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

Civilsdaily

Search results for: “”

  • Can new fortified potato variety help with India’s hidden hunger problem?

    Why in the News

    The Centre is promoting Kufri Jamunia, a new purple potato, as an answer to hidden hunger, but the evidence so far shows only that it carries more nutrients, not that it delivers them to people. With yield, disease, cooking losses and uptake still uncertain, calling it a proven solution is premature.

    What is Kufri Jamunia, and why is it being promoted?

    1. What it is: A purple-fleshed potato from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Central Potato Research Institute (ICAR-CPRI) that carries more anthocyanins (antioxidants), vitamin C and micronutrients, like a vitamin tablet grown as a vegetable.
    2. The problem it targets: Hidden hunger is when people eat enough calories but still miss the nutrients they need.
    3. How it was bred: In 2015 CPRI crossed a line high in vitamin C with one carrying purple skin and flesh. The resulting line builds up nutrients naturally as it grows.
    4. How it was released: After multi-location trials, the government notified it in November 2024.
    5. The takeaway: It tests whether a potato bred for nutrition can do what fortified rice and salt already do.

    How much more nutrition does it carry?

    1. Press Information Bureau (PIB) figures: Per 100 g of flesh, it carries far more of three nutrients than a regular potato:
      • vitamin C: about 42.75 mg against 23.15 mg;
      • zinc: 2.28 mg against 0.28 mg;
      • iron: 3.22 mg against 0.57 mg.
    2. Carotenoids vary by place: Carotenoids ranged from 15.6 micrograms in Kanpur to 298.4 micrograms in Raipur across trial sites.
    3. Uneven gains: It has slightly less zinc than Kufri Neelkanth and slightly less iron than Kufri Manik, other coloured CPRI varieties.
    4. Benefits unproven: Anthocyanins also occur in jamun and blueberries, but whether this potato delivers their benefits is unknown.
    5. Cooking losses: A 2016 *Food Chemistry* study found steaming and microwaving kept more nutrients in purple potatoes than stir-frying. No such study exists for Kufri Jamunia.

    Can it reach people the way fortified rice and salt do?

    1. Eating patterns: Fortification usually targets rice and iodised salt, eaten all year. Potatoes are eaten less consistently, and absorbed nutrients depend on cooking.
    2. Small taste test: In a CPRI assessment of 64 people, 95% rated it “good to excellent”, a sample too small to generalise.
    3. Colour and appeal: Purple flesh could put off buyers, since acceptance depends on appearance, awareness, taste and local preferences.

    Will farmers grow it?

    1. Cultivation decides half: Delivering nutrients is half of a biofortification (nutrient-bred crop) programme, and cultivation is the other half.
    2. Yield falls off the station: It averaged 49.01 tonnes per hectare at the Modipuram research station, but only 31.96 tonnes across multi-location trials.
    3. Lower marketable yield: Trials gave 29.19 tonnes of marketable potatoes per hectare, against 33.48 tonnes for Kufri Neelkanth.
    4. Price premium needed: With equal costs, farmers would need a 15% higher price for the same gross revenue.
    5. Late blight: This disease is caused by the water mould *Phytophthora infestans*. The potato moderately resists it in the laboratory but is “susceptible” in the field, so CPRI advises fungicide.

    Challenges

    1. Seed costs: Seed already makes up 40-50% of production costs for regular potatoes, so new seed raises farmers’ outlay.
    2. Absorption unknown: No study yet shows how much iron and zinc the body absorbs from this potato.
    3. Outside public food schemes: The Public Distribution System (PDS) basket centres on rice and wheat, so the potato has no ready channel to poor households.

    Way Forward

    1. Absorption trials: ICAR and nutrition researchers should measure iron and zinc absorbed from cooked Kufri Jamunia.
    2. Cooking guidance: CPRI should test nutrient retention under common Indian cooking and publish advice.
    3. Seed and market support: States should supply affordable certified seed and link growers to premium buyers.

    Conclusion

    Kufri Jamunia shows that a potato can be bred to carry more micronutrients, not yet that it can reduce hidden hunger. Absorption tests and farmer uptake will decide whether it becomes a nutrition tool or stays a research success.

    Key numbers

    1. Plant traits: 10-12 tubers per plant, maturing in about 90 days.
    2. Anthocyanins (PIB): 42.05 mg per 100 g.
    3. Carotenoids (PIB): 161 micrograms per 100 g.
    4. Rival yields across trials: Kufri Manik 31.52 and Kufri Neelkanth 36.61 tonnes per hectare.

    Back2Basics: Biofortification

    1. What it is: Biofortification raises a crop’s nutrient content as it grows, through breeding or genetic tools. Ordinary fortification adds nutrients during processing instead.
    2. Examples: Iron-rich wheat, zinc-rich rice and beta-carotene-rich maize. Eg. Golden Rice, enriched with vitamin A.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2025] Consider the following statements regarding turmeric during the year 2022–23: 1. India is the largest producer and exporter of turmeric in the world. 2. More than 30 varieties of turmeric are grown in India. 3. Maharashtra, Telangana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are major turmeric-producing States in India. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (d)”

  • SC proposes relief for digital arrest victims

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has proposed moving the loss in digital arrest frauds from victims to banks, asking the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) to make financial institutions fully compensate (indemnify) victims where a lack of institutional diligence enabled the fraud. A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) asked whether the RBI was “soft-pedalling” on regulation. It will examine the RBI’s proposed Know Your Customer (KYC) Amendment Directions, 2026, the rules banks follow to verify customers.

