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

Civilsdaily

Login

Search results for: “”

  • [31st July 2026] The Hindu OpED: The Bay of Bengal as India’s SHANTI anchor

    PYQ Relevance
    [UPSC 2022]     What are the maritime security challenges in India? Discuss the organisational, technical and procedural initiatives taken to improve the maritime security.
    Linkage: It examines India’s maritime security challenges and initiatives to strengthen regional maritime governance.The article analyses SHANTI as India’s new framework to enhance maritime cooperation, security, and resilience in the Bay of Bengal through BIMSTEC.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The External Affairs Minister introduced Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity (SHANTI) on 13 July while launching India’s candidature for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) 2028-29 term, naming the Bay of Bengal as the region to operationalise it first. The framework arrives in a region where growing naval and infrastructure capacity has outpaced any shared set of maritime norms among its littoral states.

    What is SHANTI?

    1. Full form and origin: SHANTI stands for Securing Holistic Advancement through Norms, Trust and Integrity, introduced on 13 July alongside India’s UNSC candidature announcement.
    2. Lineage: It builds on Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR), articulated in 2015 around the idea of equity in development, and Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security and Growth Across Regions (MAHASAGAR), announced in 2025 to widen that vision to the interconnectedness of security across the Indo Pacific and the Global South.
    3. Function: SHANTI is presented as a normative framework, offering shared principles for maritime security, disaster response, the blue economy and environmental resilience, rather than a new institution or treaty.
    4. Rollout sequence: The Bay of Bengal is named as the first region where SHANTI is meant to move from principle to practice, before any wider application across the Indo Pacific.

    What is BIMSTEC?

    1. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is a regional grouping of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, connecting South and Southeast Asia around the Bay of Bengal.
    2. At its National Security Advisers’ meeting in New Delhi in July 2026, BIMSTEC members adopted common principles for maritime law enforcement and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. They also agreed to hold their first joint maritime security exercise in the Bay in November 2026.

    Why is the Bay of Bengal treated as SHANTI’s proving ground?

    1. Strategic centrality: The Bay links India’s Act East policy with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), gives access to the Malacca Strait, and connects the eastern Indian Ocean to major global trade and energy routes.
    2. Comparative advantage: The western Indian Ocean is marked by active conflict and fragile economies. The Bay’s littoral states instead face similar, non military challenges such as cyclones, coastal erosion, fisheries management and undersea cable protection, which makes cooperation more feasible than confrontation.
    3. Institutional gap: The region is not short of institutions but suffers from fragmentation among them, and SHANTI is framed as a common framework to align existing mechanisms rather than add another one.
    4. Geopolitical pressure: China’s reliance on the Malacca Strait, often called its Malacca dilemma, has driven an expanding Chinese presence through ports and infrastructure projects in the same littoral states SHANTI seeks to anchor.

    Can SHANTI move beyond being another acronym?

    1. Fragmentation risk: The region’s stated problem is institutional fragmentation, and a new framework risks adding to that fragmentation unless it visibly aligns existing mechanisms.
    2. Stewardship versus dominance: India’s convening role depends on being accepted as a preferred security partner and first responder, a position that rests on restraint rather than the naval and economic weight India commands in the region.
    3. Early stage outputs: Concrete outcomes so far are limited to a declaration of common principles, a first joint maritime exercise scheduled for November 2026, and a white shipping information sharing agreement still under discussion, none of which are yet operational.
    4. Norms without enforcement: SHANTI rests on shared principles rather than a binding treaty, leaving compliance dependent on the willingness of littoral states rather than an enforceable obligation.

    What are the challenges to SHANTI?

    1. Overlap with existing bodies: SHANTI must coordinate with, rather than duplicate, existing mechanisms such as BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association and the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, each with its own membership and mandate.
    2. Financing gap: Disaster response, undersea cable protection and blue economy cooperation require capital that several BIMSTEC members cannot supply on their own, raising the risk that shared projects become dependent on Indian or external financing.
    3. Limited replicability: The Bay of Bengal is easier ground precisely because it lacks the active conflict of the western Indian Ocean, so success there does not guarantee the same framework will work in more contested Indo Pacific waters.
    4. Competing infrastructure presence: Continued Chinese port and infrastructure investment in the same littoral states complicates India’s claim to a natural convening role.
    5. Dependence on voluntary compliance: Because SHANTI is a set of norms rather than a binding agreement, its durability depends on continued political will among BIMSTEC members rather than any enforcement mechanism.

    Conclusion

    SHANTI’s substance will not be judged by its acronym but by whether the Bay of Bengal’s BIMSTEC linked initiatives, the first joint maritime exercise due in November 2026 and the pending white shipping information sharing agreement, convert shared principles into functioning practice. Until those steps are completed, SHANTI remains a stated framework rather than a demonstrated one.

    Back2Basics:

    BIMSTEC

    1. The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation was formed in 1997 and renamed after Bhutan and Nepal joined in 2004, expanding it from its original five members to seven.
    2. Its secretariat is based in Dhaka, Bangladesh, and its membership spans Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
    3. The 6th BIMSTEC Summit, held in Bangkok in April 2025, adopted the Bangkok Vision 2030 and a Maritime Transport Agreement covering national treatment for vessels, crew and cargo among member states.
    4. BIMSTEC connects South Asia and Southeast Asia and has expanded its cooperation beyond trade into security, disaster management, energy and connectivity.

