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

Civilsdaily

Search results for: “”

  • New cat in habitat, and some glimmer of hope

    Why in the News

    A new species of wild cat, Leopardus tilcayo, has been described in Bolivia, the first feline species identified in a hundred years. A new penguin species, also the first in a century, has been described on a group of subantarctic islands, and a new snake species has been described in New Guinea. A 2025 University of Arizona study records that 15 per cent of all known species were described in the last 20 years. The tension the item raises is that species are being found faster than ever at the same moment that loss of species dominates public attention, and that most of these discoveries reach no audience beyond the scientific and conservation communities.

    What has actually been described?

    1. A new wild cat: Leopardus tilcayo has been described in Bolivia. It is the first discovery of a feline species in a hundred years, which is why it drew the loudest response of the three.
    2. A new penguin: A new penguin species has been described on a group of subantarctic islands, and it too is the first in its group in a century.
    3. A new snake: A new snake species has been described in New Guinea and named after the guitarist Slash.
    4. What a description is: A species is described when a specimen is formally published with a diagnosis separating it from every named relative and a binomial name. Recognition of the animal by local communities usually long predates the formal description.

    Why is the rate of description rising?

    1. The measured pace: The 2025 University of Arizona study finds that 15 per cent of all known species were described in the last 20 years, so the quest to identify every species has accelerated rather than exhausted itself.
    2. Genetic tools separate look alike populations: DNA sequencing distinguishes populations that field observation had grouped as one species, which converts a known animal into two or more named ones.
    3. Survey effort has widened: Camera traps, acoustic recorders and systematic surveys in regions that were never surveyed intensively produce records that no expedition method previously returned.
    4. Museum collections are being re examined: Specimens collected decades ago and shelved without close study are now being sequenced, and some are found to belong to undescribed species.

    Why do most of these discoveries go unnoticed?

    1. The preference for the photogenic: Public and media attention follows animals that are visually appealing, which is why a wild cat and a penguin were reported and the invertebrate descriptions of the same period were not.
    2. Attention decides funding: Conservation money follows public interest, so charismatic vertebrates draw project funding while the taxa that carry most of the planet’s species diversity do not.
    3. The scale of what is unrecorded: Most described species are insects and other invertebrates, and the undescribed share of global diversity sits overwhelmingly in those groups rather than among mammals and birds.

    Challenges to protecting newly described species

    1. A name confers no protection: Formal description creates a scientific record, not a legal status, and assessment and listing are separate processes that follow it. Eg. An International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List assessment and a Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species listing are each decided after a species has been named.
      The Fix: Grant an interim protected status on description, lapsing once a formal assessment is completed.
    2. Publicity raises collection pressure: A newly named species with a small known range becomes a target for private collectors and the exotic pet trade, and the published description tells them where to look. Eg. Newly described reptiles and amphibians have appeared in the international pet trade shortly after their descriptions were published.
      The Fix: Withhold precise locality coordinates from published descriptions of small range species and release them only to designated authorities.
    3. Taxonomy has too few working specialists: The number of trained taxonomists able to describe a group has fallen while the backlog of collected specimens has grown. Eg. Specimens from tropical surveys routinely wait years in museum collections before anyone describes them.
      The Fix: Fund standing taxonomy positions tied to national collections and digitise specimen records so that identification is not gated on a single expert.
    4. Splitting one species into several shrinks each unit: When genetic work divides a widespread population into separate species, each resulting species holds a smaller range and a smaller population than the original did. Eg. A taxon once assessed as secure can yield two narrowly distributed species that each qualify as threatened.
      The Fix: Require a conservation reassessment of every resulting species immediately after a taxonomic split, rather than at the next scheduled review.
    5. Habitat is lost faster than it is surveyed: Land conversion in the regions that hold the most undescribed diversity removes populations before anyone records that they existed. Eg. Andean and New Guinean forests, where two of these three species were found, are under conversion and fragmentation pressure.
      The Fix: Protect habitat at the landscape level in high endemism regions rather than species by species after each description.

    Conclusion

    The rate of description and the rate of loss are both rising, and the two are not in tension, because a species can be named and lost within the same decade. What the description of a large mammal after a hundred year gap establishes is that the inventory is far from complete, which undercuts any assumption that conservation is working on a known list. The part that remains unaddressed is the gap between naming a species and protecting it, since nothing in the act of description obliges any state to do anything. What to watch is whether these three species receive conservation assessments and any protected status, and how quickly.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files”

  • India and the plausible multilateralism of BRICS

    Why in the News

    The 18th BRICS summit has been held in New Delhi and has produced a consensus declaration among all 11 member countries. It was the first annual summit of the grouping since the United States and Israel began their war on Iran in February 2026, and the host was a close strategic partner of both. India used the occasion to restore a balancing position in West Asia, after initially declining to condemn the strikes, and it received the President of Iran in Delhi while the war continued. The contested point is whether a grouping carrying deep internal divisions, and a standing risk of Russian and Chinese domination, protects India’s room for manoeuvre or dilutes its partnership with Washington.

    How is BRICS read within India’s strategic community?

    1. The optimists: They argue that BRICS can function as an institution capable of multipolarising the global order, or of expediting that transition.
    2. The sceptics: They point to the grouping’s internal divisions and to the possibility of its domination by Russia and China.
    3. The dismissive view: A third group writes BRICS off as an annual gathering that generates strategic noise. It argues that India should limit its association with the grouping and expand its partnership with the United States instead.

    What made the Delhi summit consequential?

    1. Timing: The summit was held on 12 and 13 September 2026, the first since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran on 28 February 2026. The Presidents of Iran, Russia and China were among the leaders present.
    2. Consensus among 11 members: New Delhi secured agreement among all 11 member countries, including the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran, which are involved in an undeclared conflict.
    3. The Delhi Declaration: The document records that member countries continue to find value in a BRICS worldview rooted in the pursuit of a more representative global order.
    4. Compromise as the method: The consensus was reached through compromises by every party rather than through convergence on a single position.

    How did India restore its balancing position in West Asia?

    1. The starting position: The Prime Minister was in Israel two days before Israel and the United States began bombing Iran. India then refrained from condemning the attacks or the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader, which created an impression that New Delhi was siding with Washington and Tel Aviv.
    2. The diplomatic cost: Pakistan seized the opening created by the war and stepped in as a mediator between the United States and Iran while India watched from the sidelines.
    3. The correction at Bishkek: India strongly endorsed the September resolution of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a Eurasian security grouping, condemning the strikes on Iran and expressing condolences over the killing.
    4. The correction at Delhi: India hosted the President of Iran at the BRICS summit even as the war in West Asia continued.
    5. Why the platform matters: A multilateral forum let India recover a balancing posture without inflicting strategic damage on its bilateral relationships.

    Why does India keep engaging its competitors through the grouping?

    1. A channel that survives a bilateral freeze: Border problems with China continue to simmer with no immediate resolution. The forum keeps India and China engaged even when high level bilateral visits are not taking place.
    2. The cost of disengagement: A lack of engagement between competing major powers deepens mistrust. Mistrust combined with the security dilemma of their competition carries dangerous consequences.
    3. Guardrails for competitive coexistence: The two countries have to manage a troubled relationship rather than resolve it, and sustained bilateral and multilateral contact is what keeps the competition bounded.
    4. Convergence against unilateralism: On artificial intelligence regulation, the rules governing global trade and finance, climate change, border conflicts, and the role of multilateral bodies, members hold different priorities. They converge on the position that unilateralism by any bloc or power damages their interests.

    What does the American context add to the summit?

    1. A predictable approach: The United States approach to the rest of the world is predictable in that it subordinates other considerations to its own dominance.
    2. Tariffs on India: India was subjected to varying tariffs by Washington a few months before the summit.
    3. Economic exposure from the war: India was among the countries most affected economically by the United States and Israel war on Iran.
    4. The sanctions legislation: The United States House of Representatives passed the Russia sanctions Bill on 16 September, seeking tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries including India.
    5. The Indian formulation: India’s foreign policy has been read by a section of commentators as a tilt towards the American camp, on the strength of the Prime Minister’s own statement that India had overcome its “hesitation of history”. The parallel official formulation of multi alignment, stated as ‘sabke sath’, has run alongside it throughout.