    What is a digital arrest, and why is the Court stepping in?

    1. What it is: In a digital arrest, fraudsters posing as police tell victims over calls, mostly on WhatsApp, that they are detained, then extort money. No arrest can happen by phone, so it is a fake raid on a phone screen.
    2. Scale of loss: Over ₹800 crore fell into fraudsters’ hands in a year, against about ₹3,000 crore the year before.
    3. Why victims fall for it: The amicus curiae (a lawyer assisting the court) said even educated people fall into the trap. Psychologists say victims may have undergone a form of hypnosis.
    4. Insiders involved: The Court called digital arrest the “biggest financial fraud in the history of this country” and said bank employees are involved.
    5. The takeaway: Because the stolen money moves through banks, the Court sees banks as the place to stop it and to pay when they fail.

    What safeguards has the Court proposed?

    1. Transaction freeze: Financial institutions must have systems to temporarily suspend transactions that sharply deviate from an account’s usual pattern.
    2. Police alerts: Automated alerts on such transactions must go to police, followed by physical checks on whether the transaction is genuine.
    3. State reporting: States must report the First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in digital arrest cases and the status of investigation and prosecution.
    4. Platform duties: The duties of intermediaries, platforms that carry users’ messages and content, will be set in instructions from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT).
    5. Next hearing: The Court will take up the case again before November 30.

    Is the RBI moving fast enough?

    1. Court’s frustration: The CJI said warnings against these scams had been splashed across the media and repeated in the Court’s own orders, yet people still lose money.
    2. Government’s caution: The Attorney-General, appearing for the Union and the RBI, said counter-measures cannot come with “a wave of the magic wand”, only through consultations between the central bank and stakeholders.
    3. Timeline offered: The KYC Directions will be notified by November 30 and operationalised by December 31.
    4. Claimed progress: The Attorney-General said digital arrest cases fell by half this year and money has been restored in over 11 lakh cases.
    5. Platform action: WhatsApp says it has banned 9,400 suspicious accounts and is building software to spot accounts impersonating officials. The Court allowed it to join the case.

    Challenges

    1. Proving negligence: Full refund depends on showing a lack of institutional diligence, which a victim cannot easily prove against a bank.
    2. Mule accounts: Fraudsters move money within minutes through chains of borrowed or rented bank accounts, which makes recovery slow.
    3. Deepfake impersonation: Voice cloning and fake video calls make impersonation of officials more convincing.
    4. Uneven awareness: Elderly and rural users with low digital literacy remain the easiest targets.
    5. Fragmented response: Banks, telecom operators, platforms and police act on separate systems with weak real-time coordination.

    Way Forward

    1. Clear refund standard: The RBI’s KYC Directions should list which institutional lapses trigger full indemnity and set a deadline for payment.
    2. Faster freezing: Banks should act on the 1930 cyber fraud helpline and the Citizen Financial Cyber Fraud Reporting and Management System within minutes of a complaint.
    3. Telecom-bank data sharing: Banks should use the DoT’s Financial Fraud Risk Indicator, which flags mobile numbers linked to fraud, before approving large transfers.
    4. Sustained awareness: The Union and States should keep running campaigns that no agency arrests anyone by phone or video call.

    Conclusion

    The Court is shifting the cost of digital arrest fraud onto the institutions best placed to stop it, and the regulator is asking for time to consult. Whether the KYC Directions arrive on schedule, and what they say on refunds, will show if victims gain the protection the Bench proposed.

    Key numbers

    1. Restoration requests: over 7 lakh received (Attorney-General).
    2. Orders passed: in over 5.5 lakh cases (Attorney-General).

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022, GS3, 10 marks] What are the different elements of cyber security? Keeping in view the challenges in cyber security, examine the extent to which India has successfully developed a comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy.”

  • For affordable cancer care, go beyond price caps

    Why in the News

    Cancer drug prices are now being controlled at the seller’s end, through a cap on trade margins, and the price the manufacturer sets stays untouched. The government has capped sellers’ profit on non-scheduled cancer drugs at 30% of the maximum retail price (MRP), after the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) found intermediaries adding an average mark-up of around 170%.

    What is trade margin regulation?

    1. What it is: A trade margin is the profit added between the manufacturer’s price and the price a patient pays. Capping it is like limiting a shop’s markup without touching the factory price.
    2. Who adds it: Stockists, distributors, hospital pharmacies and wholesale agents sit between the manufacturer and the patient, and each takes a share.
    3. Non-scheduled drugs: The cap covers non-scheduled medicines, meaning drugs outside the list whose ceiling prices the government fixes directly.
    4. Why it was introduced: New therapies have given cancer patients hope, but unaffordable drugs are a major reason patients delay treatment, skip doses or stop medication.
    5. The takeaway: The cap’s real test is whether more patients can afford and complete their treatment.

