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

Civilsdaily

Login

Archives: News

  • Perils of comparing GDP from different base years

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) has released output data for the first quarter of 2026-27, showing gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 7.8 per cent in real terms and 10.3 per cent in nominal terms. A former Finance Secretary alleged that the corresponding quarter of the previous year had been revised down to produce a flattering comparison, and computed nominal growth of only 2.6 per cent. That computation takes its numerator from the new 2022-23 base year series and its denominator from the discontinued 2011-12 series.

    What does a base year revision do?

    1. The base year anchors the price comparison: A base year is the reference year whose prices are used to strip inflation out of output, so that real growth measures volume rather than price change.
    2. Revision is routine and was overdue: Every economy revises its base year, normally once in about five years. The absence of a revision was itself a reason India’s GDP was losing credibility.
    3. It is an opportunity to rebuild the estimate: A revision lets the government bring in new data sources, improve methodology and capture an economy that has changed since the last base.
    4. It changes real GDP measurement first: Nominal GDP is measured at current prices, so a change of base year does not by itself explain a fall in the nominal series.

    What did the first quarter data show?

    1. Growth beat the expectation set at the start of the quarter: Most economists expected about 7.5 per cent for April to June. The official figure came in at 7.8 per cent in real terms.
    2. The quarter opened in the middle of a war: The West Asia conflict was disrupting output across the world, and India’s heavy dependence on West Asian energy imports was expected to slow growth further.
    3. The world did not contract either: The International Monetary Fund (IMF) expects world growth of 3.0 per cent in 2026 against 2.9 per cent in the previous year, so an economy withstanding the shock is not by itself anomalous.

    Why is the 2.6 per cent claim invalid?

    1. The rollback happened before the war, not after the result: The new series was unveiled on 27 February 2026, one day before the United States went to war with Iran. Nominal GDP for the first quarter of 2025-26 was rolled down that day from Rs 86.1 trillion on the old series to Rs 80.3 trillion on the new one.
    2. Later revisions were marginal: The same quarter was estimated at Rs 80.4 trillion in June and Rs 80.0 trillion on 31 August, against Rs 88.3 trillion for the first quarter of 2026-27.
    3. The sequence rules out reverse engineering: The base was rolled down six months before the current quarter’s number existed, so the previous year’s figure was not cut to flatter it.
    4. The same method produces an absurd result on real GDP: Applied to the real series, mixing the old denominator with the new numerator implies growth of almost 70 per cent in the quarter.

    What question does the revision genuinely leave open?

    1. The first half of 2025-26 lost about Rs 11 lakh crore: Nominal GDP for the first two quarters fell from Rs 171.30 lakh crore on the old series to roughly Rs 160 lakh crore on the new one, a cut of about 6.5 per cent concentrated in those two quarters.
    2. There is nothing left to reconcile against: The old series was discontinued before comparable third and fourth quarter estimates for 2025-26 were published, so no complete old series year exists to match quarter by quarter.
    3. The demand is for a reconciliation bridge: The revision should be broken down in rupees into revised source data, changed sectoral coverage, methodological changes, revised taxes and subsidies, and changed price indices and deflators, for GVA as well as for GDP.
    4. The long run picture is comparable: Nominal GDP rose about 32.8 per cent under the old series and 32.3 per cent under the new one over 2022-23 to 2025-26, and cumulative real growth is broadly similar.
    5. A downward revision is not lost output: The economy did not shrink by Rs 11 lakh crore. Better data can move a historical estimate down.
    6. The annual number moved too: Nominal GDP for 2025-26 was revised from Rs 357 trillion on the old series to Rs 345 trillion on the new one.

    Challenges to India’s national income estimation

    1. Informality is estimated rather than counted: A large share of output comes from unregistered units that no annual return captures, so their contribution is inferred from proxies. Eg. The unincorporated sector is covered by a sample survey, and its output after the 2020 lockdown was derived from indicators rather than enumerated.
      The Fix: Link the enterprise surveys to Goods and Services Tax and Udyam registration data to build a live frame for small units.
    2. Deflators historically overstated value addition: Single deflation applies one price index to output without separately deflating inputs, so a squeeze on firms’ margins is recorded as extra production. Eg. Manufacturing GVA in the 2011-12 series was criticised for a decade on exactly this ground.
      The Fix: The 2022-23 series abolished single deflation, and producer price indices published from June 2026 must now be extended to services.
    3. No back series accompanies the new base: Users cannot compare the new estimates with earlier decades without a consistent recomputed history. Eg. The back series produced for the 2011-12 base was itself contested and withdrawn from circulation.
      The Fix: Publish a full recomputed back series alongside the new base rather than after a lag.
    4. Credibility is contested politically rather than statistically: Each release is judged as a verdict on the government instead of as an estimate with a stated method, which crowds out technical scrutiny. Eg. The IMF has previously raised issues with India’s national income estimates.
      The Fix: Restore a fixed publication calendar for the National Statistical Commission’s own review reports, so scrutiny is institutional rather than episodic.

