The Karnataka government’s move to build a tribal village in Brahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary’s buffer zone has sparked debates on environmental conservation, tribal rights, and human-wildlife conflict.
AboutBrahmagiri Wildlife Sanctuary:
The Brahmagiri WLS is located in Kodagu District, Karnataka, within the Western Ghats.
It serves as a crucial ecological corridor, facilitating wildlife movement between Nagarhole National Park and Wayanad Wildlife Sanctuary.
Geographical Location and Features
It is situated approximately 250 km from Bengaluru and derives its name from the Brahmagiri Peak, the highest point in the region.
The sanctuary was declared a protected area on June 5, 1974, to conserve its unique flora and fauna.
The terrain consists of evergreen and semi-evergreen forests, grasslands, and shola forests, which provide a habitat for various species.
Flora:
Bamboo species are widely spread across the region, providing food for herbivores like elephants and deer.
The diverse vegetation supports a wide range of faunal species by offering food, shelter, and nesting sites.
Herbivores: Indian elephants, gaurs, sambars, spotted deer, barking deer, mouse deer, and wild pigs.
Primates: Lion-tailed macaques, Nilgiri langurs, slender loris, bonnet macaques, and common langurs.
Small Mammals & Rodents: Malabar giant squirrels, giant flying squirrels, Nilgiri martens, common otters, brown mongooses, civets, porcupines, and pangolins.
Reptiles: King cobras, Indian cobras, pythons, Malabar pit vipers.
Birds: Emerald doves, square-tailed bulbuls, and Malabar trogons.
PYQ:
[2020] Which one of the following protected areas is well-known for the conservation of a sub-species of the Indian swamp deer (Barasingha) that thrives well on hard ground and is exclusively graminivorous?
Q)Give an account of the growth and development of nuclear science and technology in India. What is the advantage of a fast breeder reactor programme in India? (UPSC CSE 2017)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on nuclear science and technology (2017), and atomic energy(2013).
In the Union Budget speech on February 1, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced plans to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act. This move is likely to be welcomed by the U.S., where past governments have opposed India’s law because it holds nuclear manufacturers partly responsible for accidents. However, in India, removing supplier liability could be a major concern, as it might weaken nuclear safety measures.
Today’s editorial talks about the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act. This content will help in GS papers 2 and 3 in mains answer writing.
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
The mention of plans to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act in the Union Budget is a serious issue that needs attention.
What is the Atomic Energy Act?
The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is an Indian law that regulates the development, production, and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while ensuring national security. It gives the government exclusive control over nuclear materials, plants, and research and allows the establishment of nuclear power projects. The Act also covers radiation safety, uranium mining, reactor operations, and waste disposal to prevent misuse and ensure public safety.
What is the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act?
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010 is an Indian law that defines liability in case of a nuclear accident. It ensures compensation for victims while holding nuclear plant operators accountable.
Key Features:
Operator Liability: The primary financial responsibility for any nuclear accident rests with the plant operator (NPCIL in India), not the supplier.
Right of Recourse: Unlike many other countries, India allows operators to seek compensation from suppliers if defective equipment or services cause an accident (Section 17).
Liability Cap: Operator liability is capped at ₹1,500 crore (~$180 million), with the government covering additional costs if needed.
Exclusion from Global Regimes: India has not joined international nuclear liability agreements like the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), meaning financial responsibility remains domestic.
What are the safety and liability concerns related to nuclear energy?
Risk of Catastrophic Accidents: Nuclear plant failures can lead to massive radiation leaks, environmental destruction, and long-term health impacts.Example: The Fukushima Daiichi disaster (2011, Japan) resulted from a tsunami, causing multiple reactor meltdowns and widespread radioactive contamination.
Design Flaws and Negligence: Suppliers may overlook or downplay safety risks in reactor designs, leading to vulnerabilities. Example: The Three Mile Island accident (1979, USA) occurred due to a known reactor design flaw that the supplier failed to address.
Limited Liability for Suppliers: In many countries, nuclear suppliers are indemnified, placing financial liability entirely on plant operators and governments.Example: General Electric (GE), which designed the Fukushima reactors, faced no financial consequences due to Japan’s liability laws.
Insufficient Compensation for Victims: Liability caps limit compensation for victims, despite the high costs of nuclear disasters. Example: India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act caps liability at ₹1,500 crore, whereas Fukushima’s cleanup costs are estimated at ₹20-46 lakh crore.
Radioactive Waste and Long-Term Risks: Safe disposal of nuclear waste remains a major challenge, with risks of leaks and contamination lasting thousands of years.Example: The Chernobyl disaster (1986, USSR) left a radioactive exclusion zone that remains uninhabitable nearly 40 years later.