    Why may the cap not make treatment affordable?

    1. Manufacturer price untouched: Regulating trade margins is not the same as controlling the manufacturer’s price. If that starting price is too high, treatment stays unaffordable after the cap.
    2. Patented drugs: Patented drugs face little competition from cheaper generic versions, so their manufacturers keep greater control over prices.
    3. Ribociclib’s record: The monthly cost of ribociclib, a breast cancer drug, reportedly rose from Rs 58,000 to Rs 78,000. This happened after its trade margins had already been limited.
    4. Artificial discounts: Manufacturers may give steep discounts on a few units to select corporate hospitals and sell most stock at much higher prices. So regulators cannot easily tell the drug’s real market price.

    What risks does a blanket cap carry?

    1. Legitimate pharmacy costs: Pharmacies bear real costs, including those of storing and handling these medicines.
    2. Supply to underserved areas: A blanket cap risks disrupting supplies to underserved areas and affecting the quality of care.
    3. Hidden charges: Hospitals may pass costs on to patients through other means, such as higher room rents.

    Challenges

    1. High out-of-pocket spending: Patients’ own payments still made up 39.4% of India’s health spending in 2021-22, so drug costs fall directly on families.
    2. Missing middle: About 30% of Indians have no health insurance, being too rich for Ayushman Bharat, the government’s insurance scheme for poorer families, and too poor for private cover.
    3. Weak new-drug research: India leads in generics but lags in developing new chemical entities, meaning entirely new drug molecules, so it depends on patented drugs for new cancer therapies.

    Way Forward

    1. Scrutinise manufacturer prices: The NPPA should examine the prices manufacturers set, not only the margins added downstream.
    2. Disclose sales and discounts: Require manufacturers to report sales and discounts transparently, so regulators can see the actual market price.
    3. Public health and insurance: Pair price control with stronger public health services and wider insurance coverage.
    4. Generics research: Fund more research on generic alternatives to reduce dependence on patented drugs.
    5. Jan Aushadhi expansion: Extend Jan Aushadhi Kendras, which sell generic medicines at low prices, to every panchayat.

    Conclusion

    Capping what sellers add covers only half of cancer drug pricing, because the manufacturer’s price stays unregulated. Whether patients’ monthly treatment bills actually fall under the cap is the measure to watch.

    Back2Basics: National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA)

    1. Set up: Established in 1997, it is now an attached office of the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers.
    2. Price ceilings: It fixes ceiling prices for scheduled formulations, the essential medicines listed under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order (DPCO), 2013.
    3. Other drugs: For non-scheduled drugs, it monitors prices so that a manufacturer raises the MRP by no more than 10% in a year.
    4. Enforcement: It recovers overcharged amounts from companies that sell above notified prices.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] Public health system has limitations in providing universal health coverage. Do you think that the private sector could help in bridging the gap? What other viable alternatives would you suggest?”

  • Open to probe

    Why in the News

    Drafts of India’s data protection law in 2018, 2019 and 2021 carried an exemption for journalism, but the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 carries none. The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) has challenged the Act and its Rules, and the Supreme Court, issuing notice, has stressed the need to balance press freedom with privacy.

    How does the DPDP Act reach journalists?

    1. What it is: The DPDP Act sets rules for anyone who collects or uses personal data, meaning information that identifies a person. It protects informational privacy, a person’s control over information about them.
    2. Reporters as data fiduciaries: With no press exemption, a reporter probing corruption becomes a “data fiduciary”, the party deciding how personal data is used. The reporter must then notify those investigated and seek their consent.
    3. Uneven exemptions: The Act already exempts processing for research and statistical purposes, so denying journalism similar protection is hard to justify.
    4. Heavy penalties: Non-compliance can attract penalties of up to ₹250 crore, a threat to the survival of smaller and independent newsrooms.
    5. The takeaway: A privacy law with no press exemption can chill routine as well as investigative reporting, because personal information is integral to most news.

    What does the Act change in the RTI law?

    1. Public-interest clause removed: Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act amended Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Public interest no longer overrides the bar on disclosing personal information, and the DNPA petition challenges this too.
    2. Why public interest matters: Protection of personal information cannot be absolute. An overriding public interest must remain a ground for disclosure, especially for information held by public authorities.
    3. Effect on investigations: Corruption investigations rely on asset disclosures and tender documents that contain personal data. Without them, journalism risks merely reproducing government releases.

    Who should count as a journalist?

    1. No statutory shield: Journalists in India have no specific statutory protection. Press freedom rests on Article 19(1)(a), and the Supreme Court has shielded newspapers from arbitrary state restrictions.
    2. Blurred boundaries: Mistrust of legacy media and the rise of independent content creators make it hard to decide who receives such protection. The Centre has raised the same concern.
    3. Shift to social media: Young adults’ reliance on social media as their main news source has nearly doubled in a decade, a 2026 Reuters Institute report shows.
    4. Consensus over litigation: A purely legal ruling on these competing claims would be too onerous. Stakeholders need an agreed framework that stops public functionaries and handlers of public funds using privacy to escape scrutiny.
    5. Talks with editors: A Union Minister has said he will meet editors, a step towards consensus.

