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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • India AI: Governance Guidelines

    Introduction

    Artificial Intelligence has evolved from an assistive tool to an autonomous decision-maker, influencing governance, economy, security, and social life. Recognizing both its potential and perils, the Government of India, through MeitY’s drafting committee (July 2025), released the India AI Governance Guidelines.It is  rooted in the vision of “AI for All”. The framework aims to foster inclusive growth, innovation, and ethical use of AI, ensuring that India’s AI journey is safe, transparent, and globally credible.

    Why in the News

    For the first time, India has articulated a unified, principle-based framework on AI governance, a techno-legal and institutional roadmap aligning AI with constitutional values and national priorities. It promotes voluntary frameworks over strict regulation marking a shift from restraint to responsible innovation.

    What are the Core Principles Guiding India’s AI Governance?

    1. Seven Sutras: Trust, People First, Innovation over Restraint, Fairness & Equity, Accountability, Understandable by Design, Safety, Resilience & Sustainability. These are adapted from the RBI’s FREE-AI Committee report and designed to be sector-neutral and technology-agnostic.
    2. Trust as Foundation: Builds confidence in AI systems by ensuring transparency, safety, and ethical use.
    3. People First: Emphasizes human oversight and empowerment, preventing machine dominance.
    4. Innovation over Restraint: Encourages experimentation with accountability, not prohibition.
    5. Fairness & Equity: Prevents algorithmic discrimination and digital exclusion.

    How Does the Framework Promote AI Development and Infrastructure?

    1. Compute Expansion: Over 38,000 GPUs made available to startups and researchers at subsidized rates.
    2. AIKosh Data Platform: Houses 1,500 datasets and 217 models from 20 sectors, ensuring data accessibility with privacy.
    3. Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI): Combines Aadhaar, UPI, and Bhashini for scalable, low-cost AI deployment.
    4. MSME Enablement: AI-linked loans via SIDBI & Mudra, tax rebates for certified AI adoption, and starter packs for sectors like textiles and logistics.

    How Does India Address Risk and Regulation in AI?

    1. Balanced Regulation: No separate AI law yet existing laws (IT Act, DPDP Act, Copyright Act, etc.) govern AI harms.
    2. Key Risk Areas: Deepfakes, data poisoning, discrimination, loss of control, national security threats.
    3. India-specific Risk Framework: Classifies harms empirically and promotes voluntary, proportionate compliance.
    4. Content Authentication: Suggests watermarking and provenance tools aligned with global C2PA standards.

    How Will Institutions Enforce AI Safety and Accountability?

    1. AI Governance Group (AIGG): Apex inter-ministerial body chaired by the Principal Scientific Adviser, coordinating AI policy across ministries.
    2. Technology & Policy Expert Committee (TPEC): Offers domain expertise on law, data, security, and governance.
    3. AI Safety Institute (AISI): Anchors technical safety, risk research, and international collaborations like the Global Network of AI Safety Institutes.
    4. Accountability Measures:
      • Graded Liability System based on role and risk.
      • Transparency Reports, Grievance Redressal Systems, Peer Monitoring, and Self-certifications for compliance.

    What is India’s Global and Long-term Vision for AI Governance?

    1. Foresight & Diplomacy: Positions India as a voice of the Global South in AI governance debates (G20, UN, OECD).
    2. AI Incident Reporting System: Centralised database tracking AI harms for national security and regulatory learning.
    3. Techno-Legal Architecture: Concepts like DEPA for AI Training embed consent and privacy by design.
    4. Action Plan:
      • Short-term: Build institutions and awareness.
      • Medium-term: Develop standards, risk frameworks, and legal clarity.
      • Long-term: Evolve global leadership and adaptive legal frameworks.

    Conclusion

    India’s AI Governance Guidelines represent a paradigm shift from regulation to enablement, balancing innovation with public trust. By rooting governance in human values, institutional cooperation, and digital infrastructure, India positions itself as a responsible AI power, one that prioritizes inclusivity, transparency, and resilience. The framework sets a precedent for the Global South, reflecting India’s vision of “AI for All, AI for Good”.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] e-governance, as a critical tool of governance, has ushered in effectiveness, transparency and accountability in governments. What inadequacies hamper the enhancement of these features?