  • Activists raise alarm over PM CARES denial of access to audit statements

    Why in the News

    The Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations (PM CARES) Fund has not published audited financial statements for the last three financial years. The government maintains that the trust is not a “public authority” under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and is therefore not bound by its disclosure requirements. Activists argue that the fund has all the characteristics of a public body. They point out that the Prime Minister is its Chairperson, Union Ministers serve as ex officio trustees, and government employees have contributed from their salaries. Yet, the fund remains outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny, and audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).


    What is the PM CARES Fund?

    1. Establishment: Set up in March 2020 and registered as a public charitable trust under the Registration Act, 1908, with its trust deed registered in New Delhi on 27 March 2020, to support relief during public health emergencies and other disasters.
    2. Composition: The Prime Minister serves as ex officio Chairperson, and the Union Ministers of Defence, Home Affairs and Finance serve as ex officio trustees.
    3. Funding: Funded entirely through voluntary contributions from individuals and organisations, with the government stating it receives no budgetary support.
    4. Tax and foreign funding benefits: Donations qualify for a 100% deduction under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, count as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure under the Companies Act, 2013, and the fund holds an exemption under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) to receive donations from overseas.

    What financial disclosure has the fund made?

    1. Last published statement: The last publicly available audited statement, for financial year 2022 23, showed an opening balance of Rs 5,415.65 crore, voluntary contributions of Rs 909.64 crore, total receipts of Rs 6,723.07 crore, total payments of Rs 439.38 crore, and a closing balance of Rs 6,283.68 crore as of 31 March 2023.
    2. Disclosure gap: Only the audited statements for 2019 20, 2020 21, 2021 22 and 2022 23 are available on the fund’s website, leaving the last three financial years without any published audit.
    3. Primary use: The fund has primarily financed India’s COVID 19 response and emergency health infrastructure.

    Why does the government’s “not a public authority” position sit uneasily with the fund’s structure?

    1. Government’s legal position: The government maintains the trust is not a public authority under the RTI Act, and the Ministry of Corporate Affairs retrospectively amended the relevant Companies Act rules to support this position.
    2. Activists’ counter: Activists argue the fund was presented as set up by the Union government, carries the sanctity of the Prime Minister’s office as chairperson, and drew contributions from government employees’ salaries, features that make it appear to be a public authority in substance.
    3. The accountability gap: The fund remains outside the RTI Act’s disclosure obligations, outside parliamentary scrutiny, and outside audit by the CAG, the three principal mechanisms that apply to ordinary government spending.

    What are the challenges to ensuring transparency in the PM CARES Fund?

    1. A named precedent: Activists cite the electoral bonds case, where sustained anonymity in political funding enabled quid pro quo arrangements between donors and the government, before the Supreme Court struck the scheme down in February 2024 for violating the right to information.
    2. No independent constitutional audit: Without CAG audit, no independent constitutional auditor verifies how contributions, including those from government employees’ salaries, are spent.
    3. Retrospective rule change: The Ministry of Corporate Affairs’ retrospective amendment to Companies Act rules narrows the scope for legal challenge based on the fund’s original design.
    4. CSR channel scrutiny: Because CSR contributions to PM CARES count toward companies’ mandatory CSR spending obligations, opacity in fund utilisation also affects corporate accountability for those obligations.
    5. No periodic review clause: Unlike time bound government schemes, PM CARES has no periodic legislative or parliamentary review clause forcing disclosure at fixed intervals.

    Conclusion

    The PM CARES Fund’s structure gives it the outward markers of a public authority, a Prime Minister led chairpersonship, ministerial trustees and salary contributions from government employees, while its legal classification as a private trust keeps it outside the RTI Act, parliamentary scrutiny and CAG audit. Three consecutive years without a published audited statement leave activists’ comparison to the electoral bonds case as the operative risk to track. Whether the fund publishes its pending audits or its RTI exempt status changes remains the open question.

    Back2Basics:

    Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India

    1. Constitutional basis: The CAG is a constitutional authority under Articles 148 to 151 of the Constitution, appointed by the President.
    2. Governing law: Its powers and duties are laid out in the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971.
    3. Mandate: Audits all receipts and expenditure of the Union and state governments, including bodies substantially financed by government grants, and reports findings for placement before the legislature.
    4. Tenure and independence: Holds office for six years or until age 65, whichever is earlier, and can be removed only through a process similar to a Supreme Court judge’s removal.
    5. Relevance here: PM CARES Fund’s exclusion from CAG audit means its accounts face no scrutiny from this constitutional auditor, unlike most bodies with government backed establishment.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] “Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

    Linkage: This PYQ tests the role of the RTI Act in promoting transparency and accountability in public institutions.The article examines the PM CARES Fund’s exemption from the RTI Act and the resulting concerns over public accountability.