    What do the frontline cases show about great power alignment?

    1. Pakistan: A state that became a frontier in great power rivalry carries the cost of that position long after the rivalry that produced it has moved on.
    2. The UAE and Iran: Both would have been better placed dealing with each other than facing their present situation. Their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the Delhi summit used a multilateral platform to address a bilateral problem.
    3. Ukraine: Backed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it has fought Russia for more than four years and holds no platform for direct contact with Moscow. Its diplomatic options therefore rest with Brussels and Washington rather than with itself.
    4. The Indian conclusion drawn: The strategic partnership with Washington remains important for India’s progress, and the outcome India must avoid is becoming a frontline in the competition between the United States and China.

    Challenges to BRICS as a vehicle for Indian strategic autonomy

    1. The weight of the largest economy: The grouping’s economic and institutional centre of gravity sits with China, so an agenda item can carry Chinese preferences without being stated as such. Eg. The push to admit countries heavily dependent on Chinese lending widens the membership in a direction that suits one member.
      The Fix: Fix written membership criteria for new entrants and partner countries, so admission turns on economic fit rather than on a sponsor’s preference.
    2. No secretariat and no charter: BRICS runs on rotating chairs and summit declarations, so a commitment made at one summit has no standing body to carry it to the next. Eg. The grouping has no permanent secretariat of the kind the European Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations maintain.
      The Fix: Create a small standing secretariat with a mandate limited to tracking implementation of summit commitments.
    3. De dollarisation moves slower than the declarations: Local currency settlement remains marginal against a dollar that still clears the overwhelming share of global trade and reserves. Eg. India and the UAE settled a crude oil payment in rupees and dirhams, which remains an exception rather than a channel.
      The Fix: Link the existing local currency settlement arrangements into one interoperable messaging and clearing layer, so a bilateral experiment becomes a usable route.
    4. Low trade among the members themselves: Members trade more with advanced economies than with each other, which limits what a shared declaration can deliver commercially. Eg. Most members still depend on G7 markets for high technology imports and services exports.
      The Fix: Prioritise tariff and standards work in a few sectors where member complementarity is real, rather than a general trade agenda across 11 economies.
    5. Expansion dilutes the agenda: A larger membership with wider political differences lowers the ambition of what a consensus document can say. Eg. The grouping now spans functioning democracies and authoritarian states, which keeps human rights and governance language out of joint texts.
      The Fix: Run substantive work through issue based coalitions of willing members, leaving the full summit to agree only what all members can carry.

    Conclusion

    India’s case for BRICS does not rest on the grouping being cohesive. It rests on the grouping giving a middle power somewhere to stand that is neither an alliance nor an isolation, which is what a country facing tariffs from one partner and a border dispute with another actually needs. The internal contradictions and the external convergence work against each other, and that unresolved pull is what keeps any one member from owning the platform. What to watch is whether the Delhi Declaration’s commitments acquire any machinery to carry them forward, and whether the Russia sanctions legislation is applied to India in a way that forces the choice this grouping exists to postpone.

    About BRICS

    1. Origin: The term was coined in 2001 by a Goldman Sachs economist to identify high growth emerging economies. The first leaders’ summit was held at Yekaterinburg in Russia in 2009.
    2. Membership: South Africa joined in 2011, and expansion decided at the 2023 Johannesburg Summit brought in Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the UAE in 2024 and Indonesia in 2025.
    3. Weight: The grouping accounts for over 45 per cent of the world’s population and roughly 37 per cent of global gross domestic product measured by purchasing power parity, a share larger than that of the G7.
    4. Partner country category: Introduced in 2024, it engages states such as Malaysia, Thailand and Nigeria without granting full membership.

    Initiatives under BRICS

    1. New Development Bank: Headquartered at Shanghai, it lends for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in member and partner countries, and has approved over $35 billion in loans.
    2. Contingent Reserve Arrangement: A $100 billion fund that provides short term liquidity support to a member facing balance of payments pressure.
    3. BRICS Pay: A cross border payment system in pilot stage, intended to settle trade among members without routing through existing Western messaging networks.
    4. Partnership on New Industrial Revolution: A cooperation programme covering artificial intelligence, digitalisation and green technology among member states.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] “BRICS acts as a powerful counterweight in global governance, actively amplifying the voice and influence of the Global South.” Explain the role of BRICS in projecting itself as an alternative to other groupings.”

  • In talks with Rubio, Jaishankar flags India concerns over Russia sanctions

    Why in the News

    India has conveyed its economic and strategic concerns over a new United States law that empowers Washington to impose penal tariffs on buyers of Russian energy. The External Affairs Minister raised the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act (SRIA) with the United States Secretary of State at a bilateral meeting in New York, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session. This was the first official discussion between the two governments since the United States President signed the law. Russian Urals crude currently makes up 51 per cent of India’s total crude imports, so a measure aimed at buyers of Russian energy reaches India directly. The contested point is whether a partner’s energy sourcing can be made a sanctions target without unsettling the wider relationship that the same partner is being asked to deepen.

    What does the Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act do?

    1. A tariff mandate, not a discretion: The law mandates the United States President to penalise countries that buy Russian oil, with tariffs of up to 100 per cent. It directs action rather than leaving the choice open.
    2. Extension to Iran: The same law extends sanctions on trade with Iran.
    3. The implementation window: It can affect India if implemented after the stipulated one month period.
    4. How the penalty operates: The instrument is a tariff on goods from the purchasing country. The cost therefore lands on that country’s exports rather than on the oil trade itself.

    Why does the law bear on India?

    1. The share of Russian crude: Russian Urals makes up 51 per cent of India’s total crude imports, so no substitution is marginal.
    2. The stated Indian position: The Ministry of External Affairs has said the move would carry “implications” for the bilateral relationship and for the international energy market if India is pressured to cut its intake of Russian crude.
    3. Energy security as the ground: India’s stated ground for its sourcing is energy security for a population of 1.4 billion.
    4. Two exposures at once: India faces a supply question on the oil it buys and a market access question on the goods it sells, from the same instrument.

    What did the two sides say?

    1. India’s account: The External Affairs Minister said he had “reiterated India’s interests and concerns with regard to SRIA”, and that the situations in Ukraine and Iran were also discussed.
    2. The United States account: The Secretary of State’s public account referred to building the strategic partnership and to coordinating on key regional priorities and upcoming multilateral efforts.
    3. What the gap indicates: The law led the Indian readout and did not appear in the American one, so the two governments are not yet treating it as a shared agenda item.

    What is the diplomatic calendar around this exchange?

    1. Leader level meetings: The two are understood to be preparing for meetings between the United States President and the Prime Minister later this year.
    2. The likely venues: A meeting is possible at the ASEAN Summit in November, with a bilateral expected in mid December, when the United States hosts the G20 Summit in Miami.
    3. The Quad gap: This is the third year in succession that India has not hosted the Quad Summit. New Delhi has been seeking a date for the leaders of the United States, Australia and Japan to travel to India.

