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

Civilsdaily

Search results for: “”

  • SC rejects beneficiary disclosures of AIFs, FPIs without legal backing

    SC rejects beneficiary disclosures of AIFs, FPIs without legal backing

    Why in the News

    Mutual funds must disclose their holdings to the public, but Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs) and Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) face virtually no such rule, and a court cannot now impose one. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has refused to direct the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to make public the ultimate beneficial owners of AIFs and FPIs.

    What are AIFs and FPIs, and why does ownership matter?

    1. What an AIF is: A privately pooled fund, registered with SEBI, that invests money from wealthy and institutional investors in start-ups, private firms, debt or complex trades.
    2. What an FPI is: A foreign investor that buys Indian shares and bonds, holding less than 10% of any listed company.
    3. Beneficial owner: The real person who owns and profits from an investment, often hidden behind layers of companies and trusts. Disclosure is like reading the name inside a sealed envelope.
    4. Disclosure gap: Mutual funds face strict public disclosure under the SEBI (Mutual Funds) Regulations, 1996 and the SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999. AIFs and FPIs face virtually none.
    5. The takeaway: Without public disclosure, investors cannot see who really controls large blocks of Indian securities.

    What did the Court decide, and why?

    1. No order without a rule: A court order for full public disclosure cannot be justified without an existing “legal framework of regulations“, the Bench held.
    2. Mandamus needs a framework: A mandamus is a court order directing an authority to perform a legal duty. The Bench said the Centre and SEBI must first build the framework such an order would enforce.
    3. Request to the regulators: The Court asked the Centre and SEBI to consider suitable transparency regulations.

    Why did the petitioner seek public disclosure?

    1. The petition: Mahua Moitra, a Member of Parliament (MP), argued in a writ petition that opaque AIFs and FPIs raise risks of market manipulation, money laundering and tax evasion.
    2. Rapid growth of AIFs: Since 2013, SEBI-registered AIFs have grown more than thirtyfold in number, and their assets more than 835 times.
    3. Foreign holdings outweigh mutual funds: FPI assets under custody now exceed the entire mutual fund industry’s assets, yet only mutual funds disclose publicly.

    Was the Supreme Court the right forum?

    1. Parliament first: The Bench said the petitioner could have raised the issue in Parliament. It added that her background as an investment banker and investor made this hardly a public interest petition.
    2. Article 32 access: Her counsel asked whether an MP is barred from moving the Court under Article 32, the right to approach the Supreme Court to enforce Fundamental Rights.
    3. Earlier petition: The Bench recalled that it had allowed her plea against the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case.
    4. SEBI’s position: The Solicitor General, for SEBI, said AIFs and FPIs already disclose investments to the regulator, which probes them in detail when warranted.

    Challenges

    1. Layered offshore chains: Funds routed through several jurisdictions can hide the natural person at the end of the ownership chain. Eg. SEBI’s 2023 probe of FPIs linked to the Adani group.
    2. Round-tripping: Opaque funds let Indian money leave and return disguised as foreign investment, escaping tax and scrutiny.
    3. Capital-flow trade-off: Broad public disclosure may deter foreign investors who value confidentiality.

    Way Forward

    1. SEBI transparency regulations: SEBI should frame beneficial ownership disclosure rules for AIFs and FPIs, giving courts a framework to enforce.
    2. Tiered disclosure: Require public disclosure for large or concentrated holdings, and confidential reporting to SEBI for smaller ones.
    3. Shared ownership data: Link SEBI, tax and Enforcement Directorate records on beneficial owners under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

    Conclusion

    Public disclosure of who stands behind AIFs and FPIs now depends on the Centre and SEBI, not on the courts. Whether SEBI frames such regulations, and whether they go beyond confidential filings, is the next decision to watch.

    Key numbers

    1. Registered AIFs: 42 (2013) to 1,528 (2025).
    2. AIF assets under management: ₹1,437 crore (2013) to almost ₹13 lakh crore (end of 2024).
    3. FPI assets under custody: over ₹74 lakh crore (2025).
    4. Mutual fund assets under management: about ₹68 lakh crore (2025).

    Back2Basics: Categories of AIFs

    1. Category I: Funds investing in start-ups, small firms, social ventures and infrastructure, sectors the government treats as socially useful. Eg. venture capital funds.
    2. Category II: Funds such as private equity and debt funds that do not borrow to invest beyond day-to-day operational needs.
    3. Category III: Funds that use complex trading and leverage (borrowed money) for short-term returns. Eg. hedge funds.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] With reference to investments, consider the following: I. Bonds II. Hedge Funds III. Stocks IV. Venture Capital How many of the above are treated as Alternative Investment Funds? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All the four ANSWER: (b)”

  • Reforms 3.0 underline a credibility gap. First, reform the reformer

    Reforms 3.0 underline a credibility gap. First, reform the reformer

    Why in the News

    The Cabinet Secretary has announced Administrative Reforms 3.0, India’s next round of governance reform. Coming in the government’s 12th year, it reads as an admission that earlier rounds failed and that the reformer itself was never reformed.

    What is Reforms 3.0 meant to fix?

    1. What it is: Administrative Reforms 3.0 is a planned overhaul of how officials deal with firms and citizens. India needs it to face global headwinds, a fragile external sector and lopsided growth.
    2. Slow customs and compliance: The International Monetary Fund (IMF)‘s 2025 Article IV report, its periodic review of a member economy, finds longer customs delays and compliance time in India than in peers.
    3. Low firm churn: Few firms enter or exit, and many are “zombie” firms, which stay alive even when earnings cannot cover interest.
    4. The takeaway: A third round must explain why earlier rounds left these outcomes unchanged.