  • CWMA upholds CWRC’s order to Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu

    Why in the News

    The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on 30 July upheld an order of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) directing Karnataka to release 3,500 cusecs of water a day to Tamil Nadu for 15 days despite Karnataka’s own appeal citing drought. The ruling exposes that Karnataka and Tamil Nadu still have no agreed formula for sharing shortfalls in the Cauvery basin, years after the Supreme Court’s final verdict on the dispute.

    How does the Cauvery water sharing mechanism work?

    1. Two tier structure: The CWRC functions within the CWMA, which implements the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018.
    2. Composition: The CWRC is headed by the Member (Water Resources) of the CWMA and includes Chief Engineers of all basin states along with representatives of the India Meteorological Department (IMD), Central Water Commission and the Union Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    3. Monitoring role: It tracks daily water levels, inflows and storage at eight reservoirs, four in Karnataka, three in Tamil Nadu and one in Kerala. It also issues seasonal water release directions for each basin state.
    4. Appeal route: A state aggrieved by a CWRC order can appeal to the CWMA. The CWMA, as the apex body monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, can uphold, modify or set aside the CWRC’s order.
    5. Unit of measure: Releases are set in cusecs, a rate of flow measured in cubic feet per second, while cumulative volume is tracked in thousand million cubic feet, referred to as tmc ft.

    Why did the CWRC order the release now?

    1. Deficient inflows: Karnataka’s four reservoirs recorded a combined inflow shortfall of about 60% against the 30 year average, and the deficit at the Biligundulu gauge, where Karnataka’s flow to Tamil Nadu is measured, was 90%.
    2. Storage position: As on 30 July, Karnataka’s four reservoirs held 65.34 tmc ft against a total capacity of 114.57 tmc ft.
    3. Forecast: The IMD gave no optimistic outlook for the following weeks, which shaped the CWRC’s view that Karnataka could still spare water.
    4. Buffer assessment: The CWMA noted Karnataka’s reservoirs stood to gain a minimum of 15 tmc ft in the next 15 days and that releasing 4.5 tmc ft would not affect Karnataka’s drinking water needs.

    Why do both states reject the outcome as unfair?

    1. Karnataka’s distress claim: Karnataka cited a super El Nino effect, said it had not begun irrigation releases this year, and argued Tamil Nadu would separately gain from the northeast monsoon later in the season.
    2. Karnataka’s carryover argument: Karnataka contended Tamil Nadu already held substantial carryover storage from earlier releases, reducing its immediate need.
    3. Tamil Nadu’s shortfall claim: Tamil Nadu sought 9.45 tmc ft over 15 days at 7,000 cusecs a day under the distress formula, arguing the ordered 3,500 cusecs was insufficient given a 90% deficit at Biligundulu.
    4. Tamil Nadu’s cultivation needs: Tamil Nadu’s ongoing kuruvai season needs at least 30 tmc ft against a Mettur storage of about 36 tmc ft, of which 10 tmc ft is reserved for drinking water. The following samba thaladi season needs a minimum of 180 tmc ft.
    5. Political fallout: Karnataka’s Chief Minister called an all party meeting in Bengaluru on 2 August to consider legal options, and farmer protests have already begun in the Cauvery basin against the release order.

    What are the challenges to the Cauvery dispute resolution mechanism?

    1. No distress sharing formula: Both the CWRC chief and Tamil Nadu’s position point to the absence of an agreed formula for splitting shortfalls in a deficient year, forcing an ad hoc order each time rainfall fails.
    2. Recurring litigation: Karnataka has approached the CWMA and is weighing further legal options, repeating a cycle of appeals seen in nearly every distress year since the tribunal’s award.
    3. Compliance risk: The CWMA can direct a release, but implementation still depends on Karnataka’s cooperation, a dependence that has previously produced Supreme Court contempt proceedings against Karnataka.
    4. Climate variability: A pattern of super El Nino effects and deficient monsoons increases the frequency of distress years, straining a formula built around long term averages rather than year on year swings.
    5. Political cost: A release ordered during an acknowledged drought risks becoming a flashpoint for farmer unrest and inter state friction, regardless of the technical merits of the CWRC’s assessment.

    Conclusion

    The CWMA’s ruling shows the institutional mechanism functioning as designed, yet satisfying neither riparian state. Karnataka calls the release unfair given its own distress, and Tamil Nadu calls the quantum inadequate for its cultivation needs. What remains unresolved is not whether the tribunal award should be enforced, but whether Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will ever agree on a distress sharing formula that removes the need for fresh litigation every deficient season. The CWRC is scheduled to meet again on 11 August to review compliance.

    Back2Basics:

    Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)

    1. Established in June 2018 by the Union Jal Shakti Ministry to implement the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (2007) as modified by the Supreme Court’s verdict of the same year.
    2. Constituted under Section 6A of the Inter State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, following the Supreme Court’s directions.
    3. Composition includes a Chairman, a Secretary and Members, including a full time Member (Water Resources) who also heads the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee.
    4. Jurisdiction covers water release, storage and supply regulation across the Cauvery basin states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
    5. Functions as the apex body for compliance with the Supreme Court’s verdict, with the CWRC as its technical monitoring arm.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] Constitutional mechanisms to resolve the inter-state water disputes have failed to address and solve the problems. Is the failure due to structural or process inadequacy or both? Discuss.