    Linkage: The AI Governance Guidelines integrate e-governance and AI to improve transparency, accountability, and citizen-centricity. This addresses the same governance challenges this question targets.

  • [pib] Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)

    Why in the News?

    The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) has announced major reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency, and inclusivity in the national rehabilitation system.

    About the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI):

    • Overview: It is a statutory body established under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, and came into statutory force on 22 June 1993.
    • Vision: To build a skilled, ethical, and inclusive rehabilitation workforce aligned with India’s disability rights framework and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) commitments.
    • Nodal Agency: Functions under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India.
    • Historical Background: Initially set up as a registered society in 1986, later granted statutory powers to regulate rehabilitation education and practice nationwide.
    • Regulatory Role: Acts as the national authority for training, education, and certification of professionals working in rehabilitation and special education.
    • Central Rehabilitation Register (CRR): Maintains and updates the CRR, a national database of all certified rehabilitation professionals in India.
    • Scope of Coverage: Regulates 16 professional categories including special educators, audiologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists.

  • What is Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR)?

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has allowed the Union Government to reconsider its additional Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues from Vodafone-Idea for FY 2016–17, giving relief to the debt-ridden telecom firm.

    About Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR):

    • Overview: AGR is the revenue base used by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to calculate license fees and spectrum usage charges (SUC) owed by telecom operators.
    • Origin: Introduced under the National Telecom Policy, 1999, AGR represents a share of total earnings payable by service providers to the government.
    • DoT’s Interpretation: Encompasses all revenues, both core telecom (e.g., call, SMS, data) and non-telecom (e.g., interest, rent, capital gains, dividends).
    • Telecom Operators’ View: Contended that AGR should cover only core operational revenues, excluding non-telecom income unrelated to telecom services.
    • Components (as upheld by the Supreme Court, 2019):
      • Included: Call charges, data usage, roaming/interconnection fees, value-added services, interest, rent, and forex gains.
      • Excluded: Goods and Services Tax (GST) and revenue already shared with other operators.
    • Financial Fallout: The 2019 verdict imposed ₹1.47 lakh crore in retrospective dues, triggering a liquidity crisis and sectoral consolidation.
    • Current Context (2025): The Supreme Court has permitted policy reconsideration of excess AGR demands, signalling a more flexible, reform-oriented telecom regime.

    What is the AGR Dispute?

    • Legal Conflict:  between telecom operators and the DoT on the scope of “gross revenue” used for fee computation.
    • Operators’ Argument: Only telecom-related income, from calls, SMS, and internet, should form part of AGR.
    • DoT’s Position: AGR must also include non-core revenues, expanding liability through inclusion of financial and ancillary income.
    • Supreme Court Ruling (2019): Upheld DoT’s broad definition, mandating payment of full dues with interest, penalty, and interest on penalty.
    • Sectoral Consequence: The judgment destabilised telecom finances, leading to the exit of smaller players and near-duopoly between Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel.
    • Vodafone-Idea Case: With dues over ₹58,000 crore, Vi became the worst-hit; the government later converted part of its dues into equity, acquiring a 49% stake to prevent insolvency.
    • Policy Evolution: AGR, once a litigation issue, now reflects a governance reform debate, balancing fiscal interests, sector viability, and consumer protection within India’s telecom ecosystem.

     

  • Labelling of AI-Generated Content on Social Media

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology proposed mandatory labelling of Artificial Intelligence–generated synthetic content on social media to curb deepfakes, under draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    2025 Draft Amendment on AI Content:

    • AI Regulation: Introduced by MeitY to address synthetic and AI-generated media such as deepfakes.
    • Mandatory Disclosure: Users must self-declare AI-generated content; platforms must detect and label undeclared synthetic material.
    • Labelling Standards: Labels to cover 10% of image/video area or duration (audio); applies to text, audio, and video formats.
    • Platform Obligations: Ensure metadata embedding and automated verification of user declarations.
    • Legal Liability: Non-compliance leads to loss of “safe harbour” protection under Section 79(1), making intermediaries liable for hosted content.
    • Public Consultation: Comments open till 6 November 2025.

