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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Domestic Bodies/Agencies

  • SC seeks timeline for FSSAI’s food warning label roll-out

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has put the two phase rollout of front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under scrutiny. A two judge Bench held that a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” must divide the two phases, warning that the second phase could otherwise be “indefinitely postponed”. The Court also questioned why a warning should require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess of even one can pose a health risk. The directions came on a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. The protective content of the label therefore turns on a threshold and a commencement date that the proposal left to administrative discretion.

    What is front-of-pack labelling?

    1. What it is: Front of pack labelling puts a summary nutrition signal on the front face of a package, so a buyer sees it without reading the nutrition table printed on the back.
    2. A warning is a directive signal: A warning label declares that a product is high in a specified nutrient, which tells the buyer what to do rather than offering a score the buyer has to interpret.
    3. The nutrients of concern: The Indian proposal covers added fat, added sugar and salt, each linked to non communicable disease at excess intake.
    4. The threshold does the work: A product carries a warning only where it crosses a set limit on a nutrient, so the level of that limit and the number of nutrients required decide how much of the market is actually labelled.

    What did the Court hold on the two phase timeline?

    1. The phased design as proposed: Warnings would initially apply to packaged foods high in two or more nutrients of concern, and would extend in a second phase to products high in even one of them.
    2. Why FSSAI wanted the split: The regulator proposed the phased approach to give consumers time to adapt to the new labels and the food industry time to reformulate its products.
    3. The Court’s objection: The Bench held that assessment of consumer acceptability and adequate reformulation time “cannot be reason enough for this uncertainty in time”, and that a clearly defined timeline or transitionary period dividing the two phases must be indicated for the FSSAI’s approach to be a workable one.
    4. The risk it named: Without a fixed timeline the second phase could be “indefinitely postponed”, which would leave the narrower first phase standing as the operative regime.

    Why is the two nutrient trigger being questioned?

    1. The Court’s question: It asked why a warning should initially require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess levels of even one could pose health risks.
    2. The petitioners’ ground: The petition contends that the two nutrient requirement lacks a scientific basis and would leave many products outside the first phase.
    3. The alternative the Court floated: It asked FSSAI to consider a model bringing products with the highest levels of nutrients of concern under the warning regime first, followed by those crossing lower thresholds.
    4. What that alternative would change: Sequencing by severity rather than by the count of nutrients would capture a product that is extreme on a single nutrient, which the two nutrient trigger currently leaves out.
    5. The counter claim on the record: Stakeholders objected to placing ultra processed foods on the same footing as minimally processed packaged foods, on the ground that the latter carry greater nutritional benefit.

    What else did the Court direct, and what happens next?

    1. Nutritional literacy in schools: The Bench asked the Union government to incorporate nutritional literacy into school curricula, teaching children how to interpret nutritional information on a label.
    2. Why children were singled out: The Bench recorded that children are particularly “vulnerable” to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making”, so a label by itself does not protect them.
    3. The affidavit and the next date: FSSAI was directed to file an affidavit within 10 days setting out its responses and clarifications, and the matter was posted to 28 September.
    4. The petition behind it: The directions came while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the non profit 3S and Our Health Society, seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats.

    Challenges to front of pack warning labelling in India

    1. The threshold is set administratively and decides the regime: A limit fixed a little higher exempts most of the processed food shelf without any change to the rule’s text. Eg. FSSAI’s earlier Indian Nutrition Rating proposal drew criticism that its thresholds would have left most packaged snacks favourably rated.
      The Fix: Place the numerical thresholds in the regulation itself rather than in guidance, so any change requires the same consultation the regulation did.
    2. A rating signal is weaker than a warning signal: A star or score lets a buyer rationalise a poor product as better than the alternative, and a warning does not. Eg. Chile’s black octagonal “high in” warnings reduced purchases of labelled products, while star rating systems elsewhere recorded smaller effects.
      The Fix: Settle on a single warning format and bar any parallel voluntary rating on the same pack face.
    3. Reformulation can move a nutrient rather than remove it: A manufacturer can substitute an unlabelled ingredient to drop below a threshold without lowering the product’s health cost. Eg. Sugar replaced by non nutritive sweeteners takes a product below a sugar limit while leaving an ultra processed formulation intact.
      The Fix: Add an ultra processed classification to the pack alongside the nutrient warnings, so formulation is disclosed and not only nutrient content.
    4. Advertising sits outside a labelling rule: A warning on the pack does nothing about the promotion that put the product in the trolley. Eg. Children’s programming and digital platforms carry advertising for products high in fat, sugar and salt that no packaging regulation reaches.
      The Fix: Restrict advertising of products carrying a warning label during children’s viewing hours and on platforms with a substantial child audience.
    5. Most food sold in India is unpackaged: Warning labels reach the packaged segment, and not the loose, street and restaurant food where a large share of fat, sugar and salt is consumed. Eg. FSSAI’s menu labelling requirement applies only to chain restaurants above a size threshold and leaves standalone eateries out.
      The Fix: Extend calorie and nutrient disclosure to chain outlets below the current threshold and to food aggregator listings, where the menu is already digital.
    6. Enforcement capacity is the binding constraint: A labelling requirement is only as real as the sampling and prosecution behind it. Eg. Food testing laboratory capacity and food safety officer strength in the States have repeatedly been flagged as short of sanctioned levels.
      The Fix: Publish a State wise compliance sampling rate for front of pack labelling, so enforcement effort is visible rather than assumed.

    Conclusion

    The label’s protective value sits in two numbers the proposal leaves to administrative discretion: the level at which a nutrient triggers a warning, and how many nutrients must cross it. The Court has decided neither. It has refused to let the gap between the phases stay open ended, which converts a design choice into something the regulator must now justify on the record. What to watch is whether the regulator defends the two nutrient trigger with evidence or moves to the severity first sequence the Bench proposed.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

    1. Its governing statute: FSSAI is a statutory body established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which consolidated several earlier food laws into a single framework.
    2. Its ministry: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    3. What it does: It frames science based standards for food articles and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    4. How it regulates: It issues regulations such as the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, and licenses and registers food businesses through State food safety commissioners.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016] With reference to pre-packaged items in India, it is mandatory to the manufacturer to put which of the following information on the main label, as per the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011? 1. List of ingredients including additives 2. Nutrition information 3. Recommendation, if any, made by the medical profession about the possibility of any allergic reactions 4. Vegetarian/non-vegetarian Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4 (d) 1 and 4 only ANSWER: (c)”

  • After DGCA cracks whip, dope tests begin on all pilots of Indian airlines

    Why in the News

    The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the civil aviation regulator, has ordered every Indian airline to conduct a one time test for psychoactive substances on all its pilots by July next year. The direction was issued in August and testing has already begun. Indian airlines are estimated to employ close to 14,000 pilots. The order follows an Air India pilot testing positive for drugs after the aircraft he was commanding lost altitude suddenly on a Phuket to Delhi flight. The standing requirement is annual random testing of 10% of pilots, so the response to a single detected case is a census rather than a tighter sample.

    How does a psychoactive substance test work?

    1. The sample is split at collection: The employee’s urine sample is divided and stored in two separate containers.
    2. The first container is screened at once: A screening test is run on that sample immediately after it is collected.
    3. A non negative screening result grounds the pilot: A result indicating the presence of psychoactive substances takes the pilot off flying duty immediately, pending the confirmatory result.
    4. The second container decides the case: It is sent to a designated laboratory for a confirmatory test using high complexity instrumentation, because screening can return false positives from certain medications, food items and technical errors.

    What happens after a confirmed positive?