    Linkage: It examines the effectiveness of constitutional and institutional mechanisms for resolving inter-state river water disputes. The article highlights recurring Cauvery disputes, the absence of a distress-sharing formula, and continuing litigation despite the CWMA framework.

  • SC sets ‘public interest’ test on retrospective green nod

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court, in a ruling delivered on 29 July, quashed the Centre’s 2021 Office Memorandum (OM) that had allowed projects built without prior approval to seek regularisation. It also held that a narrowly tailored amnesty scheme may still be permitted through a statutory notification if justified by public interest. This reopens the question of whether this closes the door on regularising environmental violations or gives them a narrower but still real legal opening.

    What is a post facto environmental clearance?

    1. Definition: A post facto, or ex post facto, environmental clearance (EC) is an approval granted after a project has already commenced construction or operations, reversing the sequence the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime otherwise requires.
    2. Underlying principle: India’s EIA regime rests on the precautionary principle, which requires ecological appraisal before construction begins rather than after damage may already be irreversible.

    What is the difference between an Office Memorandum and a statutory notification?

    1. Office Memorandum: An OM is an administrative instruction issued by a ministry or department. It does not carry the force of law.
    2. Statutory notification: A notification is issued under authority granted by a statute, in this case the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and is published in the official Gazette, giving it legal force an OM lacks.

    How has the Supreme Court’s position on retrospective clearances evolved?

    1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): The Court held that mining projects requiring clearance could not commence before appraisal, calling retrospective clearances completely alien to environmental jurisprudence.
    2. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Rohit Prajapati (2020): The Court reiterated that ex post facto clearance undermines the precautionary principle by letting proponents commence activity first and seek approval later, though it imposed penalties instead of ordering closure for long operating units.
    3. Electrosteel Steels Ltd v. Union of India (2021): The Court held that ex post facto clearances could be granted in exceptional circumstances to protect livelihoods and the economy, opening space for the OM that followed the same year.
    4. Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak (2022): The Court took a more pragmatic approach, holding that closure is not always the right remedy where regulatory uncertainty existed and compliance remained achievable.
    5. Vanashakti v. Union of India (May 2025 and November 2025): A Bench struck down both the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM, ruling ex post facto clearances impermissible in any form. Following review petitions by the Centre and industry bodies, a three judge Bench recalled this ruling by a two to one majority six months later, holding it needed fresh adjudication.
    6. 29 July 2026 ruling: A Bench led by the Chief Justice of India quashed the 2021 OM but upheld the 2017 notification, holding that any future post facto clearance can only be granted through a statutory notification, not an administrative order.

    What does the 29 July ruling establish?

    1. Quashed instrument: The Court set aside the 2021 OM that had created a standing procedure for regularising violation cases, calling it a continuing or perpetual regime rather than a one time exception.
    2. Retained instrument: The March 2017 notification, offering a one time six month disclosure window, was not invalidated.
    3. Legal basis required: Any future post facto clearance mechanism must be issued as a statutory notification under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, not as an OM.
    4. Public interest test: The government must show that the public interest served is sufficiently compelling, that any relaxation is strictly necessary, and that environmental costs have been weighed against anticipated benefits, converting open ended discretion into a narrowly circumscribed exception.

    Does the ruling protect the precautionary principle or launder violations into a fee?

    1. Fig leaf reading: One reading holds that the distinction between an OM and a statutory notification is a procedural label rather than a substantive safeguard. This is because the government can still notify the same regularisation scheme through the correct instrument.
    2. Amnesty analogy rejected: The Court reasoned that governments may frame environmental amnesty schemes the way they frame tax or building default amnesties. This is a comparison critics say cannot be transposed onto projects that cut into forests and floodplains. This is because ecological damage propagates through interconnected plant, animal, human and microbial systems rather than resetting to zero on payment of a fee.
    3. Decriminalisation overlap: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, and its 2026 amendments removed imprisonment for environmental violations. This leaves only monetary penalties. So, now a regularised violation now costs a well capitalised developer a budgeted fine rather than a criminal risk.
    4. Counter view: The opposing reading holds that the ruling is consistent with two decades of jurisprudence reading a healthy environment into the right to life, and that the recognised flexibility could legitimately apply to national defence projects, healthcare facilities in underserved areas, or connectivity in remote regions.
    5. Scale of existing exceptions: More than 100 projects, including coal, iron and bauxite mines, a greenfield airport, distilleries, steel and cement plants, and hospitals, had already received ex post facto clearance under the 2017 to 2021 regime. This shows how large scale the exception has become in practice.

    What are the challenges to enforcing the public interest test for post facto clearance?

    1. Definition creep: Public interest is not statutorily defined for this purpose, leaving room for the term to be stretched to cover commercially driven projects as much as genuinely urgent public needs.
    2. Monitoring capacity: State environmental authorities, expert appraisal committees and pollution boards have historically detected violations only after construction is complete, showing weak upfront monitoring that a narrower legal test alone will not fix.
    3. Litigation burden: Every future statutory amnesty scheme will likely face fresh litigation testing whether it is genuinely narrowly tailored, adding years of uncertainty for project proponents and affected communities alike.
    4. Weakened deterrence: With imprisonment removed under the Jan Vishwas amendments, monetary penalties alone may not deter developers who can treat the fine as a routine cost of doing business.
    5. Climate exposure: Infrastructure regularised without adequate ecological assessment faces greater exposure to extreme weather events, as seen in monsoon damage to projects built without proper environmental safeguards.