    Back2Basics: IT Rules, 2021:

    • Legal Basis: Framed under Sections 87(2)(z) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate social media, digital news, and OTT platforms.
    • Objective: To ensure accountability, transparency, and user protection in India’s digital ecosystem while balancing free speech with responsible governance.
    • Evolution: Replaced the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, expanding obligations for intermediaries like Facebook, X (Twitter), YouTube, and Instagram.
    • Scope: Applies to social media intermediaries, messaging services, digital news publishers, and OTT streaming platforms.
    • Compliance Framework: Platforms must appoint Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer (RGO),  all based in India.
    • Traceability Clause (Rule 4(2)): Mandates messaging services to identify the “first originator” of unlawful content, raising privacy and surveillance concerns.

    Regulation of Social Media Content in India:

    • Legislative Basis: Governed by the IT Act, 2000, notably Section 69A (blocking powers) and Section 79(1) (safe harbour for intermediaries).
    • Obligations: Intermediaries must remove unlawful content within 36 hours of a government or court order.
    • 2023 Amendment: Proposed removal of false content about the government; implementation stayed by Supreme Court.
    • Judicial Context:
      • Shreya Singhal (2015): Struck down Section 66A, upholding free speech.
      • K.S. Puttaswamy (2017):  Recognised privacy as a fundamental right influencing digital governance.

  • Empower ASI to do its job

    Introduction 

    The government’s move to allow private oversight of protected monuments is a watershed moment. For decades, ASI has been the statutory guardian of India’s tangible past, born in the colonial era and burdened by bureaucracy, underfunding and a shrinking sense of mission. Simultaneously, private actors and civic organisations have shown how resources, managerial skill and community energy can revive museums and sites. The question is not whether to choose one side; it is how to combine ASI’s technical authority with the creativity, funds and operational capability that partnerships bring, without commodifying culture.

    The Human Cost of Institutional Drift

    The shrinking imagination of public stewardship

    1. Institutional fatigue: ASI carries a legacy of scholarship but suffers from low morale and an inward-looking culture that treats conservation as paperwork rather than cultural care.
    2. Loss of interpretive vision: When custodians stop telling stories, monuments become inert props rather than living places of memory and identity.
    3. Urban neglect: Historic neighbourhoods, bazaars and ritual spaces around monuments decay when site management ignores everyday people.

    The emotional stakes for communities

    1. Cultural dislocation: For villagers, priests and artisans, monuments are part of life, losing access or ritual meaning severs social ties.
    2. Livelihoods at risk: When heritage is mismanaged, local guides, craftspeople and small vendors lose incomes tied to respectful tourism.

    The Promise of Partnerships and PPPs

    Partnerships as custodianship boosters

    1. Financial rescue: PPPs can create endowments and recurring funding streams for long-term maintenance, freeing conservation from short political cycles.
    2. Example: Museum restorations in Mumbai combined corporate funding, municipal support and conservation expertise to revive institutions.
    3. Operational professionalism: Private sector expertise in project management, visitor services and marketing improves site upkeep and interpretive programming.
    4. New experiences, same respect: Thoughtful PPPs design museum displays, lighting, interpretation centres and guided routes that invite learning, not spectacle.

    PPPs and local empowerment

    1. Livelihood integration: PPP projects that hire local artisans and vendors create shared incentives for conservation.
    2. Example: Community-run craft stalls and guided-walk programs increase earnings and local ownership.
    3. Skill-building: Partnerships can fund training for conservators, guides, and site managers, expanding the conservation workforce.

    When PPPs get it right: conditions of success

    1. ASI oversight: Technical conservation plans must be approved and monitored by ASI or accredited conservation experts.
    2. Community clauses: Contracts should guarantee access, rituals and a share of revenue for local stakeholders.
    3. Transparent accountability: Public dashboards, audited accounts and sunset clauses prevent permanent privatization.

    The Risks of Commercialisation and How to Guard Against Them

    Commodification and loss of sacredness

    1. Over-entertainment danger: Turning a temple or tomb into a stage for events can strip its sanctity and alienate devotees.
    2. Tourist-first trap: If revenue becomes the sole metric, conservation values degrade.
    3. Equity and access concerns
    4. Paywall problem: Higher fees and exclusive events can exclude local communities; safeguards must keep access affordable and meaningful.