    Conclusion

    The methodological point is settled and the credibility point is not. A series can be more accurate than the one it replaced and still be harder to interrogate, because the comparison the public used to make has been withdrawn. Confidence in official statistics is built by letting an independent reader reproduce the numbers, not by asserting that the method was correct. The larger unresolved problem sits behind the estimate: output is growing fast and is not generating enough good quality jobs, which is how a demographic dividend turns into a demographic burden.

    [2021, GS3, 10 marks] Explain the difference between computing methodology of India’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015.”

  • The gap in manufacturing sector GVA

    Why in the News

    An alternative estimate of India’s manufacturing output puts gross value added (GVA, the value a sector adds after the cost of the inputs it consumed is deducted) at Rs 27.4 lakh crore for 2023-24. The National Statistical Office (NSO), in the new National Accounts Statistics (NAS) series, puts the same figure at Rs 38.6 lakh crore. The official number is higher by 40.9 per cent.

    How is manufacturing GVA estimated?

    1. The sector is measured in two parts: The organised part covers registered factories employing 10 or more workers with power, or 20 or more without power, including registered companies. The other part covers unincorporated workshops and household units outside the corporate and factory sector.
    2. One survey covers each part: The ASI reports the production accounts of the factory sector. ASUSE covers the unincorporated sector.
    3. The two surveys together are near complete: Their combined output represents almost the whole of manufacturing GVA, so their sum is a usable independent estimate.
    4. Corporate filings partially replace the factory survey: The official series uses company balance sheet data from MCA-21 for organised manufacturing. The practice began with the 2011-12 base revision and continues in the latest revision with minor modifications.

    Why is the gap traced to organised manufacturing?

    1. The official estimate exceeds the survey based one by 40.9 per cent: Rs 38.6 lakh crore against Rs 27.4 lakh crore for 2023-24 at current prices. The official figure is 14.7 per cent of GDP.
    2. The informal segment cannot explain the divergence: ASUSE is the source for the unincorporated sector in both estimates. That segment contributes 13.9 per cent of manufacturing GVA.
    3. Only the corporate route is left: The divergence must therefore arise in the estimation of organised manufacturing output, where the balance sheet data replaces the survey.

    Does the employment check close the gap?

    1. A large body of workers is unaccounted for: The Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS, the official household survey that measures employment and unemployment) estimated 697.5 lakh manufacturing workers in 2023-24. The ASI and ASUSE datasets together captured 532.9 lakh.
    2. The residual is 164.6 lakh workers: These workers produce output that neither survey records, and they are the first candidate for explaining the gap.
    3. Companies outside the survey frame are added too: 2,72,534 MCA companies sit outside the 78,618 private companies captured in ASI data. Most of them are likely to be non factory private companies.
    4. Their potential output is small: Applying technical ratios, meaning output per worker ratios derived from unit level ASI and ASUSE data, the residual workers and companies add Rs 3.6 lakh crore. The alternative estimate rises to Rs 31.0 lakh crore.
    5. A fifth of the official figure stays unexplained: Rs 31.0 lakh crore is 24.5 per cent below the official estimate, at 80.3 per cent of it. Rs 7.6 lakh crore, or 19.7 per cent of official manufacturing GVA, remains unaccounted for.

    Why is the official explanation contested?

    1. The stated official defence: The ASI is establishment based, so it does not capture value addition that occurs inside an enterprise but outside factory premises, in head office, marketing and distribution, or research and development functions.
    2. The evidence cited against it: A 2018 study in the Economic and Political Weekly found that the available evidence does not support that view, so the missing head office value addition cannot carry a gap of this size.
    3. The alternative suspicion is the scaling method: The official procedure scales up sample estimates of active companies to the full universe of registered companies. The size and composition of that universe are unverified.