    Conclusion

    The ruling ends open ended administrative regularisation under the 2021 OM, restoring the requirement that any future post facto clearance carry the force of a statutory notification tested against public interest, necessity and proportionality. It does not resolve whether that test can hold against a decriminalised penalty regime in which environmental violation carries only a monetary cost. The government’s next statutory amnesty scheme, if it frames one, will show whether this order narrows the exception in practice or simply relabels the same regularisation regime in more careful legal language.

    Back2Basics:

    EIA Notification, 2006

    1. Issuing authority: Notified in 2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
    2. Core requirement: Mandates prior environmental clearance before construction or expansion begins for listed categories of projects such as mining, thermal power and infrastructure.
    3. Categorisation: Projects fall into Category A, needing central level clearance, and Category B, needing state level clearance through State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities.
    4. Process stages: Screening, scoping, public consultation and appraisal precede the grant of clearance.
    5. Subsequent dilution: A March 2017 notification and a July 2021 OM introduced routes for post facto clearance, which the Supreme Court has since narrowed.

    The precautionary principle:

    1. It is a core rule in environmental law requiring authorities to take preventive action against serious or irreversible environmental harm, even when there is no full scientific certainty.
    2. Key aspects include shifting the burden of proof to project developers, prioritizing safety over delay, and focusing on proactive governance.
    3. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): The landmark ruling where the Supreme Court formally integrated the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle into Indian jurisprudence.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] How does the draft Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2020 differ from the existing EIA Notification, 2006?

    Linkage: The PYQ tests understanding of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) framework in India. The article examines EIA implementation in light of the precautionary principle established in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum (1996).

  • Centre defends CEC panel without CJI

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court is examining the constitutional validity of the Chief Election Commissioner and Other Election Commissioners (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Term of Office) Act, 2023, which gives the executive a majority in the CEC selection committee. The Court has reserved its decision on whether to refer the matter to a Constitution Bench.

    What is the CEC Selection Committee under the 2023 Act?

    The Act provides for a three-member selection committee comprising:

    • Prime Minister (Chairperson)
    • Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister
    • Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha

    What changed?

    • The Act replaced the Chief Justice of India (CJI) with a Cabinet Minister.
    • This gives the executive two out of three votes, with the Opposition holding one.

    What is the Anoop Baranwal Judgment (2023)?

    • Delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench.
    • Held that until Parliament enacted a law, the CEC and Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee comprising:
      • Prime Minister
      • Leader of the Opposition
      • Chief Justice of India
    • The Court stressed that the Election Commission must be independent, neutral, and free from executive control.

    Centre’s Arguments

    • Parliament is competent to decide the appointment process.
    • The Prime Minister’s office carries constitutional trust.
    • Courts should not presume bad faith by constitutional authorities.
    • Replacing the CJI with a Cabinet Minister is within Parliament’s legislative powers.

    Supreme Court’s Concerns

    • The committee lacks a neutral member.
    • A 2:1 executive majority may affect the perception of independence.
    • Appointments should not only be fair but also appear to be fair.

    [2017] Consider the following statements regarding the Election Commission of India:
    1.The ECI is currently a five-member body consisting of the Chief Election Commissioner and four Election Commissioners.
    2.The Union Ministry of Home Affairs is the final authority that decides the election schedule for general elections.
    3.The ECI is the designated authority to resolve disputes relating to splits or mergers of recognized political parties.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 3 only

    [C] 2 and 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3

  • How common are cloudbursts in India?

    Why in the News?

    Flash floods triggered by a cloudburst struck Pahalgam in Anantnag on 12 July. Last week, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) rejected claims that cloudbursts caused the recent floods in Assam and Nagaland. The two events have renewed attention on the scientific definition of a cloudburst and its frequent misuse in public discourse.

    What counts as a cloudburst under the IMD’s definition?

    1. Threshold: The IMD defines a cloudburst as 10 centimetres or more of rainfall in an hour over a small area of around 20 to 30 square kilometres.
    2. Scale comparator: Indore receives about 1,062 millimetres of rain in an average year, so a single cloudburst can dump close to 10% of a full year’s rainfall in 60 minutes.
    3. Related category: Some scientists have proposed a mini cloudburst category for 5 centimetres of rain in an hour over the same area, since local topography can make even this devastating.

    How does a cloudburst form?

    1. Initial lift: Warm, moist air rises rapidly through convection, and in mountainous terrain this rise is intensified by orographic lifting, where monsoon winds are forced upward by steep slopes.
    2. Cloud growth: As the rising air cools, water vapour condenses into towering cumulonimbus clouds that can reach up to 15 kilometres in height.
    3. Suspension: Strong upward currents keep forming raindrops suspended in the cloud for longer instead of letting them fall immediately.
    4. Discharge: When the weight of accumulated water exceeds what the updraft can hold, or the updraft weakens, the suspended water falls in one release rather than as steady rain.