    Why have earlier reforms fallen short?

    1. Ease of Doing Business: The first push to climb the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business index was largely cosmetic, because the index itself was unreliable.
    2. Formal rules changed: The government consolidated parts of the tax system, simplified company incorporation and decriminalised many offences. Environmental rules were sharply weakened.
    3. New complexity: Unclear quality control orders (bans on sale without a national quality mark), unclear tax enforcement and minute rules undid these gains. So did retrospective taxation, taxing past deals under a later law.
    4. Maximum government: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce finds India still a difficult place to do business, under “maximum government, minimum governance”.
    5. Wrong measure of success: The government counts rule changes as success. China showed that the institutional environment in which rules operate matters more.

    Is the problem the rules or the political economy?

    1. Privilege over productivity: The Economic Survey 2025-26 finds “regulatory arbitrage, protected margins, and firm-specific accommodations” often pay firms more than productivity. Firms then chase rents, meaning earnings from privilege.
    2. Hybrid zone: The Survey says “political mediation substitutes for market discipline”, so political access counts more than competition. The perception of favoured business groups has worsened this.
    3. Rent extraction spread: The state centralised these rents instead of abolishing them. More actors at every level now collect them, even by bypassing digitised systems.

    What would it take to reform the reformer?

    1. Three conditions: Lasting reform needs presumptive trust in citizens, decentralisation to the right level of government, and hostility to unnecessary surveillance and control.
    2. Citizens treated as suspects: The state treats citizens as sources of disorder, and each new dataset widens its discretion to intervene.
    3. Centralisation: Instead of reforms in the spirit of the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments on local self-government, States face close central supervision and the Cabinet leans on the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).
    4. Control as instinct: The government delivers well on centrally run missions, such as highways. Its control over the corporate sector is unprecedented.
    5. Bureaucratic capacity: The Cabinet Secretary’s list of 11 types of bureaucrats admits a human resource problem at the top.

    Challenges

    1. Politicised bureaucracy: Punishment transfers and pressure to favour interests weaken neutral administration.
    2. Silo-based hierarchy: Files move through 8 to 10 levels, so decisions are slow and departments rarely work together.
    3. Incomplete devolution: Fewer than 10 States have transferred all 29 subjects of the Eleventh Schedule to panchayats.

    Way Forward

    1. Fixed tenure: Give senior officers a fixed minimum tenure of three years, as the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC) recommended.
    2. Civil Services Authority: Hand postings and transfers to an independent authority (2nd ARC).
    3. Funds, functions, functionaries: States should transfer all three to local bodies, completing the devolution the two Amendments intended.

    Conclusion

    India’s reform problem lies less in its rules than in whether the state will trust citizens and loosen its own control. Until Reforms 3.0 changes how officials use discretion, it will read as another top-down bureaucratic exercise.

    Key numbers

    1. Firm entry and exit rates: below 1% a year in India, against 8% to 13% in comparator economies (IMF, 2025).
    2. Zombie firms: 15% of firms in the IMF’s sample.

    Government Initiatives for Administrative Reform

    1. Mission Karmayogi: Shifts civil service training from “rule-based” to “role-based” learning on the integrated Government Online Training (iGOT) Karmayogi platform.
    2. National Single Window System (NSWS): Puts over 100 central and State industrial approvals on one portal.
    3. CPGRAMS 7.0: The Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System, the online portal for complaints against government offices.
    4. e-Office: Moves government files to a paperless system.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016, GS4, 10 marks] Discuss the Public Services Code as recommended by the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission.”

  • A security deal, but not the end of the Arctic contest

    A security deal, but not the end of the Arctic contest

    Why in the News

    The United States has dropped its repeated push to gain control of Greenland and signed a security agreement with Denmark and Greenland at the United Nations. The deal expands the American military presence on the island and reaffirms Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination. It closes the Trump administration’s dispute with Copenhagen for now, but the wider contest over the Arctic continues.

    What is Greenland’s status, and what does the deal change?

    1. What it is: Greenland is an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Under the Self-Government Act, 2009, it runs its domestic affairs, and Denmark keeps foreign, defence and security policy.
    2. Security, not territory: The United States dropped its demand to acquire Greenland and won wider military access instead, like leasing rooms rather than buying the house. Its presence is likely to grow much larger.
    3. Approval pending: The agreement enters into force only after parliamentary procedures are completed in Denmark and Greenland.
    4. The takeaway: Washington gets most of what it wanted from Greenland without formally owning it.

    What does the United States gain?

    1. More bases: The deal allows expansion of the existing Pituffik Space Base and new American facilities at Narsarsuaq in the south and Mestersvig in the east, subject to mutually agreed arrangements.
    2. Wider access: American aircraft and ships get wider access to Greenlandic territory and waters for defence purposes.
    3. Missile defence: The deal covers cooperation on the proposed Golden Dome defence system, a planned American missile shield.
    4. Investment curbs: It restricts investment in sensitive sectors from outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), its partners and the European Union (EU), so Arctic business is now judged on security grounds.
    5. Strategic location: Lying between North America and Europe, Greenland matters for missile warning, space surveillance and North Atlantic security.