How does India’s approach to nuclear liability differ from global standards?
Operator Liability with Limited Supplier Responsibility: India’s Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act, 2010, places primary liability on the operator (NPCIL), but allows it to seek compensation from suppliers in case of defective equipment or services (Right of Recourse, Section 17).
Global Standard: Most countries fully indemnify suppliers, meaning they bear no financial responsibility after supplying reactors.
Example: In Japan, General Electric (GE) faced no liability for the Fukushima disaster (2011), while in India, foreign suppliers fear financial risks if an accident occurs.
Liability Cap vs. Unlimited Liability in Some Countries: India caps operator liability at ₹1,500 crore (~$180 million), with additional compensation coming from the government if needed.
Global Standard: Some countries, like Germany, impose unlimited liability on operators to ensure full compensation. The U.S. Price-Anderson Act establishes a large industry-backed fund for damages beyond a certain limit.
Example: After the Chernobyl disaster (1986, USSR), the Soviet government bore the entire cost (~$235 billion), whereas an Indian accident beyond ₹1,500 crore would shift the financial burden to taxpayers.
India is Not Part of Global Nuclear Liability Regimes: India has not signed the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC), which standardizes liability norms and creates an international compensation pool.
Global Standard: Most nuclear-powered nations, including the U.S. and Japan, are CSC members, ensuring global financial support for nuclear accidents.
Example: If a nuclear accident occurs in France, CSC members contribute to compensation, but in India, all financial burdens remain domestic.
What are the reasons behind the government’s plan to amend the Atomic Energy Act and the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act?
Attracting Foreign Investment and Suppliers – The existing CLND Act allows India’s nuclear operator (NPCIL) to seek compensation from foreign suppliers in case of faulty equipment, discouraging companies from supplying reactors. Amendments could limit supplier liability, making India a more attractive market for nuclear investments from countries like the U.S., France, and Russia.
Expanding Nuclear Energy Capacity – India aims to increase its nuclear power generation to meet rising energy demands and climate goals. Simplifying liability laws could accelerate agreements with international partners and facilitate the construction of new nuclear plants under deals such as the India-U.S. Civil Nuclear Agreement.
What are the other implications of increasing nuclear energy reliance?
High Economic Costs and Project Delays: Nuclear power plants require massive upfront investments, long construction periods, and frequent cost overruns.
Example: The AP1000 reactors in Georgia, USA, were initially estimated at $14 billion but were completed at $36.8 billion—a 250% cost overrun. Similarly, India’s Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant faced significant delays and cost escalations.
Nuclear Waste Management and Environmental Risks: Nuclear energy produces radioactive waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, requiring secure disposal and long-term monitoring.
Example: The Fukushima disaster (2011) led to the release of radioactive material, contaminating land and water, with cleanup costs estimated between ¥35-80 trillion (~₹20-46 lakh crore). India lacks permanent storage facilities for high-level nuclear waste.
Geopolitical and Security Concerns: Expanding nuclear energy means higher dependence on foreign suppliers, leading to strategic vulnerabilities and potential external influence.
Example: India’s civil nuclear deal with the U.S. (2008) opened doors for technology transfer, but suppliers now demand liability protection before delivering reactors, creating diplomatic pressure.
Way forward:
Strengthen Liability and Safety Frameworks: The government should Amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act to ensure fair risk-sharing between operators and suppliers.
Need to invest in advanced reactor safety technologies (e.g., Small Modular Reactors – SMRs) and strengthen independent regulatory oversight.
Develop Robust Waste Management and Indigenous Capabilities: The government should establish permanent disposal sites for high-level nuclear waste with stringent monitoring.
Need to enhance domestic nuclear technology (e.g., Thorium-based reactors) to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and improve energy security.
The Supreme Court is reviewing petitions by Ashwin Upadhyay and others, asking for a lifetime ban on convicted people from contesting elections.
What does the RPA, 1951 stipulate with respect to electoral candidates convicted of criminal offences?
Section 8(3): Disqualifies a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment. The disqualification extends for six years after their release.
Section 8(1): Provides for automatic disqualification for convictions under specific laws (e.g., IPC for heinous crimes like rape, Prevention of Corruption Act, UAPA) regardless of sentence length, plus six years after release.
Section 8(4) (Struck Down in 2013): Previously allowed sitting legislators to continue in office despite conviction if they appealed—declared unconstitutional in Lily Thomas (2013).
Section 11: Empowers the Election Commission (EC) to remove or reduce the period of disqualification. Used controversially in 2019 to allow Prem Singh Tamang to contest elections.