    Challenges

    1. Wide state exemptions: The Act lets the government exempt its own agencies on grounds such as sovereignty and public order, so the state faces lighter rules than the press.
    2. Board’s independence: The Data Protection Board is appointed by the government, which raises concerns about its impartiality.
    3. Rarely used override: Section 8(2) of the RTI Act still permits disclosure where public interest outweighs harm, but it is invoked in under 1% of cases.

    Way Forward

    1. Journalistic exemption: Parliament should restore an exemption for journalism, as the earlier drafts carried, tied to a public-interest test.
    2. Restore the public-interest test: Amend the DPDP framework so that public interest remains the overriding factor in disclosing personal information under the RTI Act.
    3. Define by activity: Protect newsgathering in the public interest by what is being done, not by who employs the person doing it.
    4. Independent Board: Select Data Protection Board members through a process independent of the government.

    Conclusion

    The dispute turns on whether privacy can be protected without shielding public officials from scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s hearing of the DNPA petition, and the outcome of the Centre’s talks with editors, are the next points to watch.

    Key numbers

    1. Social media as main news source, 2015: 21% of 18- to 24-year-olds (Reuters Institute, 2026).
    2. Social media as main news source, 2025: 39% of 18- to 24-year-olds (Reuters Institute, 2026).

    Back2Basics: Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023

    1. Data Principal rights: The person whose data is processed, the Data Principal, can access, correct and erase it, and seek grievance redressal.
    2. Rules: The DPDP Rules, 2025 put the Act into operation.
    3. Data Protection Board of India: The adjudicating body under the Act, which inquires into breaches and imposes penalties.
    4. Appeals: Appeals against the Board’s orders lie with the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT).

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

  • 37% pre-SIR Form 6 rejected in Telangana due to declaration rule

    Why in the News

    New-voter applications filed in Telangana before the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) began have been rejected for lacking a declaration form that only the SIR required. Of the Form 6 applications received in that period, 1,92,574, or 37%, have been rejected.

    What is Form 6, and what did the SIR add?

    1. What it is: Form 6 is the application a new voter files to get their name onto the electoral roll. It works like an admission form for the voters’ list.
    2. The SIR declaration: The SIR added a declaration form as an attachment to Form 6. It asked for the applicant’s own entry, or a parent’s or relative’s, in the roll of the 2002 SIR.
    3. Citizenship proof: An applicant without such details had to submit one of 12 listed documents as proof of citizenship.
    4. The takeaway: The declaration turned a routine enrolment request into a citizenship check.

    What happened to Telangana’s pre-SIR applications?

    1. Applications received: Telangana received 5,20,331 applications for new enrolment between January and mid-June, before the SIR process began.
    2. No declaration attached: None of these applications carried the declaration form.
    3. Accepted: Only 3,22,785 were accepted as new enrolments by 28 October. The rest were rejected because they lacked the declaration.

    Why is the rejection contested?

    1. Rule applied backwards: The declaration form was meant only for the SIR process, but it was used to reject applications filed before the SIR started.
    2. Shifting requirements: The Election Commission of India (ECI) changed its requirements during the ongoing SIR, so lakhs of new-voter applications in the State were rejected.

    Challenges

    1. Documentation hurdles: Requiring old roll details or citizenship documents excludes applicants without formal records.
    2. Exclusion of new voters: Form 6 is how citizens who turn 18 join the roll, so mass rejection shuts first-time voters out.
    3. Fear of a citizenship test: Residents asked for citizenship proof fear a “stealth National Register of Citizens (NRC)“, a register meant to identify citizens, and avoid the process.
    4. Delayed redressal: Rejected applicants have limited time to appeal before the roll is frozen for polls.

    Way Forward

    1. Review rejected forms: The Telangana Chief Electoral Officer should re-examine pre-SIR applications under the rules in force when they were filed.
    2. Seek the missing declaration: Electoral Registration Officers should ask applicants to supply the declaration instead of rejecting the form outright.
    3. Flexible documentation: The ECI should accept a wider range of residency proofs, such as electricity bills or community certificates.
    4. Standing appeal tribunals: Set up year-round appellate tribunals for roll disputes in place of last-minute temporary arrangements.

    Conclusion

    Telangana’s rejections show a citizenship-linked SIR condition reaching back to applications made under the earlier, simpler process. Whether the ECI lets these applicants complete the declaration, or makes them start again, will decide how many new voters join the roll.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    1. What it is: A time-bound, house-to-house enumeration in which Booth Level Officers (BLOs) visit households to verify every entry on the electoral roll.
    2. Different from summary revision: The routine annual summary revision updates the roll without physically verifying every voter entry.
    3. Legal basis: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision at any time, for reasons recorded in writing.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • ‘BJP agent’ files form to exclude long-time Muslim voters

    Why in the News

    The objection process meant to remove dead and shifted voters from Delhi’s electoral roll is being used against electors who still live at their addresses. During the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Mustafabad, one Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-appointed booth-level agent filed every Form 7 seeking to delete 28 long-time voters of one neighbourhood, citing “absent/permanently shifted” or “death”.

    How is a voter’s name deleted during the SIR?

