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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • Should Commercial speech on digital platform be regulated

    Introduction

    On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India asked the Union government to frame guidelines for regulating social media content, noting that influencers often commercialise speech in ways that offend vulnerable groups. The case arose from derogatory remarks made by comedians about persons with Spinal Muscular Atrophy. While well-intentioned, the order has raised concerns about overregulation of free speech.

    Why in the news

    The Supreme Court of India’s intervention is significant because it directs the executive to draft specific rules for social media despite existing laws such as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) already providing mechanisms. For the first time, the Court has nudged the government toward formal regulation triggered by a single incident, raising alarms of censorship and judicial overreach.

    The presence or absence of a regulatory vacuum

    1. Existing provisions: FIRs can be filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Information Technology Act, 2000. The IT Act already empowers courts or the executive to order takedowns.
    2. Opaque enforcement: Takedowns often occur without notifying the affected individual, undermining natural justice.
    3. Critics’ view: No regulatory vacuum exists; additional rules may be an overreaction to a single case.

    The question of dignity as a ground for restricting free speech

    1. Constitutional limits: Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India exhaustively lists permissible restrictions, security of the state, public order, decency, morality, etc. Dignity is not among them.
    2. Judicial precedents: In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court of India upheld criminal defamation, indirectly protecting individual dignity, but did not treat dignity as an independent ground.
    3. Slippery slope risk: Recognising dignity as a separate basis for restriction could legitimise expansive censorship.

    The risk of silencing uncomfortable speech

    1. Chilling effect: Overbroad regulations may deter comedians, satirists, and artists from bold expression.
    2. Supreme Court stance: In March 2025, in Imran Pratapgadhi v. State of Gujarat, the Court quashed charges against a Member of Parliament, reaffirming that Article 19(1)(a) protects even disturbing or offensive views.
    3. Censorship creep: Proposals like the Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill may expand state control over independent creators.

    The place of commercial speech in free expression

    1. Judicial recognition: In Sakal Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (1962) and Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995), the Supreme Court of India affirmed that commercial speech falls under Article 19(1)(a).
    2. Commerce and speech: Just as newspapers rely on advertisements, comedians and influencers rely on monetisation. Profit motive does not make speech less deserving of protection.
    3. Criticism: Comedy and satire do not neatly fall into the narrow category of “commercial speech,” traditionally reserved for advertisements.

    Judicial polyvocality and consistency of precedent

    1. Court’s nature: Divergent views are part of common law, but binding precedent ensures continuity.
    2. Problem here: Directing the executive to draft rules risks giving regulations undue legitimacy and making constitutional challenges harder.
    3. Judicial discipline: When coordinate Benches depart from earlier rulings, proper procedure is referral to a larger Bench.

    Safeguards needed in future regulations

    1. Transparent review: Any regulation must ensure robust review mechanisms and fairness in takedown procedures.
    2. Broad consultation: Stakeholder engagement should extend beyond industry associations to include civil society and affected communities.
    3. Opacity concerns: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its rules (2009) are already opaque; future regulations must not repeat these flaws.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s intention to protect dignity is laudable, but creating fresh regulations risks undermining the freedom of expression. India already has legal frameworks to tackle offensive content. Expanding restrictions based on vague concepts like dignity may lead to excessive censorship, weaken democratic discourse, and erode artistic freedom.

    Value Addition

    Social Media Regulation in India

    Existing legal framework:

    1. Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) – Section 69A empowers the government to block content in the interest of sovereignty, security, or public order.
    2. Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 – impose obligations on intermediaries (traceability, grievance redressal, content takedown within 24 hours).
    3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) – contains provisions criminalising hate speech, obscenity, and defamation.

    Judicial interventions:

    1. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) – struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being vague and unconstitutional.
    2. Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) – upheld criminal defamation, linking dignity and reputation to Article 21.
    3. Concerns: Opaque takedown orders, executive overreach, limited transparency, chilling effect on creators.

    Comparative Global Perspective

    • European Union (EU):
      • Digital Services Act (DSA), 2022 – imposes strict obligations on platforms to remove illegal content, ensures algorithmic transparency, and penalises non-compliance heavily.
      • Focus on user rights, platform accountability, and transparency reports.
    • United States:
      • Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 1996 – grants platforms immunity for third-party content but allows them to moderate in “good faith.”
      • Debate ongoing about reforming Section 230 to tackle misinformation and hate speech.
    • United Kingdom: Online Safety Act, 2023 – places a “duty of care” on platforms to protect children and curb illegal content.
    • Australia: Online Safety Act, 2021 – empowers the eSafety Commissioner to order removal of harmful content (cyberbullying, image-based abuse, terrorist material).
    • China: Heavily restrictive model – extensive censorship, mandatory real-name verification, and state monitoring of digital platforms.
    • Global South: Many countries (e.g., Nigeria, Pakistan) have passed restrictive social media laws under the pretext of national security, raising concerns about authoritarian misuse.

    International Bodies and Global Norms

    • United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Stresses that restrictions on online speech must comply with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – legality, necessity, and proportionality.
    • UNESCO: Advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach to digital governance, focusing on protecting human rights, access to information, and pluralism.
    • OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development): Encourages transparency and accountability frameworks for digital platforms.
    • Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT): A tech industry-led initiative to remove extremist content online.