What are the various judgments of the SC which favour the decriminalisation of politics?
Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) case (2002): Mandated the disclosure of criminal records by all candidates.
CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar case (2013): Upheld that individuals in jail cease to be ‘electors’ and are therefore not qualified to contest elections. However, this was overturned by a parliamentary amendment in 2013, allowing under-trial prisoners to contest elections.
Lily Thomas (2013): Struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act, 1951, thereby disqualifying sitting legislators immediately upon conviction.
What is the case for a lifetime ban on convicted individuals standing for office?
Upholding Integrity & Public Trust: Lawmakers must adhere to the highest ethical standards as they create and enforce laws.
Example: The Lily Thomas (2013) judgment disqualified convicted legislators immediately, reinforcing the need for clean governance.
Parity with Government Jobs: A convicted person is ineligible for even a junior government job, yet they can contest elections after six years.Example: A person convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot work in government but can become an MP/MLA.
Curbing Criminalisation of Politics: 46% of MPs in 2024 have criminal cases, and 31% face serious charges like rape, murder, and kidnapping. Example: Mohammad Shahabuddin, a former MP from Bihar, had multiple murder cases but was elected to office multiple times.
Judicial & Expert Recommendations: The Supreme Court, Law Commission (1999, 2014), and Election Commission have all recommended stricter disqualification norms. Example: The Law Commission recommended barring individuals from contesting elections once charges are framed for serious offences.
Strengthening Democracy & Rule of Law: A lifetime ban for heinous crimes and corruption would prevent criminals from misusing political power.Example: Lalu Prasad Yadav was convicted in the fodder scam but continued to influence politics despite being disqualified.
Should convicted persons be allowed to contest elections?
Arguments in Favour:
Rehabilitation & Second Chance: A convict who has served their sentence should not be permanently barred from participating in democracy. Example: Nelson Mandela was convicted and imprisoned for 27 years but later became South Africa’s President, leading the country to democracy.
Potential for Political Misuse: Opponents may misuse legal provisions by filing false cases to prevent strong candidates from contesting elections. Example: Political leaders in India, like Arvind Kejriwal, have faced multiple cases, some of which were later dismissed as politically motivated.
Disproportionate Punishment: Not all convictions involve moral turpitude or crimes against society. A blanket ban would be excessive in certain cases. Example: A person convicted for protesting against an unjust law (civil disobedience) should not be equated with someone convicted of corruption or murder.
Arguments Against:
Ensuring Clean Politics: Public representatives should maintain high ethical standards, and allowing convicts to contest elections erodes trust in governance. Example: Mohammad Shahabuddin, a convicted criminal, was elected multiple times despite serious charges, highlighting flaws in the system.
Parity with Government Jobs: If convicted individuals are ineligible for government employment, they should also be barred from lawmaking positions. Example: A person convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot hold a bureaucratic post but can become an MP or MLA, which is inconsistent.
Threat to Democratic Institutions: Criminally convicted politicians can misuse their power to influence investigations, intimidate witnesses, and weaken democratic institutions. Example: Politicians with serious criminal cases often manipulate legal loopholes and delay proceedings to continue contesting elections.
Way forward:
Stricter Disqualification Norms: Implement a lifetime ban on candidates convicted of heinous crimes (murder, rape, corruption) while allowing judicial review for politically motivated cases. Strengthen laws to bar individuals from contesting elections once charges are framed for serious offences, as recommended by the Law Commission.
Electoral & Judicial Reforms: Fast-track trials of politicians facing criminal cases through special courts, ensuring timely justice. Strengthen the Election Commission’s authority to scrutinize candidates and enforce stricter disclosure norms on criminal records.
Mains PYQ:
Q There is a need for simplification of procedure for disqualification of persons found guilty of corrupt practices under the Representation of Peoples Act”. Comment. (UPSC IAS/2020)
Recently, the Supreme Court stated that reservation is not a fundamental right. Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) of the Constitution allow the government to provide reservations, but they do not make it mandatory. However, if the government decides not to give reservations, it must have valid reasons and supporting data to justify its decision.
What is the legal status of reservation in India?
Constitutional provisions:
Article 15(4) allows the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, Scheduled Castes (SCs), and Scheduled Tribes (STs).
Article 16(4) enables the State and Central Governments to reserve seats in government services for SCs and STs.
Article 16(4A), introduced via the 77th Constitutional Amendment in 1995, empowers the government to provide reservations in promotions for SCs and STs if they are not adequately represented in public services. This was later modified by the 85th Amendment in 2001 to include consequential seniority.
Article 338B gives constitutional status to the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC).