    1. A medical review comes first: The organisation’s medical in charge must consult a medical review officer to establish whether the result arose from legitimate therapeutic treatment or another innocuous source rather than from drug abuse. Eg. Pain relief medication containing codeine can trigger a positive result for opiates.
    2. A first offence is treated as a health problem: The employee is referred by the organisation to a specialist doctor, counsellor or de addiction centre for a rehabilitation programme.
    3. Return to duty is conditional: The employee must undergo fresh testing, obtain a negative report, and obtain a fitness certificate from the organisation’s medical in charge.
    4. The ladder then turns punitive: A positive result after return to duty suspends the licence for three years. A third positive result leads to cancellation of the licence.

    Why has the regulator moved from a sample to a census?

    1. The rule it is working around: The Civil Aviation Requirements on testing for psychoactive substances, effected in January 2022, make annual random testing of a tenth of pilots and air traffic controllers mandatory.
    2. The ministry asked for more: The Ministry of Civil Aviation suggested to the regulator that every pilot undergo a test once a year in place of the random sample.
    3. The revision was already under way: Consultations to revise the rules on testing aviation personnel were in progress when the incident occurred, and the incident produced calls for a stricter testing protocol and stricter disciplinary action in proven cases of drug abuse.
    4. The census is an interim step: With consultations still open, the regulator chose to put all airline pilots through a single test spread over nearly 12 months. A draft of the new and more stringent norms is expected by the end of this month, per the Union Civil Aviation Minister.

    Who else does the testing regime cover?

    1. Air traffic controllers sit alongside pilots: The existing rules treat both groups as the primary focus segments for testing, and the one time census covers pilots alone.
    2. The rules reach further than the cockpit: Aircraft maintenance engineers and certifying staff, trainee pilots, and instructors and examiners are all covered as personnel engaged in safety sensitive functions.
    3. Their testing is event based: That wider group is tested at the time of hiring or after specific incidents rather than on an annual cycle.

    What did the airline do before the regulator acted?

    1. A voluntary round came first: The Air India Group had already initiated one time random drug tests on an estimated 5,000 pilots employed by Air India and Air India Express, before the regulator’s direction was issued.
    2. Dismissal followed the investigator’s disclosure: Hours after the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau flagged the positive drug test of the pilot in command of that flight, the airline said it had terminated the pilot’s employment.

    Challenges to psychoactive substance testing of aviation personnel

    1. A one time census tests a date, not a habit: A single sweep across a year detects use in a narrow window and creates a predictable gap on either side of it. Eg. A pilot already tested knows that no further test is due until the revised norms take effect.
      The Fix: Move to unannounced random testing at a high annual coverage rate, so the probability of being tested stays constant instead of being exhausted.
    2. A test detects consumption, not impairment in the cockpit: A positive result establishes that a substance was consumed and does not establish that performance was degraded on a particular flight. Eg. Alcohol is handled separately through pre flight breath analyser checks, precisely because impairment there is measured at the point of duty.
      The Fix: Link the regime to flight data monitoring, so a recorded performance anomaly triggers a test as readily as a test triggers an inquiry.
    3. A punitive ladder suppresses self reporting: A regime in which a repeat finding costs the licence discourages a pilot from disclosing a dependency or a prescribed medication. Eg. Aviation medicine practice elsewhere pairs testing with a confidential peer support route back to the cockpit.
      The Fix: Create a protected disclosure channel with treatment and monitored return, entered voluntarily rather than after a failed test.
    4. Laboratory and custody capacity is the binding constraint: Confirmatory testing needs accredited laboratories and an unbroken chain of custody, and a census multiplies both demands at the same time. Eg. A mishandled sample cannot be tested again, so a disputed result becomes unresolvable for the employee and the regulator alike.
      The Fix: Notify the designated laboratories with their assessed capacity, and audit custody records rather than only test outcomes.

    Conclusion

    The regulator has answered a detection failure with coverage. Testing everyone once establishes a baseline, and it does not change the odds a user faces on any given day, which is what actually deters use. The substantive decisions sit in the rules still being drafted, namely the annual coverage rate, whether testing is unannounced, and whether a pilot who comes forward is treated as a patient or as a case. Those three choices, and not the size of the first sweep, will decide whether the regime catches impairment before a flight rather than after one.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”

  • Failing at ABC

    Why in the News

    An investigation across Tamil Nadu and Puducherry into the outsourced Animal Birth Control (ABC) programme, under which local bodies contract organisations to sterilise and vaccinate community dogs, records starved animals, botched mass surgeries, broken vaccine cold chains and fabricated organ counts.

    What do the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023 require?

    1. Humane capture and return to the same place: Capture with nets, feeder outreach before capture, and geotagging of both capture and release at the same location.
    2. Surgical and shelter standards: Closed circuit cameras in the operation theatre, pre-operative and post-operative care, clean and spacious kennels, food twice a day and water at all times.
    3. Verification tied to billing: Organ inspection committees are to be constituted to count organs against billing claims.
    4. Disposal after the count: Organs are to be destroyed immediately by deep burial or incineration.

    What did the investigation find at the centres?

    1. Oulgaret, Puducherry: An internal municipal dossier recorded 50 emaciated dogs released from an ABC centre in late 2025, 20 dog deaths and 50 complaints against the veterinarian. The animals were released hastily just before an inspection, with sutures falling apart.
    2. Velankanni, Nagapattinam district: On 23 July dogs were found alive with loose sutures and no post-operative care, and carcasses were found in garbage with bloody sutures and with wires and ropes around their necks, both banned in the catching process. The District Animal Welfare Officer’s report recorded 70 dogs, 64 males and six females, sterilised in three days by two veterinarians.
    3. Mannargudi, Tiruvarur district: On 2 September a female dog was found alive with its intestines spilling out after sterilisation at the centre there.
    4. Pollachi: At a board-run centre the post-operative care unit sits 2 km away from the surgery centre, and a female dog died of evisceration after surgery.
    5. Relocation instead of return: Dogs picked up for sterilisation are extensively relocated in violation of the Rules, and a healthy dog returned to its own locality is the community’s only real-time audit of the money spent.

    Why do the surgeries fail?

    1. Suturing is rushed: The distance between two suture bites should be under half a centimetre, which takes time. Centres press young veterinarians to complete more surgeries instead.
    2. Pain relief is skipped to cut cost: Multi-modal analgesia is omitted, so the animal licks the surgical site and opens the sutures.
    3. Suture material is reused: Leftover material causes surgical site infections.
    4. The faster male technique is the unsuitable one: The on-scrotal method leaves gaps between sutures for fluid drainage and raises infection risk on unhygienic shelter floors. A veterinarian left an organisation that insisted on more on-scrotal procedures.

    How does the payment design create the incentive?

    1. The rate is fixed per dog: Rs 1,650 is allocated per dog, including Rs 450 for sterilisation and vaccination and Rs 200 for catching and release.
    2. Payment follows projected numbers, not outcomes: Local bodies reward claimed counts rather than verified results, which turns sterilisation into assembly-line work at scale.
    3. Catchers are paid per catch: Pups, lactating dogs, pregnant dogs and already sterilised dogs are picked up to raise the count.
    4. Ethical care is affordable and skipped anyway: Factoring in economies of scale, a centre can make about Rs 66,000 in profit while still meeting ethical standards of care.

    What is the state of verification?