    Challenges to India’s Russian crude sourcing under sanctions pressure

    1. Secondary measures reach the service chain, not only the barrel: Shipping, insurance and payment channels can be designated even where the purchase of the oil is not itself prohibited. Eg. Tankers and shipping companies carrying Russian crude have been designated under earlier rounds of United States and European Union measures.
      The Fix: Expand rupee and third currency settlement and domestic protection and indemnity cover for crude cargoes, so the trade does not rest on sanctioned intermediaries.
    2. The discount is the whole commercial case: Russian crude is attractive because it sells at a discount to competing grades, and that discount narrows whenever the compliance risk of handling it rises. Eg. Indian refiners cut Russian purchases in earlier sanctions rounds once compliance costs offset the price gap.
      The Fix: Hold diversified term contracts with West Asian and African suppliers, so a disappearing discount becomes a pricing problem rather than a supply one.
    3. A tariff penalty lands on exporters with no role in the oil trade: A trade measure keyed to energy sourcing is paid by labour intensive exporters selling into the American market. Eg. Textiles, gems and jewellery, and marine products are among India’s most exposed export lines to the United States.
      The Fix: Pair any tariff exposure with a targeted export credit and market diversification package for the affected lines.
    4. Refinery configuration limits how fast sourcing can shift: A refinery is built for particular crude grades, so moving away from a medium sour blend is a technical and contractual decision rather than a purchasing one. Eg. Replacing Urals requires comparable medium sour barrels, largely from West Asia, at short notice.
      The Fix: Expand strategic petroleum reserve and commercial storage capacity, so a sourcing shift can be absorbed over months rather than weeks.

    Conclusion

    India’s objection is not to the sanctioning of Russia but to being made to pay for its own sourcing decisions through a trade penalty on unrelated exports. The law directs rather than permits, which leaves little room for the discretion a bilateral understanding would normally use, and that is why the exchange produced a stated concern instead of an assurance. What remains unresolved is whether a strategic partnership can carry a penalty aimed at one partner’s energy supply. The points to watch are whether the measure is actually applied when the statutory window closes, and whether the leader level meetings later this year are used to seek relief from it.

    Back2Basics: Urals Crude

    1. What it is: Urals is Russia’s principal export crude, a medium sour blend produced by mixing heavy sour oil from the Urals and Volga region with lighter Western Siberian grades.
    2. How it is priced: It trades at a differential to the Brent benchmark, and that differential is what makes it attractive or unattractive to a buyer.
    3. Why refiners want it: A medium sour grade suits complex refineries built to process heavier crude, which can convert it into higher value products at a lower input cost.
    4. Sanctions treatment: G7 countries and the European Union apply a price cap on seaborne Russian crude, under which Western shipping and insurance services are available only for cargoes sold below the capped price.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] “Energy security constitutes the dominant kingpin of India’s foreign policy, and is linked with India’s overarching influence in Middle Eastern countries.” How would you integrate energy security with India’s foreign policy trajectories in the coming years?”

  • Irdai proposes specific caps on insurance commission

    Why in the News

    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) has proposed specific caps on insurance commissions, in place of the single overall expense ceiling that governs distribution cost today. A consultation paper also proposes significantly lower overall expense limits for insurers, with a glide path for bringing down commissions and management expenses. The proposal reverses the approach of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Payment of Commission) Regulations, 2023, which withdrew product specific commission caps and left commission to be paid under a board approved policy within an insurer’s overall expense ceiling. The contested point is whether distribution cost is better disciplined by one aggregate ceiling the insurer manages, or by product level caps the regulator sets.

    What is the expense of management limit?

    1. What the limit covers: Expenses of management are the commission and operating expenses an insurer charges against its business. The limit is expressed as a share of premium.
    2. Why the ceiling exists: Every rupee of distribution and administration cost is a rupee not available for policyholder benefits, so a ceiling protects the return the buyer gets.
    3. The 2023 shift: Product specific commission caps were withdrawn and each insurer was left to fix commission through a board approved policy, inside the aggregate ceiling.
    4. What an aggregate ceiling cannot do: A single ceiling says nothing about how the expense is distributed across products and channels. An insurer can load cost onto one product and still stay within the limit.

    What do the proposed commission caps do?

    1. The basis of the cap: Caps are proposed by segment, line of business, distribution channel, product complexity, and the effort involved in selling and servicing the product.
    2. Agents on shorter tenure individual plans: For individual non linked plans, participating or non participating, and unit linked plans with a policy term of up to five years, first year commission for an agent is capped at 6.25 per cent.
    3. Other distribution entities: The same plans carry a 5 per cent cap on first year commission for other distribution entities, including corporate agents, brokers and composite brokers.
    4. The channel split: The same product therefore carries a different permitted acquisition cost depending on who sells it.

    What changes on the overall expense limits?

    1. Lower ceilings: The paper proposes a significant reduction in the overall expense of management limits that insurers work within.
    2. A phased reduction: The cut in commissions and management expenses is to come through a glide path rather than at once.
    3. Why phasing matters: An immediate cut would strand distribution agreements and agent payouts already written on current terms.

    Why is distribution cost a regulatory question at all?

    1. The cost is recovered from premium: Commission and management expense come out of what the policyholder pays, so a higher distribution cost lowers the return on the policy.
    2. Front loaded payouts reward the sale: A high first year commission pays for the act of selling rather than for servicing the policy over its term, which is the incentive structure behind mis selling and policy churning.
    3. Lapses destroy both sides of the contract: A policy sold to earn a first year commission lapses more often, and a lapsed policy leaves the buyer without protection and the insurer without a book.
    4. Trust decides market width: Insurance penetration in India remains low, so the terms on which a product is sold decide whether the market deepens or the buyer withdraws.

    Challenges to capping insurance commissions

    1. A cap moves the cost rather than removing it: Where the commission head is capped, the same payment can reappear as rewards, incentives, reimbursements or marketing support. Eg. Payments to a bank distributor can be routed under heads such as marketing or infrastructure support rather than as commission.
      The Fix: Bring every payment to a distributor, under whatever head, into a single reported remuneration figure disclosed product by product.
    2. Differentiated caps steer sales toward the better paying product: A cap that varies by segment and complexity gives a distributor a reason to recommend the product that pays more rather than the one that fits. Eg. Two products sold to the same customer can carry different payouts under the proposed structure.
      The Fix: Require a suitability record for every sale, stating why the recommended product matches the buyer’s stated need.
    3. Bank led distribution sells to a captive customer: A bank selling insurance to its own depositor faces little competitive check on what it recommends, whatever the commission rate is. Eg. Mis selling of unit linked and single premium policies at bank counters is a standing grievance before the insurance ombudsman.
      The Fix: Publish channel wise complaint and persistency data for every insurer, so the distribution channel carrying the problem is identifiable.
    4. A percentage cap bites hardest where the ticket size is small: The agent servicing low premium rural policies earns least from a cap expressed in percentage terms, so the least profitable business is served last. Eg. The individual agent remains the primary life insurance channel outside metropolitan markets.
      The Fix: Allow a higher cap for policies below a stated premium threshold, so low value business remains viable to sell and service.

    Conclusion

    The regulator is moving back from an aggregate ceiling the insurer manages to caps it sets itself, because an aggregate limit never governed where the money went inside it. Whether the buyer is better off depends on which heads a payout can be shifted into once the commission head is capped. The proposal is at the consultation stage, so the next step is the comment period. The final regulations are where it will become clear how long insurers get to reach the lower limits, and whether the disclosure obligation on distributor payments is tightened alongside the caps.

    Back2Basics: Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India

    1. Governing Act: IRDAI is a statutory body established under the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999.
    2. Headquarters: It has been headquartered at Hyderabad since 2001.
    3. Composition: It is headed by a chairperson, with whole time members and part time members appointed by the central government.
    4. Mandate: It regulates the insurance and reinsurance business, licenses insurers and intermediaries, and protects the interests of policyholders.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] The product diversification of financial institutions and insurance companies, resulting in overlapping of products and services strengthens the case for the merger of the two regulatory agencies, namely SEBI and IRDA. Justify.”

  • Dialogue, not agitation, holds key to Ladakh’s political future

    Why in the News

    A new constitutional arrangement has been offered to Ladakh under Article 371, with a directly elected Union Territory level body holding legislative, executive and financial powers. The offer follows a political protest in Leh a year ago that turned violent, in which four young people were killed in police action and dozens more, including police personnel, were injured. A judicial inquiry into that episode was ordered. Negotiations between Ladakh’s representatives and the Centre now turn on a single demand, a democratic structure that protects land, jobs, culture and a fragile environment. The contested point is whether commitments reached through negotiation are undervalued precisely because they were not won through confrontation.