Article 342A empowers the President to notify the list of Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) for any state or union territory, which can only be amended by Parliament.
Article 46 states that the State shall promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs, and protect them from social injustice and exploitation.
Judicial precedence:
Champakam Dorairajan vs. State of Madras (1951): The Supreme Court ruled against communal reservations, leading to the First Constitutional Amendment, which introduced Article 15(4).
Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India (1992): The Supreme Court capped caste-based reservations at 50%, ruling that reservations should not destroy the concept of equality. It also mandated the exclusion of the “creamy layer” among Other Backward Classes (OBCs) from reservation benefits and stated that there should not be reservation in promotions.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Article 16(4A) but stated that any reservation policy must ensure the SC/ST community is socially and educationally backward, not adequately represented in public employment, and that such policy shall not affect the overall efficiency in the administration.
Janhit Abhiyan vs Union Of India (2022): The Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which introduced 10% reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) from unreserved classes, even if it exceeds the 50% limit on total reservations.
Under what conditions can the state deny or grant reservations?
Based on Quantifiable Data: The State must collect quantifiable data to assess the underrepresentation of backward classes before granting reservations. Example:M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) required the government to prove inadequate representation before providing reservations in promotions.
No Arbitrary Decisions: Reservations cannot be granted or denied arbitrarily and they must be backed by valid reasoning and legal justification. Example: The Supreme Court ruled in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) that reservation policies should be rational and not violate the right to equality.
Transparency in Public Employment: The government must clearly specify reservation details (total posts, reserved/unreserved categories) in job advertisements. If no reservation is provided, it must be justified. Example: The Supreme Court struck down a 2010 recruitment process in Palamu, Jharkhand for failing to mention reservation details, deeming it non-transparent.
How does the Supreme Court balance reservation with equality and fairness?
Reservations Are Enabling, Not Mandatory: The Court clarifies that Articles 16(4) and 16(4-A) are enabling provisions, meaning the State may grant reservations but is not obligated to do so.
Ensuring No Arbitrary Decisions: The State must base its decision on quantifiable data regarding underrepresentation. Arbitrary refusal or granting of reservations is unconstitutional.
50% Ceiling on Reservations: As per the Indra Sawhney judgment (1992), reservations should not exceed 50%, ensuring fair opportunities for all, unless exceptional circumstances justify exceeding the limit.
Merit and Social Justice Balance: The Court emphasizes that reservation should uplift disadvantaged groups without compromising meritocracy in public employment and education.
Judicial Scrutiny to Prevent Abuse: Courts can strike down reservation policies if they are found to be politically motivated, lacking empirical justification, or violating Articles 14 and 16 (equality in public employment).
Way forward:
Data-Driven Reservation Policies: The government should ensure periodic empirical assessment of backwardness and representation to justify reservations, preventing misuse and ensuring targeted benefits.
Balancing Merit and Affirmative Action: Strengthen skill development, education, and economic empowerment programs to reduce long-term reliance on reservations while ensuring fair representation in public employment and education.
Mains PYQ:
Q Why are the tribals in India referred to as ‘the Scheduled Tribes’? Indicate the major provisions enshrined in the Constitution of India for their upliftment. (UPSC IAS/2016)
Prime Minister Modi met Estonian President Alar Karis at the AI Action Summit in Paris to discuss trade, technology, cybersecurity, and stronger ties between India, Estonia, and the Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB-8).
Key Highlights of the Recent Visit to Estonia:
First Bilateral Meeting: Held at the AI Action Summit in Paris, focusing on trade, digital ties, and cybersecurity.
Economic Cooperation: PM Modi invited Estonian businesses to invest in IT and cybersecurity in India.
Cybersecurity & Security Issues: Discussed digital governance, cybersecurity collaboration, and the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Multilateral Ties: Emphasized India-Nordic-Baltic (NB-8) cooperation and India’s role in EU & UN diplomacy.
Cultural Exchange: PM Modi appreciated Estonia’s interest in yoga and strengthened people-to-people ties.
About Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB-8) Countries
The Nordic-Baltic Eight (NB-8) is a regional cooperation platform that includes:
Nordic Countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden
Baltic States: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
NB cooperation dates to the 1990s, following the Baltic states’ independence from Soviet rule.
The Nordic Council began engaging with Baltic leaders in 1989, leading to official cooperation in 1991.
The NB-8 framework was formally established in 2000 as a regional diplomatic and economic initiative.
Structural Mandate:
Trade and Economic Growth: Strengthening business and investment partnerships.
Technology and Innovation: Collaborating on digital governance, AI, and cybersecurity.
Security and Defense: Enhancing NATO and EU-led security cooperation.
