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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • Nasha Mukt Yuva for Viksit Bharat Sankalp Abhiyan launched

    Why in the News?

    The government launched the Nasha Mukt Yuva for Viksit Bharat Sankalp Abhiyan, a nationwide anti-drug campaign from 28,000+ locations with a 100-week action plan to promote a drug-free youth for Viksit Bharat 2047.

    About the Campaign

    • A national drug awareness and demand reduction campaign targeting youth.
    • Launched simultaneously from 28,000+ locations.
    • Over 1 crore youth participated in the anti-drug pledge.
    • Includes a 100-week activity plan for sustained community engagement.

    Significance

    • Strengthens the demand reduction pillar of India’s anti-drug strategy.
    • Promotes awareness, prevention and rehabilitation alongside enforcement.
    • Supports the vision of a healthy workforce for Viksit Bharat 2047.

    Challenges

    • Sustaining community participation over 100 weeks.
    • Expanding de-addiction and counselling infrastructure.
    • Measuring the campaign’s long-term impact.
    • Success depends on parallel action against drug trafficking.

    Prelims Facts

    • Implemented under the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports (MYAS).
    • Complements the Nasha Mukt Bharat Abhiyaan (NMBA) launched by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MoSJE).
    • Focuses on awareness, prevention, rehabilitation and youth participation.

  • Census 2027 self-enumeration begins in Assam

    Why in the News?

    India has launched its first Digital Census with self enumeration starting in Assam. The online phase continues till 16 August, followed by House Listing from 17 August.

    What is the Census?

    The Census is the official collection of demographic, social and economic data of the population.

    Key Facts

    • Legal Basis: Census Act, 1948
    • Authority: Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs
    • Frequency: Every 10 years (Decennial)
    • Nature: Mandatory; information is kept confidential
    • Constitutional Status: Union Subject (Entry 69, Union List)

    What is Self Enumeration?

    Households can submit Census details online instead of depending solely on enumerators.

    Two Phases

    • House Listing: Housing and household details
    • Population Enumeration: Individual demographic details

    Significance

    • Improves data accuracy through digital verification.
    • Enables faster processing and publication.
    • Provides updated data for Delimitation, Welfare targeting, Reservation, Fiscal devolution, and Development planning
    • Replaces reliance on 2011 Census data after the delay of the 2021 Census.

    Prelims Facts

    • First Census: 1872 (non synchronous)
      • A non-synchronous census is a population count that is carried out at different times in different regions rather than all at once on a single date
    • First synchronous Census: 1881
      • A synchronous census is an official population count conducted simultaneously across an entire country within a specific, unified timeframe rather than at different times in different regions.
    • Conducted by Registrar General and Census Commissioner of India
    • Census falls under the Union List.

    [2009] Consider the following statements:

    1. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the density of the population of India has increased more than three times.

    2. Between Census 1951 and Census 2001, the annual growth rate (exponential) of the population of India has doubled.

    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

  • 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.

  • IRDAI Reforms to Revamp the Insurance Sector

    Why in News?

    The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) approved a series of reforms to modernise the insurance sector and implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    Key Highlights

    • Reforms aim to:
      • Improve ease of doing business.
      • Enhance insurance penetration.
      • Strengthen governance and policyholder protection.
      • Provide greater operational and financial flexibility to insurers.
    • Liberalised norms for Investments. Capital infusion. Corporate restructuring. Transfer of shares and amalgamation of insurers.
    • Policyholders’ Education and Protection Fund (PEPF) operationalised under Section 16A of the IRDA Act, 1999 to Promote insurance awareness. Improve grievance redressal. Trace unclaimed insurance amounts. Enhance policyholder services.
    • Insurance intermediaries reforms:
      • Mandatory tagging of the authorised salesperson with every insurance proposal and policy.
      • Perpetual registration for intermediaries through an annual fee system, replacing periodic renewals.

    About IRDAI

    • Statutory regulator established under the IRDA Act, 1999.
    • Regulates, promotes, and ensures orderly growth of the insurance sector.
    • Headquarters: Hyderabad.

    Prelims Facts

    • IRDA Act, 1999 established IRDAI.
    • PEPF aims to strengthen insurance literacy and policyholder protection.
    • The reforms implement the Sabka Bima Sabki Raksha (Amendment of Insurance Laws) Act, 2025.