    What is the constitutional arrangement offered to Ladakh?

    1. Basis in Article 371: Article 371 and the articles that follow it carry special provisions for particular States and regions. The arrangement offered to Ladakh is to be built under that head.
    2. An elected legislative tier: A directly elected body at the Union Territory level is to hold legislative, executive and financial powers.
    3. Safeguards for land and culture: The model is to carry constitutional and legal safeguards for land and for culture.
    4. Without precedent: The arrangement is described as sui generis, meaning of its own kind, tailored to Ladakh’s circumstances rather than modelled on an existing State or council.

    Where do Ladakh’s political demands come from?

    1. A separate polity: Ladakh was once its own kingdom, sitting astride the Silk Route.
    2. Loss of sovereignty: Its sovereignty ended in 1834, when Dogra forces overran the region. Ladakh was then subsumed into the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir.
    3. Governed from Srinagar: After 1947 Ladakh’s Buddhist and Shia communities found themselves governed from Srinagar, in a political system centred largely on the Kashmir Valley.
    4. The movement for direct rule: A political movement took birth in response, demanding direct rule from Delhi.
    5. The 2019 concession: The central government carved Ladakh out as a Union Territory in 2019. It was a significant concession, and it did not settle every grievance.

    Who lives in Ladakh, and why does its composition shape the demand?

    1. A plural population: Buddhists of Tibetan descent, Muslim communities including Baltis, Sunnis, Shias and Noorbakhshis, and Christian, Hindu and Sikh minorities live across the region.
    2. Scale and location: The population is spread across 60,000 sq km, in the borderlands between Pakistan and China.
    3. Administrative fulcrums: Leh and Kargil have been the two centres of administration, which is what made a single representative tier contested.

    What is being offered on local representation and jobs?

    1. Five new districts: Five new districts have been created in response to demands for more decentralised governance. Each is slated to get an elected Hill Development Council.
    2. Panchayat elections: Preparations are underway for panchayat elections. The stated goal is a genuine devolution of administrative and political power.
    3. Job reservation: Ladakh already has 95 per cent reservation of local positions for residents, including educationally backward classes and economically weaker sections.
    4. Recruitment so far: Nearly 5,000 young people have been given government employment, and thousands more are set to be recruited.
    5. Dedicated local services: Ladakh administrative and police services have been mooted, so that core administrative posts are held by local youth.

    What does the development record show?

    1. Road and border connectivity: Roads now reach valleys that were once a full day’s hard travel away. Sustained investment in border infrastructure has transformed connectivity.
    2. The Zojila tunnel: The 13 km Zojila tunnel is nearing completion. The world’s longest high altitude single tube tunnel will end Ladakh’s winter isolation.
    3. Air connectivity: Nearly 20 flights land in Leh daily each summer. A new airport terminal and a second airstrip at Nubra are in the works.
    4. Telecom and power: Telecom connectivity is expanding under the Bharat Net programme. The power grid is reaching remote villages this year, sparing families the annual migration to the plains.
    5. Water and climate response: Nearly every rural household has piped water under the Jal Jeevan Mission. New reservoirs, called Him Sarovars, are being built to store meltwater as glaciers retreat.
    6. The rural farm economy: Support is focused on the pashmina, apricot and dairy sectors, with floriculture and sea buckthorn cultivation getting special attention. Tourism is booming.

    Why does agitation not settle the question?

    1. Reading last year’s violence: Treating that violence as a failure of the political process misstates what the political process has produced. Dialogue and engagement with Ladakh’s leadership continued through the year that followed.
    2. The pace of negotiation: Consensus building is slow and painstaking, and needs strong foundations of trust and a spirit of accommodation. Patience earns no headlines.
    3. What confrontation cannot design: Negotiated commitments take time to design properly, and are easy to undervalue for that reason alone.
    4. The comparative claim: The Centre has moved further and faster on Ladakh’s behalf in six years than in the preceding seven decades.
    5. The reciprocal ask: Ladakh’s own leadership is asked to extend the same patience it is asking Delhi to show.

    Challenges to the proposed Ladakh arrangement

    1. An offer short of the stated demand: The arrangement is offered under Article 371 rather than through the Sixth Schedule status and statehood that Ladakh’s representative bodies have pressed for. Eg. The Kargil Democratic Alliance and the Leh Apex Body rejected an earlier Union proposal for a territorial council.
      The Fix: Publish the draft text of the arrangement, so its safeguards can be compared with the Sixth Schedule provision by provision.
    2. A Union Territory legislature holds the powers a central law gives it: An elected body in a Union Territory exercises delegated authority, and the Lieutenant Governor retains control over reserved subjects. Eg. The division of powers between the elected government and the administrator has repeatedly reached the courts in Delhi and in Puducherry.
      The Fix: Enumerate the legislative subjects, the financial powers and the Lieutenant Governor’s discretion in the statute itself rather than in executive rules.
    3. Land and job safeguards need a domicile rule to operate: A reservation for residents and a restriction on land transfer both depend on a legal definition of who counts as a resident. Eg. Jammu and Kashmir’s domicile rules were framed separately after the 2019 reorganisation.
      The Fix: Notify a domicile rule alongside the arrangement, so the land and employment safeguards have a defined class of beneficiaries.
    4. Councils without assured funds remain administrative shells: An elected council that depends on discretionary grants exercises far less power than its mandate suggests. Eg. Autonomous District Councils under the Sixth Schedule hold taxing powers and still rely heavily on state grants.
      The Fix: Tie a fixed share of the Union Territory budget to each council through a statutory transfer formula.
    5. Ecological limits bind whatever the political settlement: Glacier retreat, water scarcity and visitor pressure constrain the region regardless of who governs it. Eg. Leh draws heavily on groundwater during the summer season, in a cold desert with very low precipitation.
      The Fix: Fix a carrying capacity for tourism and make the arrangement’s environmental safeguard enforceable through a named statutory authority.

    Conclusion

    Ladakh’s question is not whether the region gets institutions but whether those institutions carry powers that cannot be withdrawn administratively. An arrangement designed for one region alone has the advantage of fitting its circumstances and the weakness of resting on the Centre’s continuing goodwill. The two positions still unreconciled are a demand pitched at constitutional entrenchment and an offer pitched at tailored accommodation. The markers to watch are the panchayat elections and the first council polls in the newly created districts, since those will show whether power is being handed down or held back.

    What is Asymmetric Federalism?

    1. About: Asymmetric federalism is an arrangement in which the constituent units of a federation hold different powers and protections rather than an identical set.
    2. Rationale: It accommodates regions whose history, demography or geography make uniform treatment a source of alienation, and has been described as self rule within shared rule.
    3. Constitutional forms: Articles 371A to 371J carry special provisions for named States, the Fifth and Sixth Schedules provide for self governance in tribal regions, and Article 370 provided a special status for Jammu and Kashmir until its revocation in 2019.
    4. Fiscal dimension: Centrally sponsored schemes carry a 90 per cent central share for special category States, against 60 per cent for others.

    Back2Basics: Hill Development Council

    1. What it is: A Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council is an elected district level body exercising devolved powers over local subjects such as land use, village development and local works.
    2. Legal basis: It is constituted under the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Councils Act, 1995, enacted by the Jammu and Kashmir legislature and continued after the 2019 reorganisation.
    3. The two existing councils: The council for Leh was constituted in 1995 and the council for Kargil in 2003.
    4. Composition and term: Each council has 30 members, 26 directly elected and 4 nominated, and a term of five years.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] Recent directives from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas are perceived by the `Nagas’ as a threat to override the exceptional status enjoyed by the State. Discuss in light of Article 371A of the Indian Constitution.”