Climate and Energy Policy: Advancing sustainability and energy security initiatives.
NB-8 Leadership and Coordination:
Each year, one NB-8 country assumes the role of coordinator, hosting diplomatic meetings and leading regional initiatives.
Denmark will chair NB-8 in 2025, following Sweden in 2024 and Latvia in 2023.
PYQ:
[2014] Consider the following countries:
Denmark
Japan
Russian Federation
United Kingdom
United States of America
Which of the above are the members of the ‘Arctic Council ‘?
Japan has officially launched the world’s first hybrid quantum supercomputer, integrating a 20-qubit quantum processor, Reimei, into Fugaku, the world’s sixth-fastest supercomputer.
About Reimei
Reimei is a 20-qubit trapped-ion quantum computer developed by Quantinuum and integrated into Fugaku, the world’s sixth-fastest supercomputer, at Riken, Japan.
It is the first fully operational hybrid quantum supercomputer, combining quantum and classical computing for advanced problem-solving.
The birth anniversary of Sant Guru Ravidas, a prominent figure in the Bhakti movement during the 15th and 16th centuries, is celebrated every year on 12th February.
Who was Sant Guru Ravidas?
Guru Ravidas, also known as Bhagat Ravidas, was a prominent saint, poet, and social reformer of the Bhakti movement in 15th-century India.
Born in 1377 CE in Seer Govardhanpur, Uttar Pradesh, he dedicated his life to eradicating social discrimination and promoting equality.
Despite facing caste-based oppression, Guru Ravidas rose to prominence through his wisdom, humility, and devotion to God.
He was a contemporary of SantKabir and is believed to have met Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikh religion.
His hymns are included in the Guru Granth Sahib, reflecting his significant influence in Sikhism and Bhakti traditions.
Key Contributions of Guru Ravidas
Equality & Social Justice: Opposed caste discrimination and untouchability.
Bhakti Movement: Advocated devotion over rituals for spiritual enlightenment.
Begumpura Concept: Envisioned a society free from oppression and sorrow.
Literary Contributions: Composed over 40 devotional hymns in Guru Granth Sahib.
Spiritual Influence: Guided Meera Bai in her devotion to Lord Krishna.
Universal Brotherhood: Taught that God is for all, beyond religion or caste.
Impact on Sikhism: Influenced Guru Nanak and Sikh teachings on equality and devotion.
PYQ:
[2018] Consider the following Bhakti Saints:
1. Dadu Dayal
2. Guru Nanak
3. Tyagaraja
Who among the above was/were preaching when the Lodi dynasty fell and Babur took over?
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed theDoctrine of Pith and Substance, holding that the Centre cannot impose service tax on lottery distributors as the power to tax lotteries falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of state governments.
Why did the Supreme Court dismiss the Centre’s Plea?
Lotteries Are Not a Service but Gambling: The court ruled that the relationship between states and lottery distributors is buyer-seller, not principal-agent, making service tax inapplicable.
Exclusive Taxing Power of States: The Constitution grants state legislatures the authority to tax betting and gambling, including lotteries.
Parliamentcannot override this through residuary powers (Entry 97 – List I) as taxation on lotteries is already covered under Entry 62 – List II.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance Applied: The court ruled that the dominant nature of lotteries is gambling, even if marketing and promotion involve service elements.
Since the primary focus remains within the State List, the Centre cannot impose service tax on it.
Sikkim High Court Ruling Upheld: The SC upheld the 2012 Sikkim HC decision, which declared Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended in 2010) unconstitutional, as it attempted to impose service tax on lottery-related activities.
What is Doctrine of Pith and Substance?
The Doctrine of Pith and Substance helps determine whether a law’s dominant purpose falls within the legislative competence of the enacting government.
Key Features:
Examines the true nature of a law, rather than incidental overlaps.
Resolves Centre-State conflicts over legislative powers.
Allows minor encroachments if the primary subject falls within the legislature’s authority.
Major Supreme Court Cases Applying the Doctrine:
State of Bombay v. FN Balsara (1951): Upheld a state alcohol prohibition law, despite minor overlaps with Union subjects.
Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee v. Bank of Commerce (1947): Allowed incidental encroachment as long as the law’s primary focus was within its jurisdiction.
Application in Lottery Taxation Case:
The Centre’s argument for taxing lotteries under Entry 97 – List I was rejected.
The dominant purpose of lottery transactions is gambling, which states exclusively regulate and tax.