    Challenges to the official manufacturing GVA estimate

    1. The company universe is unverified: Scaling a sample of active filers onto the full corporate register counts companies that have stopped operating. Eg. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs struck off more than 2 lakh companies from the register in 2017 for failing to file returns.
      The Fix: Publish an annual active company frame reconciled against Goods and Services Tax filings before it is used for scaling.
    2. The unit of measurement changes between sources: The ASI counts factories and MCA-21 counts companies, so one firm with several plants enters the two datasets on different terms. Eg. The 2011-12 base revision inserted the company based route into a series that until then rested on the factory based survey alone.
      The Fix: Publish a factory to company concordance so the two frames can be matched establishment by establishment.
    3. The methodology is not open to outside checking: Neither the MCA data nor the scaling procedure is available for independent replication, so a disputed figure cannot be settled by evidence. Eg. The National Statistical Commission’s 2018 back series report was withdrawn from the public domain shortly after its release.
      The Fix: Release anonymised unit level MCA-21 data and the full estimation procedure to researchers on a fixed schedule.
    4. Informal manufacturing is measured least well: ASUSE misses the smallest own account units, so the segment most exposed to shocks is estimated rather than enumerated. Eg. Output of unincorporated units after the 2016 demonetisation and the 2020 lockdown was inferred from indicators rather than counted.
      The Fix: Run ASUSE at a higher frequency and link it to the Udyam registration database for a live enterprise frame.

    Conclusion

    Whether the official figure is a fuller description of ground reality or an overestimate of output cannot be settled from outside the statistical system. The dispute has moved from arithmetic to access. Opening the corporate filings and the estimation procedure to independent verification is the only step that would close it. Every downstream number built on manufacturing GVA, from sectoral growth to the investment rate, carries the same doubt until that happens.

    [2023, GS3, 10 marks] Faster economic growth requires increased share of the manufacturing sector in GDP, particularly of MSMEs. Comment on the present policies of the Government in this regard.

  • 16th Aero India set for Bengaluru in February 2027

    16th Aero India set for Bengaluru in February 2027

    Why in the News

    The 16th Aero India will be held in Bengaluru from 8 to 12 February 2027.

    Static Context

    1. Nature: Aero India is Asia’s largest aerospace and defence exhibition, held once every two years.
    2. Venue: The event is held at Air Force Station Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
    3. Organiser: The Ministry of Defence organises the exhibition through its Department of Defence Production.
    4. Purpose: The show promotes indigenous defence manufacturing under the Atmanirbhar Bharat policy and draws global original equipment manufacturers and delegations.
    5. Last edition: The 15th edition was held in February 2025 at Bengaluru.

    Prelims Angle

    1. Aero India is held at Air Force Station Yelahanka, Bengaluru.
    2. It is a biennial event.
    3. The organising ministry is the Ministry of Defence.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS3, defence and indigenous manufacturing: A question can ask how such platforms advance defence exports and self reliance.
    2. The procurement side: It can probe how exhibition led engagement translates into actual technology transfer.
  • Cyber Physical Systems and India’s national mission

    Cyber Physical Systems and India’s national mission

    Why in the News

    Cyber Physical Systems (CPS) and India’s mission to build national capacity in the field were profiled.

    Core Facts

    1. Definition: Cyber Physical Systems integrate computation, networking and physical processes. Sensors and actuators link software control to physical machines.
    2. Applications: Uses span smart manufacturing, autonomous systems, healthcare and defence.
    3. National effort: The National Mission on Interdisciplinary Cyber Physical Systems (NM-ICPS) drives India’s work in this area.
    4. Nodal department: The Department of Science and Technology (DST) implements the mission.

    Static Context

    1. Mission approval: The mission was approved in 2018 and carries an outlay of about 3,660 crore rupees over five years.
    2. Hub model: The mission set up 25 Technology Innovation Hubs (TIHs) at institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science.
    3. Scope: Covered technologies include Artificial Intelligence, the Internet of Things, robotics and machine learning.

    Prelims Angle

    1. The nodal department for NM-ICPS is the DST.
    2. The mission runs through Technology Innovation Hubs.
    3. The definition of a Cyber Physical System is a likely conceptual hook.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS3, awareness in the field of Information Technology and robotics: A question can ask how emerging technologies serve the economy and national security.
    2. The capacity side: It can probe skilling and research capacity.

    “[2020] With the present state of development, Artificial Intelligence can effectively do which of the following?