    Why is sovereignty still complicated?

    1. Denmark’s balancing act: Copenhagen had to protect its sovereignty over Greenland and avoid a prolonged confrontation with Washington. The deal lets it do both.
    2. Self-determination on paper: The text recognises Greenland’s self-determination and respect for its society and traditional way of life. It also gives the United States extensive military access and curbs foreign investment.
    3. No expiry date: The agreement has no end date, and some provisions stay in force even if Greenland becomes independent.
    4. NATO’s place: Greenland’s Prime Minister has stressed the importance of NATO in Arctic security.

    Why is the Arctic contest not over?

    1. A wider agenda: The Arctic is no longer only about climate change, scientific research and polar exploration. It is now tied to missile defence, critical minerals, infrastructure, shipping routes and space security.
    2. Rival powers: Russia’s military presence and China’s economic and scientific interests have already changed the region’s strategic environment.
    3. Friction among allies: Arctic competition can strain relations between allies themselves. Eg. The dispute between Washington and Copenhagen over Greenland.
    4. Gains for each side: Denmark and Greenland escape a diplomatic bind, the United States gains access without annexation, and NATO’s focus on the High North, the Arctic region, gains weight.

    Challenges

    1. Greenlanders’ control: Greater American military involvement can reduce Greenlanders’ say over their own future even as it strengthens their security.
    2. Great-power spotlight: The island risks becoming the centre of great-power competition.
    3. No regional security forum: The Arctic Council’s founding Ottawa Declaration (1996) excludes military security, so no Arctic body handles arms control.

    Way Forward

    1. Greenland’s consent on facilities: Denmark and the United States should settle each new base arrangement only with the Greenland government’s agreement.
    2. Arctic security dialogue: Arctic States should open a separate channel for military confidence-building and incident prevention.
    3. India as a shaper: India should use science diplomacy to move from a passive observer to a shaper of Arctic rules.

    Conclusion

    The agreement settles who holds Greenland but not who decides its future, since American access grows inside a sovereignty that stays Danish on paper. The coming parliamentary approvals and the terms of each new facility will show whether Greenlanders keep control as the Arctic militarises.

    About the Arctic Council

    1. About: The Arctic Council is the main intergovernmental forum of Arctic States on sustainable development and environmental protection.
    2. Members: Its eight Arctic States are Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.
    3. Indigenous voice: Six Indigenous peoples’ organisations sit as Permanent Participants with full consultation rights. Eg. The Inuit Circumpolar Council.
    4. India’s role: India has been an observer since 2013 and runs the Himadri research station at Svalbard.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] Which one of the following statements best describes the ‘Polar Code’ ? (a) It is the international code of safety for ships operating in polar waters. (b) It is the agreement of the countries around the North Pole regarding the demarcation of their territories in the polar region. (c) It is a set of norms to be followed by the countries whose scientists undertake research studies in the North Pole and South Pole. (d) It is a trade and security agreement of the member countries of the Arctic Council. ANSWER: (a)”

  • India must set a higher bar on clean energy targets

    India must set a higher bar on clean energy targets

    Why in the News

    India met its 2015 Paris Agreement goals years early, and its new 2035 pledge again asks little beyond its current track. With the Hormuz crisis pushing oil above $100 a barrel and the 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31), the UN climate summit, approaching, tougher clean energy targets are now the cheaper and safer path.

    What are India’s climate pledges, and how has it fared?

    1. What it is: A Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) is the target each country sets itself under the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, like a self-set exam target.
    2. Capacity goal met early: India promised that 40% of its power capacity would be non-fossil by 2030. It got there nine years early.
    3. Intensity goal met early: India pledged to cut emissions intensity, the carbon emitted per rupee of GDP, by about a third. It met that with a decade to spare.
    4. The takeaway: Pledges met this early trail what India can deliver, so they no longer push it further.

    What does the 2035 pledge promise, and why is it weak?

    1. Capacity pledge: The March pledge promises 60% clean capacity, but India had already reached nearly 53% in February.
    2. Intensity pledge: It promises a 47% cut in emissions intensity by 2035.
    3. Why intensity misleads: Intensity measures emissions against output, so an economy that doubles and cuts intensity by 40% still emits 20% more.
    4. No absolute limit: Most major economies, including China, have absolute emission limits. India is the largest emitter in the Paris Agreement without one.
    5. Off the warming path: India’s targets have routinely fallen short of the 1.5°C warming limit. The UN declared that limit missed in September.

    What do the pledges leave out?

    1. More coal: India plans to grow coal capacity by 46% by 2035.
    2. Capacity is not generation: Coal still generates over two-thirds of India’s electricity. Clean sources hold over half of installed capacity but supplied 29% of power last year.
    3. Energy security: The Iran war has disrupted crude imports through Hormuz. Coal cannot fuel cars and kitchens, so cheap solar electrification is the way out.
    4. Clean power is cheaper: A national auction for round-the-clock (every hour) clean power drew winning bids of ₹5.25 per unit, fixed for 25 years. New coal contracts cost more.

    How should India raise the bar?

    1. Peak year and cap: India should name the year its power-sector emissions will peak and set an absolute limit, as the Paris Agreement encourages developing countries to do.
    2. Generation targets: Targets should count clean electricity generated, not capacity installed. Eg. Chile’s renewables law sought 20% of generation from new renewables by 2025, and hit it six years early.
    3. Build the grid: India now struggles to deliver the clean power it can generate:
      • clean output was curbed in most months of 2025 because the grid could not absorb it;
      • only about 80% of planned transmission was built over five years;
      • one day in March, India lost renewable power enough for 5 million urban households.