    Technical and ethical lapses

    1. Skill imbalance: Corporates without heritage expertise may favour cosmetic changes over reversible, scientifically sound conservation.
    2. Short-termism: Event-driven models can fund repairs but not create long-term technical capacity for conservation.

    A Practical, Human-Centred Roadmap

    Reinventing ASI as knowledge steward and regulator

    1. Autonomy with accountability: Grant ASI managerial freedom and stable budgets while insisting on transparency and citizen oversight.
    2. Specialist cadres: Create conservation architect and urban heritage cadres, fellowships and cross-disciplinary teams (historians, anthropologists, conservators).

    Designing PPPs for people and preservation

    1. Model MoU essentials: ASI-approved conservation plan, community benefit clause, revenue-sharing mechanism, independent monitoring, exit/sunset clause.
    2. Performance metrics: Conservation integrity, community welfare indicators, visitor-impact thresholds, financial sustainability.
    3. Phased pilots: Start with clearly defined pilot projects (museums, small sites) before scaling to larger or sacred monuments.

    Community as co-custodians

    1. Local governance: Empower panchayats, municipal trusts and temple committees in day-to-day stewardship with technical backup from ASI.
    2. Benefit linking: Ensure training, employment and revenue-sharing for local craftspeople and service providers.

    Modern tools for timeless care

    1. Digital records: 3D scans, GIS mapping and condition-monitoring dashboards to track deterioration and plan interventions.
    2. Public access to data: Open reports and accessible interpretive material strengthen democratic stewardship.

    Conclusion — A human promise, not a transaction

    Heritage is ethical work: it asks us to keep memory alive while serving the living. The ASI must be renewed into a vibrant, expert body that sets standards and guarantees access. PPPs — when framed by clear agreements, community rights and technical oversight — can supply funds, skills and fresh ideas. The aim is not to monetise memory but to steward it: to ensure that stones continue to tell stories, and that those stories remain deeply, unmistakably, Indian.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Public charitable trusts have the potential to make India’s development more inclusive as they relate to certain vital public issues. Comment.

    Linkage: This PYQ highlights how non-state actors and philanthropic trusts can complement government efforts in addressing public issues. It is linked to the article as PPPs and heritage trusts similarly expand conservation beyond ASI’s limited capacity, ensuring inclusive and sustainable preservation of cultural assets.

  • Centre directs NGOs to seek FCRA renewal 4 months before expiry

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has instructed NGOs to submit their Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010 renewal applications at least four months before expiry.

    About the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA):

    • Origin: First enacted in 1976 during the Emergency to regulate inflow of foreign funds.
    • FCRA, 2010: Replaced the 1976 Act to strengthen regulation and ensure foreign funds are used for legitimate purposes without compromising sovereignty, security, or national interest.
    • Coverage: Applies to individuals, associations, and organizations receiving foreign contributions.
    • Administration: Managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
    • Objectives:
      • Ensure foreign funds are used responsibly.
      • Prevent undue foreign influence on Indian politics, civil society, and governance.
      • Safeguard sovereignty, integrity, and harmony.

    Key Provisions of FCRA, 2010:

    • Registration: Only organizations with definite cultural, social, economic, educational, or religious objectives can apply.
    • Validity: Registration valid for 5 years; renewal required 6 months before expiry.
    • Designated Bank Account: NGOs must open an exclusive FCRA account in SBI, New Delhi.
    • Annual Reporting:
      • Receipts and utilization must be reported annually.
      • Accounts must be audited by a Chartered Accountant.
      • Banks must report foreign fund receipts to MHA.
    • Administrative Expenses: NGOs can use a maximum of 20% of foreign funds for admin costs (earlier 50%).
    • Special Provisions:
      • NGOs can spend up to ₹25 lakh annually outside their constituency/state for projects promoting national unity.
      • In severe natural calamities, MPs/NGOs may allocate up to ₹1 crore for relief anywhere in India.
    • Prohibited Recipients: Foreign funds cannot go to election candidates, journalists, media houses, judges, government servants, political parties or office bearers, or organizations of political nature.
    • Prohibited Activities: NGOs cannot:
      • Represent fictitious entities.
      • Engage in religious conversions.
      • Have records of communal tension, disharmony, or sedition.