    1. Bills clear on the contractor’s own evidence: Payment rests on the organisation’s claims, photographs of surgery, photographs of dogs and occasional organ counts by municipal sanitation officers.
    2. The organ count is gamed: A bucket of organs stored at the Oulgaret centre was transported to Neyveli township in Cuddalore district in 2025 to supply an organ counting committee inspection, with the same veterinarian performing surgeries at Neyveli.
    3. The committees arrive after the money: In Tiruppur the organ counting committee was constituted only after more than 9,000 surgeries had been billed.
    4. The audit questions went unanswered: The Director of Municipal Administration did not answer whether time-tagged photographs, videos of the organ count and destruction of organs were audited for each batch of sterilisation bills, or what the targets were.
    5. The corrective is administrative and recent: Corporations have withheld payment on bills raised over the last three months, and a member of the State Monitoring Committee has written to the Municipal Administration Department to withhold bills and constitute panels. Activists have asked instead that community animals be brought under an animal management framework of the Animal Husbandry Department.

    Why does blacklisting fail to remove a contractor?

    1. Recognition is scarce and contracting is not: Only six organisations hold recognition for ABC procedures in the State, against about 15 contractor organisations operating in the space.
    2. A blacklisted operator is re-engaged elsewhere: Pranimitran’s contract was terminated by the Hosur Corporation over animal mutilation, botched surgeries and non-disclosure, and it was blacklisted by the Animal Welfare Board of India. The Tiruppur Corporation engaged it anyway, stating that no replacement contractor could be found.
    3. Others continue in place: Jeeva Karunyam of Nagercoil and Rajeshwari Goshala of Tirunelveli continue to work for their local bodies, and two First Information Reports were filed against International Peace Trust at Avadi in Chennai.
    4. A criminal case does not interrupt a contract: A First Information Report was filed against Pranimitran over the death of two pups in Tiruppur, and in April 2026 an already sterilised six-year-old dog with a notched ear was found anaesthetised at its centre.

    What does the broken cold chain mean for rabies control?

    1. Refrigeration is missing: A large majority of centres lack refrigerators capable of holding anti-rabies vaccine at 2 degrees Celsius.
    2. Vaccination is simply skipped: A doctor who worked at the Hosur centre states that no vaccines were administered across an average of 650 surgeries a month, with power cuts, no generator and no fresh vaccine batches supplied.
    3. Responsibility is contested: The organisation’s position is that the cold chain is supplied and inspected by the Corporation, and that ineffective vaccines would have produced a rabies outbreak.
    4. Half the programme then disappears: Sterilisation without a viable vaccine delivers population control alone, and leaves the rabies control purpose of the programme unmet.

    Conclusion

    The programme’s failure is not a supervision gap that better inspection would close. Payment attaches to a number the contractor supplies, the committee that would verify the number is constituted late or supplied with borrowed evidence, and the certificate that would screen the contractor has been made optional. Blacklisting is therefore a label rather than a disqualification, and a contractor removed in one district is hired in the next. Until money moves against a verified sterilisation and a verified vaccination rather than against a claimed count, no participant in the chain carries a cost for the outcome.

    Back2Basics: Animal Welfare Board of India

    1. Statutory origin: Established in 1962 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, as the first national animal welfare body of its kind.
    2. Function: It advises the Government of India on animal welfare laws and on measures to prevent unnecessary pain to animals, and its recommendations are advisory.
    3. Role in this programme: It issues Project Recognition Certificates to organisations conducting Animal Birth Control work, and can blacklist an organisation for violations.
    4. Administrative location: It works under the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, and its headquarters moved from Chennai to Ballabhgarh in Haryana.

    [2014] Consider the following statements:

    1. Animal Welfare Board of India is established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

    2. National Tiger Conservation Authority is a statutory body.

    3. National Ganga River Basin Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 2 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Bihar makes consent mandatory for CBI to probe public servants

    Why in the News

    The Bihar Home Department has issued a notification regulating the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in the State under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It widens the agency’s standing general consent over offences involving employees of the Government of India, central Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and private persons implicated alongside them. A proviso then removes that automatic authority over public servants appointed in connection with the affairs of the Bihar government and over State-owned, State-controlled and State-aided bodies. The notification supersedes every previous notification on the subject. The result is a two-tier regime. The same agency needs no permission to investigate a central employee in Bihar. It needs case-by-case permission to investigate a State employee.

    What is consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946?

    1. The statute is the CBI’s source of police powers: The CBI cannot ordinarily exercise its powers and jurisdiction inside a State without that State government’s consent.
    2. Two forms of consent: General consent allows the agency to investigate specified offences or categories of cases without seeking permission each time. Specific consent is granted for an individual case.
    3. Consent is tied to a notified offence list: The offences the agency may investigate are notified under Section 3 of the Act, so a State’s general consent operates only over that notified list.

    What does the Bihar notification alter on each side of the line?

    1. The offence list under general consent is widened: Consent now covers offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, cybercrime, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended.
    2. Whom the wider consent covers: It applies to employees of the Government of India, employees of PSUs under the Government of India, and private persons implicated alongside them.
    3. The proviso carves out the State’s own establishment: Prior consent of the Bihar government is mandatory for any probe of public servants appointed in connection with the affairs of the State, and of persons in any corporation, company or bank owned by, controlled by, or receiving financial assistance from the State.
    4. The State decides each request individually: On receiving a proposal from the Delhi Special Police Establishment, the State government considers it and takes a decision on granting powers of investigation case by case.

    Why is the order read as widening the agency’s reach rather than curbing it?

    1. The two-pronged reading inside the police establishment: The stated reading is that the first part of the order lets the CBI investigate cases that were the State’s prerogative, and the second part balances that by requiring the State’s permission.
    2. It is read as a template for other States: The assessment within the agency is that Bihar may have set a precedent for other States, and that the order gives the CBI more scope rather than less.
    3. The consent bar binds the executive alone: The requirement of State consent applies only to executive action by the CBI. It does not restrict a High Court or the Supreme Court from ordering a CBI investigation within a State without the State government’s consent.

    Challenges to the general consent mechanism

    1. Consent is revocable at will and leaves probes suspended: A State can withdraw general consent at any time, and the agency must then seek permission for every fresh case in that State. Eg. West Bengal withdrew its general consent in November 2018 and has required case-by-case permission since.
      The Fix: Prescribe a statutory period within which a State must decide a case-by-case request, with reasons recorded for a refusal.
    2. The agency has no charter of its own: The CBI rests on a 1946 police establishment law and a 1963 executive resolution, so its very constitution has been litigated. Eg. The Gauhati High Court in Navendra Kumar v. Union of India (2013) held the 1963 resolution constituting the CBI to be invalid, and the Supreme Court stayed that order within days.
      The Fix: Enact a dedicated CBI statute fixing its composition, its jurisdiction over notified central offences and the limits of State consent.
    3. Corruption probes against State officials face two separate gates: Consent under Section 6 is only the first permission, and a further approval is needed before an inquiry into a public servant’s official decisions can begin. Eg. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inserted in 2018, requires prior approval of the competent authority before any enquiry into a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions.
      The Fix: Run both approvals through a single time-bound window, so a refusal at either gate is recorded once and is appealable.
    4. Selective consent invites a political reading of every case: The State controls access to its own officials, so each grant or refusal is readable as a political act rather than a legal one. Eg. The Supreme Court described the agency as a “caged parrot speaking in its master’s voice” in the coal blocks allocation matter in 2013.
      The Fix: Publish an annual statement of consent requests received, granted, refused and pending, State by State, so the pattern is visible rather than inferred.
    5. Joint cases now straddle two consent regimes: One case involving a central employee and a State public servant is fully open on one accused and permission-dependent on the other, which splits a single investigation. Eg. A corruption case in a centrally funded scheme executed by a State department typically names officials of both.
      The Fix: Provide that where a case includes even one accused covered by general consent, the State decides on the whole case within a fixed period rather than on each accused separately.