    Challenges

    1. Finance gap: NITI Aayog estimates India needs $5.2 trillion by 2050, far beyond the global finance goal.
    2. Mineral dependence: India imports nearly all its lithium and cobalt, mostly through China-controlled supply chains.
    3. Coal regions: Coal sustains jobs and revenue in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, making an early peak politically costly.

    Way Forward

    1. Storage-backed tenders: The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy should require storage or round-the-clock supply in new renewable tenders.
    2. Just transition plan: The Centre should fund reskilling and new industry in coal States.
    3. Finance at COP31: India should press developed countries for grants and cheaper loans.

    Conclusion

    India’s targets now trail what it has already achieved, so they no longer steer the transition. The test is whether India names a peak year and generation targets at the coming summit.

    Key numbers

    1. First NDC intensity goal: a 33-35% cut from 2005 levels.
    2. Coal contracts signed in 2025: started at ₹5.38 to ₹6.30 per unit.
    3. Chile’s raised goal: 70% renewable electricity by 2030.

    Government Initiatives for India’s Clean Energy Transition

    1. National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC): It guides climate action through mitigation and adaptation technologies.
    2. Green Energy Corridors: They build transmission lines that carry large-scale renewable power into the grid.
    3. Battery storage support: Viability Gap Funding (VGF), a subsidy covering part of project cost, supports 13.22 GWh of battery storage.
    4. Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS): It has replaced the Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) scheme for several sectors.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS3, 15 marks] Write a review on India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) and mention how these have been further strengthened in COP26 (2021). In this direction, how has the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) intended by India been updated in 2022?”

  • Bangladesh presses India for a new Ganges treaty before expiry in Dec.

    Bangladesh presses India for a new Ganges treaty before expiry in Dec.

    Why in the News

    For 30 years the Ganga Waters Treaty, 1996 has fixed how India and Bangladesh share the river’s dry-season flow, but it lapses in December with no automatic extension clause and no successor agreed. Bangladesh says India has not answered its request to negotiate, and India’s Ministry of External Affairs says river matters are for the Joint Rivers Commission (JRC). Dhaka fears shortages threatening tens of millions of livelihoods.

    What does the 1996 treaty do, and why does it matter?

    1. What it is: The treaty divides the dry-season flow at India’s Farakka Barrage, river gates 20 km upstream of Bangladesh, like a fixed ration for lean months. It expires on December 12.
    2. Why it was signed: After India opened Farakka in 1975, Bangladesh accused it of diverting most of the water. A 1977 deal, reached after United Nations intervention, lapsed a decade later.
    3. Years without a treaty: At least three rivers almost dried up then, says a Dhaka-based environmental group. Eg. The Gorai, which feeds freshwater into the Sundarbans against saltwater intrusion.
    4. The takeaway: Without the treaty, Bangladesh’s lean-season share has no legal guarantee.

    Why is renewal stuck?

    1. A slow commission: The JRC oversees water-sharing but held its last technical talks in May. Its last confirmed ministerial meeting was in 2022, after a 12-year gap.
    2. Soured ties: Ties soured after former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the treaty’s signatory, fled to India following a 2024 uprising. She has been sentenced to death in absentia and vows to return in December.
    3. Unconfirmed visit: Bangladesh’s Prime Minister may visit India before expiry, but no visit is confirmed.
    4. Teesta precedent: A proposed Teesta water-sharing deal has been stalled since 2011.

    What does Bangladesh want in a new deal?

    1. Mutual benefit: The prime ministerial adviser heading Bangladesh’s water-sharing committee wants a deal on “mutual benefit and respect”.
    2. Climate and basin: A former Bangladeshi JRC member says India has built “additional dams” upstream. The member wants climate change provisions covering the whole river basin.
    3. Rising demand: Freshwater demand has risen sharply on both sides, so failure could be worse than the years without a treaty.

    What is at stake downstream?

    1. A vast basin: The 2,525 km Ganga flows through the world’s most populous river basin, home to 655 million people.
    2. Farms and fish: Shrinking flows in the Padma, the Ganga’s name in Bangladesh, have cut fish catches and ruined crops in the parched Barind region.
    3. Irrigation shrinking: Bangladesh’s largest irrigation scheme, the Ganges-Kobadak project, was designed for 955 sq km and has shrunk to 550 sq km even with the treaty.
    4. Own barrage: In May, Dhaka approved a $2.8 billion Padma Barrage to ease shortages.
    5. Climate stress: Climate change worsens shifting flows, dry-season shortages and monsoon floods. Eg. The river has nearly doubled in width in Chapainawabganj.

    Challenges

    1. Legal vacuum: If talks miss the deadline, India has no treaty obligation on how much water reaches Bangladesh in the dry season.
    2. Bihar’s objection: Bihar blames the Farakka Barrage for upstream silt and floods and opposes renewal, so the Centre must weigh a State against a neighbour.
    3. Changing river: A shifting river course (morphology) and disputes over water levels at Farakka make a fresh sharing formula harder to fix.

    Way Forward

    1. Interim continuation: Both governments should agree to keep the current sharing schedule until a new treaty is signed.
    2. Ministerial JRC meeting: Both sides should convene a ministerial JRC meeting before the deadline.
    3. Basin-wide management: The JRC should manage all 54 shared rivers together, not one river at a time.