    Amendments to FCRA:

    FCRA Amendment Act, 2020

    • Suspension: Government can suspend registration for up to 360 days.
    • Mandatory Aadhaar: All office bearers, directors, and key functionaries must provide Aadhaar.
    • Prohibition on Sub-Granting: NGOs cannot transfer foreign contributions to other NGOs/entities.
    • Reduced Admin Cap: Admin expenses limited to 20% (earlier 50%).
    • Designated SBI Account: All foreign funds must be received only in an FCRA account at SBI, New Delhi.
    • Bar on Public Servants: Public servants prohibited from receiving foreign contributions.
    • Renewal Scrutiny: Renewal applications can be examined for misuse, fictitious status, or rule violations.
    • Surrender of Certificate: NGOs can surrender registration with government approval.

    FCRA Rules, 2022:

    • Raised the annual limit for money received from relatives abroad to ₹10 lakh (earlier ₹1 lakh) without notifying MHA.
    • Strengthened safeguards against harmful foreign contributions.

  • [pib] Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA)

    Why in the News?

    The Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) has imposed a penalty of ₹2,00,000 FirstCry for false and misleading price representations on its e-commerce platform.

    Background of the Case: You Must Know

    • Complaint: Products were displayed with the claim “MRP inclusive of all taxes,” but additional GST was levied at checkout.
    • Effect: Misled consumers by showing higher discounts than actually offered.
    • Findings:
      • A product advertised at 27% discount was effectively sold at 18.2% discount after GST.
      • Such pricing amounted to misleading advertisements (Section 2(28)) and unfair trade practices (Section 2(47)).
    • Dark Pattern: The practice qualified as “drip pricing”, a dark pattern under the Guidelines for Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023.
    • Violation of E-Commerce Rules: Contravened Rule 7(1)(e) of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, which mandates displaying the total price inclusive of all charges and taxes upfront.

    About Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA):

    • Established: Under Section 10 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (effective July 20, 2020).
    • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution.
    • Functions & Powers:
      • Protects and enforces consumer rights as a class.
      • Prevents unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements.
      • Can initiate class-action suits (recalls, refunds, license cancellation).
      • Investigates through Investigation Wing headed by a Director-General.
      • Can order discontinuation of unfair practices and impose penalties.
    • Composition of CCPA: Chief Commissioner (Head); 2 Commissioners-
      • One for goods-related issues.
      • One for services-related complaints.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following organizations/bodies in India:

    1. The National Commission for Backward Classes

    2. The National Human Rights Commission

    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

     

  • Supreme Court Guidelines on DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has issued guidelines in the Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu Judgement to standardise DNA handling in criminal cases to prevent contamination and delays after evidence lapses in a major case.

    Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Guidelines:

    • Case Context: It involved rape, murder, and robbery. Court flagged delays in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) submission, lack of chain of custody, and risk of contamination.
    • Need: Lack of uniform procedures across states despite scattered rules. Since Police and Public Order are in the State List, Supreme Court intervened for national uniformity.
    • Guidelines Issued:
      • Collection and Documentation: Samples must be packaged properly, labelled with FIR details, and signed by medical officer, Investigating Officer, and witnesses.
      • Transportation: Investigating Officer (IO) must deliver samples to FSL within 48 hours. Reasons for any delay must be recorded.
      • Storage Pending Trial: Packages cannot be opened or resealed without trial court approval.
      • Chain of Custody Register: Maintained until conviction or acquittal. IO responsible for explaining lapses.

    Previous SC Observations on DNA Evidence:

    • Anil v. Maharashtra (2014): DNA reliable only if laboratory procedures are maintained.
    • Manoj v. Madhya Pradesh (2022): DNA rejected as recovery was from open area with contamination risk.
    • Rahul v. Delhi (2022): DNA held inadmissible after being kept in police custody for two months.
    • Pattu Rajan v. Tamil Nadu (2019): DNA value depends on corroborating evidence; absence not fatal.
    • Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003): DNA test orders valid; no violation of Article 21.
    • Das @ Anu v. Kerala (2022): DNA not self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Section 53A CrPC permits collection in rape cases.