    (1) Bring down electricity consumption in industrial units

    (2) Create meaningful short stories and songs

    (3) Disease diagnosis

    (4) Text-to-Speech Conversion

    (5) Wireless transmission of electrical energy

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1, 2, 3 and 5 only

    (b) 1, 3 and 4 only

    (c) 2, 4 and 5 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

  • India joins the 26th SCO Summit in Bishkek

    India joins the 26th SCO Summit in Bishkek

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister participated in the 26th Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Heads of State Summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic, on 1 September 2026.

    Core Facts

    1. Host: The Kyrgyz Republic hosted the summit at Bishkek, and it holds the rotating SCO chair for the 2025 to 2026 cycle.
    2. India’s status: India is a full member of the SCO.
    3. Focus areas: The SCO works on regional security, counter terrorism, and connectivity.

    Static Context

    1. Founding: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, a permanent intergovernmental security and economic bloc, was founded in 2001 at Shanghai, growing from the Shanghai Five grouping of 1996.
    2. Members: Members include China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus.
    3. India’s accession: India became a full member in 2017 at the Astana Summit.
    4. Institutions: The Secretariat is in Beijing, and the Regional Anti Terrorist Structure (RATS), the SCO body for security and counter terrorism coordination, is in Tashkent.

    Prelims Angle

    1. SCO founding year is 2001, the RATS headquarters is at Tashkent and the Secretariat is at Beijing.
    2. India joined as a full member in 2017.
    3. Membership of the SCO versus other bodies is a classic trap.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS2, groupings and agreements affecting India’s interests: A question can ask how India balances its role in the SCO amid China and Russia dominance.
    2. The functional side: It can probe counter terrorism cooperation and connectivity.

    “[2022] Consider the following :

    1. Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

    2. Missile Technology Control Regime

    3. Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

    India is a member of which of the above ?

    (a) 1 and 2 only

    (b) 3 only

    (c) 2 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Health Ministry strengthens allied and healthcare education standards

    Health Ministry strengthens allied and healthcare education standards

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare moved to strengthen education and professional standards for allied and healthcare professionals.

    Core Facts

    1. Governing law: Standards are set under the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.
    2. Apex body: The Act created the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions (NCAHP), a statutory body that regulates education and practice in these fields.
    3. State tier: The Act also provides for State Allied and Healthcare Councils.
    4. Mandate: The Commission frames standards for education and curricula, and maintains a central register of practitioners.

    Static Context

    1. Enactment aim: The Act was enacted to regulate and standardise a large set of allied health professions.
    2. Coverage: The Act groups professions into defined categories such as medical laboratory science, radiology, physiotherapy and nutrition.
    3. Parent ministry: The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare administers the framework.

    Prelims Angle

    1. The governing law is the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions Act, 2021.
    2. The apex regulator is the NCAHP, a statutory body.
    3. It works through State Allied and Healthcare Councils.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS2, issues in the health sector and human resources: A question can ask how professional regulation improves the quality of India’s health workforce.
    2. The delivery side: It can probe whether standard setting reaches the districts where allied professionals actually practise.
  • India’s GDP Performance for the first quarter

    India’s GDP Performance for the first quarter

    Why in the News

    The quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) estimates for the April to June quarter of financial year 2026 27 were released.

    Core Facts

    1. Compiling body: The National Statistics Office (NSO), the official statistics agency under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI), compiles GDP.
    2. Two approaches: GDP is estimated through the production side. It is also estimated through the expenditure side.
    3. Production measure: The production side is built from Gross Value Added (GVA), the value of output minus the value of inputs at each stage.

    Static Context

    1. GDP and GVA link: GDP equals GVA plus product taxes minus product subsidies.
    2. Base year: The current GDP series uses a 2011 12 base year, and the revision took effect in January 2015.
    3. Methodology shift: The 2015 revision moved to GVA at basic prices and expanded use of the corporate database for the industrial sector.
    4. Real and nominal: Real GDP is measured at constant prices and nominal GDP at current prices.

    Prelims Angle

    1. The difference between GDP and GVA is a repeat hook.
    2. The base year is 2011 12 and the compiling body is the NSO under MoSPI.
    3. Market prices versus basic prices is a standard trap.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS3, Indian economy, planning and growth: A question can ask about the 2015 methodology change.
    2. The growth side: It can ask about potential GDP and the factors holding India below it.

    [2021, GS3, 10 marks] Explain the difference between computing methodology of India’s Gross Domestic Product(GDP) before the year 2015 and after the year 2015.”