    Conclusion

    The notification is in force and it supersedes every earlier consent order in the State. It settles nothing about the underlying arrangement, which lets the same agency be widened and fenced by a single executive order that no legislature debated. What is worth watching is whether other States adopt the split model, and whether Bihar attaches any timeline to the permissions it has now reserved to itself. A permission with no deadline is a refusal that never has to be written down.

    Back2Basics: Central Bureau of Investigation

    1. Constitution: The CBI was set up by a resolution of the Ministry of Home Affairs in 1963, and it is not a statutory body created by its own Act.
    2. Administrative control: It functions under the Department of Personnel and Training in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
    3. Superintendence is split: For offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, superintendence vests in the Central Vigilance Commission. For all other matters it vests in the Central Government.
    4. Appointment of the Director: The Director is appointed on the recommendation of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the Chief Justice.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “The jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) regarding lodging an FIR and conducting probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain with special reference to the federal character of India.”

  • NTA looks for exam centres, seeks help from technical education body

    NTA looks for exam centres, seeks help from technical education body

    Why in the News

    The National Testing Agency (NTA) has begun assembling a network of government owned computer laboratories to run the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, Undergraduate (NEET-UG) as a computer based examination. It has asked the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to collect information from government institutions on their information technology infrastructure and available space. The move follows the government’s decision to shift NEET-UG out of pen and paper mode from next year, taken after a question paper leak forced the cancellation of the examination and a nationwide protest. The constraint the request exposes is physical rather than procedural. A nationwide computer based test needs a geographically distributed network of secure, connected centres, and that network does not yet exist in public hands.

    What is a Standard Testing Centre?

    1. A vetted venue rather than a hired hall: A Standard Testing Centre is a facility identified and developed in advance for computer based testing, instead of being arranged afresh for each examination cycle.
    2. The infrastructure it must carry: Institutions have been asked to report the number of functional computers and computer systems, their information technology systems, networking and internet connectivity, availability of power backup, and CCTV and related facilities.
    3. It must have usable spare capacity: Institutions have also been asked to report vacant space, since a centre needs room that is not already committed to teaching.
    4. Only government institutions qualify at this stage: The information has been sought only in respect of government colleges and institutions approved by AICTE.

    Why is NTA routing the search through the technical education regulator?

    1. AICTE approved institutions are the largest pool of public computer laboratories: Engineering colleges, polytechnic institutes, government university departments and other state run technical or management institutions all sit inside its approval network.
    2. The requirement is geographic spread, not raw seat count: The stated reason is the progressive migration of examinations to computer based mode and the need for a wider geographically distributed network of testing centres.
    3. The request travelled down the institutional chain: NTA wrote to AICTE on 5 August, and AICTE then wrote to Vice Chancellors of state run technical universities and to directors and principals of approved government institutions.
    4. The returns are dated and must be certified: Institutions must submit details that are accurate, complete and duly verified by the competent authority of the institution, by 15 September.

    What forced the shift to computer based testing?

    1. A paper leak invalidated the examination: The Union Education Ministry cancelled the NEET-UG entrance examination held on 3 May after the question paper leaked.
    2. The scale of the disruption: Around 22 lakh candidates had appeared in that examination.
    3. The political cost: The cancellation sparked nationwide protests and the Union Education Minister resigned.
    4. The stated remedy: The government has said NEET-UG will move from pen and paper mode to computer based testing from next year.
    5. The agency itself is being restructured: The search for centres runs alongside an ongoing overhaul of NTA, the nodal autonomous body that conducts NEET-UG and other entrance tests for higher educational institutions.

    Challenges to migrating NEET-UG to computer based testing

    1. The scale has no precedent in computer based testing: No Indian examination has run a computer based test for a cohort of this size in a single sitting, so the centre requirement is a multiple of anything currently operated. Eg. The Joint Entrance Examination (Main) already runs on computer, and it is spread across multiple sessions and days rather than one day.
      The Fix: Publish the shift and session design alongside the centre inventory, so candidates know in advance whether scores will be compared across papers.
    2. Multiple shifts require score normalisation, which is itself contested: Candidates sitting different question papers must be compared through a statistical adjustment rather than through raw marks. Eg. Percentile normalisation in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) has repeatedly been challenged for producing rank differences between shifts.
      The Fix: Release the normalisation formula and shift wise difficulty data with the result, rather than only the final percentile.
    3. Rural and small town candidates face a familiarity gap: A test taken on a keyboard and screen advantages candidates with routine computer access, and NEET-UG draws heavily from districts where school computer laboratories are shared or non functional. Eg. The very shortage of government computer infrastructure that NTA is now mapping is the same shortage those candidates study under.
      The Fix: Fund a compulsory mock test on the actual examination software at the allotted centre before the examination day.
    4. The centre, not the press, is the historic weak point: Leaks and impersonation cases have originated at the examination venue, and a computer based test moves that risk to local network access and administrator privileges. Eg. The compromise that led to the May cancellation happened before candidates ever reached the hall.
      The Fix: Log and audit every administrator level action at a centre, with the log held by the agency rather than by the host institution.
    5. Host institutions are being asked to supply capacity without a funding line: A college that lends its laboratory absorbs power, staff time and lost teaching hours on examination days. Eg. The AICTE communication seeks an inventory of infrastructure and states nothing about what a host institution receives in return.
      The Fix: Attach a per candidate hosting grant to the Standard Testing Centre designation, paid against certified compliance with the infrastructure norms.

    Conclusion

    The decision to move NEET-UG onto computers has already been announced. The capacity to run it has not yet been counted. The agency is conducting an inventory now, which means the size of the network will be known only after the mode has been committed to. The point to watch is what those returns show. If the public system cannot supply enough certified centres, the test either returns to private venues, which is where the security problem originated, or it splits across shifts and sessions, which substitutes a scoring dispute for a leak.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it is: The All India Council for Technical Education is the national body for the planning and coordinated development of technical education in India.
    2. Statutory basis: It was set up in 1945 as an advisory body and given statutory status by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.
    3. Where it sits: It functions under the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    4. What it does: It grants approval to technical institutions and prescribes norms and standards for courses and infrastructure, across fields including engineering, technology, management, architecture, pharmacy and hotel management.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Closest microtheme: Domestic Bodies/Agencies.”

  • Soon, red hexagonal label to warn of high fat, sugar, salt in snacks

    Why in the News

    The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has told the Supreme Court that it proposes a red hexagonal front of pack label to warn consumers when a packaged food is high in salt, added sugar or added fat. The proposal answers the Court, which is hearing a plea by 3S and Our Health Society, a Kerala based non-profit organisation. No notification has been issued. What is contested is whether the phasing and the trigger conditions attached to the label leave most unhealthy products outside it.

    What would the proposed label carry?

    1. Shape and placement: The label is a red hexagon carried on the front of the packet, so the warning is visible before the pack is turned over.
    2. Language and size: The warning will be in English, in a font one point larger than the font used in the nutritional information table at the back of the pack.
    3. The declarations: The label will state “high fat”, “high sugar”, “high salt” or “highly sweetened beverage”, as applicable, to let consumers identify products high in the specified nutrients.
    4. The thresholds: What counts as high is set against the thresholds in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN).

    How will the rollout be phased?

    1. The first phase: Only products high in at least two of the ingredients of concern will carry the warning label.
    2. The second phase: The warning will extend to products high in even one ingredient.
    3. The stated reason: FSSAI said the two phase plan is meant to secure consumer acceptability and to give industry adequate time for reformulation.

    Which products are exempt?