    Back2Basics: DNA Profiling

    • Overview: DNA profiling, also called DNA fingerprinting, is a forensic technique to identify individuals by analysing unique DNA regions, mainly Short Tandem Repeats (STRs).
    • How it works: Human DNA is 99.9% identical; the 0.1% variability forms the basis of personal identification.
    • Sources: DNA can be extracted from blood, semen, saliva, hair, bone, skin, or even “touch DNA.”
    • Processes: The process includes isolation, purification, amplification, visualization, and statistical comparison of DNA markers.
    • Methods:  miniSTRs and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) help in degraded or limited samples.
    • Legal Status: Treated as expert opinion under Indian Evidence Act Section 45 (now BSA 2023 Section 39). DNA is corroborative, not substantive evidence.

  • Cutting off online gaming with scissors of prohibition

    Introduction

    In a surprising move at the end of the Monsoon Session 2025, the Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The Act outlaws online real money games, citing societal harms such as addiction and financial ruin, while aiming to encourage e-sports. What makes this development significant is the abruptness of the ban, absence of stakeholder consultation, and the wiping out of a sunrise sector that had attracted heavy foreign investment and promised thousands of quality tech jobs.

    The Fallout of the Ban

    1. Job Losses: The industry was projected to employ 1.5 lakh people by 2025 in programming, design, analytics, and customer support. The ban curtails these opportunities in a job-scarce economy.
    2. Revenue Sacrifice: Online real money games were expected to generate ₹17,000 crore in GST revenues, benefiting both Centre and States. The ban erases this fiscal opportunity.
    3. Investor Confidence: Sudden policy reversals discourage foreign direct investment (FDI), raising doubts about India’s policy stability.
    4. Innovation Slowdown: Online gaming sits at the intersection of technology, payments, and digital content, key drivers of Digital India. The ban risks stifling entrepreneurship and innovation.

    Why Did the Government Ban Real Money Gaming?

    1. Societal Harm: The government argues online gaming has led to addiction, financial ruin, and behavioral issues comparable to drug dependence.
    2. Public Pressure: State-level cases of suicides and debt traps pushed policymakers to respond.
    3. Moral Positioning: The Centre framed the issue as a public health crisis requiring urgent intervention.

    Could Regulation Have Been a Better Alternative?

    1. Responsible Gaming Tools: Platforms had developed age-gating, self-exclusion, deposit/time limits, KYC/AML checks, and bot-detection to promote safer gaming.
    2. International Practices: Globally, ethical advertising and technological safeguards regulate the sector rather than outright bans.
    3. State Frameworks: States like Tamil Nadu were experimenting with balanced regulatory frameworks, creating scope for a middle path.

    Risks of the Ban

    1. Illegal Networks: Players may migrate to offshore and underground apps, which pay no taxes and are beyond Indian jurisdiction.
    2. Loss of Accountability: With regulated firms shut down, compulsive gamers are left vulnerable to fraud and unsafe practices.
    3. Federal Overreach: Betting and gambling fall under the State List; the Centre’s unilateral move undermines federalism.
    4. Constitutional Challenge: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the Fundamental Right to practice any trade or business. The ban raises issues of proportionality and constitutional validity.

    The Middle Ground

    1. Licensing System: Grant licenses to vetted firms with strict compliance norms.
    2. Clear Distinction: Differentiate between games of skill (legitimate) and games of chance (gambling).
    3. Taxation Regime: Ensure predictable and fair taxation, boosting both revenue and compliance.
    4. Capacity Building: Strengthen regulatory institutions instead of relying on prohibition.

    Conclusion

    The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, highlights the clash between state paternalism and economic freedom. While societal concerns around addiction are real, prohibition is a blunt instrument that risks pushing activity underground, sacrificing jobs, revenues, and investor trust. A regulatory middle path could have safeguarded both citizens and India’s economic interests.