  • Districts as Export Hubs push decentralised trade growth

    Districts as Export Hubs push decentralised trade growth

    Why in the News

    The Districts as Export Hubs (DEH) initiative was profiled as a route to raise India’s export base from the district level.

    Core Facts

    1. Objective: The DEH initiative treats every district as an export hub. It identifies products and services in each district with export potential.
    2. Institutional design: A State Export Promotion Committee (SEPC) operates at the state level. A District Export Promotion Committee (DEPC) operates at the district level.
    3. Planning tool: Each district prepares a District Export Action Plan (DEAP). The plan maps products, gaps and support needed.
    4. Nodal body: The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the agency under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry that regulates India’s exports and imports, coordinates the initiative.
    5. Convergence: The initiative aligns with the One District One Product (ODOP) programme.

    Static Context

    1. Policy anchor: The Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 institutionalised districts as export hubs as a core strategy.
    2. Governing agency: DGFT issues the Foreign Trade Policy and administers export promotion schemes.
    3. ODOP link: ODOP selects one flagship product per district for branding and market access.

    Prelims Angle

    1. Nodal agency for DEH is the DGFT under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
    2. The two tier structure is SEPC and DEPC.
    3. The policy anchor is the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, and ODOP convergence is a likely factual hook.

    Mains Angle

    1. GS3, Indian economy and mobilisation of resources: A question can ask how decentralised export promotion raises India’s share in global trade.
    2. The constraint side: It can probe constraints of logistics, credit and quality certification at the district level.
  • Can AI claim copyright for original work? A question of authorship

    Can AI claim copyright for original work? A question of authorship

    Why in the News

    India’s Copyright Office has rejected an application seeking copyright registration for an artwork generated by an artificial intelligence (AI) system. The application was filed by American computer scientist Stephen Thaler for a work titled ‘A Recent Entrance to Paradise’, which he said had been generated autonomously by his AI system DABUS. The application named DABUS as the author and Thaler as the owner of the copyright. The order is among the first Indian decisions to address who, if anyone, is the author when an AI system generates a work. The tension it exposes is that the Office found the image original enough to qualify for protection while holding that the entity that produced it cannot be an author.

    What is DABUS?

    1. The system: DABUS stands for Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience, an AI system developed by Thaler.
    2. The claim made for it: The application asserted that DABUS had generated the artwork autonomously, rather than as an output directed by a human operator.

    What did the application claim and what did the Office ask?

    1. The filing: Thaler applied in 2022 to register copyright in the artwork.
    2. The first question put to him: The Copyright Office asked whether an AI system could legally be recognised as an author under the Copyright Act, 1957.
    3. The second question: It also asked who should be treated as the author if the work was indeed generated using AI.
    4. The offer he refused: During the proceedings the Office allowed Thaler to amend the application and identify himself as the author. He declined, and continued to insist that DABUS be recognised instead.

    How does the Copyright Act, 1957 treat originality?

    1. The three separate questions: The Act answers whether a work is original, who its author is, and who owns the copyright, and these are distinct questions rather than one.
    2. The protection provision: Section 13 protects original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works.
    3. The Act does not define originality: The Copyright Office therefore interprets it from Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak.
    4. The judicial test: The Supreme Court in that case held that a work need not be novel or groundbreaking to receive copyright protection. It must show at least a minimum degree of creativity, and it cannot be merely copied or mechanically reproduced.

    How does the Act treat authorship and ownership?

    1. The authorship provision: Section 2(d)(vi) identifies the author of a computer generated work as “the person who causes the work to be created”.
    2. The disputed phrase: The dispute was over whether that phrase refers to the machine producing the output or to the person creating and operating the system.
    3. First ownership: Section 17 states that the author is generally the first owner of the copyright.
    4. Transfer: Sections 18 and 19 allow copyright to be assigned or transferred through legally recognised agreements.
    5. What the structure assumes: The Office noted that these provisions are built around legal persons who can hold rights, transfer them and enforce them.

    What did the Copyright Office decide?

    1. Originality was satisfied: The Office found that the image generated by the AI was original enough to qualify for copyright protection.
    2. Authorship is a legal status: The Act treats authorship as a legal status carrying rights and responsibilities, and an AI system, however sophisticated, does not presently possess such recognition under Indian law.
    3. The tool test: To interpret who “causes” a computer generated work to be created, the Office looked to American copyright cases distinguishing between a tool and the person handling it.
    4. DABUS as the tool: Although DABUS generated the final image, it did so within a system designed and set in motion by Thaler, so DABUS was treated as the tool and Thaler as the person who legally caused the work to be created.
    5. Person means natural or juristic: Where an Act refers to a “person” it usually means a natural person or a juristic person such as a company, an entity capable of owning property and entering contracts. DABUS is not a recognised juristic person.
    6. The outcome: Thaler was held to be the person capable of being identified as the statutory author, so the application as filed did not meet the criteria under the Act.