    [2019] In India, which of the following bodies/mechanisms review the functioning of independent regulators like PFRDA, IBBI, AERA, and PNGRB?
    1.Ad Hoc Committees appointed by the Parliament.
    2.Parliamentary Standing Committees.
    3.NITI Aayog.
    4.Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission (FSLRC).
    5.Finance Commission.
    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    [A] 1 and 2 only

    [B] 1, 3, and 4

    [C] 2, 4, and 5

    [D] 2 only

  • CPGRAMS Report for States/UTs (June 2026)

    Why in News?

    The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) released the 47th monthly report on the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) for States/UTs for June 2026.

    Key Highlights

    • Public Grievances Received: 96,190
    • Grievances Redressed: 93,170
    • Pending Cases (30 June 2026): 2,16,032
    • 23 States/UTs have over 1,000 pending grievances.
    • Uttar Pradesh recorded the highest disposals (31,460), followed by Maharashtra (7,619).

    CPGRAMS

    • CPGRAMS is an online grievance redress platform of the Government of India.
    • Developed and monitored by DARPG.
    • Enables citizens to submit and track grievances against government departments.
    • Integrated with over 5 lakh Common Service Centres (CSCs) through 2.5 lakh Village Level Entrepreneurs (VLEs).

    Sevottam Scheme

    • Capacity-building initiative to improve public service delivery and grievance redress.
    • FY 2022-23 to FY 2026-27 (till June): 1,196 training programmes conducted. Around 39,509 officers trained.

    Other Highlights

    • 83,544 new users registered on CPGRAMS in June 2026.
    • Feedback Call Centre collected 75,318 feedbacks, including 33,092 from States/UTs.
    • 6,262 grievances were registered through CSCs.
    • A dedicated Review Module for senior-level monitoring has been operational since 6 June 2025.

    Prelims Facts

    • DARPG: Department under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions.
    • CPGRAMS: National online portal for public grievance redressal.
    • Sevottam Scheme: Focuses on improving service delivery and grievance redress mechanisms in government.

    [2021] With reference to the Union Government, consider the following statements:
    1. N. Gopalaswamy Iyengar Committee suggested that a minister and a secretary be designated solely for pursuing the subject of administrative reform and promoting it.
    2. In 1970, the Department of Personnel was constituted on the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966, and this was placed under the Prime Minister’s charge.
    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

  • NCRB data shows chronic pendency under the National Honour Act, even as government moves to add Vande Mataram

    Why in the News?

    National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data spanning 2014 to 2024 on the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 shows pendency above 90% and a conviction rate below 16%. The government is simultaneously pushing an amendment to criminalise insult to Vande Mataram on par with the national anthem, despite the existing law’s poor enforcement record.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 is an Indian law that bans the burning, mutilation, destruction, or disrespect of the national flag, the Constitution, and the national anthem.

    Key Rules and Penalties

    1. National Flag and Constitution: Section 2 prohibits burning, damaging, defacing, or showing disrespect to the flag or Constitution in any public place.
    2. National Anthem: Section 3 penalizes anyone who stops people from singing the national anthem or creates a disturbance during it.
    3. Punishment: Violations are punishable by up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. Repeat offenders face a minimum prison term of one year.
    4. Exceptions: Peaceful or lawful criticism aimed at changing or amending the Constitution or flag does not count as a crime

    Why does the enforcement record complicate the case for expanding the law?

    1. Pendency scale: Over 90% of cases registered under the Act between 2014 and 2024 remain pending, indicating a chronic backlog rather than an occasional delay.
    2. Low conviction: A conviction rate below 16% suggests weak evidentiary standards, prosecutorial capacity constraints, or both, in cases actually brought to trial.
    3. Expansion without fixing enforcement: Adding Vande Mataram to the Act’s protected symbols expands what the law covers without addressing why the existing provisions on the national anthem and flag are so poorly enforced.
    4. Symbolic versus functional legislation: A law with a sub-16% conviction rate functions more as a symbolic statement of state intent than as an operative deterrent.

    Conclusion

    The government’s push to expand the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 proceeds without addressing why the existing law convicts fewer than one in six prosecuted cases. Enforcement capacity, not statutory scope, is the constraint the amendment leaves unaddressed.

      Back2Basics

      The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026:

      1. It is a legislative proposal introduced in the Rajya Sabha on July 24, 2026. It amends the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, to extend statutory protection to India’s national song, Vande Mataram.