PYQ:
[2016] The Parliament of India acquires the power to legislate on any item in the State List in the national interest if a resolution to that effect is passed by the:
(a) Lok Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership
(b) Lok Sabha by a majority of not less than two-thirds of its total membership
(c) Rajya Sabha by a simple majority of its total membership
(d) Rajya Sabha by a majority of not less than two thirds of its members present and voting
India-Pakistan’s Indus Water Treaty dispute saw a key development as the Neutral Expert upheld India’s stance. For UPSC aspirants, this topic is crucial for international relations and governance. It highlights how international treaties function, the role of legal mechanisms in dispute resolution, and the broader impact of climate change on shared water resources. Understanding past challenges under the IWT, including Pakistan’s opposition to Indian projects, will provide strong examples for exam answers. The key takeaway is the importance of cooperation, transparency, and dialogue in resolving such disputes. For UPSC preparation, focus on the treaty’s practical aspects, its resolution mechanisms, and environmental challenges to tackle questions on international treaties, conflict resolution, and water governance effectively.
PYQ ANCHORING & MICROTHEMES:
GS 2: Project `Mausam’ is considered a unique foreign policy initiative of the Indian Government to improve relationship with its neighbors. Does the project have a strategic dimension? Discuss. [2015]
Microthemes: Neighbourhood
Michel Lino, the World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert (NE), declared he is “competent” to decide differences on hydroelectric projects under the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960. India welcomed the decision, emphasizing that all seven technical disputes fall within the NE’s jurisdiction.
THE CURRENT DISPUTE
The disagreement between India and Pakistan revolves around two key hydroelectric projects:
Kishenganga Project: Located on the Kishenganga River, a tributary of the Jhelum.
Ratle Project: Situated on the Chenab River.
The core issue lies in the differing interpretations of the dispute resolution mechanism under the Indus Water Treaty.
India advocates using a Neutral Expert to resolve the dispute, as stipulated in the IWT of 1960.
Pakistan insists on seeking adjudication from the Permanent Court of Arbitration (CoA) in The Hague.
Timeline of Dispute Development:
2015: Pakistan raised objections to the projects, initially requesting the appointment of a Neutral Expert.
2016: Pakistan withdrew its Neutral Expert request unilaterally and directly sought adjudication by the CoA, bypassing the treaty’s prescribed sequence in Article IX.
India subsequently requested that the dispute be referred back to a Neutral Expert, adhering to the treaty’s process.
Parallel Mechanisms and Legal Challenges
In 2022, the World Bank facilitated the simultaneous functioning of both a Neutral Expert and a CoA, creating parallel mechanisms.
India rejected the CoA as “illegally constituted” and inconsistent with the treaty’s provisions.
Engagement on Treaty Review
India and Pakistan are also engaging under Article XII (3) for a review and potential modification of the treaty:
January 2023: India formally issued a notice to Pakistan for reviewing and modifying the treaty.
August 30, 2024: Another formal notice was sent, but Pakistan has not responded, despite receiving four reminders from India.
Neutral Expert’s Decision
The World Bank-appointed Neutral Expert, Michel Lino, upheld India’s stance.
Affirmed his jurisdiction under Paragraph 7 of Annexure F of the IWT to address differences.
Recognized the Neutral Expert as the competent authority to resolve the seven disputed issues.
India’s Response
India welcomed the Neutral Expert’s ruling and criticized the CoA’s legitimacy.
Reiterated that the treaty does not allow parallel proceedings on the same matter.
The Ministry of External Affairs affirmed that the Neutral Expert was the appropriate body to address the technical disputes, including seven key differences raised concerning the Kishenganga and Ratle projects.
Next Steps
The Neutral Expert is now set to:
Evaluate the merits of each of the seven disputes between India and Pakistan.
Deliver a final decision based on the technical and legal considerations.
This phased resolution process will determine the future trajectory of the Indus Water Treaty and its governance.
ISSUES WITH THE TREATY & ITS IMPACTS
Issue
Details
Examples
Impact
Pakistan’s Frequent Opposition
Frequent objections over Indian projects, questioning adherence to treaty specifications.
– Opposition to Kishanganga Hydroelectric Project (KHEP) on Jhelum River. – Opposition to Ratle Hydroelectric Project on Chenab River.
Delayed project timelines and increased costs, undermining developmental efforts.
Limitations of Judicial Recourse
India seeks resolution via Neutral Expert (spirit of treaty), while Pakistan uses Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) (literal interpretation).
– July 2023 PCA Verdict: Legally binding decision favoring Pakistan, rejected by India.
Lack of consensus undermines trust in the Treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism.
Strained Bilateral Relations
Treaty’s functioning influenced by geopolitical tensions.
– Suspension of biannual talks due to Pakistan’s support for state-sponsored terrorism.
Reduced cooperation, increasing risk of Treaty breakdown and potential water conflicts.