    Why was the fallback request also rejected?

    1. What was sought: Thaler asked in the alternative that DABUS be recorded as the technological generator of the work.
    2. The register cannot confer status: The Office held that the register could not be used to indirectly confer legal status on an AI system.
    3. A procedural ground as well: No proper application seeking such an entry had been made.

    What has the order left open?

    1. A future application can succeed: The order leaves open the possibility of a fresh application that identifies the author in the manner the Copyright Act, 1957 requires.
    2. The change of law is reserved: Any broader change in the law would have to come from Parliament.
    3. The stated limit on administrative power: The order records that whether legal personhood or authorship should ever be extended to autonomous artificial intelligence “remains a policy decision strictly reserved for Parliament, and cannot be introduced via administrative reinterpretation”.

    Challenges to fitting AI generated works into copyright law

    1. Human contribution is not measurable at the point of registration: A registrar cannot tell from the output whether a prompt involved creative choice or a single instruction. Eg. The United States Copyright Office refused registration for the AI generated images in the comic ‘Zarya of the Dawn’ while protecting the human written text and arrangement.
      The Fix: Require a disclosure of AI involvement and of the specific human contribution as a mandatory field in the registration application.
    2. Training data use is unresolved: Models are trained on protected works without licence, so the lawfulness of the input sits behind every question about the output. Eg. Indian news publishers and a music industry body have sought to intervene in the Delhi High Court proceedings against OpenAI on this ground.
      The Fix: Legislate a statutory text and data mining exception with a transparency obligation on training corpora, so the boundary is set rather than litigated case by case.
    3. Ownership defaults to the operator rather than the investor: Treating the person who causes creation as the author leaves the platform, the model developer and the user with competing claims over the same output. Eg. Generative service terms typically assign output rights to the user by contract, which no statute confirms.
      The Fix: Make the allocation of rights in computer generated output a default statutory rule that contracts may vary, rather than leaving it to terms of service alone.
    4. Term of protection has no anchor without a human author: Copyright duration runs from the author’s lifetime, which cannot be computed where the generating entity does not die. Eg. The United Kingdom sets a fixed 50 year term for computer generated works precisely to avoid this problem.
      The Fix: Provide a fixed term measured from the date of creation for works with no identifiable human author.
    5. Enforcement needs an accountable person: Liability for infringing output, and standing to sue over it, both require someone the law can reach. Eg. An autonomously generated image that reproduces a protected character leaves no party with a stated duty under the current provision.
      The Fix: Attach statutory responsibility for infringing output to the person who deployed the system, mirroring the authorship rule the Office has applied.

    Conclusion

    The order settles who the author is and leaves untouched what the author did. A work the law accepts as original was produced by a process its named author did not perform, and the statute has no category for that gap. Parliament is the only body that can create one. The point to watch is whether computer generated works are taken up as a legislative question, or whether the issue keeps returning through individual registration applications and appeals against their refusal.

    Back2Basics

    1. Enactment: The Copyright Act, 1957 came into force in January 1958 and is India’s governing copyright statute.
    2. Administration: It is administered through the Copyright Office, which functions under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade.
    3. Coverage: It protects literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, along with cinematograph films and sound recordings.
    4. Registration is optional: Copyright arises on creation of the work, and registration serves as evidence rather than as the source of the right.

    [2014, GS3, 12 marks] In a globalised world, intellectual property rights assume significance and are a source of litigation. Broadly distinguish between the terms – copyrights, patents and trade secrets.”

  • River-linking is not the solution

    River-linking is not the solution

    Why in the News

    The Union Home Minister used the Southern Zonal Council meeting at Mamallapuram to press for early resolution of water sharing disputes in the southern region, and to propose linking major rivers from the Brahmaputra to the Godavari and the Cauvery.

    Why does the Pennaiyar case undercut the promise of early resolution?