    Conclusion

    India and Bangladesh face a hard deadline with no agreed process to meet it. Whether a ministerial meeting or a leaders’ visit comes before the lapse will decide if the lean-season flow stays legally guaranteed.

    Key numbers

    1. Bangladesh’s share of the basin: more than 50 million of the basin’s people live in Bangladesh (World Bank).
    2. Farakka Barrage: 2.2 km long.
    3. Padma Barrage: includes a planned 113 MW hydropower plant.
    4. Chapainawabganj: river widened by 3 km in recent years (Bangladesh Water Development Board).

    Back2Basics: Ganga Waters Treaty, 1996

    1. Lean season: Sharing applies to the dry season from 1 January to 31 May, divided in ten-day cycles.
    2. Joint Committee: It records flows at Farakka and at Hardinge Bridge in Bangladesh.
    3. Dispute route: Differences go to the Joint Committee, then the JRC, then the two governments.
    4. No arbitration clause: Unlike the Indus Waters Treaty, it lets no external forum rule on disputes.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2026] Match: A. Mangdechhu Hydroelectric Project B. Restoration of Stor Palace C. District Hospital at Dickoya D. Institute of Security and Law Enforcement Studies 1. Maldives 2. Afghanistan 3. Bhutan 4. Sri Lanka (a) A-1, B-4, C-2, D-3 (b) A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1 (c) A-3, B-4, C-2, D-1 (d) A-1, B-2, C-4, D-3 ANSWER: B”

  • India’s ‘own GPS’, which new ISRO satellite can restore

    India’s ‘own GPS’, which new ISRO satellite can restore

    Why in the News

    NavIC, India’s regional navigation system, was designed to give the public location data accurate to 10 metres, but it has stopped providing positioning data at all. The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) is slated to launch NVS-03, its third new-generation navigation satellite, to restore the service after a launch delayed since late 2025.

    What is NavIC?

    1. What it is: NavIC (Navigation with Indian Constellation), formally the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System (IRNSS), works like India’s own Global Positioning System (GPS). It covers India and up to 1,500 km around it.
    2. Two services: A seven-satellite constellation, costing nearly ₹2,250 crore, was to give an open public service and a more accurate paid restricted service for select users such as the military or large construction projects.
    3. Why India built it: GPS signals reach India at an angle, so they are hard to receive in valleys and forests. NavIC was meant to cover the Indian landmass better.
    4. How positioning works: A navigation satellite uses atomic clocks to measure precisely how long a signal takes to travel to and from an object on Earth. A satellite whose clocks fail cannot give positions.
    5. The takeaway: A sovereign navigation system works only while enough satellites keep working, and India has not kept that number up.

    Why did the system stop working?

    1. Failure count: ISRO has launched 11 navigation satellites for the system, and six have failed, mostly because of defective imported atomic clocks.
    2. Late receivers: A 2018 Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) report found that receivers (chips that read the signals) were developed only from 2017. Orbiting satellites lost years of life waiting for them.
    3. Failed replacements: Two replacement satellites never reached their working orbits:
      • IRNSS-1H stayed stuck because the heat shield on the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) did not open;
      • NVS-02 reached a transfer orbit, but its propulsion system failed to complete the manoeuvres.
    4. Ageing fleet: Most of the initial satellites have reached the end of their 10-year mission life. The Centre told Parliament this year that the constellation no longer gives positioning data.

    What changes with the second generation?

    1. Indigenous clocks: The second-generation NVS satellites, starting with NVS-01, carry indigenously developed atomic clocks with a 12-year mission life.
    2. Third frequency: They add the L1 frequency to the existing L5 and S signals. L1 is the band GPS uses most, so NavIC works better alongside other systems.
    3. Wearable devices: L1 also lets smartwatches and other devices with low-power, single-frequency chips use NavIC data.
    4. Extra checks: More thorough checks aim to prevent a propulsion failure like NVS-02’s.

    Challenges

    1. Smartphone adoption: Most smartphones still rely on GPS, and NavIC needs chipset support from global manufacturers.
    2. Launch and propulsion risk: A single failed launch can leave the constellation short of satellites for years.
    3. Clock dependence: Positioning stops when clocks fail, and the system has had no spare satellites ready.
    4. Interoperability: NavIC still has to be made fully compatible with other navigation systems worldwide.

    Way Forward

    1. Spare satellites: ISRO should keep replacement satellites ready so a failure does not halt the service.
    2. Receiver support: The Centre should push NavIC-capable chips in phones and vehicle trackers sold in India.
    3. Fixed launch schedule: ISRO should complete the remaining second-generation satellites on a published timeline.

    Conclusion

    NavIC shows that navigation independence needs a steady supply of working satellites and receivers, not just a constellation design. Whether NVS-03 reaches its final orbit and restores positioning data is the immediate milestone.

    Back2Basics: Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)

    1. What it is: GNSS is the umbrella term for satellite constellations that provide positioning, navigation and timing.
    2. Four global systems: The US’s GPS, Russia’s GLONASS, the European Union’s Galileo and China’s BeiDou cover the whole world.
    3. GAGAN: The GPS-Aided GEO Augmented Navigation system, built by ISRO and the Airports Authority of India, improves GPS accuracy over India rather than replacing it.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS3, 12 marks] What do you understand by ‘Standard Positioning Systems’ and ‘Protection Positioning Systems’ in the GPS era? Discuss the advantages India perceives from its ambitious IRNSS programme employing just seven satellites.”