      Key Provisions

      1. Inclusion of the National Song: Amends Section 3 of the 1971 Act to place Vande Mataram under the same legal umbrella as the national anthem, Jana Gana Mana.
      2. Offenses Covered: Criminalizes intentionally preventing the singing of the national song or causing a disturbance at an assembly engaged in its rendition.
      3. Penalties: Proposes imprisonment for up to three years, a monetary fine, or both for first-time offenders, and a mandatory minimum of one year in prison for subsequent convictions

    1. CBSE On Screen Marking crisis exposes gaps in evaluation transparency

      Why in the News

      The Central Board of Secondary Education’s On Screen Marking system left roughly 18 lakh Class XII students unable to access their evaluated answer scripts, with only about 4 lakh managing to view them. The Supreme Court has flagged this as a source of frustration of young minds, exposing a gap between the Board’s digital evaluation push and its duty to let students verify their own results.

      What is On Screen Marking (OSM)?

      1. Definition: On Screen Marking is a digital evaluation method where scanned answer scripts are marked by examiners on a screen instead of on paper.
      2. Objective: The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) adopted it to standardise evaluation and speed up result processing.
      3. Access problem: Students are meant to view their own scanned, marked scripts after results, but the current system does not guarantee this access at scale.
      4. CIC role: The Central Information Commission (CIC) had already advised CBSE to frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) for script access before this crisis became public.

      Why has script access broken down for most students?

      1. Capacity gap: The Board built a system that could evaluate scripts digitally but did not build matching capacity to let all students retrieve their own scripts afterward.
      2. Verification denied: Without script access, students cannot check whether their marks were recorded and totalled correctly.
      3. Court intervention: The Supreme Court’s intervention signals that the current process fails a basic due process test for an examination body.
      4. Trust deficit: The gap between the promise of a transparent digital system and the reality of restricted access has deepened student distrust in board evaluation.

      What are the challenges to CBSE’s On Screen Marking system?

      1. Server capacity: Providing 18 lakh students simultaneous access to scanned scripts requires infrastructure the Board has not demonstrated it has built.
      2. Re-evaluation load: A universal access policy will likely increase re-evaluation requests, straining CBSE’s examination machinery further.
      3. Accountability gap: No fixed timeline currently binds CBSE to release scripts or resolve discrepancies once a student flags one.
      4. Precedent for other boards: State boards using similar digital evaluation systems face the same access question, but have no shared standard to follow.
      5. Data security: Wider script access at scale raises the risk of manipulation or leakage of evaluation data if access controls are weak.

      What are the Core Safeguards Used Globally?

      1. Item-Level Marking: Slicing whole papers into isolated questions, sending each question to a different subject specialist to minimize bias or fatigue.
      2. Seed Scripts: Silently injecting pre-marked test scripts into an evaluator’s queue; failing to match the benchmark locks the user out for recalibration.
      3. Centralized Tracking: Real-time dashboards tracking marker progress, turnaround times, and statistical consistency across distributed pools.

      Conclusion

      The central issue is not the shift to digital evaluation itself but the absence of a guaranteed, time bound right for students to view their own scripts. A proposed seven day transparency framework standard operating procedure would fix the access gap, but only if CBSE is bound to a deadline rather than treating disclosure as discretionary.

      PYQ Relevance

      [UPSC 2020] National Education Policy 2020 is in conformity with the Sustainable Development Goal-4 (2030). It intends to restructure and reorient education system in India. Critically examine the statement.

      Linkage: The PYQ evaluates reforms aimed at improving quality, equity and governance in education. The OSM controversy underscores that digital reforms in education must be accompanied by transparency, accountability and robust grievance redressal to achieve quality education.

    2. Examination reform: Nilekani task force and Radhakrishnan committee implementation under Supreme Court watch

      The Supreme Court will consult the Nandan Nilekani-led task force at its next hearing on 3 August 2026 regarding the proposed transition of NEET-UG from a pen-and-paper examination to Computer-Based Testing (CBT). The Court is also examining the government’s progress in implementing the K. Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations on examination reforms.

      Key Highlights

      • Implementation review: The Centre has submitted an affidavit on the implementation status of the 101 recommendations of the K. Radhakrishnan Committee.
      • Committee recommendations:
        • 60 short-term and 35 medium/long-term reforms.
        • Restructuring of the National Testing Agency (NTA).
        • Introduction of Computer-assisted Secure Pen-and-Paper Testing (CPPT).
        • Adoption of DIGI-EXAM for secure candidate authentication.
      • Infrastructure plan: Establishment of 1,000 Secure Testing Centres across the country.
      • Related development: Concerns over examination integrity have also emerged in the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination, highlighting the need for broader examination reforms.