    1. The grievance: Tamil Nadu is aggrieved over what it terms a violation of the 1892 inter State agreement by Karnataka.
    2. The request and the parallel litigation: Tamil Nadu asked the Centre in November 2019 to establish a tribunal. It also moved the Supreme Court with the same demand.
    3. Negotiation without settlement: Two negotiation committees have been formed since then and 11 meetings have been held.
    4. A court direction, then an extension: The Supreme Court in February directed the Centre to form the tribunal within a month, and later extended the deadline by six months. The adjudicatory body is still not in place.
    5. The referral suggestion: The Centre asked the court whether the Pennaiyar dispute could be referred to the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal instead of constituting a new one, although there is nothing in common between the two disputes.
    6. The statute does not allow it: The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 does not permit such a referral.
    7. A second unanswered demand: The Central government has not replied to Tamil Nadu’s demand, made in March this year, for a tribunal on the Mekedatu dam project proposed by Karnataka.

    What are the objections to inter-linking?

    1. The proponents’ claim: Supporters of river linking, Tamil Nadu among them, hold that the intent is not to disturb the natural flow of any river but to divert a portion of surplus water.
    2. The claim on surplus is disputed: Many experts are not convinced, and expect that once linking is allowed, benefiting regions will demand water even in times of distress.
    3. The original beneficiary loses: That escalation would eventually deprive the original beneficiaries of their quota, which converts a transfer of surplus into a redistribution of entitlement.
    4. The ecological objection: Kerala has stoutly opposed the Pamba-Achankovil-Vaippar link proposal, on the ground that it will affect the Vembanad wetland system, into which the Pamba and Achankovil rivers drain.
    5. The agency’s answer: The National Water Development Agency, the central body that prepares feasibility studies for inter-basin transfer links, says it has accounted for improving the flow of rivers in lean periods.

    What is the record of inter-basin transfer in India?

    1. A thin record over 130 years: In the last 130 odd years the country has seen only a handful of inter-basin transfer projects, most of them in south India.
    2. The projects treated as successes: The Mullaperiyar dam, the Parambikulam-Aliyar project, the Krishna Water Supply Project and the Indira Gandhi Canal Project are regarded as successful examples of inter-basin transfer.
    3. An institution without output: A Special Committee for Interlinking of Rivers was formed after 2014 and has held over two dozen meetings, without much headway.
    4. The one project that moved: The foundation stone for the ₹44,000 crore Ken-Betwa Link Project was laid in 2024.
    5. Its social cost surfaced immediately: That project has led to agitations by tribal populations in Chhatarpur.

    Why is supply side expansion reaching its limit?

    1. Land is the binding constraint: Land is becoming scarcely available for projects of this size.
    2. Acquisition faces organised resistance: Resistance among people is growing when it comes to land acquisition.
    3. The consequence for project design: The days of implementing mega irrigation projects are almost over, which removes the delivery route the linking proposal depends on.

    What does demand side management require?

    1. A shift in the object of policy: Governments at the Centre and in the States, and civil society, need to focus on demand side management instead of perpetually seeking supply side interventions.
    2. Conservation as the priority: The priority has to be conserving what is available and using it judiciously.
    3. A programme aimed at the farmer: A massive programme of sensitising and incentivising farmers on the optimal use of water has to be launched.
    4. The subsidy that drives extraction: Indiscriminate extraction of groundwater, facilitated by free electricity for agriculture in many States, is paving the way for ecological disaster and has to be curbed immediately.

    Challenges to inter-basin water transfer proposals

    1. Surplus is asserted rather than measured: A basin is declared surplus on hydrological series that predate current withdrawal and cropping intensity, so the transferable volume is an estimate that has never been revalidated. Eg. Peninsular link proposals rest on assessments framed decades before present groundwater draft in the same basins.
      The Fix: Publish a revalidated basin water budget, with the assessment year stated, before any link component is taken up for investment approval.
    2. Himalayan links depend on flows that originate outside India: A transfer scheme drawing on the Brahmaputra is exposed to upstream storage decisions India has no treaty right to see. Eg. The Brahmaputra enters India as the Yarlung Tsangpo after a long course through Tibet.
      The Fix: Make a binding upstream flow data arrangement a stated precondition before any Himalayan component of a national grid is sanctioned.
    3. Transferred water carries a permanent energy bill: Peninsular links must lift water across watersheds, so the delivered cost includes pumping power for the life of the project. Eg. Moving water across the Eastern Ghats requires sustained lift rather than gravity flow.
      The Fix: Price transferred water at its delivered cost including pumping energy, so the recipient command area faces the real cost of the supply.
    4. Alignments run through forest and protected areas: Canal alignment and submergence take the least contested land, which in practice is forest and reserve land rather than settled farmland. Eg. The Ken-Betwa link submerges part of the Panna Tiger Reserve.
      The Fix: Require a no alternative alignment finding, tested against a published route comparison, before submergence inside a protected area is cleared.
    5. New supply changes cropping and returns the shortage: A command area that receives assured water shifts to water intensive crops, so demand rises to meet the new supply within a decade. Eg. Long canal commands in western India moved to paddy and sugarcane and developed waterlogging and salinity.
      The Fix: Tie the release of transferred water to a notified crop plan and volumetric delivery through water user associations rather than to area based supply.