Impact of Climate Change
Altered precipitation, runoff patterns, and glacial melt affect water availability.
– Increased glacial melt in the Himalayas affects Indus Basin flows. – Unpredictable monsoons disrupt allocations.
Treaty fails to account for climate-induced variability, threatening equitable water sharing.
Third-Party Conflict Resolution
World Bank, as guarantor, lacks tools to determine whether changes in flow are illegal interventions or natural variations.
– Disputes during low-flow periods often lead to allegations of intentional blockages by India.
Misinterpretation of flow changes increases mistrust and unnecessary escalations.
Inadequate Data Sharing
Lack of regular data sharing limits understanding of river basin dynamics.
– Inconsistent hydrological data sharing on Jhelum and Chenab Rivers prevents effective management.
Reduces ability to make informed decisions and fuels disagreements.
Technical Nature of Treaty
Complex provisions enable diverse interpretations, leading to frequent disagreements.
– Ambiguities in compliance with Annexure D design standards for hydropower projects.
Delays developmental projects and creates recurring disputes between the two nations.
WAY FORWARD
Work Within the Treaty’s Framework: Both countries should make the best use of the treaty’s existing mechanisms to resolve technical issues fairly and effectively.
Be Open and Share Information: By sharing data about water flow and usage, both nations can build trust and solve shared problems.
Team Up to Manage the Basin: With climate change and growing populations putting pressure on the Indus basin, it’s essential for both sides to work together on saving water, controlling floods, and using resources responsibly.
Keep Talking and Stay Committed: Lasting solutions need both governments to stay focused on peaceful dialogue and cooperation rather than getting caught up in conflicts.
#BACK2BASICS : INDUS WATER TREATY
Indus Water Treaty: Overview and Key Provisions
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, governs the water-sharing arrangements between India and Pakistan over the Indus River system. The Treaty emerged as a solution to water disputes following the partition of India in 1947, which divided the river system between the two nations.
Key Provisions of the Indus Water Treaty
Water Sharing Arrangement:
The six rivers in the Indus Basin were divided as follows:
Western Rivers: Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab were allocated to Pakistan for unrestricted use, except for specified uses by India (e.g., non-consumptive, agricultural, and domestic uses).
Eastern Rivers: Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej were allocated to India for unrestricted use.
Approximately 80% of the water flow was allocated to Pakistan and 20% to India.
Specific Rights for India on Western Rivers:
Annexure C: Grants India rights for limited agricultural usage of waters from the western rivers.
Annexure D: Allows India to build ‘run-of-the-river’ hydropower projects (HEPs), which do not involve live water storage.
India must adhere to detailed design specifications.
Pakistan must be informed about project designs and can raise objections within three months.
Storage Provisions: India is permitted minimal storage on the western rivers for conservation and flood control purposes.
Permanent Indus Commission
A Permanent Indus Commission was established under the Treaty, comprising representatives from both nations.
Functions: Act as the first step in resolving water-related conflicts and Mandate at least one annual meeting.
Dispute Resolution Mechanism: The IWT outlines a three-step graded dispute resolution mechanism:
Permanent Indus Commission/Inter-government Talks: Initial disputes should be resolved through the Commission or inter-government dialogues.
Neutral Expert (NE): Unresolved disputes may be referred to the World Bank, which can appoint a Neutral Expert to resolve specific issues.
Court of Arbitration (CoA): If disputes involve treaty interpretation or dissatisfaction with the NE’s decision, they may be referred to a Court of Arbitration.
Q)Clean energy is the order of the day.’ Describe briefly India’s changing policy towards climate change in various international fora in the context of geopolitics. (UPSC CSE 2018)
Mentor’s Comment: UPSC mains have always focused on Climate Change (2017), and COP 26 (2021).
In the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) 2025, India ranks among the top 10 climate performers globally, underscoring its commitment to climate action. India has been recognized for its significant role in South-South climate cooperation, reflecting its leadership in fostering collaboration among developing nations to address climate change.
Today’s editorial highlights how South-South cooperation can help achieve climate goals, promote sustainable development, and empower developing countries to meet their climate targets, drawing attention to India’s strategic opportunities and responsibilities in this area. This content would help in substantiation of answers in Mains GS Paper III (Environment and Biodiversity).
_
Let’s learn!
Why in the News?
India’s potential role in fostering climate cooperation between developing nations through South-South cooperation in the context of the Paris Agreement is needed for the global solutions to tackle climate change.
How does Article 6 of the Paris Agreement benefit India in achieving its climate goals?