    1. Single ingredient foods: Food products with a single ingredient fall outside the labelling requirement.
    2. Foods inherently rich in the nutrients: Ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey are exempt, subject to the other requirements under the food safety and labelling regulations.

    Why do nutrition experts call the proposal ineffective?

    1. The two nutrient trigger: The Convener of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) India said many unhealthy products will not need the warning label in the first phase, since they are high in just one nutrient.
    2. No date for the second phase: FSSAI has given no timeline for the phase in which every product high in fat, sugar or salt must carry the warning.
    3. The word “added”: The warning is triggered only by added sugar or added fat, and the added quantity is difficult to estimate.
    4. Natural sugars escape the trigger: High levels of naturally occurring sugars also harm health, and the proposed trigger does not capture them.
    5. Presentation: The proposed font size is too small, and the message should also be carried in Hindi.

    Conclusion

    FSSAI has accepted warning labelling in principle, and the conditions attached to it decide how many products will actually carry a warning. The petitioner has circulated a revised draft, invited public comments on it, and will file a rejoinder once those comments are received. The next milestone is the notification itself, which will show whether the second phase carries a date.

    Back2Basics

    1. Statutory basis: FSSAI was established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
    2. Parent ministry: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    3. Mandate: It lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    4. Labelling powers: Packaging and labelling requirements for packaged food, including what must be declared on the pack, are framed under regulations it issues.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2016] With reference to pre-packaged items in India, it is mandatory to the manufacturer to put which of the following information on the main label, as per the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011? 1. List of ingredients including additives 2. Nutrition information 3. Recommendation, if any, made by the medical profession about the possibility of any allergic reactions 4. Vegetarian/non-vegetarian Select the correct answer using the code given below. (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4 (d) 1 and 4 only ANSWER: (c)”

  • UGC equity rules being reconsidered: Centre to SC

    Why in the News

    The Centre told the Supreme Court on 20 August 2026 that it is reconsidering the University Grants Commission regulations framed to prevent caste discrimination in higher education institutions. The regulations name the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes as the protected groups, and that naming is what general category petitioners have challenged as exclusion.

    What are the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026?

    1. What they do: The University Grants Commission (UGC) (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 impose a compliance framework on higher education institutions to prevent and redress discrimination against students and faculty.
    2. Notification and stay: They were notified on 13 January 2026 and stayed by the Supreme Court on 29 January 2026, which revived the 2012 framework until further orders.
    3. Two definitions inside them: Regulation 3(1)(c) defines caste based discrimination as discrimination on the basis of caste or tribe against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Clause 3(e) defines discrimination more broadly, covering unfair or differential treatment on the ground of caste against any stakeholder.
    4. Present position: The Centre has told the Court that the regulations are being reconsidered, so they stand stayed and unenforced.

    What is a "separate yet equal" classification?

    1. Separate yet equal: A "separate yet equal" classification permits separate facilities for different groups on the argument that the facilities provided are of equal quality. Constitutional courts treat the act of separation as the injury, since equality of facilities does not cure the stigma of being set apart.

    How far are students currently protected against caste discrimination on campus?

    1. Governing regulations restored: The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 are back in force, requiring institutions to constitute an Equal Opportunity Cell and to publish an anti discrimination policy.
    2. Criminal protection: The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 covers caste based insult, intimidation and social boycott, including inside educational institutions, and is tried by Special Courts. Its 2015 Amendment added new offences and mandated Exclusive Special Courts and time bound trial.
    3. Separate ragging machinery: The UGC (Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2009 mandate an Anti Ragging Committee and an Anti Ragging Squad in every institution, alongside an anti ragging affidavit from every student and parent.
    4. Reservation in admission: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 reserves 15 per cent of seats for the Scheduled Castes, 7.5 per cent for the Scheduled Tribes and 27 per cent for the Other Backward Classes, alongside 10 per cent for the Economically Weaker Sections.
    5. Reservation in teaching posts: The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Teachers' Cadre) Act, 2019 restored the institution rather than the department as the unit for computing reservation in faculty recruitment.
    6. No standalone statute: India has no dedicated anti discrimination Act for education, so protection is assembled from regulations, criminal law and reservation statutes.

    Constitutional Provisions Related to Equality and Non-Discrimination

    1. Preamble: Declares equality of status and of opportunity, and fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual.
    2. Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to every person.
    3. Article 15(1): Prohibits the State from discriminating against any citizen on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.
    4. Article 15(4): Enables special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes and for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    5. Article 15(5): Enables reservation in admission to educational institutions, including private unaided institutions, other than minority institutions.
    6. Article 15(6): Enables reservation of up to 10 per cent of seats for the Economically Weaker Sections.
    7. Article 16(4): Enables reservation in public employment for any backward class not adequately represented in State services.
    8. Article 17: Abolishes untouchability and forbids its practice in any form.
    9. Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, read to include the right to live with dignity.
    10. Article 29(2): Bars denial of admission to a State maintained or State aided educational institution on grounds of religion, race, caste or language.
    11. Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections, particularly the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    12. Article 338 and Article 338A: Establish the National Commission for Scheduled Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes to investigate and monitor constitutional safeguards.

    Why were the 2026 Regulations framed?

    1. Origin in litigation: The regulations stem from a 2019 petition filed in the Supreme Court by the mothers of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula.
    2. The two deaths: Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula died by suicide over alleged caste based discrimination in 2019 and 2016 respectively.
    3. Relief sought: The petition asked for enforcement of robust anti discrimination mechanisms across higher education institutions.
    4. Gap in the earlier framework: The 2012 regulations relied on Equal Opportunity Cells without naming caste based discrimination as a distinct wrong.
    5. Regulatory answer: The 2026 regulations responded by carving out caste based discrimination as a separate defined category rather than leaving it inside general discrimination.

    Why did the Supreme Court stay the regulations rather than let them operate?

    1. Sweeping consequences: The bench said the issue raised important questions that, if left unexamined, could have very sweeping consequences and could divide society.
    2. Prima facie ambiguity: The order recorded that on a prima facie consideration some provisions of the impugned regulations suffer from certain ambiguities, and that the possibility of their misuse cannot be ruled out.
    3. Status quo preserved: The Court directed that the 2012 Regulations will continue in force till further orders, so institutions were not left without an equity framework.
    4. Notices issued: Notices were issued to the Centre and to the University Grants Commission, so the challenge proceeds on merits rather than by administrative withdrawal.
    5. Narrow target of challenge: The petitions, filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Vineet Jindal and Rahul Dewan, primarily challenge Regulation 3(1)(c) and not the regulations as a whole.

    Why has an anti-discrimination rule drawn objections from protected and general categories alike?

    1. General category objection: Naming the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes in Regulation 3(1)(c) is read as excluding general category students and faculty from specific protection against caste based discrimination.
    2. The broader clause cuts against the narrower: Clause 3(e) already covers unfair or differential treatment on the ground of caste against any stakeholder, so the narrower clause adds a group specific label without adding a group specific remedy.
    3. Dalit and Other Backward Class objection: Sections of Dalit and Other Backward Class opinion oppose the stay and any rollback, since deleting the named categories would dissolve the recognition the regulation created.
    4. Division within the protected groups: Some Dalit opinion opposes bringing the Other Backward Classes under the same protective umbrella, treating caste discrimination against the Scheduled Castes as a distinct harm.
    5. Absent machinery: The regulations create a named category of caste based discrimination without prescribing a distinct complaint, inquiry or penalty procedure for it.

    What questions has the Supreme Court framed for examination?

