or strategic-sector investment, continues to require case-by-case government clearance.
    3. 29 projects reported since relaxation: ₹4,895.65 crore in FDI has been reported as raised through the automatic route across 29 projects since the relaxation took effect.

    Did the relaxation actually attract more FDI?

    1. Reported inflow is modest against India’s total FDI base: ₹4,895.65 crore is a small fraction of India’s annual FDI inflow, so a Press Note 3 relaxation limited to sub-10 percent stakes has not shifted aggregate FDI in a way that will show clearly in headline balance-of-payments data.
    2. The 10 percent cap limits which capital responds: A relaxation confined below the threshold attracts portfolio-style minority stakes rather than the strategic or controlling investment that would signal deeper industrial commitment.
    3. Difficult to isolate the relaxation’s own effect: FDI flows respond to multiple factors simultaneously, including global interest rates and India’s own growth outlook, making it hard to attribute the 29 reported projects solely to the policy change.
    4. Sectoral destination of the reported inflow remains the open question: Whether the ₹4,895.65 crore has gone into manufacturing capacity or into financial and services stakes shapes how much the relaxation has actually served its stated industrial goal.

    Conclusion

    The Press Note 3 relaxation has produced a measurable but modest reported inflow, ₹4,895.65 crore across 29 projects, since March 2026. Whether this represents a genuine widening of investor participation from land-border-sharing countries or capital that was already positioned to enter below the new threshold will become clearer as more reporting cycles pass.

    Back2Basics: Press Note 3 (2020)

    1. Issued by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade under the Foreign Direct Investment policy framework, not a standalone statute.
    2. Requires government approval for FDI from, or beneficial ownership traced to, any country sharing a land border with India: China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan.
    3. Applies to both fresh investment and a change in beneficial ownership of an existing investment resulting from a transfer.
    4. Enforced through the Reserve Bank of India’s foreign exchange reporting framework under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[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
    ANSWER: (d)”

  • How the Supreme Court ruling redefined ‘industry’

    Why in the News

    A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court revisited the definition of “industry” laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978), examining how that definition interacts with the term “industry” as newly defined under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The 1978 ruling had given “industry” a wide, functional definition covering any organised activity involving cooperation between employer and employee for producing goods or services, regardless of profit motive. The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 narrows this definition by carving out specific exclusions. The Bench’s majority and minority opinions diverge on whether Parliament’s narrower statutory definition can override the Bangalore Water Supply test for constitutional purposes.

    What did the Bangalore Water Supply test originally hold?

    1. Triple test for “industry”: The 1978 ruling held that any activity involving systematic cooperation between an employer and workers to produce or distribute goods or services qualifies as an industry, irrespective of whether the entity is charitable, religious, sovereign, or run by the government.
    2. Sovereign function exception, narrowly read: The 1978 Bench exempted only inalienable sovereign functions of the State, such as legislation, defence, and the administration of justice, from the definition.
    3. Wide coverage of welfare and professional bodies: The test brought hospitals, educational institutions, and clubs employing staff within the definition of “industry,” extending industrial-dispute protections to their employees.
    4. Persistent legislative attempts to narrow it: Parliament had earlier attempted to codify a narrower definition through an amendment that was never brought into force, leaving the 1978 test operative for over four decades.

    What does the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 change?

    1. Statutory definition narrows the exclusions: The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (the law consolidating the Trade Unions Act 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 into a single code) defines “industry” with specific carve-outs for institutions engaged in charitable, social, or philanthropic services not for profit.
    2. Government departments performing sovereign functions excluded: The Code writes into statute an exclusion for departments discharging sovereign functions, aligning more closely with a narrower reading than the 1978 test.
    3. Domestic and hospital work carved out selectively: The Code excludes certain categories, such as purely domestic service, while leaving other categories, including some hospitals, to be decided case by case.

    Where do the majority and minority views diverge?

    1. Majority view on legislative competence: The majority holds that Parliament may legislatively define “industry” for the purposes of a labour statute, and that a narrower statutory definition prevails over the judicially evolved 1978 test within the Code’s own field of operation.
    2. Minority view on protective intent: The minority holds that a legislative narrowing of “industry” risks excluding workers in charitable, educational, and welfare institutions from industrial-dispute protections that the 1978 Bench extended to them.
    3. Divergence on precedent’s continuing force: The majority treats Bangalore Water Supply as persuasive but non-binding once Parliament legislates a definition, while the minority treats it as continuing to bind interpretation of undefined terms outside the Code’s specific carve-outs.

    Conclusion

    The ruling settles, for now, that Parliament’s statutory definition of “industry” under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 governs disputes falling within the Code, narrowing the wide protective sweep the Bangalore Water Supply test had given workers across charitable, educational and welfare institutions for over four decades. Litigation over which specific institutions fall inside or outside the Code’s carve-outs is expected to continue as the Code is implemented.