    Value Addition

    Understanding the Online Gaming Sector

    1. E-sports: Organised competitive digital sports requiring strategy, coordination, decision-making; emerging as a legitimate sport.
    2. Online Social Games: Casual, skill-based games for recreation, learning, or social interaction; considered safe with minimal social risks.
    3. Online Money Games: Involve financial stakes (chance/skill/mixed); linked to addiction, financial losses, money laundering, and suicides.

    Game of Skill vs Game of Chance in India

    Game of Skill

    1. Outcome depends predominantly on knowledge, training, strategy, or judgment.
    2. Examples: Chess, Rummy, Fantasy sports (judicially recognised in some cases).
    3. Legal Status: Judicially upheld as legitimate business activity, not gambling. Protected under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/profession).

    Game of Chance

    1. Outcome depends mainly on luck or randomness, not player skill.
    2. Examples: Lotteries, Roulette, Dice-based betting.
    3. Legal Status: Considered gambling; regulated/prohibited by States (as per State List, Entry 34 of 7th Schedule).

    Regulation in India

    Judicial Precedents:

    1. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957) – distinguished games of skill from gambling.
    2. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) – horse racing recognised as a game of skill.

    Federal Context: Betting & gambling are State subjects; hence regulation differs across states.

    Digital Loophole: Many online games operate in a grey zone → recent legislation like the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 seeks to ban money games irrespective of skill/chance classification.

    Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Acy, 2025

    Why the Bill was Brought

    1. Addiction & Financial Ruin: 45 crore people affected; losses of over ₹20,000 crores due to online money games.
    2. Mental Health & Suicides: Financial distress linked to addiction resulted in suicides.
    3. Fraud & Money Laundering: Offshore platforms used for illegal financial flows.
    4. National Security Risks: Evidence of terror financing and illegal messaging.
    5. Closing Legal Loopholes: Existing gambling laws did not cover the digital domain.
    6. Balanced Approach: Distinguishes between exploitative money games and constructive e-sports/educational games.

    Key Provisions of the Bill

    1. Applicability: Applies to all of India, including offshore platforms targeting Indian users.
    2. Promotion of E-Sports: Recognised as legitimate sport; guidelines by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports; incentives, training, research centres.
    3. Promotion of Social & Educational Games: Registration of safe, age-appropriate games; focus on skill-building, culture, education.
    4. Ban on Online Money Games: Complete prohibition on games involving stakes (chance/skill/mixed); advertising and transactions banned.
    5. Online Gaming Authority: National regulator to register/categorise games, issue guidelines, handle grievances.
    6. Strict Penalties:
      1. Offering money games → up to 3 years jail + ₹1 crore fine.
      2. Advertising → up to 2 years jail + ₹50 lakh fine.
      3. Repeat offences → up to 5 years jail + ₹2 crore fine.
    7. Corporate Liability: Company officers accountable; independent directors exempt if due diligence is shown.
    8. Powers of Enforcement: Search, seizure, and arrests without warrant under BNSS, 2023.

    Complementary Measures Already in Place

    1. IT Act & Rules: Intermediaries must register; illegal platforms blocked (1,524 blocked between 2022–2025).
    2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 111 & 112 criminalise unlawful betting/cyber fraud.
    3. IGST Act, 2017: Offshore suppliers must register; GST Intelligence empowered to block non-compliant platforms.
    4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: CCPA cracks down on misleading ads and celebrity endorsements.
    5. Advisories: MoIB & Education Ministry issued guidelines on safe gaming practices.
    6. Cybercrime Portal & Helpline (1930): Citizens enabled to report fraud and financial scams.
    7. International Reference: WHO: Recognises gaming disorder in ICD classification – loss of control, neglect of daily activities, continuation despite harm.

    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: Both the RTI Amendments (2020) and the Online Gaming Bill (2025) highlight rising executive control at the cost of autonomy and federal balance. In RTI, the independence of Information Commissions was weakened; in Gaming, sweeping central powers risk arbitrariness and undermine states’ jurisdiction. Both raise questions of transparency, proportionality, and constitutional freedoms, showing a trend of centralisation in governance.