  • Chief Election Commissioner is not the Election Commission of India

    Why in the News

    Decisions issued in the name of the Election Commission of India (ECI) without being placed before two of its three Commissioners are prima facie ultra vires, meaning taken beyond the authority the statute confers. The position answers an investigation reporting that two Election Commissioners recorded objections at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions and orders taken without their knowledge. Those objections covered the registration and deletion of voters, the restoration of names, Form 6, appeals in electoral roll cases, and control over the digital architecture of the rolls. Two of three members are a majority of the Commission, so they were not outvoted. The contested point is no longer whether the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls was wise or fair, but whether the decisions taken in the Commission’s name were decisions of the Commission at all.

    How does the Election Commission of India take a decision?

    1. Constitutional vesting: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election Commission of India. The power is conferred on the body, not on its chairman.
    2. Unanimity as the statutory norm: Section 18(2) of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 requires all business of the Commission to be transacted unanimously as far as possible.
    3. The fallback rule: Where the Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners differ, the matter “shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority”.
    4. Allocation of business: Section 18(1) allows the procedure for the transaction and allocation of business to be regulated only by a unanimous decision. A unilaterally settled allocation cannot supply authority for a unilateral decision.

    Why would a bypassed decision be legally vulnerable?

    1. The nature of the defect: A substantive decision the law vests in “the Election Commission”, taken in its name without being placed before the Commission, is void for want of authority.
    2. No cover from an allocation: Such a decision also lacks cover where no lawfully adopted allocation of business authorised a single member to take it. A letterhead does not supply authority the statute withholds.
    3. The governing precedent: T N Seshan vs Union of India (1995) held that the Constitution entrusts elections to the Election Commission and not to an individual. The Court warned that “It would be wrong to project the individual and eclipse the Election Commission.”
    4. A majority is not a dissent: The objections did not come from one Commissioner differing with two colleagues. They came from two of three members, which is the number the statute makes decisive.

    Which specific decisions are in question?

    1. Form 6 alteration: An Election Commissioner recorded in May that Form 6, prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, could not be altered by an SIR direction without amending the Rules. The second Commissioner concurred, and the altered form appeared on ECINet regardless.
    2. A recorded majority against the change: In August one of them called the change “unauthorised/illegal” and sought its immediate removal. There was not merely an absence of consensus, but a recorded majority view against the change.
    3. Centralisation of the roll database: Both Commissioners warned that access to the electoral roll database was being centralised in Delhi. Both sought safeguards, including an independent technical audit.
    4. Restoration blocked in Goa: Electoral Registration Officers (EROs), the statutory authorities for additions, deletions and corrections, found 97 people eligible after they produced documents, and the software did not permit their restoration. A computer programme cannot overrule a statutory officer.
    5. The West Bengal appeals: Of 38.31 lakh appeals filed before tribunals, 22.21 lakh came from deleted voters seeking restoration. Another 16.10 lakh were reportedly filed by the Commission itself, seeking deletion of voters.
    6. Authority for that litigation: An Election Commissioner asked who had authorised appeals “on behalf of ECI”, recording that neither he nor his colleague had been informed.

    What would an institutional response require?

    1. Disclosure of the decision record: The Commission, meeting as a Commission, should disclose which major SIR decisions were approved unanimously, which were decided by majority, and under what valid allocation any others were issued.
    2. Review of the challenged decisions: Every decision the two Commissioners have challenged as lacking approval should be reviewed, and any found to have been taken without lawful authority should be withdrawn.
    3. Form 6 restored to the Rules: The form should be brought back into conformity with the statutory Rules that prescribe it.
    4. An independent audit of the platform: ECINet should be subjected to an independent technical and legal audit.
    5. Restoring the statutory officer’s powers: EROs should be able to exercise the powers Parliament gave them, without a software permission standing between the decision and the roll.
    6. Disclosure of litigation authority: The authority under which appeals were filed in the Commission’s name should be placed on record.
    7. The forum if the Commission does not act: Where the Commission will not act on its own, the Supreme Court is the only remaining route.

    Challenges to collective decision making in the Election Commission

    1. The allocation of business is not published: A reader cannot tell from an order whether it was collective, because the allocation under which a member may act alone is not in the public domain. Eg. The disclosure now sought is of which SIR decisions were unanimous, which were by majority, and under what allocation the rest were issued.
      The Fix: Publish the allocation of business and record every substantive decision against it, so authority is visible on the face of the order.
    2. No quorum or meeting rule: The statute fixes unanimity and a majority fallback, and prescribes no quorum, no meeting calendar and no record of how a file is circulated. Eg. The objections were written on file across ten months rather than resolved at a sitting of the full Commission.
      The Fix: Frame regulations under Section 18(1) fixing a minimum meeting frequency and requiring each substantive decision to carry the members’ recorded assent.
    3. No internal remedy against an invalid decision: A member who holds a decision to be unauthorised has no forum inside the Commission to set it aside, so the dispute leaves the institution. Eg. The two Commissioners approached the Cabinet Secretary when they believed institutional processes had been breached.
      The Fix: Provide that a contested instruction is placed before the full Commission before it takes effect.
    4. Asymmetric removal protection: The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the manner of a judge of the Supreme Court, while an Election Commissioner can be removed on the Chief Election Commissioner’s recommendation. Eg. The Tarkunde Committee of 1975 and the Goswami Committee of 1990 both recommended the same protection for every member.
      The Fix: Extend the Chief Election Commissioner’s removal protection to all members through an amendment to Article 324(5).
    5. Executive weight in appointments: The 2023 Act placed a Union Cabinet Minister on the three member selection panel in place of the Chief Justice of India, giving the Union two of three votes. Eg. Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023) had set an interim panel of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Justice of India.
      The Fix: Restore a selector drawn from outside the executive, so the panel cannot be carried by the government of the day alone.

    Conclusion

    For years the standing question about the Election Commission was whether it is independent of the executive. The question now is whether it is functioning as a Commission at all. A constitutional authority that demands strict compliance with electoral law from nearly a billion voters has to begin by complying with the law that governs itself. What is unresolved is that the only forum able to test a decision taken without the Commission sits outside it, so a defect in collective authority becomes litigation rather than correction.

    Schemes and Initiatives for Electoral Administration

    1. cVIGIL: A citizen reporting application for Model Code of Conduct violations, with a 100 minute turnaround mandated for the investigating officer.
    2. National Voters’ Services Portal: An online route through which an elector can register, modify and confirm their electoral details.
    3. Accessible voting measures: Braille enabled elector photo identity cards, free transport for persons with disabilities, and a vote from home facility for senior citizens.
    4. Delisting of unrecognised parties: Over 808 registered unrecognised political parties that failed to meet essential conditions were delisted by early 2026, curbing misuse of tax exemptions.

    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?”

  • EC appointment: Why SC placed matter before CJI

    Why in the News

    A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court has referred petitions challenging the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023 to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), to consider forming a Constitution Bench. The two judges split on whether a larger bench was needed at all, and agreed only on placing the matter before the CJI. The challenge answers Anoop Baranwal v. Union of India (2023). A five judge Constitution Bench in that case laid down an interim selection committee for appointments to the Election Commission, comprising the Prime Minister, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the CJI. The 2023 Act then replaced the CJI on that committee with a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, giving the Union a 2:1 majority on a three member panel. The contested point is whether that replacement raises a constitutional question the Court has never answered, or merely applies a principle it settled in 2023.

    What is a Constitution Bench?

    1. Composition and trigger: Under Article 145(3), a Constitution Bench of five or more judges decides a “substantial question of law” involving the interpretation of the Constitution.
    2. The question must be unsettled: A case does not go to a larger bench merely because it involves the Constitution. The question must be one the Court has never authoritatively answered before.
    3. Precedential weight: Constitution Bench rulings carry greater weight than ordinary judgments.
    4. How a split verdict reaches one: When two judges cannot agree, the matter goes to the Chief Justice of India, who decides whether to send it to a larger bench. The split by itself does not automatically warrant a Constitution Bench.

    What did the 2023 Act change about appointments to the Election Commission?