      About the National Testing Agency (NTA)

      • Established in 2017 as an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Education.
      • Conducts major national entrance examinations such as NEET-UG, JEE Main, CUET and UGC-NET.
      • Objective is to ensure fair, transparent, efficient and technology-driven examinations.

      What is Computer-Based Testing (CBT)?

      • Candidates answer questions on a computer terminal instead of paper.
      • Responses are digitally recorded and securely transmitted.
      • Reduces risks associated with paper leaks, manual handling and evaluation delays.

      What is Computer-assisted Secure Pen-and-Paper Testing (CPPT)?

      • Question papers are generated digitally and printed securely at authorised centres shortly before the examination.
      • Minimises transportation and storage of printed question papers.
      • Reduces the possibility of paper leaks while retaining a pen-and-paper examination format.

    3. The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 passed by both houses

      Why in News

      The Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, having first been cleared by the Lok Sabha on July 29, 2026, followed by approval from the Rajya Sabha on July 30, 2026.

      Key Highlights

      • Stricter punishment: Maximum imprisonment for offences involving unfair means increased to 10 years, from the earlier 3 to 5 years.
      • Higher penalty: Maximum fine for individual offences enhanced to ₹50 lakh.
      • Organised examination fraud: Punishable with a minimum imprisonment of 7 years and a fine up to ₹10 crore.
      • Procedural reforms: Provides for fast-track courts and mandates completion of investigations within two months.
      • Companion legislation: The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Bill, 2026 was also introduced during the same session.

      Background

      • The amendment strengthens the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024.
      • The Act aims to prevent paper leaks, impersonation, organised cheating and other examination-related malpractices in public examinations conducted by designated authorities.

      Objectives

      • Ensure fairness, transparency and credibility in recruitment and entrance examinations.
      • Deter organised examination fraud through stringent penalties.
      • Protect the interests of genuine candidates.
      • Improve the speed of investigation and prosecution.

      Significance

      • Enhances the integrity of public recruitment and competitive examinations.
      • Acts as a deterrent against paper leak mafias and organised crime networks.
      • Strengthens public confidence in examination systems.
      • Supports merit-based selection and good governance.

      [2026] Mr. X, a senior officer, was overseeing a critical vaccination programme during a pandemic. He found that a private service provider responsible for vaccine distribution was compromising on quality to make profits. Despite immense pressure to manage the issue due to vested interests, he raised his voice based on the principles of public administration which he learnt during various training programmes attended across his career. He reported the issue to the appropriate vigilance authority and halted the contract to ensure citizen welfare.
      Which one among the following principles of public administration was most strongly demonstrated by Mr. X’s actions?

      [A] Esprit de corps

      [B] Equity

      [C] Accountability

      [D] Delegation

    4. Why India must modernise the way the government publishes laws and regulations 

      Why in the News?

      India’s legal publishing system still runs on PDF-based gazettes, a format created in the early 1990s, forcing citizens, lawyers and even courts to search scattered notifications to determine which provisions of law are actually in force. In one documented case, sections of a 2005 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure remained unnotified and legally void for more than two decades without public knowledge. This exposes a gap between the constitutional promise that laws be knowable in advance and the administrative reality of an opaque, print-oriented publishing format.

      Why must a law be knowable before it can be enforced?

      1. Historical precedent: Mahatma Gandhi’s first act against the 1906 Transvaal “Black Act” was to translate and publish the ordinance in full in Indian Opinion, so that Indians could read exactly what was being done to them.
      2. Underlying principle: A community cannot defend its rights against a law it cannot read.
      3. Constitutional expectation: Bills before Parliament or a State Assembly are meant to be made known to the people in advance of enactment.
      4. Practical breach: Bills are often not placed in the public domain before they are introduced.
      5. Judicial dimension: The judiciary is expected to know the state of the law it adjudicates, which presupposes that the state of the law is discoverable.

      Where does India’s legal publishing system actually fail?

      1. Fragmentation: Laws governing citizens include Acts and their amendments, rules, regulations, BIS standards, road standards, circulars and municipal bylaws.
      2. No single source: There is no single place to find out what the law actually is; it lies scattered across multiple websites.
      3. Discovery problem: Citizens struggle to find the law currently in force.
      4. Historical-state problem: Even after locating a copy, determining what the law was on a given date is a separate and difficult exercise.
      5. Primary publishing channel: Government uses gazettes as its primary means of publishing laws and bringing them into force.

      Can a provision bind citizens if its own government cannot confirm it is in force?