  • [13th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’

    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: The RTI’s strength lay in ensuring both citizens’ access to information and the independence of Information Commissions as watchdogs of transparency. Amendments such as those under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023–25, which expand the scope of “personal information” and override disclosure norms, severely limit this autonomy. This erosion risks converting RTI into a “Right to Deny Information,” thereby weakening institutional independence and citizen empowerment.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was once celebrated as a revolutionary step in India’s democratic journey, giving citizens a direct tool to hold the State accountable. But recent amendments through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 have been termed a “fundamental regression of democracy.” By transforming RTI into a potential “Right to Deny Information (RDI),” the amendments threaten transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption. This article unpacks the gravity of these changes, their implications for governance, and why the muted public response is a cause for deep concern.

    Introduction

    The RTI Act (2005) rests on the principle that in a democracy, government-held information belongs to the people. It has empowered ordinary citizens to expose corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness in governance. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, originally a balanced safeguard to protect personal privacy, has now been drastically curtailed by the DPDP Act, reducing it to six words. This shift fundamentally alters the spirit of transparency, tilting the Act from being a “Right to Know” towards a “Right to Deny.”

    Why is this in the news?

    For the first time since its enactment, the RTI Act faces a drastic truncation of one of its most crucial provisions. Section 8(1)(j), which earlier struck a delicate balance between privacy and transparency, has now been reduced in length and scope, effectively allowing authorities to deny a vast range of information. The problem is massive, nearly 90% of RTI requests could now be rejected as “personal information.” Yet, unlike earlier RTI amendments that triggered massive public protests, the current change has seen notable public and media apathy, making this a silent but severe assault on India’s democratic ethos.

    How has the original Section 8(1)(j) changed?

    1. Balanced safeguard: Earlier, information could be denied only if it had no connection to public activity or was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest was served.
    2. Acid test provision: Any information that could not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures could not be denied to citizens.
    3. Case-by-case privacy: Privacy, as acknowledged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, was contextual and evolving, requiring nuanced interpretation.
    4. New truncated version: Reduced to just six words, making it vague and easier for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to deny information.

    What is the ambiguity around ‘personal information’?

    1. Natural person view: “Person” means a normal human being.
    2. DPDP definition: Expansive—includes companies, firms, associations, Hindu undivided families, and even the State.
    3. Result: Almost all government-held information can be linked to some “person,” enabling blanket denials.
    4. Overriding clause: DPDP Act overrides all other laws, with penalties up to ₹250 crore for violations, making PIOs fearful and risk-averse.

    How does this impact transparency and anti-corruption efforts?

    1. Loss of citizen monitoring: Citizens as watchdogs against corruption lose power. Other mechanisms like vigilance bodies or Lokpal have been ineffective.
    2. Denial of essential documents: Even mundane details, like corrected marksheets or pension beneficiary lists, can be refused. Rajasthan’s earlier use of such data to weed out “ghost employees” will now be impossible.
    3. Scope for corruption: By labeling corruption-related details as “personal information,” the law makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.
    4. Larger public interest clause weakens: Though Section 8(2) allows disclosure in larger public interest, it is rarely applied (<1% of cases).

    Why is there limited public outrage?

    1. Guise of data protection: Amendments are packaged under “privacy,” which appears benign or even desirable.
    2. Ego-driven perception: People instinctively think their information should remain private, ignoring how transparency aids collective accountability.
    3. Muted media response: Compared to earlier protests (e.g., changes to Information Commissioner tenure and salaries), public discussion is minimal.

    What needs to be done?

    1. Media engagement: Widespread discussion in print, digital, and regional media.
    2. Political accountability: Citizens must push parties to commit reversal of amendments in manifestos.
    3. Public opinion building: Civil society must highlight the democratic regression caused.
    4. Recognising gravity: The assault on RTI must be treated as seriously as threats to any other fundamental right.

    Conclusion

    The RTI Act, 2005  is not just a legal framework but a democratic ethos, where citizens are owners, not petitioners, of government-held information. The DPDP Act’s amendment transforms this ethos into an ethos of denial, threatening both transparency and accountability. Unless citizens, media, and political actors mobilise to resist, India risks losing one of its most powerful democratic tools.