    Conclusion

    India is being offered more supply while the reason for the shortage stays untouched. A grid that moves water between basins does not change how the water is used once it arrives. The immediate decision point is the Pennaiyar tribunal, still unconstituted after a court set deadline and an extension of it. Free farm power, and the groundwater extraction it underwrites, is the variable that will decide whether any new transfer capacity is absorbed or simply exhausted.

    Water Resources Management in India

    1. About: Water resources management covers the planning, development and management of water quantity and quality across every use, along with the institutions, infrastructure, incentives and information systems that guide it.
    2. The hydrological imbalance: India has an effective rainfall period of 28 to 29 days in a year, so most annual flow arrives in a short window and has to be stored or lost.
    3. Agriculture dominates demand: Agriculture accounts for around 89 per cent of groundwater extraction.
    4. The institutional home: The Ministry of Jal Shakti was formed in 2019 by integrating two earlier water related ministries.

    Constitutional Framework Governing Water Resources Management

    1. Entry 17, State List: Places water supply, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments and storage with the States, subject to Entry 56.
    2. Entry 56, Union List: Allows Parliament to regulate inter State rivers and river valleys where it declares such regulation to be in the public interest.
    3. Article 262: Empowers Parliament to provide for adjudication of inter State river water disputes, and to bar the jurisdiction of the courts including the Supreme Court over them.

    Laws and Rules Governing Water Resources Management

    1. Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Provides for the constitution of a tribunal when a State’s request for adjudication cannot be settled by negotiation.
    2. The 2002 amendment: Fixed a one year limit for constituting a tribunal and a three year limit for the award.
    3. River Boards Act, 1956: Enables the Centre to set up river boards to advise on the regulation and development of an inter State river. No board has been constituted under it.
    4. Dam Safety Act, 2021: Establishes national and State level authorities for the surveillance, inspection and maintenance of specified dams.

    Government Initiatives for Water Resources Management

    1. Atal Bhujal Yojana: Launched in 2019 to improve groundwater management in selected States through community participation.
    2. Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana: Expands assured irrigation coverage and promotes micro irrigation under the Per Drop More Crop component.
    3. National Water Mission: Targets integrated water resource management and a 20 per cent improvement in water use efficiency, with the Bureau of Water Use Efficiency set up under it in 2022.

    Challenges in Water Resources Management

    1. Groundwater is extracted faster than it recharges: Assessment blocks in the north west and the south are classified as over exploited, which means annual draft exceeds annual recharge. Eg. Central Ground Water Board assessments place large parts of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan in that category.
      The Fix: Extend community level water budgeting with metered abstraction, so a village sees its own draft against its own recharge each season.
    2. Cropping patterns ignore local water availability: Crop choice follows assured procurement and price, not the water the region actually has. Eg. Sugarcane in Marathwada consumes a disproportionate share of a chronically drought affected region’s irrigation water.
      The Fix: Link procurement or price support for water intensive crops to verified micro irrigation adoption on the same holding.
    3. Irrigation charges recover a fraction of the cost: Water charged below the cost of delivering it removes any incentive to use less of it. Eg. Canal water rates in most States do not cover the operation and maintenance cost of the system supplying it.
      The Fix: Move to volumetric supply at the outlet, billed through water user associations rather than assessed on irrigated area.
    4. Basin data is incomplete and not shared: Allocation disputes are argued over rival estimates because no agreed real time record of flows exists. Eg. Rival State claims in southern river disputes rest on differing assessments of the same basin’s yield.
      The Fix: Make real time gauge and groundwater data on one national platform the sole admissible basis for allocation claims.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS3, 10 marks] Not many years ago, river linking was a concept but it is becoming reality in the country. Discuss the advantages of river linking and its possible impact on the environment.”