  • CBSE revises Scheme of Studies for 2028 Class X board exams

    Why in the News

    Students taking the 2028 Class X board exams will be examined in five subjects, not the nine to 10 subjects the new curriculum had loaded on them. The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has revised its Scheme of Studies and dropped three subjects for this batch, but the other compulsory subjects will still be taught.

    What is the Scheme of Studies, and why was it revised?

    1. What it is: The Scheme of Studies is CBSE’s list of subjects a batch must study and those it is examined on. It works like a timetable marking which classes count for the result.
    2. Why it changed: Subjects introduced after the current academic session created confusion and made students study nine to 10 subjects.
    3. Stated reason: A CBSE circular to affiliated schools says the change aligns the new curricular area with its implementation schedule.
    4. Who is covered: The change applies to the batch in Class IX in 2026-27, which moves to Class X the following year. Students already in Class X in 2026-27 keep the existing scheme.
    5. The takeaway: The board has separated what students learn from what they are examined on, so that a wider curriculum does not mean more exam stress.

    What will this batch be examined on?

    1. Dropped subjects: The batch will not study three subjects:
      • ‘Individuals in Society’ in Class IX;
      • the Modules on Computational Thinking (CT) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Class IX;
      • ‘Environmental Education’ in Class X.
    2. Five board subjects: Board exams will cover two languages, mathematics, science and social science.
    3. Less exam pressure: Students can focus on these five subjects for the board exams and learn the others without the stress of scoring marks.

    What will students still study?

    1. Nine curricular subjects: Students will still study nine compulsory curricular subjects, including a third language, art education, and physical education and well-being.
    2. Vocational education: Vocational education stays a compulsory curricular area for this batch.
    3. Skill subject choice: Students meet the vocational requirement by taking either Kaushal Vikas or any one of the 22 Skill Subjects notified by the Board.

    Challenges

    1. Ungraded subjects sidelined: Subjects with no board marks risk losing timetable time to the five examined ones.
    2. Mid-course changes: Revising the scheme after subjects were introduced unsettles students, teachers and schools.
    3. Third-language teachers: Many schools lack trained teachers for a third language, especially non-Hindi languages.
    4. Vocational stigma: Few adolescents take formal vocational training. Eg. Under 1% of school-going adolescents do.

    Way Forward

    1. Early notification: CBSE should notify each batch’s scheme before it enters Class IX.
    2. School-based assessment: Schools should assess ungraded subjects through a Holistic Progress Card, so they still count.
    3. Teacher recruitment: States and schools should recruit and train third-language teachers.

    Conclusion

    This batch will learn more subjects than it is examined on, a split meant to cut exam load without shrinking the curriculum. Whether schools keep teaching the ungraded subjects seriously is what to watch.

    Back2Basics: Three-Language Formula

    1. What it is: Students learn three languages in school, at least two of them Indian languages.
    2. Origin: The Kothari Commission (1964-66) proposed it to promote national integration while preserving linguistic diversity.
    3. NEP 2020: The National Education Policy (NEP), 2020 favours the home language or mother tongue as the medium of instruction at least up to Grade 5.
    4. Not binding: The formula is a guideline, not a law, so States apply it unevenly. Eg. Tamil Nadu follows a two-language policy.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 15 marks] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”

  • When disruption replaces argument, deepest damage is to young

    Why in the News

    The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)‘s Kerala state president argues that the 150 million voters added since 2014 should judge governments by what governance delivers. He contrasts 2004 to 2014, which he calls the “lost decade”, with the years since, and separates genuine protest from “manufactured disruption”.

    What is the governance argument?

    1. What it is: The claim is that good governance changes how a citizen relates to the state, so success depends on “what you can do”, not “whom you know”.
    2. Why young voters: The author argues that the political values of India’s youth population, the world’s largest, will shape democracy for 50 years.
    3. Credit claim: The author cites a 2012 Credit Suisse report that 10 business groups had borrowed nearly the entire net worth of the banking system. Small entrepreneurs were turned away.
    4. Leakage claim: He recalls a former Prime Minister’s admission that less than 15 paise of every welfare rupee reached the intended beneficiary.
    5. The takeaway: Judging parties by delivery makes the accuracy of delivery records the real question.

    What does the author credit to direct delivery?

    1. JAM trinity: Jan Dhan bank accounts, Aadhaar identity numbers and mobile phones together let the state pay citizens directly, which the author says removed the middleman.
    2. Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT): Over ₹53 lakh crore has been transferred straight into citizens’ bank accounts since 2014, per the author.
    3. Multidimensional poverty: NITI Aayog data show nearly 250 million Indians left multidimensional poverty, meaning deprivation in health, education and living standards rather than income alone, in nine years.
    4. Farmer transfers: The author cites ₹4.47 lakh crore paid to farmers, nearly 95 million of them in the latest instalment, with no intermediary.
    5. Compounding gains: He argues that a family lifted from poverty rarely falls back. The same compounding works in reverse, so setbacks also build up.

    What does the author say about Karnataka and Keralam?