    Back2Basics: Industrial Relations Code, 2020

    1. One of the four labour codes consolidating 29 central labour laws, this one merging the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
    2. Raises the threshold for prior government permission before layoffs, retrenchment or closure from 100 to 300 workers in an establishment.
    3. Introduces a statutory recognition mechanism for trade unions and a two-member negotiating council where no single union has majority membership.
    4. Notified but implemented in phases, with States framing their own rules under it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 15 marks] Discuss the merits and demerits of the four ‘Labour Codes’ in the context of labour market reforms in India. What has been the progress so far in this regard?”

  • Centre plans to cap number of airports a single bidder can win in next privatisation round

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Civil Aviation plans to cap the number of airports a single private bidder can win in the third round of airport privatisation. The round covers 11 airports grouped into five bundles: Amritsar-Kangra, Varanasi-Gaya-Kushinagar, Bhubaneswar-Hubballi, Raipur-Aurangabad, and Tiruchirapalli-Tirupati. The first two privatisation rounds concentrated a large share of India’s privatised airport traffic in two private groups. The cap sets up a tension between preventing bidder concentration and keeping the auction attractive to the handful of infrastructure players with the balance sheet to run an airport.

    What does the third privatisation round cover?

    1. Bundled bidding across five circuits: The Airports Authority of India (AAI) (the statutory body that owns, manages and privatises Indian civil airports) has grouped the 11 airports into five bundles rather than auctioning each separately, so a bidder wins or loses an entire regional cluster in one bid.
    2. Mix of trunk and regional airports: The bundles combine a higher-traffic anchor airport with smaller regional airports, so an operator absorbs a loss-making regional airport as part of winning the more viable one.
    3. Continuation of the Public-Private Partnership route: The round extends the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA) (the concession contract structure under which AAI leases an airport’s operations to a private developer for a fixed term while retaining ownership) model used in the first two rounds.
    4. Follows two prior privatisation rounds: Six airports were privatised in the first round and further airports in the second, before this third round was structured.

    Why is the Centre capping bidder concentration?

    1. Two private groups dominate the privatised airport map: One conglomerate operates several of India’s highest-traffic privatised airports won across the earlier rounds, while a second group holds a smaller cluster, leaving few large private operators outside these two.
    2. Concentration weakens the Centre’s post-award leverage: Where one bidder holds most privatised capacity, AAI has fewer credible alternative operators to discipline service standards or renegotiate terms.
    3. A cap widens the bidder base for smaller circuits: Limiting how many bundles a single group can win is intended to draw in operators who would otherwise not bid against an incumbent with deeper resources.
    4. Precedent from other infrastructure sectors: Sector regulators in ports and telecom have used similar concentration limits to prevent a single operator from controlling bottleneck infrastructure across regions.

    Challenges to the airport bidder cap

    1. Fewer bidders may qualify at all: Airport concessions require large upfront capital and aviation operating experience, a pool already limited to a handful of Indian infrastructure conglomerates. Eg. Only two or three consortia bid seriously in each of the first two rounds. Fix. Allow joint ventures and foreign strategic partners to combine capital and aviation expertise so more consortia can qualify.
    2. Regional airports could go unsold: A bundle pairing a loss-making regional airport with a viable one may see no bidder if the cap forces bidders away from the bundles they actually want. Eg. Kushinagar and Gaya carry limited passenger traffic and depend on the Varanasi bundle for viability. Fix. Offer viability gap funding for the weaker airport in each bundle rather than relying on cross-subsidy alone.
    3. Cap design risks being circumvented through related entities: A promoter group can bid through separate subsidiaries or affiliates that appear unconnected on paper. Eg. Beneficial-ownership opacity has complicated concentration limits in the telecom spectrum auctions. Fix. Define the cap by ultimate beneficial ownership, not by the bidding entity’s name.
    4. Slower privatisation pace: Restricting the largest, most capable bidders could stretch out the time needed to complete the round, delaying the capacity upgrades the smaller airports need.
    5. Revenue realisation may fall: A cap that keeps the highest bidder from taking every bundle it wants could produce lower aggregate concession fees than an uncapped auction would.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry of Civil Aviation is finalising the bidding norms for the third privatisation round, with the airport-count cap intended to correct the concentration that followed the first two rounds. The bid documents for the five bundles are expected to be released once the cap’s exact threshold is settled.

    Back2Basics: Airports Authority of India

    1. Statutory body under the Ministry of Civil Aviation, constituted under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994.
    2. Owns, develops, and manages the majority of India’s civil airports, and leases select airports to private operators through the OMDA route.
    3. Also provides air navigation services across Indian airspace, a function it retains even at privatised airports.
    4. Earns revenue from aeronautical and non-aeronautical charges at the airports it directly operates.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS3, 15 marks] What is the need for expanding the regional air connectivity in India? In this context, discuss the government’s UDAN Scheme and its achievements.”