    1. The constitutional gap: Article 324(2) provides that the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners are appointed by the President, subject to any law Parliament may make. Parliament made no such law for 73 years, and appointments were made under the executive’s own framework.
    2. The litigation: A writ petition under Article 32 challenging the absence of such a law was filed in 2015. A two judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench in 2018.
    3. What Anoop Baranwal held: The Constitution Bench delivered its judgment in March 2023, holding that appointments to the Election Commission cannot remain under “exclusive executive control”. It underlined that those entrusted with conducting elections must be insulated from executive influence.
    4. The statutory answer: Parliament passed the Act in December 2023. The selection committee it created comprises the Prime Minister, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister and the Leader of Opposition.

    What did Justice Dipankar Datta hold?

    1. The present Bench could decide: He took the view that the petitions could be decided by the present Bench itself. The governing constitutional principle was already settled in Anoop Baranwal, and the remaining question was only whether the 2023 law complies with it.
    2. No bar on the present Bench: That exercise was “no more than the application of the settled principles of law to the facts of the case”. He held that “neither any Constitutional bar nor a precedent precludes hearing of these petitions by the present Bench”.
    3. The panel’s internal balance: A minister bound by collective responsibility “cannot be expected to defy his own nominator”. The presence of the Leader of Opposition on the selection committee therefore becomes “largely ornamental”.
    4. The perception test: He emphasised that “it is not enough for the ECI to be independent, it must also appear to be independent”. On the argument that the law gives the executive overwhelming influence over appointments, he said it “does appear to have substance”, while stating that these were prima facie observations.
    5. The collegium comparison rejected: He rejected the government’s comparison between the Election Commission selection process and the collegium system for judicial appointments. Judicial appointments involve the executive at multiple stages, and he described the popular notion that “judges appoint judges” as a “myth”.
    6. Why the comparison fails: The absence of a neutral member in the collegium cannot justify the absence of a neutral member in the Election Commission appointment process. He described the government’s comparison as “disingenuous, evasive and disquieting”.

    What did Justice Satish Chandra Sharma hold?

    1. A first time question: He held that the challenge must be referred to a Constitution Bench, because the Court is examining the constitutional validity of the 2023 Act for the first time. “There is no authoritative decision of this court till date pronouncing on the constitutional validity of the said Act,” he said.
    2. The key question: For him the key question was whether Parliament was justified in not including a neutral selector in the selection committee. He called that “an important question arising for the first time before this court”.
    3. Why Article 145(3) binds: Since the question “has not been dealt with in any precedent”, Article 145(3) left “no room for a decision on such question finally by the present combination” of two judges.
    4. What else needs a larger bench: He viewed the government’s arguments on separation of powers, and its comparison with the collegium system, as issues requiring examination by a larger bench.
    5. The petitioners’ counter: The petitioners had argued that the central legal question, that the selection must be an independent process, was already decided by the 2023 Constitution Bench ruling.

    Why did both judges still send the matter to the CJI?

    1. A three judge bench would add nothing: They held that sending the issue first to a three judge bench would be of “little worth” and would only delay a final decision on the important constitutional questions raised.
    2. The record on delay: They flagged the long delays in deciding constitutional references. The Anoop Baranwal case took eight years to reach a final judgment, and they cited other references that remained pending for years.
    3. The characterisation: They called such delays “a source of institutional embarrassment”.
    4. The structural suggestion: They urged the CJI to consider setting up a permanent five judge bench for constitutional cases.

    What do earlier split verdicts show about referral?

    1. The hijab case: The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in the Karnataka hijab case in October 2022. The matter was referred to a larger bench and remains pending more than four years later.
    2. The Prevention of Corruption Act reference: A split verdict earlier this year on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 also went to a larger bench.
    3. What referral does not settle: Referral moves the question; it does not schedule the answer. Both examples are the delay the present Bench cited as its reason for skipping an intermediate step.

    Conclusion

    The referral leaves the substantive question where it was: whether a selection panel on which the executive holds the majority can produce an Election Commission that appears independent. One judge holds that the question is already answered in principle and needs only application. The other holds that it has never been put to the Court at all. What the CJI now decides is not the validity of the 2023 Act but how long the country waits for a ruling on it, and the Bench’s own warning about how long constitutional references take is why that matters.

    Back2Basics: Election Commission of India

    1. Constitutional basis: Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction and control of elections to Parliament, the State legislatures, the office of President and the office of Vice-President in the Election Commission of India.
    2. Composition: It consists of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners as the President may fix. It has functioned as a three member body since 1993.
    3. Tenure: The Chief Election Commissioner and the Election Commissioners hold office for six years or until the age of 65, whichever is earlier.
    4. Removal: The Chief Election Commissioner can be removed only in the same manner and on the same grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. An Election Commissioner can be removed only on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019, GS2, 10 marks] Do you think that constitution of India does not accept principle of strict separation of powers rather it is based on the principle of ‘checks and balance’? Explain.”

  • ‘Still awaited… urgently required’: Goa staff sent 8 emails in 7 days, but EC shut out valid voters

    Why in the News

    Ninety seven electors in Goa whom the State’s own Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) heard, examined and found eligible were left off the final electoral roll, and all 97 are still missing from it. The EROs could not give effect to their own decision, because ECINet, the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) roll platform, carried no rollback option and the permission to enable one is controlled from Delhi. Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer wrote to the ECI eight times in seven days seeking that facility. No reply is on record and none of the requests was acted on. The exclusions follow a Supreme Court order directing that electors flagged for a “logical discrepancy” be listed publicly, given ten days to submit documents or objections, and heard. The contested point is whether an electoral roll remains the statutory authority’s document when the software that records it answers to a central information technology division.

    What is a “logical discrepancy”?

    1. Not a finding of ineligibility: A logical discrepancy is not a finding that someone is not a voter. It is a mismatch the Commission’s software throws up when it tries to link an elector to a parent or grandparent on the roll from the last Special Intensive Revision (SIR).
    2. What triggers the flag: The triggers include a parent’s name that does not match, an age gap between parent and child of under 15 or over 50 years, and an age that does not progress correctly between the old roll and the new.
    3. Documentary triggers: A case where the elector submitted no document, or only Aadhaar, is also flagged.
    4. Where the flag is recorded: The flagging decision is entered on ECINet, the platform on which every electoral roll in the country has sat since January.

    What did the Supreme Court order, and what did Goa do?

    1. The display direction: A Supreme Court Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India ordered on 29 January, in the SIR batch of petitions, that the names of those flagged for logical discrepancies be displayed publicly. The display was to carry “the brief reason of discrepancy”, at gram panchayat bhavans, public places, taluka and sub division offices and urban ward offices.
    2. The hearing direction: Those affected were to be allowed ten days to submit documents or objections and to be heard.
    3. Scope of the order: The order was about Tamil Nadu. The Court said it expected the Commission to ensure compliance with these procedural directions in every State where the SIR process was ongoing.
    4. Implementation in Goa: The Commission issued a letter on 31 January to implement the order, and Goa put up the lists.
    5. The hearings: 649 electors came forward with documents or objections. EROs and Assistant EROs examined them and concluded in 97 cases that the elector had “become eligible to be included in the final Electoral Roll”.

    Why could the ERO not give effect to its own decision?

    1. Where the law puts the power: The electoral roll of each Assembly constituency is prepared by its ERO, usually the sub divisional magistrate, who hears every claim and objection and decides every name.
    2. Where the software puts it: What an ERO can do on ECINet and its roll management module ERONet is decided by permissions set in the Commission’s information technology division in Delhi.
    3. The missing function: The decision to flag the 97 had already been entered on the system, and the system carried no rollback option that would let the EROs reverse it.
    4. How long the field had been asking: Requests for a rollback facility had been coming from the field since 22 January.
    5. The vendor was told too: Goa Electronics Limited, the State agency that supports the Chief Electoral Officer’s office on the software, wrote on 11 February to the Chief Electoral Officer and to Tata Consultancy Services, the Commission’s vendor. It recorded that the rollback and reversion functionality, including the document re-upload option, had still not been provided despite “multiple emails” from District Election Officers, EROs and Assistant EROs.