    1. Karnataka’s borrowing: The author says borrowings rose to about ₹1.04 lakh crore in a single year to fund guarantee schemes (promised welfare payments), which he calls leaky.
    2. Keralam’s White Paper: Keralam’s new government tabled a White Paper in June 2026 documenting ₹5.07 lakh crore of debt from a decade of Left rule.
    3. Crowded-out investment: The author argues that debt in both States crowds out capital expenditure, the money that builds roads and hospitals.
    4. Contrast cited: He contrasts them with Uttar Pradesh’s growth from a “BIMARU” State, a label for lagging States, to a ₹36 lakh crore economy in nine years, and Maharashtra topping foreign investment rankings.

    Where does protest end and disruption begin?

    1. Genuine protest: The author accepts that protest against genuine injustice is the lifeblood of democracy and a non-negotiable right.
    2. Manufactured disruption: He defines it as deliberately creating the appearance of crisis to hide the lack of an alternative programme. Eg. Disrupting Parliament to block legislation, or blocking highways.
    3. Damage to the young: The author argues that a culture mistaking chaos for the ability to govern breeds cynics. Such citizens neither vote nor hold leaders accountable.

    Challenges

    1. Selective comparison: Comparing decades through chosen indicators ignores causes outside government control, such as global growth cycles.
    2. Defining disruption: No objective test separates “manufactured disruption” from legitimate protest, so the label can be used to dismiss dissent.
    3. Exclusion in direct transfers: Aadhaar authentication failures can shut genuine beneficiaries out of direct payments.
    4. Limits of the poverty index: A multidimensional index counts deprivations, so it does not show whether incomes have risen.

    Way Forward

    1. Independent data: The Centre should publish regular official poverty and consumption data so voters can test rival claims.
    2. Protected debate time: Parliament should fix time for Opposition business so grievances are raised through debate, not disruption.
    3. Fiscal transparency: Every State should publish its guarantees and off-budget borrowing alongside the Budget.

    Conclusion

    Welfare delivery and the quality of public debate are both fair tests for young voters, but a partisan comparison of decades cannot settle either. Whether independent data and a working legislature let citizens judge such claims is the larger question.

    Key numbers

    1. Credit concentration: About 98 per cent of the banking system’s net worth, per the author.
    2. Multidimensional poverty share: 29.17 per cent (2013-14) to 11.28 per cent (2022-23), NITI Aayog.
    3. Karnataka: Borrowings up from ₹90,280 crore, funding ₹52,000 crore in guarantee spending, per the author.
    4. Keralam: In Reserve Bank overdraft for 84 days in 2025; capital expenditure 1.3 per cent of Gross State Domestic Product, per the author.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 15 marks] “The incidence and intensity of poverty are more important in determining poverty based on income alone”. In this context analyse the latest United Nations Multidimensional Poverty Index Report.”

  • Four years later, is Delhi University’s Four-Year Undergraduate Programme an unfulfilled promise?

    Why in the News

    Fourth-year graduates of the University of Delhi’s Four-Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) have been turned away from one-year postgraduate programmes. A former University Grants Commission (UGC) chairman argues the FYUP widens students’ options. A Ramjas College teacher argues that students bear the brunt of policy chaos.

    What is the FYUP?

    1. What it is: The FYUP is a four-year bachelor’s degree under the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020. Like a train with an early stop, it lets students get off after three years.
    2. Depth in the major: Under the UGC curriculum framework, a major needs at least 80 credits (units measuring course load) in the FYUP, against 60 in the three-year degree.
    3. Exit and pace options: A student can leave with a three-year degree after earning 120 credits. Institutions may also offer:
      • an Accelerated Degree Programme (ADP), finishing in six or seven semesters;
      • an Extended Degree Programme (EDP), allowing up to two extra semesters.
    4. Routes after four years: The degree leads to Honours or Honours with Research, then to a one-year master’s degree, a job or a PhD.
    5. The takeaway: The FYUP is worth its extra year only if that year adds learning, not just credits.

    What does the FYUP offer students?

    1. Apprenticeship-embedded degrees: The UGC’s Apprenticeship Embedded Degree Programme guidelines permit up to four semesters of apprenticeship in industries, micro, small and medium enterprises and start-ups. Mumbai and Kannur universities offer them.
    2. One-year master’s: A four-year degree makes a student eligible for a one-year postgraduate programme, subject to selection and seats. Jamia Millia Islamia, Jawaharlal Nehru University and others offer it besides Delhi University.
    3. Direct PhD: The UGC’s 2022 regulations let four-year graduates with 75 per cent marks seek PhD admission. Eligibility does not mean readiness for research.
    4. Time to mature: The Indian Institute of Science (IISc) four-year BS (Research), started in 2011, grew into a research-intensive programme. Such examples do not prove the FYUP will succeed everywhere.
    5. Respecting exits: Fees, living costs and personal plans shape the choice, so leaving after three years with a degree is not dropping out.

    Why do critics call it policy chaos?

    1. Fourth-year trap: Graduates who expected a last-minute route into one-year postgraduate programmes were turned away at admission.
    2. Peripheral courses: Value addition courses (VACs) are at best self-learning modules. These and other add-on courses stacked onto the degree take credits from the core discipline.
    3. Internal assessment load: About 45 per cent of scores come from internal assessment, so students rush to submit work for credits without real effort.
    4. Rules after launch: Guidelines are often framed after programmes start, and frequent changes amid weak infrastructure leave students insecure.
    5. Older design: Critics link the model to the Report on a Policy Framework for Reforms in Education (2000). That report tied higher education to commerce, and cultural reorientation of syllabi adds to the problem.