    1. Nexus of Regulation 3(1)(c): Whether Clause 3(1)(c) bears a reasonable and rational nexus to subserve the object and purpose of the 2026 Regulations, particularly since no distinct or special procedural mechanism has been prescribed to address caste based discrimination as against the exhaustive and inclusive definition of discrimination in Clause 3(e).
    2. Effect on sub classification: Whether introducing the term caste based discrimination has any bearing on the existing constitutional and statutory sub classification of the Most Backward Castes within the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, and whether the new rules provide adequate and effective safeguards to such Extremely Backward Castes against discrimination and structural disadvantage.
    3. Segregation and the equality guarantees: Whether including the expression segregation in the context of allocation of hostels, classrooms, mentorship groups or similar academic or residential arrangements, albeit on transparent and non discriminatory criteria, would amount to a separate yet equal classification infringing the guarantees of equality and fraternity under Articles 14 and 15 and the Preamble.
    4. Omission of ragging: Whether omitting the term ragging as a specific form of discrimination is a regressive and exclusionary legislative omission, and whether that omission creates an asymmetry in access to justice for victims of discrimination and so falls foul of Articles 14 and 21.

    Why has the issue become an electoral question in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar?

    1. Upper caste protest: The rules triggered protests among sections of the upper castes, who argued that the explicit reference to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes amounted to exclusion of general category students.
    2. Dalit disquiet over rollback: There is concern within the ruling party that the stay and any rollback may cause disquiet among Dalit communities.
    3. Election calendar: Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections are due next year, which places the dispute inside an active campaign in the largest State.
    4. Bypoll reading: One reason attributed within the ruling party for its defeat in the recent Bankipur Assembly bypoll in Bihar was upper caste dissatisfaction over the University Grants Commission issue.
    5. Cost in both directions: Retaining the clause loses general category support and withdrawing it loses Dalit and Other Backward Class support, which is why reconsideration rather than defence is the chosen route.

    Major debates surrounding caste discrimination in higher education

    1. Group specific against universal protection: Whether an anti discrimination rule should name the historically excluded groups, or state a caste neutral prohibition that any student can invoke, is the live legal fault line.
    2. Sub classification within the Scheduled Castes: The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling in State of Punjab v Davinder Singh permitted States to sub classify the Scheduled Castes for reservation, and the debate now extends to whether protection against discrimination can be similarly graded.
    3. Creamy layer for the Scheduled Castes: Judicial opinion is divided on extending the creamy layer exclusion, applied to the Other Backward Classes since Indra Sawhney (1992), to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
    4. Merit against representation: The framing of open competition as merit and reservation as compensation is contested by the argument that access to coaching, language and schooling already prices the entry test.
    5. Institutional autonomy against central regulation: Whether a central regulator can prescribe internal grievance machinery binding on State and private universities is disputed by State governments.
    6. Empirical gap: Caste wise data on discrimination complaints and on student suicides in higher education institutions is not published in consolidated form, so the scale the dispute turns on is itself contested.

    Challenges to enforcing the UGC Equity Regulations

    1. Grievance machinery controlled by the respondent: Equal Opportunity Cells are constituted by the same administration that a complaint is frequently directed against. Eg. In the Rohith Vemula case, the suspension from the hostel that preceded his death in January 2016 came from the University of Hyderabad's own disciplinary machinery.
    2. Retaliation risk suppresses reporting: A complaint against senior faculty or residents is made inside a hierarchy that controls the complainant's evaluation. Eg. Payal Tadvi's complaint at BYL Nair Hospital in Mumbai in 2019 named senior residents in her own department.
    3. Regulatory reach ends at grant conditionality: University Grants Commission regulations bind institutions that seek its recognition and grants, and enforcement over State universities is weak. Eg. The 2012 regulations required every institution to publish an anti discrimination policy, and publication was never made a condition for release of grants.
    4. A stayed regulation does not operate: A judicial stay leaves the earlier and weaker framework in charge for the entire period of litigation. Eg. The 2026 regulations have been suspended since 29 January 2026, so the 2012 framework they were written to replace still governs every campus.
    5. Faculty representation shortfall: A grievance system staffed almost entirely by unreserved category faculty carries limited confidence among complainants. Eg. Central universities have reported persistent backlogs of unfilled reserved category professor and associate professor posts in successive parliamentary replies.
    6. Definitional contest displaces the remedy: Litigation on who is covered has consumed the entire period in which the compliance machinery was to be built. Eg. Seven months after notification the regulations have produced no Equal Opportunity Cell restructuring, no complaint procedure and no penalty.

    Conclusion

    A regulation written to give caste discrimination a name has become unworkable because targeted protection and formally neutral protection are being demanded of the same clause. The Centre has told the Supreme Court that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 are being reconsidered, so the measure stands stayed and the 2012 framework continues in force until further orders. What remains unresolved is the defect the Court itself identified, that the regulations create a distinct category of caste based discrimination without prescribing any distinct procedure to act on it.

    What is Substantive Equality?

    1. About: Substantive equality treats equality as an outcome the law must produce, so it permits differential treatment where identical treatment would preserve entrenched disadvantage.
    2. Rationale: Formal equality applies the same rule to unequally placed persons, which reproduces the existing distribution of advantage; substantive equality asks what the rule does to those on whom the disadvantage already falls.
    3. Redressing disadvantage: The first dimension asks whether a measure removes the material and social disadvantage a group carries, rather than whether it treats everyone alike.
    4. Countering stigma, prejudice and violence: The second dimension asks whether a measure reduces the humiliation, stereotype and hostility attached to group membership.
    5. Enhancing voice and participation: The third dimension asks whether the affected group has a say in the institutions that decide for it, since exclusion from decision making sustains the disadvantage.
    6. Accommodating difference through structural change: The fourth dimension asks whether the institution itself is altered to fit the group, rather than requiring the group to conform to an existing design.

    Key Concerns Regarding Substantive Equality

    1. Ceiling on affirmative action: The 50 per cent limit set in Indra Sawhney (1992) restricts how far redistribution can go, and the 10 per cent Economically Weaker Sections quota upheld in Janhit Abhiyan (2022) breached it for a non caste category.
    2. Benefit capture within the beneficiary group: Reservation gains concentrate among the better placed sections of a reserved category, which is the argument behind creamy layer and sub classification demands.
    3. Absence of enumeration: Caste wise socio economic data has not been published since 1931 in a full Census, so the extent of disadvantage the doctrine seeks to redress is inferred rather than measured.
    4. Reach limited to the public sector: Reservation binds the State and State aided institutions, and the bulk of new employment and higher education capacity has grown in the private sector.
    5. Conflict with efficiency claims: Article 335 requires that claims of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes be considered consistently with the maintenance of efficiency of administration, which is repeatedly invoked against extending measures.
    6. Enforcement gap in horizontal relations: Constitutional equality guarantees bind the State, and discrimination between private individuals on a campus or in housing has no general statutory remedy.

    Laws and Rules Governing Anti-Discrimination in Higher Education

    1. University Grants Commission Act, 1956: Establishes the Commission and empowers it to coordinate and determine standards in universities.
    2. Section 26 gives the Commission power to make regulations, which is the source of both the 2012 and the 2026 equity regulations.
    3. Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Penalises the enforcement of any disability arising out of untouchability, including in educational institutions.
    4. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Section 16 requires educational institutions to provide inclusive education and reasonable accommodation.