    What does the email trail record?

    1. The escalation: Goa’s Chief Electoral Officer forwarded that record to Delhi the same day, to the Senior Deputy Election Commissioner in charge of Goa, with the Commission’s Director General of Information Technology copied.
    2. The repeated asks: Eight communications went from Goa to the Commission between 11 and 17 February. On 13 February the office recorded that a “response to any of the emails and letters sent from officer of the Chief Electoral Officer, Goa… is still awaited”, and on 15 February that “The Roll back option is urgently required”.
    3. The formal letter: On 14 February the Chief Electoral Officer wrote formally to the Senior Deputy Election Commissioner in charge of Goa, recording that “no response has been received” to the emails of the previous two days.
    4. The list: On 17 February, four days before the final roll was due, the Chief Electoral Officer sent the list of the 97 cases in which the earlier decisions “have to be reversed”.
    5. The Commission’s own instruction: On 18 February the Deputy Election Commissioner holding the electoral roll charge in Delhi wrote to the Director General of Information Technology that EROs and Assistant EROs have powers under Sections 21 and 21A of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 to take corrective action. He recorded that the “IT system cannot block necessary action as per the directions of SC”.
    6. The outcome: The final roll was published on 21 February without the 97. All 97 were still missing when the roll was checked on 20 September.

    What does being off the roll cost a voter in Goa?

    1. Where the 97 are: Sixty five of the 97 are from the Taleigao seat. The rest are from the St Cruz, Cumbarjua, Priol, Margao, Benaulim and Velim Assembly seats.
    2. The roll as an eligibility document: Several Goa State schemes use the electoral roll to establish eligibility, so being off it costs more than a vote.
    3. Health cover: The Goa Mediclaim Scheme funds super speciality treatment not available in government hospitals, covering dialysis, angioplasty, open heart surgery, transplants, chemotherapy and cochlear implants. It is open only to voters of the State.
    4. What the 97 were told: When the names did not go in, the electoral officers on the ground told these voters to apply afresh on Form 6, the form for new voters.

    How does the Goa case fit the two Election Commissioners’ recorded objections?

    1. The record: Two of the Election Commission of India’s three Election Commissioners objected on record at least 14 times in 10 months to decisions taken without their knowledge. Their notes run from November to August.
    2. Centralisation: One of them wrote in May of “the gradual centralisation” of the electoral roll database. Both recorded that centralised control of the software was taking the roll out of the EROs’ hands, where the law puts it.
    3. Access: An August note recorded that EROs, District Election Officers and Chief Electoral Officers “don’t have proper and complete access to the ERONet portal”.
    4. Authority: The same note recorded that the Director General of Information Technology “doesn’t have any legal authority to restrict proper and complete access and freedom to operate, as given by law, to the statutory authorities”.
    5. The unanswered question: A questionnaire sent to the head of the Commission’s information technology division, asking why the rollback facility was not enabled for Goa before the final roll, drew no response.

    Challenges to a centralised electoral roll platform

    1. Vendor dependence on a statutory system: Core roll functionality sits with an external software vendor, so a missing feature becomes a change request question rather than a legal one. Eg. The Commission’s roll platform is built and maintained under contract by an external information technology firm.
      The Fix: Publish a service level agreement for statutory functions on the platform, with a fixed turnaround for any change request that a court order requires.
    2. No independent audit trail of permissions: A roll database with centrally set permissions needs an external record of who changed what and when, or the system’s own logs become the only evidence of its own integrity. Eg. A proposal for an audit certifying that no one outside the statutory authorities can alter the database went unanswered.
      The Fix: Commission a third party security and access audit of the roll platform, with its findings placed before the full Commission.
    3. A revision calendar compresses the citizen’s remedy: A roll built on software generated flags puts the burden of establishing eligibility on the elector, inside a window set by the revision timetable rather than by the elector’s circumstances. Eg. An elector who misses a revision window must return to the roll through the new voter route, starting the process again.
      The Fix: Provide a standing, year round correction route that does not depend on a revision cycle being open.
    4. Roll membership is used far beyond voting: A welfare scheme that keys eligibility to the electoral roll converts a roll error into a loss of services, which electoral law never contemplated. Eg. Several State benefit schemes use voter identity or roll membership as a residence proxy.
      The Fix: Decouple welfare eligibility from the electoral roll by accepting alternative residence proof for scheme access.
    5. Deletion before verification inverts the burden: A design that removes a name first and then asks the elector to establish eligibility places the cost of the system’s own uncertainty on the citizen. Eg. Over nine in 10 appeals against deletion decided so far in West Bengal have restored the elector.
      The Fix: Hold a flagged name on the roll until the hearing concludes, so an elector’s status changes only after a decision is taken.

    Conclusion

    The Commission’s standing answer to any allegation about the roll is that no one person can touch it, because thousands of Electoral Registration Officers prepare it constituency by constituency. Goa is the case where that answer stops holding. The officer decided, and the decision never reached the roll. What is unresolved is who is accountable when a statutory decision fails at the system layer, since the law names the officer and the software answers elsewhere. The marker to watch is whether a rollback facility is enabled at the ERO level before the next revision, and whether the 97 are restored without being routed through the new voter form.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision

    1. What it is: A Special Intensive Revision is a house to house exercise in which the electoral roll is prepared afresh rather than amended, with electors asked to establish eligibility.
    2. Legal basis: The Election Commission may direct a special revision of the roll of any constituency at any time, under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
    3. How it differs from a summary revision: A summary revision updates the existing roll through additions, deletions and corrections. An intensive revision enumerates the electorate afresh.
    4. Procedure: A draft roll is published, claims and objections are invited and heard by the Electoral Registration Officer, and a final roll is then published.

    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?”

  • India, EU to sign free trade agreement on December 16

    Why in the News

    India and the European Union (EU) will sign their Free Trade Agreement (FTA) on 16 December, in Brussels. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, has finalised the text of the deal and sent it to the European Council. The signing follows a negotiation that both sides closed by leaving contentious issues out of the text rather than making “the best the enemy of the good”. That choice is what secured the deal majority support in Europe. The contested point is whether an agreement built on exclusions delivers the depth its billing implies.

    What is the India-EU Free Trade Agreement?

    1. Scope of the instrument: The agreement is a treaty removing or reducing customs duties on goods traded between India and the European Union’s 27 member states. Each side schedules the products on which duties fall and the products it keeps out.
    2. Negotiating history: Talks restarted in June 2022 after a long hiatus and were concluded in January 2026. Leaders on both sides have called the agreement the “mother of all deals”.
    3. Ratification route: The deal will not require separate ratification by each EU country once the European Council gives its go ahead. Majority approval within Europe is what removes that requirement.

    What do the tariff schedules actually concede on each side?

    1. The EU side: The EU will drop tariffs on 99.5 per cent of the items India exports to the region. Most of those tariffs go down to zero immediately once the agreement comes into effect.
    2. The India side: India has given tariff concessions on 97.5 per cent of the traded value between the two economies.
    3. Different measuring bases: The EU figure counts items India exports, and the India figure counts traded value. The two headline percentages describe different things and are not directly comparable.

    What still stands between the signing and the roll out?

    1. European Council clearance: The Council must give its go ahead on the text the Commission has sent it. The signing follows that step.
    2. European Parliament passage: After the signing, passage in the European Parliament will take another one to two months.
    3. Roll out timeline: Implementation is expected in “early 2027”.

    Why does this signing sit inside a crowded December trade calendar?

    1. Three agreements, three destinations: The Prime Minister’s December travel covers Canada, the United States and Belgium. Three separate FTAs are either being negotiated or in the process of approval across those three.
    2. The Canada agreement: The Prime Minister is expected to travel to Canada first, probably around 12 December. India’s High Commissioner to Canada expects the India-Canada FTA to be completed by November, with the signing during that visit.
    3. The G20 deadline: Canada’s Prime Minister has said the two leaders committed at last year’s G20 to conclude negotiations by this year’s G20. That summit is in Miami on 14 and 15 December.
    4. The United States track: The India-US Interim Agreement on trade and a larger Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) will also be on the agenda at the G20 meeting. Both have already missed several deadlines.