    How common are cloudbursts in India, and why are they hard to count?

    1. Historical count: Parliament was told in 2019 that the IMD recorded only around 30 cloudburst incidents between 1970 and 2016, a figure many experts consider an underestimate.
    2. Rising frequency: Global warming increases the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold, making cloudbursts more frequent even though they remain rare compared with ordinary heavy rain.
    3. Monitoring gap: Most cloudbursts occur in remote, high altitude regions where rain gauges and weather stations are sparse, so an event even a few kilometres from a monitoring station may go officially unrecorded despite causing large scale destruction downstream.
    4. Regional concentration: Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir have reported a recent surge in events described locally as cloudbursts, particularly in July and August.

    Does the label obscure accountability for poor planning?

    1. Blame diffusion: Calling a heavy downpour a cloudburst turns it into a singular, unforeseeable act of nature, which is harder to do when the stated cause is heavy rain combined with poor drainage.
    2. Dharali precedent: During the 2025 Dharali floods in Uttarakhand, initial reports blamed a cloudburst, but meteorological data later showed the rainfall rate was well below the cloudburst threshold. The underlying causes were illegal construction on riverbeds, deforestation that left soil vulnerable to erosion, and the absence of drainage infrastructure along new all weather roads.
    3. Assam and Nagaland claims: The IMD last week rejected reports that cloudbursts caused recent floods in Assam and Nagaland, including the Upper Assam floods.
    4. Accountability questions avoided: Had the Dharali downpour genuinely been a cloudburst, officials could have avoided questions about why the state permitted construction in high risk zones and why early warning systems failed.

    Why are cloudbursts difficult to forecast?

    1. Model resolution: Weather models estimate average conditions across grid cells, while a cloudburst occurs over an area smaller than a single cell, so detecting one requires high resolution models needing computing power not always available.
    2. Speed of formation: Cloudbursts develop and strike quickly, unlike cyclones or monsoon systems that can be tracked for weeks, leaving forecasters far less data to work with.
    3. Terrain interference: Doppler weather radars emit and receive beams that mountains can block, creating blind spots in exactly the high altitude terrain where cloudbursts are most common.
    4. Sparse instrumentation: Rugged terrain also means fewer automatic weather stations, leaving fewer ground sensors to feed real time data into short term prediction.

    What is India doing to improve cloudburst forecasting?

    1. Nowcasting: The IMD is developing nowcasting technology to issue short term alerts every few hours rather than long range forecasts.
    2. Mission Mausam: Under the government’s Mission Mausam programme, India plans to more than double its radar network from about 40 radars currently and use artificial intelligence to better predict hyperlocal events.
    3. Persistent limits: Even with better technology, a cloudburst is expected to remain harder to predict than a typical rainstorm because of how localised and fast forming it is.

    Conclusion

    A cloudburst is a specific meteorological event defined by the IMD’s own rainfall threshold, not a synonym for any destructive downpour. Attributing flood damage to a cloudburst without checking recorded rainfall data lets authorities treat the disaster as an unforeseeable act of nature rather than examine illegal construction, deforestation and drainage failure. India’s forecasting improvements under Mission Mausam target the science of prediction, but they do not by themselves fix the planning failures the label has repeatedly been used to obscure.

    Back2Basics:

    Mission Mausam

    1. Nodal ministry: Ministry of Earth Sciences.
    2. Launch year: 2024.
    3. Aim: Improve weather and climate forecasting through expanded observation networks, high performance computing and artificial intelligence based prediction.
    4. Key features: Expansion of Doppler weather radar coverage, next generation satellites, and impact based forecasting for more precise, localised warnings.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] What is the phenomenon of ‘cloudbursts’? Explain.

    Linkage: The PYQ explains cloudbursts, their causes, and forecasting challenges. It updates the topic with IMD clarifications, Mission Mausam, and disaster accountability.

  • India’s first private orbital launch marks a structural milestone

    Why in the News?

    Skyroot Aerospace’s Vikram-1 successfully reached orbit on 18 July 2026, becoming the first privately developed Indian rocket to achieve orbital launch. India is now among the few countries where a private company has independently built and launched an orbital rocket.

    What is Vikram-1?

    • Vikram-1 is Skyroot Aerospace’s orbital launch vehicle.
    • Built using carbon composite structures with solid and liquid propulsion stages.
    • Developed by Skyroot Aerospace, a Hyderabad-based startup founded in 2018 by former ISRO scientists.
    • Follows the successful launch of Vikram-S under Mission Prarambh (2022).

    Key Highlights

    • First privately built Indian rocket to reach orbit.
    • Demonstrates India’s growing commercial space capabilities.
    • Marks a major milestone after the 2020 space sector reforms.

    India’s Private Space Ecosystem

    • 285 space startups, with 274 active.
    • 72 startups have received equity funding.
    • Total funding reached $871 million across 241 funding rounds (July 2026).
    • Annual funding increased from $43 million (2021) to $200 million (2025).

    What is IN-SPACe?

    • Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe).
    • Established in 2020 under the Department of Space.
    • Acts as the single-window agency for authorising and promoting private participation in the space sector.
    • Facilitates private access to ISRO’s testing and launch facilities.

    Significance

    • Strengthens India’s commercial space industry.
    • Reduces dependence on government-led launch services.
    • Encourages innovation, investment, and private participation.
    • Enhances India’s competitiveness in the global launch market.

    Challenges

    • High capital requirement for launch vehicle development.
    • Need for a regular commercial launch cadence.
    • Dependence on imported critical components.
    • Evolving insurance and liability framework.
    • Competition from low-cost global launch providers like SpaceX.

    Skyroot Aerospace

    • Headquarters: Hyderabad, Founded: 2018, Founders: Former ISRO scientists
    • First Rocket: Vikram-S (Mission Prarambh, 2022)
    • Naming: Vikram rockets are named after Dr. Vikram Sarabhai.
    • Developed the Dhawan-II, India’s first privately developed 3D-printed cryogenic engine.

    2020 Space Sector Reforms

    • Opened the space sector to private players.
    • Created IN-SPACe.
    • Enabled private firms to build satellites, launch vehicles, and offer launch services.
    • Encouraged technology transfer and infrastructure sharing with ISRO.

    Key Space Institutions

    • ISRO: National space agency.
    • IN-SPACe: Promotes and authorises private participation.
    • NSIL (NewSpace India Limited): Commercial arm of ISRO for technology transfer and commercialisation.

    [2026] Consider the following statements about involvement of private entities in India’s space programme:

    1. IN-SPACe is an autonomous agency formed to facilitate participation of private entities.

    2. Agnikul Cosmos launched the world’s first flight using 3D-printed rocket engine.

    3. Skyroot Aerospace has developed liquid fuel for GSLV.

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 2 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • ISRO and Japanese scientists review mission Chandrayaan 5 preparation

    Why in the News?

    An ISRO–JAXA delegation reviewed preparations for Chandrayaan-5 (LUPEX), India’s joint lunar mission with Japan, targeted for 2028. ISRO also informed Parliament that the Crew and Service Modules for the Gaganyaan-1 uncrewed mission are nearing completion.

    What is Chandrayaan-5 (LUPEX)?

    • Full Name: Lunar Polar Exploration Mission (LUPEX).
    • A joint lunar mission of ISRO and JAXA.
    • Target Launch: 2028.
    • Objective: Explore and study water and water ice at the Moon’s south polar region.

    Mission Components

    • Lander: Developed by ISRO.
    • Rover: Developed by JAXA.
    • Launch Vehicle: Japan’s H3 Rocket.
    • Scientific Payloads:
      • NASA: Neutron Spectrometer.
      • ESA: Mass Spectrometer.
    • Mission Duration: Around 100 days.
    • Scientific Instruments: 7 across the lander and rover.

    Mission Objectives

    • Detect and analyse surface and subsurface water ice.
    • Study the lunar south pole.
    • Support future human lunar exploration and resource utilisation.

    What is the status of Gaganyaan-1?

    • Gaganyaan-1 is an uncrewed precursor mission.
    • Crew and Service Modules are in the final stages of assembly and testing.
    • Intended to validate: Crew Module, Service Module, Crew Escape System, Life Support Systems
    • Launch has been delayed, and a revised schedule is yet to be announced.

    Significance

    • Strengthens India–Japan space cooperation.
    • Demonstrates multi-agency collaboration involving ISRO, JAXA, NASA, and ESA.
    • Advances lunar science and technologies for future exploration.
    • Supports India’s long-term human spaceflight ambitions under Gaganyaan.

    Challenges

    • Budget and resource constraints across multiple space missions.
    • Integration of ISRO’s lander with JAXA’s rover.
    • Dependence on Japan’s H3 launch vehicle.
    • Delays in the Gaganyaan programme.

    Chandrayaan Missions

    • Chandrayaan-1 (2008): Confirmed the presence of water molecules on the Moon.
    • Chandrayaan-2 (2019): Orbiter remains operational; lander hard-landed.
    • Chandrayaan-3 (2023): India became the first country to achieve a soft landing near the lunar south pole.
    • Chandrayaan-4: Planned Indian mission for lunar sample return.
    • Chandrayaan-5 (LUPEX): Joint ISRO–JAXA mission to explore lunar polar water ice.

    Gaganyaan Programme

    • India’s first human spaceflight mission.
    • Objective: Demonstrate the capability to send Indian astronauts to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and return them safely.
    • Implemented by ISRO.

    ISRO’s Major International Collaborations

    • JAXA: Chandrayaan-5 (LUPEX).
    • NASA: NISAR mission and Chandrayaan payloads.
    • ESA: Scientific payloads and deep-space support.

    [2025] Consider the following space missions:
    I. Axiom-4
    II. SpaDeX
    III. Gaganyaan
    How many of the space missions given above encourage and support microgravity research?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] All the three

    [D] None

  • RBI tightens transparency norms on bulk deposit rates, allows LCR linked pricing

    Why in the News?