    Government Initiatives for Equity in Higher Education

    1. Post Matric Scholarship for Scheduled Caste students: Meets tuition and maintenance costs of Scheduled Caste students pursuing post matriculation courses, targeted at students below a stated family income ceiling.
    2. National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students: Funds Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy research by students of these categories in recognised universities.
    3. PM Young Achievers Scholarship Award Scheme for Vibrant India (PM YASASVI): Supports school and higher secondary education of Other Backward Class, Economically Backward Class and De notified Tribe students, feeding the higher education pipeline.
    4. National Overseas Scholarship: Funds postgraduate and doctoral study abroad for Scheduled Caste, De notified Tribe, landless agricultural labourer and traditional artisan category students.
    5. Dr Ambedkar Centres of Excellence: Provide free civil services examination coaching to Scheduled Caste students in selected universities.
    6. Remedial Coaching and Equal Opportunity Cells: University Grants Commission supported cells run bridge and remedial courses for students from reserved categories in colleges and universities.

    Challenges in Ensuring Equity in Higher Education

    1. Enrolment gap by category: Gross Enrolment Ratio in higher education remains below the national average for the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. Eg. The All India Survey on Higher Education for 2021-22 recorded an overall Gross Enrolment Ratio of 28.4 per cent, against 25.9 per cent for the Scheduled Castes and 21.2 per cent for the Scheduled Tribes.
    2. Language of instruction: Professional and postgraduate programmes are taught almost entirely in English, which disadvantages students from State board schooling in regional languages. Eg. Engineering and medical curricula translated into Indian languages under the National Education Policy, 2020 cover a small share of programmes and enrolment.
    3. Financial barriers and delayed disbursal: Scholarship money arrives after fees fall due, forcing students into private borrowing. Eg. Post Matric Scholarship disbursal depends on release of the State share, and delays in that release have stalled payments across academic years.
    4. Residential segregation on campus: Hostel allotment and mess arrangements reproduce caste separation informally even where no rule prescribes it. Eg. The Supreme Court has framed the allocation of hostels, classrooms and mentorship groups as a separate yet equal question in the present case.
    5. Mental health and support systems: Counselling capacity in most institutions is not staffed to the size of the student body, and first generation learners carry the heaviest adjustment burden. Eg. Successive parliamentary replies have recorded student suicides in central institutions, with a disproportionate share from reserved categories.
    6. Growth outside the reservation perimeter: Capacity expansion has been largest in private unaided institutions, where implementation of Article 15(5) reservation is uneven. Eg. The provision was upheld for private unaided institutions in Ashoka Kumar Thakur (2008) and again in Pramati Educational Trust (2014), and compliance is not centrally monitored.

    Back2Basics: University Grants Commission (UGC)

    1. Formation: Set up in 1953 and given statutory status by the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, which came into force on 3 November 1956.
    2. Parent ministry: Functions under the Ministry of Education, with its headquarters in New Delhi and six regional offices.
    3. Constitutional basis: Draws from Article 246 read with Entry 66 of the Union List, which covers coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education.
    4. Composition: Consists of a Chairman, a Vice Chairman and ten members appointed by the Central Government.
    5. Mandate: Coordinates and determines standards in universities, disburses grants, frames regulations and advises the Union and State governments on higher education.
    6. Recognition function: Recognises institutions under Sections 2(f) and 12(B) of the Act, which determines their eligibility for central grants.
    7. Proposed replacement: A Higher Education Commission of India has been proposed to subsume its regulatory functions, with grant disbursal moved to a separate body.

    Way Forward

    1. Prescribe a distinct procedure: Attach a dedicated complaint, inquiry and penalty procedure to caste based discrimination, since the absence of one is the core defect the Court has framed.
    2. Independent grievance forum: Place the inquiry authority outside the institution's own administration, with an external member drawn from a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe commission panel.
    3. Keep the broad clause as the residual protection: Retain the wide definition in Clause 3(e) as the universal guarantee, so no category of student is left without a remedy. The group specific recognition created by Regulation 3(1)(c) is retained alongside it.
    4. Make compliance a grant condition: Tie release of central grants and continuation of Section 12(B) status to the constitution and reporting of a functioning equity mechanism.
    5. Publish disaggregated data: Require every institution to report complaints, outcomes, dropouts and student deaths by category in an annual public return.
    6. Fill reserved faculty posts in mission mode: Run a time bound special recruitment drive for the backlog of reserved category teaching posts, since representation among decision makers is what makes a grievance forum credible.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018, GS2, 10] Whether National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) can enforce the implementation of constitutional reservation for the Scheduled Castes in the religious minority institutions? Examine.”

  • Safety not on the platter

    Why in the News

    A three day food safety enforcement drive across more than 60 starred hotels seized 640 kg of meat, fish and poultry, 276 kg of mould affected vegetables and about 49 litres of used or non compliant cooking oil. A chemical was found in use to treat spent frying oil at one outlet, which is the specific practice the Repurpose Used Cooking Oil framework exists to prevent. The tension is between an inspection led enforcement model and an industry demanding scheduled, consultative compliance.

    What is the Repurpose Used Cooking Oil initiative?

    1. About: Repurpose Used Cooking Oil (RUCO) is the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India framework that diverts spent frying oil out of the food chain into biodiesel production.
    2. How it works: A food business generating used cooking oil hands it to an agency authorised by the regulator. That agency then converts the collected oil into biodiesel.
    3. Record keeping obligation: A business frying with more than 50 litres a day must maintain disposal records.
    4. Collection scale: Karnataka collected about 45.9 lakh litres of used cooking oil between 2024 and 2026 through four recognised agencies.

    What is the total polar compound limit?

    1. About: Total polar compounds are the degradation products that accumulate in cooking oil through repeated heating, and they serve as the measurable index of oil deterioration.
    2. Regulatory threshold: The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India caps total polar compounds at 25 per cent, beyond which the oil must not be used for cooking.
    3. Why it is enforced: Consumption of oil above this threshold is associated with cardiovascular and metabolic harm.

    What did the drive actually find?

    1. Coverage: 30 teams inspected over 60 three and five star hotels, collecting 77 samples.
    2. Seizures: 640 kg of mutton, chicken and fish, 276 kg of rotten or mould affected vegetables, 45 litres of expired milk and curd, 12 kg of expired bakery products and 67 kg of mislabelled or expired cereals.
    3. Violation types: Expired products, non compliant labelling, misbranding, improper storage of meat and fish, fungal growth, inadequate segregation of vegetarian and non vegetarian stock, and shelf life declarations exceeding the permissible period.
    4. Oil treatment practice: A chemical agent was found in use to visually restore used frying oil at one outlet, which masks degradation rather than reversing it.
    5. Government premises: Inspections on 12 August covered the state secretariat, the legislators’ hostel, subsidised community canteens and a health department canteen, where expired semolina and coconut powder were seized.
    6. Quick commerce warehouses: Two dark store warehouses were inspected and one was sealed.

    How does food safety enforcement actually proceed?

    1. Notice stage: The designated officer issues a notice to the food business operator on an adverse finding.
    2. Hearing stage: A personal hearing follows, after which fines may be imposed and a compliance report sought.
    3. Prosecution route: A sample found unsafe on analysis at a referral laboratory proceeds to prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate First Class court.
    4. Testing volume: About 45,000 samples are analysed annually in the state.
    5. Adulteration versus misbranding: Misbranding and substandard findings attract monetary penalty, while unsafe food attracts criminal prosecution, which is why laboratory confirmation is the pivot.

    What are the health consequences the drive is guarding against?

    1. Monsoon enteric infections: Typhoid and hepatitis A rise in the monsoon months through contaminated food and water.
    2. Secondary neurological sequela: Guillain Barre syndrome occurs as a secondary consequence of certain enteric infections.
    3. Acute liver failure: Hepatitis A and hepatitis E can progress to acute liver failure.
    4. Renal consequence: Shiga toxin producing Escherichia coli can cause haemolytic uraemic syndrome, presenting as proteinuria, hypertension and reduced kidney function.
    5. Processed meat classification: The World Health Organization classifies processed meat as carcinogenic to humans, with the strongest association for colorectal cancer.