      1. Case origin: A legal publisher was incorporating changes made by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005 into the principal Act.
      2. Search failure: The amendment left it to the government to decide when its various sections would come into force, and no gazette notifying Sections 16, 25, 28(a), 28(b), 38, 42(a), 42(b), 42(f)(iii) and (iv), and 44(a) could be found.
      3. RTI confirmation: An RTI application to the Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed that these sections have never been notified.
      4. Legal consequence: More than two decades later, these sections are still not valid law.
      5. Systemic implication: If a central ministry itself cannot demonstrate whether a provision is in force, publication by gazette has failed at its most basic function.

      What technical flaw locks Indian law into this opacity?

      1. Format origin: Gazettes are published as PDFs, a format created in the early 1990s to ensure a digital document looks identical on every device by embedding fonts and images.
      2. Print-fidelity trade-off: This makes PDFs easy to share and print but very hard to extract the structure and meaning of a legal document from.
      3. Lost hierarchy: A law is inherently hierarchical, with chapters, parts, sections and subsections, but a PDF exposes none of that hierarchy.
      4. Language barrier: Many gazettes published in regional languages use proprietary fonts that display correctly on a PDF viewer but cannot be searched in that regional language or read on most websites.
      5. Amendment tracking: A format that cannot expose structure also cannot show precisely what changed across successive amendments to an Act.

      What do global legal-publishing models demonstrate is possible?

      1. Akoma Ntoso, Africa: Many African countries have adopted the Akoma Ntoso standard, a markup language designed specifically for legal documents; Akoma Ntoso is an open markup format that encodes a law’s structure, semantics and language rather than only its printed appearance.
      2. Indigo platform, Africa: These countries use Indigo, an open-source legal publishing platform that lets users add or edit laws and see precisely what changed across an Act’s successive amendments, with subordinate rules tagged to their principal Act.
      3. USLM, United States: The United States publishes every law and amendment in USLM (United States Legislative Markup), a variant of Akoma Ntoso, generating PDF and HTML versions automatically from it using a stylesheet.
      4. Federal Register, United States: All past issues of the Federal Register have been converted into this format and made available for bulk download, allowing commercial legal vendors, nonprofits and think tanks to build citizen-facing tools on top of it.
      5. CLML, United Kingdom: The United Kingdom publishes its legislation at legislation.gov.uk, run by The National Archives, using Crown Legislation Markup Language (CLML), another modified version of Akoma Ntoso.
      6. Convergence toward one standard: The National Archives has stated it aims to move towards Akoma Ntoso itself, since Akoma Ntoso is emerging as the international standard, is less complex, and is supported by a wider pool of experts and suppliers.

      What is at stake for Indian democracy if this publishing model is not upgraded?

      1. Structural lag: While the rest of the world has moved away from PDF publishing, India remains dependent on a standard built more than three decades back.
      2. Persistent barrier: Until the government upgrades its legal publishing software stack, access to the law will remain unnecessarily difficult for citizens, lawyers, judges and other stakeholders in a democracy.
      3. Precedent from the internet: The internet itself was built on open standards, which every stakeholder came together to adopt.
      4. Ambedkar’s distinction: Dr B.R. Ambedkar reminded that a democracy needs more than a government “for the people”; it needs a government “by the people.”
      5. Contractor-capture risk: Laws are the raw material of democracy, and leaving their publication to a handful of contractors will only deepen the obscurity around them.
      6. Reform payoff: If the government instead consults citizens and standardises legal publishing, it could transform how the state communicates with the people and make them active participants in democracy.

      Conclusion

      The central failure identified is not the absence of law but the absence of a reliable way to know the law: India’s PDF-and-gazette-based publishing system leaves entire provisions practically undiscoverable even as they legally bind citizens. Other democracies have already shown that open, structured legal markup standards (Akoma Ntoso, USLM, CLML) can make a law’s text, hierarchy and amendment history transparent and machine-readable. Until India upgrades this publishing infrastructure, the rule of law will remain formally intact but practically inaccessible, with its administration effectively outsourced to a narrow set of contractors rather than opened to citizens.

      PYQ Linkage

      [UPSC 2018] E-Governance is not only about utilization of the power of new technology, but also much about critical importance of the ‘use value’ of information. Explain.

      Linkage: The PYQ argues that e-governance’s value lies in making information usable, not merely digitised. The article’s central claim mirrors this exactly, PDF gazettes are digitised but not structurally usable, while open markup standards make the “use value” of legal information real.