    1. What it is: Form 7 is the objection form for deleting a name from the electoral roll, for death or a permanent shift of residence. It works like a complaint that starts a check.
    2. Objection list and notice: Objections from the claims and objections period go to the Electoral Registration Officer (ERO), who maintains the roll. They appear on the daily Form 10 list, and the elector gets a notice.
    3. Cap on individual filers: An Election Commission of India (ECI) directive of 9 October caps the forms an individual elector can file, online and offline, at 10.
    4. Bulk filing by agents: A booth-level agent (BLA-2), a party’s booth representative, may submit up to 10 forms a day filled by other electors, with an undertaking that the details were verified.
    5. The takeaway: One form puts a living voter on the deletion list, so the process depends on objections being genuine and checked.

    What happened in polling booth 129?

    1. Residents found at home: All 28 electors were living at their addresses. All had submitted enumeration forms and appeared on the draft roll published on 31 August.
    2. Valid identity proofs: 19 of them, or their kin, held valid identity proofs, and none had heard of the agent who objected to them.
    3. Only objections, no notices: These were the booth’s only Form 7s, listed by the Delhi Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) in three October batches. None of the 28 has yet received the notice that should follow an objection.
    4. Living elector marked dead: One elector, aged 76, was objected to as dead.
    5. The agent’s denial: When contacted, the recorded objector denied filing the forms or being an agent or party member.

    Is Mustafabad a one-off?

    1. Wider pattern: Electors elsewhere in the Mustafabad constituency also faced deletion requests though they lived at their addresses.
    2. Highest objections: Mustafabad has seen the highest number of Form 7 applications, with 843 objections since 31 August.
    3. Party agents as objectors: Of 597 forms filed by third parties, 96% name BJP booth-level agents as objectors. Officials confirmed that every objector was a registered agent.
    4. Muslim voters targeted: 572 of the Form 7s filed by these agents are against Muslim voters.
    5. Cap exceeded: The agents filed as objectors themselves, so the individual elector’s cap of 10 binds them. Ten agents still filed more than 30 forms each.

    Challenges

    1. Risk of disenfranchisement: Rapid deletions can remove legitimate voters who are poor, homeless or unable to answer a notice in time.
    2. Cap not checked at filing: Forms beyond the cap still reached the official objections list, so the limit is not enforced at submission.
    3. Delayed redressal: Electors not yet served notice have little time to contest a deletion before the final roll.

    Way Forward

    1. Enforce the filing cap: The ECI should reject Form 7s beyond the cap at the point of filing.
    2. Field check before deletion: EROs should require a Booth Level Officer (BLO)‘s house visit before acting on any third-party objection.
    3. Audit trail for deletions: Record who filed each objection and who approved each deletion.
    4. Independent audit: Let civil society organisations audit a sample of deletions for bias.

    Conclusion

    The roll revision now depends on officials catching false objections that the filing rules failed to stop. Whether the Mustafabad electors receive notices, and stay on the final roll, will show whether verification works.

    Key numbers

    1. Booth 129 listings: 18 objections listed on 25 October, nine on 21 October and one on 19 October.
    2. Other heavy filers: Nine more agents filed over 25 Form 7s each.
    3. Highest single filer: One agent filed 42 applications.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    1. What it is: A time-bound, house-to-house enumeration in which Booth Level Officers visit households to verify every entry on the electoral roll.
    2. Different from summary revision: The routine annual summary revision updates the roll without physically verifying every voter entry.
    3. Legal basis: Section 21 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 lets the ECI order a special revision at any time, for reasons recorded in writing.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Concerns over the collegium system

    Why in the News

    The collegium system was built to keep the executive out of choosing judges, yet a former Chief Justice of India (CJI) may have sought the government’s “pre-approval” before the collegium even met. Retired Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjay Kaul has said former CJI D.Y. Chandrachud may have discussed proposed names with the Union Government in advance, which he says erodes the judiciary’s autonomy.

    What is the collegium system, and how does it work?

    1. What it is: The collegium is a panel of the senior-most judges that selects judges for the higher judiciary. It works like a selection board whose members choose their own future colleagues.
    2. Composition: For the Supreme Court, it is the CJI and the four senior-most judges. For High Courts, it is the CJI and the two senior-most judges.
    3. Constitutional text: Article 124 says the President appoints Supreme Court judges after consulting the CJI. Article 217 adds the High Court Chief Justice and the State Governor for High Court judges.
    4. Memorandum of Procedure: The Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), prepared by the Union Law Ministry in 1998, sets the steps:
      • the collegium proposes names;
      • the Centre may return them with objections;
      • a name the collegium reiterates must be appointed.
    5. The takeaway: Once the collegium reiterates a name, the executive’s role is formal, so consulting the government before the collegium meets cuts against the system’s purpose.

    How did judges come to appoint judges?

    1. Original design: The Constitution required the executive to consult the judiciary, since judges are best placed to assess candidates’ merit. Until the 1980s, the government appointed judges after such consultation.
    2. First Judges case (1981): The Supreme Court upheld the primacy of the executive, meaning the government had the final say, because it is accountable to the people.
    3. Second Judges case: In 1993 the Court created the collegium to protect judicial independence from political favouritism. The Third Judges case (1998) reaffirmed it.
    4. NJAC struck down: The Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014 created a National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) of the CJI, two senior judges, the Law Minister and two eminent persons. The Court struck it down in 2015 for violating the basic structure, the Constitution’s core features that Parliament cannot amend.