    The RBI has mandated daily disclosure of bulk deposit interest rates while allowing LCR-linked differential pricing. The move follows the MSRDC interest payment controversy, which exposed opaque pricing practices for large depositors.

    What are the new RBI norms?

    • Banks must publish bulk deposit rates daily.
    • Interest rates must be uniform for deposits of the same amount accepted on the same day.
    • Differential rates are allowed only under the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) framework.
    • Applicable to bulk deposits, wholesale funding, and rupee deposits of non-residents.

    What is the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR)?

    • A Basel III liquidity standard ensuring banks hold sufficient High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) to meet 30-day stressed cash outflows.
    • Minimum LCR in India: 100%.
    • Current run-off rate: 12.5% (including 2.5% for digital deposits).

    What triggered the reform?

    • A bank allegedly disguised ₹45 crore paid to MSRDC as marketing expenditure during 2023–25.
    • The irregularity was detected through an internal audit, leading to a vigilance probe and the resignation of the bank’s chairman.

    Key Challenges

    • Hidden arrangements may still require internal audits to detect.
    • Daily disclosures cannot eliminate all off-book incentives.
    • Digital deposits may require periodic revision of run-off rates.
    • Stronger oversight of deposits by government entities is needed.

    Conclusion

    The RBI’s reforms improve transparency and fairness in bulk deposit pricing by replacing opaque negotiations with a rule-based disclosure system, though effective supervision remains critical.

    Value Addition

    • Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR) = High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA) ÷ Net Cash Outflows (30 days) × 100. Minimum requirement: 100%
    • High Quality Liquid Assets (HQLA): Cash, RBI balances, and Government Securities (G-Secs)
    • Basel III: Introduced after the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Strengthens capital adequacy, liquidity, and bank resilience.
    • Bulk Deposits: Large-value deposits accepted from corporates, institutions, trusts, and government entities, carrying higher liquidity risk than retail deposits.

    [2015] Basel III Accord’ or simply ‘Basel III’ often seen in the news, seeks to

    (a) develop national strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity

    (b) improve banking sector’s ability to deal with financial and economic stress and improve risk management

    (c) reduce the greenhouse gas emissions but places a heavier burden on developed countries

    (d) transfer technology from developed countries to poor countries to enable them to replace the use of chlorofluorocarbons in refrigeration with harmless chemicals

  • National Advisory Board on Management of Genetic Resources (NABMGR)

    Why in the News?

    The reconstituted National Advisory Board on Management of Genetic Resources (NABMGR) held its first meeting on 29 July 2026 at ICAR–National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, to strengthen India’s agrobiodiversity conservation and promote the sustainable utilization of genetic resources for food security, climate resilience, and Viksit Bharat.

    What is NABMGR?

    • A national advisory body constituted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
    • First constituted: 2011. Reconstituted: 2026.
    • Chairman: Dr. R.S. Paroda. Co-Chairman: Dr. M.L. Jat (Secretary, DARE & DG, ICAR).

    Objectives

    • Recommend national policies on agrobiodiversity.
    • Promote integrated management of Plant genetic resources, Animal genetic resources, Fish genetic resources, Microbial genetic resources, and Insect genetic resources
    • Advise on national and international issues related to genetic resources.

    Key Recommendations

    • Strengthen pre-breeding programmes to utilize conserved germplasm.
    • Identify unexplored regions for systematic germplasm collection (2026–2031).
    • Develop an integrated national genetic resources management framework.
    • Mainstream traditional and underutilized crop varieties, animal breeds, fish species, microbes, and insects.
    • Strengthen implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
    • Expedite establishment of the National Safety Genebank (NSG) before ICAR’s centenary (2028–29).
    • Enhance international collaboration, especially with Central Asia and South-East Asia, for germplasm exchange.

    Significance

    • Conserves India’s rich agrobiodiversity.
    • Broadens the genetic base for developing climate-resilient, high-yielding crops and livestock.
    • Strengthens food, nutrition and livelihood security.
    • Supports sustainable agriculture and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
    • Promotes scientific collaboration and evidence-based policy making.

    Important Institutions Mentioned

    • ICAR – Indian Council of Agricultural Research
    • ICAR-NBPGR – National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
    • National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)
    • Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
    • Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
    • Botanical Survey of India (BSI)
    • National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB)

    Value Addition

    • Agrobiodiversity: It refers to the variety and variability of plants, animals, fish, microorganisms and insects used directly or indirectly for food, agriculture and ecosystem services.
    • Germplasm: The hereditary genetic material (seeds, tissues, pollen, embryos, etc.) preserved for crop and livestock improvement.
    • Pre-breeding: The process of transferring useful genes from wild relatives or unadapted genetic resources into breeding materials to develop improved varieties.
    • Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS): A mechanism under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
    • National Safety Genebank (NSG): A secure backup repository for conserving valuable genetic resources against natural disasters or accidental loss.

    [2012] How does the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) help in protecting the Indian agriculture?
    1. NBA checks the biopiracy and protects the indigenous and traditional genetic resources.
    2. NBA directly monitors and supervises the scientific research on genetic modification of crop plants.
    3. Application for Intellectual Property Rights related to resources genetic/biological cannot be made without approval of NBA.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 Only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

More posts