    Challenges

    1. Faculty and infrastructure gap: A research-oriented fourth year needs teachers, laboratories and supervision that many colleges lack.
    2. Postgraduate mismatch: Postgraduate admission rules have not caught up with four-year degrees, so graduates can lose a year.
    3. Cost of the extra year: Fees and living expenses can push poorer students out after three years.
    4. Diluted core: Mandatory peripheral courses take credits away from the major discipline.

    Way Forward

    1. Rules before rollout: The UGC and universities should notify admission and exit rules before a batch enrols.
    2. Sustained investment: Universities need steady funding for faculty, research infrastructure and industry collaboration.
    3. Aligned admissions: Universities should open one-year postgraduate seats to all eligible four-year graduates.
    4. Course review: Universities should review VACs and the internal assessment share to protect the major.

    Conclusion

    The FYUP offers more entries, exits and routes than any earlier undergraduate design, but its value depends on rules settled before students enrol. Whether universities align postgraduate admission with four-year degrees is the test to watch.

    Government efforts on higher education reform

    1. Academic Bank of Credits (ABC): A digital repository where students store earned credits, which makes multiple entry and exit possible.
    2. APAAR ID: A “One Nation, One ID” for students that links academic records, skills and transfers in one portal.
    3. National Credit Framework (NCrF): A unified framework that lets students earn and store credits for both academic and vocational learning.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 15 marks] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”

  • The examination overload, its enormous cost

    Why in the News

    Indian students sit a long series of entrance and recruitment tests on top of board and university exams, and these tests are hit by paper leaks. A former Secretary General of the Association of Indian Universities argues that admissions should rest on school-leaving and university results instead.

    What is the examination overload, and why was it built?

    1. What it is: Beyond board exams, students sit a separate entrance test for each course and a recruitment test for each job, like a relay where every stage demands a fresh run.
    2. Entrance tests: Each level of study has its own gate:
      • undergraduates take the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE), the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET), the National Aptitude Test in Architecture (NATA), the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) or the Common University Entrance Test (CUET);
      • postgraduates take the Graduate Aptitude Test in Engineering (GATE), the Common Admission Test (CAT) or CUET-PG, and researchers the National Eligibility Test (NET).
    3. Recruitment tests: A degree only establishes eligibility. Jobs depend on tests by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), State commissions, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS).
    4. Why they were introduced: Board and university exams were said to lack uniform standards and to be open to manipulation.
    5. The takeaway: The new tests repeat the flaws they were meant to fix, and make school results count for least.

    What has gone wrong with layered testing?

    1. Integrity failures: Paper leaks, dummy candidates (impostors sitting the test) and mark manipulation lead to repeated cancellations, which waste public money and delay admissions.
    2. Cost on families: Every layer needs months of preparation and separate coaching fees, so the tests reward the ability to pay rather than ability.
    3. Stress on students: Layered tests and centralised counselling for seat allotment multiply anxiety, and scarce affordable seats push many into repeat attempts.
    4. Inverted learning: Students study to clear filters, so coaching drills replace classroom teaching and the board exam becomes a formality.
    5. Narrow skill tested: A multiple-choice test rewards speed at ticking answers under pressure, a coachable skill, over years of performance.

    Why have reforms not restored trust?

    1. NTA’s record: The National Testing Agency (NTA) runs the major entrance tests. Its failures persist after a 2024 review by a committee headed by a former space scientist.
    2. Another committee: A new committee was set up in July 2026 amid youth protests in several States. Whether it will fix the design is open.
    3. Misplaced trust: Policy trusts testing agencies that have repeatedly failed more than years of assessment by teachers.

    What would a merit-based alternative look like?

    1. Existing records: Class XII marks and a university Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) reflect years of work and are harder to game than one test.
    2. Standardise boards: Uneven boards can be made comparable through normalisation and common moderation (adjusting marks to one scale), external audits and score equating, not a separate test system.
    3. Proposed design: Admissions on moderated school-leaving results, scholarships on academic records and public recruitment on verified records with structured interviews.
    4. One aptitude test: At most one national aptitude test per exit level, its scores used only to moderate board or university results.
    5. Global practice: Many countries admit students mainly on school-leaving results, so India’s repeated testing is the outlier.

    Challenges

    1. Uneven boards: State boards differ in syllabus and marking, so raw marks are not yet comparable across States.
    2. Mark inflation: If board results decide admission, schools face pressure to inflate internal marks.
    3. Seat scarcity: Affordable quality seats remain few, so competition persists whatever the filter.

    Way Forward

    1. Common moderation rules: The Ministry of Education should set one moderation framework for all boards.
    2. Audited internal marks: External audits should check school internal assessment so it stays credible.
    3. More affordable seats: The Centre and States should expand quality public seats to cut repeat attempts.

    Conclusion

    India has built a second examination system on top of school assessment, and it has inherited the integrity problems it was meant to solve. Whether the new committee strengthens school assessment or adds another test is the decision to watch.

    Government efforts on examination integrity

    1. Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024: Penalises paper leaks and impersonation in exams run by bodies such as the UPSC and SSC. Organised leaks carry up to 10 years in jail.
    2. NTA scope narrowed: From 2025 the NTA conducts only higher education entrance tests.
    3. PARAKH: A national assessment centre to standardise board exams and introduce a Holistic Progress Card.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020, GS2, 15 marks] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.”

More posts