    What are the collegium’s strengths and weaknesses?

    1. Independence secured: The collegium has insulated judicial appointments from the executive.
    2. Opacity: It lacks transparency and accountability in how names are chosen.
    3. Alleged nepotism: Critics allege that relatives of sitting judges are favoured for appointment to the higher judiciary.
    4. MoP still pending: After the NJAC verdict, the government and judiciary agreed to revise the MoP. Differences over the executive’s draft have kept it unfinalised for 11 years.

    How do other democracies appoint judges?

    1. India’s unique model: No other democracy has a process like India’s collegium, devised by its own Supreme Court.
    2. United States: The President nominates federal Supreme Court judges, and the Senate confirms them.
    3. United Kingdom: An independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) of 15 commissioners, from the judiciary, the legal profession and the public, selects judges for courts and tribunals. A separate commission, including a JAC member, selects UK Supreme Court judges.
    4. South Africa: A Judicial Service Commission of 23 members, from the judiciary, legislature, executive, lawyers and academia, recommends names to the President.

    Challenges

    1. No objective merit criteria: No standard evaluation of judgment quality guides selection.
    2. Executive delays: The government can sit on recommended files, exercising a quiet veto over selection.
    3. Ad hoc body: The collegium has no permanent secretariat or staff to vet candidates.
    4. Thin diversity: Women hold only about 14% of High Court judgeships.

    Way Forward

    1. Finalise the MoP: Adopt the revised MoP to bring transparency and wider consultation into appointments.
    2. Broader NJAC with judicial veto: Revive a commission including the legislature, the Bar Council and academia, as in South Africa and the UK, with a judicial veto over final names.
    3. Publish reasons: Publish the reasons for each selection, so that choices can be scrutinised.
    4. Search-cum-evaluation committee: Create a standing committee and secretariat to prepare panels of eligible candidates.

    Conclusion

    The pre-approval claim shows that keeping the executive out of appointments depends on practice, not only on who sits on the collegium. Whether the revised MoP is finally adopted, or a broader commission is attempted again, is the next decision point.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS2, 10 marks] Critically examine the Supreme Court’s judgement on ‘National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014’ with reference to appointment of judges of higher judiciary in India.”

  • SC axes Karnataka law validating ‘corrupt’ hiring

    Why in the News

    The 2011 selection of Karnataka’s gazetted probationers, cancelled by the courts and then validated by a 2022 State law, now stands cancelled for good. A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has declared the Karnataka Civil Services (Validation of Selection and Appointment of 2011 Batch Gazetted Probationers) Act, 2022 unconstitutional. It held that a legislature has no power to nullify court judgments.

    What is a validating law, and why did this one fail?

    1. What it is: A validating law retrospectively makes valid an act a court has struck down. It is lawful only if it cures the defect the court found, like repairing a faulty part rather than overruling the inspector.
    2. Why Karnataka passed it: The courts had upheld cancelling the entire 2011 recruitment for 362 Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts. The Act sought to validate those selections anyway.
    3. The flaw: The Bench held that the Act was enacted “clearly with the intent to countermand”, that is, to cancel, the judgments of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court.
    4. The principle: A legislature cannot sit in appeal over a court. Overruling a judgment directly breaches the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary.
    5. The takeaway: A legislature may change the law a judgment rests on, but it cannot simply reverse the judgment.

    What went wrong in the 2011 recruitment?

    1. Scale of the exam: The recruitment drew 1,38,307 applicants for the State’s civil services.
    2. CID findings: Two years later, a Criminal Investigation Department (CID) inquiry found “gross manipulations” in the process. It called the irregularities in evaluating answer scripts “shockingly disgraceful”.
    3. Court’s verdict on the process: The Supreme Court described the recruitment by the Karnataka Public Service Commission as “corrupt” and “blatantly nepotistic“.
    4. Shifting State stand: The State government changed its position repeatedly over a decade, swinging between supporting cancellation and enacting the 2022 law. Candidates were caught between “shifting political whims and systemic failure”.

    What has the Court ordered?

    1. Cancellation upheld: The Court upheld the cancellation of the entire recruitment made under the 2011 notification.
    2. Fresh recruitment: The State must notify fresh recruitment for the vacant Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts.
    3. One-time age relaxation: Untainted appointees, the six appellants and the petitioners before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal get a one-time age relaxation to sit the new recruitment.
    4. Candidates’ long fight: The Bench noted that the six appellants, now over-age, had “relentlessly pursued their cause” to join the Karnataka Civil Services.

    Challenges

    1. Recurring validation laws: Governments often legislate to protect appointments courts have cancelled, which breeds fresh litigation and delay.
    2. Thin rules on commission membership: The Constitution only requires about half the members of a State Public Service Commission (PSC) to have ten years of government service, leaving room for patronage.
    3. Opaque evaluation: Manual evaluation of answer scripts without audit trails lets marks be altered undetected.
    4. Delay punishes the honest: More than a decade of litigation leaves untainted candidates over-age and posts vacant.