    Challenges to the India-EU Free Trade Agreement

    1. Contentious issues left outside the text: Closure was reached by keeping the hardest questions out of the agreement, so those disputes return through other channels instead of being settled. Eg. The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism puts a carbon charge on imported steel, aluminium, cement and fertilisers, and it sits outside any tariff schedule.
      The Fix: Attach a standing bilateral review mechanism with a fixed meeting calendar to the agreement, so an excluded issue carries a forum rather than lapsing.
    2. Non tariff barriers outlast tariff cuts: A zero duty does not deliver market access where standards, testing and certification requirements stop the consignment. Eg. The EU Deforestation Regulation requires geolocation level proof that coffee, cocoa, rubber, soya, timber and cattle products are deforestation free.
      The Fix: Fund traceability and conformity assessment support for exporters in the covered commodities before the duty cuts take effect.
    3. A share of traded value says nothing about sensitive lines: A headline share does not tell an Indian producer which sectors will face duty free European competition and from which date. Eg. Dairy, wines and spirits and automobiles are the lines Indian industry has contested in every recent trade negotiation.
      The Fix: Publish the tariff elimination schedule line by line with its phase in periods, so affected sectors plan against dates rather than percentages.
    4. The European Parliament vote is a political gate: The vote is a political one, so the roll out date sits outside either government’s control. Eg. The EU-Mercosur agreement was concluded in 2019 and has still not entered into force.
      The Fix: Sequence India’s customs notifications and rules of origin procedures to the Parliament vote rather than to the signing date.
    5. Rules of origin decide who actually benefits: A tariff line at zero helps only goods that meet the agreement’s origin criteria, which is where processing heavy exporters lose. Eg. Indian textile exporters use imported yarn and fabric, which can fail a domestic value addition threshold.
      The Fix: Negotiate cumulation provisions and publish the origin certification procedure alongside the tariff schedules.

    Conclusion

    The agreement’s value now rests less on what it cut than on what it set aside. A deal that closed by parking its hardest questions has bought speed at the cost of scope, and those questions do not disappear on signature. The marker to watch is whether the European Parliament stage produces a standing bilateral mechanism for the excluded issues, or whether India is left handling each of them as a separate dispute.

    Back2Basics: European Union

    1. Formation: The European Union was established by the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992 and in force from 1993. It succeeded the European Economic Community.
    2. Membership and seats: It has 27 member states. Its principal institutions sit in Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg.
    3. Customs union and trade competence: Member states form a customs union with a common external tariff. Trade policy is an exclusive competence of the Union, so member states do not negotiate their own trade agreements.
    4. Currency: The euro is the shared currency of a subset of the member states, known collectively as the eurozone.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017] ‘Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA)’ is sometimes seen in the news in the context of negotiations held between India and (a) European Union (b) Gulf Cooperation Council (c) Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (d) Shanghai Cooperation Organization Answer: (a)”

  • [23rd September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Water wealth

    [23rd September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Water wealth

    Question (2025, GS3 – 15 Marks):Examine the factors responsible for depleting groundwater in India. What are the steps taken by the government to mitigate such depletion of groundwater?”
    Linkage: Directly targets the root causes of aquifer depletion in intensive agrarian states—such as flood irrigation, crop-choice mismatch (paddy in semi-arid zones), and unrestricted deep tube-well extraction—while demanding policy interventions to reverse the trend.

    Mentor Comment

    Punjab’s groundwater extraction rate stands at 152 per cent, meaning the State draws half again as much each year as is annually replenished. Depletion has now begun to redistribute wealth among farmers. Those who can afford deeper tube wells continue to reach the falling water table. Those who cannot are forced to buy water from them, which hands larger landowners a claim on smaller cultivators. The conflict is between an electricity and procurement structure that makes extraction the safe choice and a conservation goal that requires additional extraction to become expensive.

    How far has Punjab’s groundwater been drawn down?

    1. Extraction rate: The 2025-26 Dynamic Groundwater Assessment records the State’s groundwater extraction rate at 152 per cent.
    2. Blocks in the red zone: 72 per cent of Punjab’s 153 blocks sit in the red zone, the highest share among States.
    3. Marginal improvement: Interventions reduced the number of over-exploited blocks by five across the last two assessments.
    4. Deepening wells: The fraction of observation wells with water below 40 metres in the post-monsoon period grew by two percentage points between 2022 and 2025.
    5. Principal consumer: Irrigation for rice and wheat accounts for nearly 25 billion cubic metres a year in the latest estimate.

    Why has the rice-wheat system held against its water cost?

    1. Origin in food security: The pattern began as a strategy to improve food security and settled into a concentrated rice-wheat cropping system.
    2. Three supports that removed risk: Assured procurement, subsidised electricity and access to groundwater made high-yield varieties, intensive irrigation, fertilizer use and mechanisation less risky than alternative modes of cultivation.
    3. Unaddressed barriers to switching: Farmers’ reluctance to take up other crops rests on uncertainties in storage options, prices, processing infrastructure and supply chains, and that reluctance has gone relatively unaddressed.

    How does groundwater depletion widen the gap between farmers?

    1. Efficiency against capacity: A study in the Economic and Political Weekly found that farmers with marginal landholdings use water more efficiently. The same study found wealthier farmers better equipped to access lower water tables and to draw higher volumes.
    2. Forced water purchase: Farmers unable to afford the requisite tube wells buy water from those who own them. The purchase transfers wealth to larger landowners and creates unregulated dependencies.
    3. Returns against productivity: A study in Discover Sustainability reported that in Sangrur and Barnala larger farms earned higher returns and recorded lower groundwater productivity for paddy than smaller farms.
    4. Capital as the gate: Depletion raises the capital required for irrigation, which systematically privileges farmers with better access to finance.

    What would make conservation pay the cultivator?

    1. Pani Bachao, Paisa Kamao: The scheme entitles a farmer to cash for every unused kilowatt-hour of pumping electricity below a threshold.
    2. Redirecting the electricity subsidy: Part of the electricity subsidy bill can instead directly support smallholder farmers.
    3. Collective irrigation assets: Irrigation infrastructure can be collectivised, so that access to water stops depending on owning a tube well.
    4. Benefit tied to the cultivator: Where benefits follow the cultivator, including tenants, rather than the owner of the land or the pump, welfare subsidises access to water rather than groundwater extraction.

    Challenges to groundwater regulation in Punjab

    1. Efficiency gains overwhelmed by scale: State efforts to manage demand continue, and the volume of extraction outruns the gains those efforts produce. Eg. The count of over-exploited blocks fell by five and most of the State’s blocks stayed in the red zone.
      The Fix: Set a declining annual extraction ceiling for each red zone block, so efficiency measures are judged against a volume target rather than against a block count.
    2. Incentives measured in electricity, not water: Conservation payments are calculated on unused pumping units, which is a proxy for water and not a measure of it. Eg. Pani Bachao, Paisa Kamao pays for kilowatt-hours left unused below a threshold.
      The Fix: Meter pumped volume at the connection, so payment tracks abstraction directly.
    3. Voluntary enrolment: A scheme a farmer must opt into reaches those already confident about their water access, and not those most exposed to a falling table. Eg. Enrolment in Pani Bachao, Paisa Kamao remains low.
      The Fix: Enrol every metered connection by default and allow farmers to opt out.

    Conclusion

    Punjab’s groundwater question has stopped being only a question about the aquifer. Depletion now decides which farmers can irrigate at all, and it converts water access into a form of wealth that moves from the smaller cultivator to the larger one. Conservation has to be paid for in a form that reaches the person farming the land, including the tenant, rather than the person who owns the pump. The thing to watch is whether the State converts part of its electricity subsidy into direct support tied to the cultivator.

More posts