    Where does the industry position diverge from the regulator?

    1. Frequency demand: Hotel associations seek quarterly scheduled inspections rather than unannounced drives.
    2. Simplification demand: Operators cite roughly 100 separate guidelines and want consolidated standard operating procedures.
    3. Consultation demand: Restaurant associations want advance consultation instead of enforcement raids.
    4. Regulator position: Public health is placed ahead of revenue, with taluk level surveillance teams under examination.
    5. The unresolved point: Scheduled inspection defeats the detection value of surprise inspection, which is what the seizures relied on.

    Challenges in food safety regulation

    1. Testing infrastructure: Laboratory capacity limits how many samples can be analysed and how fast. e.g. about 45,000 samples analysed annually against lakhs of registered food businesses in one state.
    2. Licensing versus inspection: Registration counts rise faster than the inspector cadre. e.g. the expansion of quick commerce dark stores inspected only after they became visible.
    3. Prosecution delay: Cases before magistrate courts take years, weakening deterrence. e.g. adulteration prosecutions pending well beyond the shelf life of the evidence.
    4. Used oil leakage: Spent frying oil re enters the food chain through informal buyers rather than authorised agencies. e.g. chemical treatment of used oil detected at a fast food outlet during this drive.
    5. Street food coverage: Unregistered vendors sit largely outside the inspection net. e.g. the limited reach of hygiene rating schemes beyond organised outlets.
    6. Imported and repacked products: Repacked imported goods carry labelling that cannot be verified at the point of sale. e.g. repacked imported products found during this drive.

    Conclusion

    The drive shows that enforcement capacity, not the absence of standards, is the operative gap, since every violation found was against a rule already in force. The used cooking oil finding matters most, because it is the point where a documented diversion system exists on paper and fails in practice. The next milestone is whether taluk level surveillance teams are constituted, which would convert episodic drives into continuous inspection.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

    1. Established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which replaced the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
    2. Functions under the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, headed by a Chairperson and a Chief Executive Officer.
    3. Consolidated eight earlier laws and orders governing food into a single statute.
    4. Lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    5. Operates a licensing and registration system for food business operators, with state Food Safety Commissioners handling enforcement.
    6. Runs Eat Right India, RUCO, Food Safety on Wheels and the hygiene rating scheme.

    Laws and Rules Governing Food Safety

    1. Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006: Establishes the regulator and consolidates the law on food standards and enforcement. Section 24 prohibits misleading advertisements about food. Section 30(2)(a) empowers the Commissioner of Food Safety to prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of an article of food in the public interest. Section 53 provides a penalty of up to Rs 10 lakh for a misleading advertisement.
    2. Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011: Govern registration and licensing thresholds for food businesses.
    3. Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, 2011: Prescribe mandatory label declarations, including shelf life.
    4. Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011: Set the 25 per cent total polar compound limit for cooking oil.

    Way Forward

    1. Constitute taluk level surveillance teams: Replace episodic city drives with continuous local inspection capacity.
    2. Close the used oil loop: Make disposal records to authorised agencies a licence condition for any business frying above the 50 litre threshold.
    3. Consolidate the guidelines: Issue a single standard operating procedure for hotels and restaurants, since roughly 100 separate guidelines invite non compliance through complexity.
    4. Expand laboratory capacity: Increase accredited testing throughput so unsafe sample findings reach prosecution within the product’s shelf life.
    5. Bring quick commerce warehouses into routine inspection: Register dark stores as food business operators with scheduled inspection obligations.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2018] Consider the following statements: 1. The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 replaced the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. 2. The Food Safety and Standard Authority of India (FSSAI) is under the charge of Director General of Health Services in the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Answer: (a)”

  • Parliament passes National Co-operative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026

    Why in the News?

    Parliament passed the National Cooperative Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill, 2026, enabling the NCDC to provide loans and grants directly to cooperative societies.

    What is NCDC?

    • NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation) is a statutory corporation established under the National Cooperative Development Corporation Act, 1962.
    • Functions under the Ministry of Cooperation.
    • Promotes and finances cooperatives involved in production, processing, marketing, storage and trade of agricultural and allied produce.

    What does the Amendment Change?

    • Direct lending: NCDC can directly provide loans and grants to cooperative societies.
    • Wider coverage: Definition of foodstuffs expanded to include processed food and other food items notified by the Centre.
    • No additional budgetary outlay: The Bill does not provide for additional government financial assistance.

    Why is it Needed?

    • Faster flow of credit by removing intermediary delays.
    • Supports over 8 lakh cooperatives with more than 30 crore members.
    • Extends cooperative financing into value added food chains.

    Why are States Concerned?

    • Cooperation is largely a State subject.
    • Direct central lending may bypass State governments and registrars.
    • Raises concerns about cooperative federalism and centralisation.

    Key Challenges

    • Financial weakness and poor governance of PACS (Primary Agricultural Credit Societies).
    • Dual regulatory control.
    • Regional concentration of cooperatives.
    • Delayed elections and audits.
    • Limited professional management.
    • Centre State friction.

    Constitutional Framework

    • Entry 32, State List: Incorporation and regulation of cooperative societies within a State.
    • Article 43B: Promotes voluntary formation and autonomous functioning of cooperatives.
    • Part IXB, Articles 243ZH to 243ZT: Constitutional provisions on cooperatives.
    • Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: Governs cooperatives operating across multiple States.

  • Government and faculty spar over the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026

    Why in the News

    The Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) Bill, 2026 seeks to restructure the governance of the Indian Statistical Institute by converting it from a registered society into a government controlled statutory body corporate. The proposal has sparked concerns over institutional autonomy.

    What is the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI)?

    • Founded: Established in 1931 by Prasanta Chandra (P.C.) Mahalanobis.
    • Premier institution: A leading centre for statistics, mathematics, data science, computer science, quantitative economics and related research.
    • Institution of National Importance: Declared under the Indian Statistical Institute Act, 1959.
    • Administrative Ministry: Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
    • Current governance: Functions as a registered society managed by a representative Governing Council.

    What does the Bill propose?

    • Repeals the 1959 Act: Introduces the Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026.
    • Body corporate: Converts ISI from a society into a statutory body corporate with perpetual succession.
    • New governance structure: Replaces the Governing Council with an 11 member Board of Governors.
    • Greater government role: The Board will have a majority of government nominated members, increasing the Centre’s role in administration.

    Why are faculty members concerned?

    • Reduced academic autonomy: Faculty argue that greater government control may affect academic freedom and institutional independence.
    • Lack of consultation: They claim the Bill was drafted without adequate consultation with ISI’s academic community.
    • Demand for scrutiny: Opposition members have sought referral of the Bill to the Standing Committee on Finance for detailed examination.

    Prelims Pointers

    • Indian Statistical Institute (ISI) was founded in 1931 by P.C. Mahalanobis.
    • P.C. Mahalanobis developed the Mahalanobis Distance and played a key role in India’s statistical system and economic planning.
    • ISI is an Institution of National Importance under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI).
    • The Indian Statistical Institute Bill, 2026 proposes replacing the Governing Council with an 11 member Board of Governors.

    [2023] Consider the following organizations/bodies in India:
    1. The National Commission for Backward Classes
    2. The National Human Commission Rights
    3. The National Law Commission
    4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
    How many of the above are constitutional bodies?

    [A] Only one

    [B] Only two

    [C] Only three

    [D] All four