    Way Forward

    1. Cure the defect, not the verdict: Legislatures should validate an act only after removing the legal flaw the court found.
    2. Independent PSC appointments: States should appoint PSC members through a transparent, merit-based search process.
    3. Audited evaluation: Use coded answer scripts, scanned evaluation and audit logs so that tampering is traceable.
    4. Time-bound fresh recruitment: Karnataka should complete the new recruitment quickly, applying the one-time age relaxation.

    Conclusion

    The ruling reaffirms that a legislature can change the law but cannot overturn a court’s verdict on a tainted process. How quickly Karnataka completes a clean recruitment, and whether it reforms the Commission that ran the tainted one, is what to watch.

    Back2Basics: State Public Service Commission

    1. Constitutional body: Article 315 provides a Public Service Commission for each State to recruit for its civil services.
    2. Appointment and removal: The Governor appoints the chairman and members, but only the President can remove them (Articles 316 and 317).
    3. Functions: Under Article 320, it conducts examinations and advises the government on recruitment, promotions and disciplinary matters.
    4. Annual report: It reports yearly to the Governor, and the report goes before the State legislature with reasons for any advice not accepted (Article 323).

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2020] Consider the following statements: 1. The Constitution of India defines its ‘basic structure’ in terms of federalism, secularism, fundamental rights and democracy. 2. The Constitution of India provides for ‘judicial review’ to safeguard the citizens’ liberties and to preserve the ideals on which the Constitution is based. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (d)”

  • Deemed ineligible

    Why in the News

    The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls has shifted the burden of staying on the roll from the state to the voter, and the Supreme Court has now called part of that design an “error”. At a hearing on the Delhi SIR, a Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India said the Election Commission of India (ECI) was wrong to make struck-off voters reapply as new voters.

    What is the SIR, and what has the Court objected to?

    1. What it is: The SIR is a time-bound, house-to-house check of every entry on the voter list by Booth Level Officers (BLOs). It works like a fresh census of voters, not a routine annual update.
    2. Legal basis: The ECI acts under Article 324 and the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Act allows a special revision of the roll at any time, for recorded reasons.
    3. What went wrong: Voters who did not return enumeration forms (the SIR’s verification forms) were deleted:
      • they were told to reapply on Form 6, the form for new voters;
      • a mere change of address became a ground for deletion, even for past voters.
    4. The Court’s questions: The Bench questioned whether non-response justifies deletion:
      • should a voter who was “lax, inert or did not respond” “forfeit his or her right to vote forever”?
      • why could shifted voters not simply disclose their new details?
      • why could deleted voters not fill enumeration forms late?
    5. The takeaway: Placing the burden on voters turns a clean-up of the rolls into a test that ordinary citizens can fail.

    How large are the deletions?

    1. Shifted and absent: The share of draft deletions marked “shifted” or “absent” rose from 55% in Bihar to 72% in the States and Union Territories of the third phase.
    2. Karnataka’s deletions: About 84 lakh electors were deleted as shifted or absent, but only a net 8.2 lakh, including new electors, were added during the claims phase.
    3. Short of the adult population: Karnataka’s final roll is 64.5 lakh short of its projected adult population.
    4. Earlier practice: In the 2002-03 revision, enumerators enrolled shifted voters at their new homes and the Chief Electoral Officer reconciled old entries. Forcing re-registration defeats the ECI’s mandate of widening the franchise, that is, enrolling every eligible citizen.

    Do the ‘logical discrepancy’ checks have legal backing?

    1. No statutory basis: The ECI runs algorithm-driven “logical discrepancy” checks. Two of them judge eligibility by family size and by a voter’s age gap with their parents, and no statute or rule permits either.
    2. Unsettled legality: The Bench noted that these checks were allowed only as an “interim arrangement” in West Bengal, and their legality has not been finally decided.
    3. Bihar ruling not binding: The Bench also noted that the Court’s earlier Bihar judgment is not a “binding precedent” for later revisions, so it does not settle their legality.
    4. Uneven impact: In West Bengal the checks led to massive disenfranchisement, meaning eligible people lost the vote. An analysis of Delhi’s rolls found Muslims disproportionately flagged.

    Is the problem a lapse or the design?

    1. The ECI’s rationale: An intensive revision aims to purge ghost voters, meaning dead, duplicate or permanently shifted entries, so that only eligible citizens vote.
    2. Design, not lapses: Critics hold that the final SIR rolls are erroneous because deletions flowed from a flawed design, not from occasional lapses by officials.
    3. Limits of managerial fixes: Past orders such as extended deadlines or printed lists displayed in blocks do not cure a design flaw.

    Challenges

    1. Documentation hurdles: Demands for birth certificates or old records exclude people without formal papers.
    2. Overburdened BLOs: Tight targets and deadlines push Booth Level Officers into hasty “shifted” markings.
    3. Slow grievance redressal: Many claims remain unresolved when the roll is frozen before polls.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore wrongly removed voters: Include again every voter wrongly dropped from the draft rolls, and add newly eligible electors.
    2. Remove only dead and duplicate entries: Delete the dead and duplicate entries the SIR identified, and reconcile shifted voters at their new address.
    3. Legal basis first: Notify any eligibility check in the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 before applying it.
    4. Settle the ECI’s conduct: The Supreme Court should settle questions over the ECI’s conduct of the SIR and how its members are appointed.