Carbon Markets: Under Article 6.2, countries can trade carbon credits to meet their emissions reduction targets. India can participate in these carbon markets, generating revenue by selling surplus carbon credits earned through emission reductions in sectors like renewable energy, energy efficiency, and afforestation.
By engaging in carbon trading, India can attract foreign investments from companies in developed countries looking to offset their emissions. This can provide funding for clean energy projects, supporting India’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
Cooperative Approaches: Article 6.4 establishes a global carbon market mechanism, similar to the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol, but with improvements. India could utilize this mechanism to undertake joint projects with other countries that help reduce emissions while fostering sustainable development.
Through cooperative approaches, India can access advanced technologies, practices, and expertise from other countries, enabling its industries to adopt cleaner technologies and improve energy efficiency, contributing to its climate and development goals.
Non-Market Approaches:
Article 6.8 promotes non-market mechanisms, which focus on facilitating actions like capacity-building, finance, and knowledge sharing to address climate change. This can help India strengthen its national capabilities to implement climate policies and adapt to the impacts of climate change, particularly in vulnerable regions.
India, being highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, can benefit from non-market approaches to enhance its adaptive capacities and resilience, addressing critical sectors like agriculture, water resources, and infrastructure.
Flexibility in Meeting Targets:
The flexibility provided by Article 6 allows India to find the most cost-effective solutions for emission reductions, especially in sectors where technology deployment is expensive or challenging. It provides an opportunity to meet its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) in a way that balances economic growth with environmental sustainability.
What are the potential challenges India faces in utilizing ITMOs and engaging in international climate finance?
Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) Systems: India’s current MRV systems for tracking emissions reductions may not meet the rigorous standards required for ITMOs, which are crucial for ensuring transparency and accountability in carbon markets.
Inadequate MRV mechanisms could hinder India’s ability to accurately quantify and report emission reductions, limiting its participation in carbon trading and climate finance.
Accessing Climate Finance: Despite being a major developing country, India faces challenges in accessing sufficient and predictable climate finance from international sources, as the global financing mechanisms often favor smaller or more vulnerable nations.
Limited access to finance can slow down India’s ability to implement large-scale climate projects, especially in sectors like renewable energy, adaptation, and infrastructure development.
Ensuring Environmental Integrity: While ITMOs enable carbon trading, there’s a risk of “low-quality” credits or “double counting” (where emissions reductions are claimed by multiple parties), which could undermine the credibility and environmental integrity of the system.
If India is not careful in ensuring robust methodologies for generating and trading ITMOs, it might face challenges in maintaining the credibility of its climate commitments, affecting its international reputation.
Domestic Policy and Institutional Coordination: India’s domestic policies on climate change may not be fully aligned with the requirements of international climate finance mechanisms or ITMO systems. There is also a need for better coordination among various ministries and stakeholders to implement and track climate action effectively.
Misalignment between international climate goals and domestic policies could result in inefficiencies and missed opportunities to access ITMOs and climate finance.
What are the opportunities for India under South-South cooperation via Article 6.2?
Carbon Trading with Fellow Developing Countries: India can collaborate with neighbouring countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and others in the South Asian region to work together to reduce emissions through renewable energy, afforestation, or energy efficiency programs.
India could sell any surplus carbon credits generated through its own emission reduction efforts to other developing countries that need help meeting their own NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions). This allows India to both achieve its climate goals and potentially generate revenue.
Technology and Knowledge Transfer: India has already made significant progress in solar energy and can offer valuable lessons and technologies to fellow developing countries.
India can also help other countries develop adaptation strategies for climate change impacts, such as water management techniques, disaster preparedness, and climate-resilient infrastructure.
In return, India could receive new technologies, methods, and knowledge to enhance its own climate resilience.
Joint Ventures for Clean Energy Projects: India can partner with other developing countries to co-develop large-scale renewable energy projects, such as solar, wind, or hydropower. Joint initiatives could be supported by carbon markets, with emission reductions which could attract investments, expertise, and improve access to clean energy technologies.
By collaborating with other developing countries, India can contribute to the development of affordable, scalable solutions that are tailored to the specific needs of developing nations.
These solutions could be implemented locally, reducing emissions and improving energy access.
Strengthening Capacity and Institutional Frameworks: South-South cooperation can help India and other developing countries to assist in establishing frameworks for monitoring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) emissions reductions, benefiting both India and its partner countries.
India can help south countries in refining its strategies and implementing the best practices that suit their own development contexts.
Leveraging Climate Finance: India, by engaging in South-South cooperation, could also have access to international financial instruments that make climate action more affordable.
This would be particularly beneficial in sectors where India faces challenges in scaling up clean technologies, like electric vehicles, or in regions like rural areas that require adaptation interventions.