    Conclusion

    The Court’s remarks move the debate from how the SIR was run to whether its design can lawfully remove voters at all. Whether the Court orders wrongly deleted voters restored, rather than another managerial fix, will decide the credibility of the final rolls.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Is the right to vote a fundamental right? Discuss the position of the Election Commission of India while undertaking the revision of electoral rolls. Can it also examine the question of citizenship of voters?”

  • Are youth worried they will be worse off than their parents?

    Why in the News

    Young people are leading a wave of protests across Europe against economic inequality and poor living standards. The triggers differ by country: a housing crisis in Spain, problems in the education system in France and anger over perceived corruption in Serbia and Albania. The question is whether this reflects a generational anxiety that youth will be worse off than their parents.

    What is the current wave of youth protests?

    1. What it is: A wave of youth-led protests demanding better schools, jobs and living conditions. In France, a mid-September school protest over teacher shortages became a national movement on inequality and the cost of living.
    2. Echo of 1968: Like the May 1968 Paris revolt, it began with students and widened into a broader revolt.
    3. A withdrawing state: In 1968, protesters pushed an expanding welfare state further left. Today, youth demand basic facilities from a state cutting its services, a shift one view calls a crisis of neoliberalism (shrinking the state in favour of markets).
    4. The takeaway: The 1968 generation wanted more freedom; this generation wants a future.

    Why do young people expect a worse future?

    1. Youth unemployment: Among French workers under 25, unemployment is slightly above 20%. Living costs rise, real wages (pay adjusted for inflation) fall and public spending is cut.
    2. Polycrisis mindset: Before their mid-twenties, today’s youth have lived through the 2008 financial crisis, COVID-19, climate disasters, war in Europe and now artificial intelligence (AI). Such overlapping crises are called a polycrisis.
    3. Evidence behind the pessimism: Inequality and the concentration of wealth and power are rising. Many young Europeans expect to do worse than their parents on housing, pensions and job security.
    4. AI and capital-intensive growth: AI threatens entry-level white-collar jobs, the first rung of the career ladder. It arrives amid stagnation, as growth turns capital-intensive, meaning it relies on machines more than workers.

    Why is there a rift between youth and the political system?

    1. Age gap in politics: Politicians are far older than the population’s median age. An ageing majority of voters defends pensions even as schools decline.
    2. Ways of organising: Older institutions are hierarchical. Youth movements are leaderless.
    3. Social media: Constant comparison with peers and elites makes inequality visible and amplifies anxiety. The same platforms give youth tools to organise against illiberal regimes (governments that curb rights and freedoms) and the far right.
    4. Climate as generational injustice: Older generations contributed most to global warming, but the young will suffer most, which breeds resentment.

    Can leaderless movements change policy?

    1. Leaderlessness as strength: Designated leaders become targets, so a leaderless movement is harder to break. Eg. Serbian protests lasted two years and democratically toppled a right-wing illiberal regime.
    2. Limits of the model: The old vanguard parties claimed to lead the masses with a clear ideology. These movements have no clear ideology, and success in one country may not carry over to another.
    3. A changed base: The movements unite students with a scattered precarious salaried class, meaning workers in insecure jobs, not with factory workers.

    Challenges

    1. Ageing budgets: Rising pension and health costs of ageing populations leave less public money for schools, housing and young people.
    2. Unaffordable housing: Rents and house prices in many European cities have risen faster than young people’s pay. Eg. Spain’s housing protests.
    3. India’s own risk: India’s youth unemployment (ages 15 to 29) stays in double digits, so its young workforce could become a demographic trap of jobless youth instead of a demographic dividend that boosts growth.

    Way Forward

    1. Labour-intensive growth: Governments should back sectors that absorb many workers, such as textiles and food processing, so growth creates jobs.
    2. Reskilling for AI: Fund apprenticeships and retraining for entry-level roles that automation is replacing.
    3. Investment in the young: Restore public spending on schools and affordable housing, the services the protests target.

    Conclusion

    Youth demands in Europe have moved from freedom from the state to protection by it. Whether governments answer with jobs, housing and schools, or treat the protests as a law-and-order problem, will decide whether anxiety turns into reform or resentment.

    What is inclusive growth?

    1. About: Growth that is distributed fairly across society and creates opportunities for all, as defined by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
    2. Intra-generational equity: Fairness within the present generation. Eg. In India, the top 1% of adults control almost 40% of net personal wealth, per the World Inequality Report.
    3. Inter-generational equity: Fairness across generations, so today’s growth does not leave future citizens poorer. Eg. Heavy borrowing today limits fiscal space for future welfare.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2014, GS3, 12 marks] Capitalism has guided the world economy to unprecedented prosperity. However, it often encourages shortsightedness and contributes to wide disparities between the rich and the poor. In this light, would it be correct to believe and adopt capitalism driving inclusive growth in India? Discuss.”

More posts