    Good Examples

    • Germany: Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG), 2017 – requires platforms to remove “manifestly unlawful” content (hate speech, fake news) within 24 hours. Criticised for overblocking but effective in quick takedowns.
    • France: Passed “Avia Law” (2020) against online hate but was struck down by the Constitutional Council for disproportionate restrictions. Illustrates the tension between free speech and regulation.
    • EU’s GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) indirectly regulates platforms by holding them accountable for data privacy and targeted advertising.

    Way Forward for India

    • Principle-based framework: Regulations should follow constitutional safeguards (Article 19(2)), ensure proportionality, and avoid vague categories like “dignity.”
    • Transparency and due process: Mandatory publication of takedown orders, notice to affected parties, and avenues for appeal.
    • Independent oversight: Instead of executive dominance, an independent regulator (like an ombudsman or tribunal) could review takedown requests.
    • Stakeholder-driven approach: Consultation must involve civil society, creators, tech companies, and vulnerable communities.
    • Digital literacy: Public campaigns to counter hate speech and misinformation organically, rather than relying solely on punitive regulation.
    • Learning from global practices: India could adapt elements of the EU’s Digital Services Act (transparency), US’s Section 230 immunity, and Australia’s safety-first approach, while avoiding China’s over-control.

    UPSC Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] Discuss Section 66A of IT Act, with reference to its alleged violation of Article 19 of the Constitution.

    Linkage: Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) for being vague and violating Article 19(1)(a) beyond the limits of Article 19(2). The present debate on regulating commercial speech on digital platforms raises a similar concern, as introducing “dignity” as a restriction risks the same arbitrariness. Both highlight the constitutional need for clear, proportionate, and narrowly defined limits on free speech in India.

  • [pib] Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS)

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MoSPI) recently organized a national workshop on the e-SAKSHI web portal and mobile app for the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS).

    About MPLADS:

    • Overview: A Central Sector Scheme, launched in 1993, to empower MPs to recommend developmental works in their constituencies, focusing on durable community assets addressing local needs.
    • Administration: Initially under the Ministry of Rural Development; Since 1994, managed by MoSPI.
    • Implementation:
      • State-level nodal department supervises implementation.
      • District authorities sanction projects, release funds, and ensure execution.
    • Funding:
      • Each MP gets ₹5 crore per year (since 2011–12).
      • Disbursed by MoSPI in two instalments of ₹2.5 crore each to district authorities.
      • Funds are non-lapsable i.e. carried forward if unutilized.
    • Targeted Allocation: Minimum 15% for SCs and 7.5% for STs.
    • Special Provisions:
      • Up to ₹25 lakh annually can be spent outside constituency/state for national unity projects.
      • Up to ₹1 crore can be allocated nationwide during severe natural calamities.
    • Eligible Projects:
      • Durable community assets (e.g., libraries, community halls, ambulances, sports infrastructure, sanitation).
      • MPLADS funds can be converged with MGNREGS or integrated with Khelo India for asset creation.
      • Support allowed on lands of registered societies/trusts (3+ years old) engaged in welfare work.
      • Prohibited for societies/trusts where the MP/family are office-bearers.
    • Transparency Measures:
      • Plaque with MP’s name and project details must be installed at project sites.
      • Project details listed in district offices, MPLADS website, and accessible via RTI.
    • Monitoring & Audit:
      • District authorities inspect at least 10% of projects annually.
      • Funds audited by statutory auditors.
      • Regular review meetings at state and central levels.
    • e-SAKSHI platform: Enables MPs to digitally recommend, monitor, and track MPLADS projects, improving transparency, accountability, and efficiency in fund utilization.
    [UPSC 2020] With reference to the funds under Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS), which of the following statements are correct?

    1. MPLADS funds must be used to create durable assets like physical infrastructure for health, education, etc.

    2. A specified portion of each MP’s ‘fund must benefit SC/ST populations.

    3. MPLADS funds are sanctioned on yearly basis and the unused funds cannot be carried forward to the next year.

    4. The district authority must inspect at least 10% of all works under implementation every year.

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 3 and 4 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 4 only*

     

  • [14th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The Ceding of Academic Freedom in Universities

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2014] Should the premier institutes like IITs/IIMs be allowed to retain premier status, allowed more academic independence in designing courses and also decide mode/criteria of selection of students? Discuss in light of the growing challenges.

    Linkage: This PYQ directly links to the article’s core theme of academic autonomy by addressing whether premier institutions should have greater freedom in curriculum design, student selection, and governance. The article highlights how over-regulation, political interference, and funding control erode such freedoms across Indian universities. Answering this PYQ can draw on the article’s arguments for institutional autonomy, diversity, and the dangers of one-size-fits-all regulation.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Academic freedom is central to nurturing innovation, fostering critical thought, and sustaining democratic accountability in higher education. It ensures that universities remain spaces for questioning, debate, and independent research, free from undue political or bureaucratic interference. In the Indian context, constitutional guarantees under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, along with policy frameworks like the NEP 2020, lay a foundation for such autonomy, yet over-regulation and ideological pressures often undermine it. This article illustrates these challenges vividly, linking them to global patterns and emphasising the need for reforms that safeguard autonomy while ensuring institutional accountability.

    Introduction

    Academic freedom is the lifeblood of higher education, enabling questioning, debate, and independent thought. Any restriction on this freedom undermines knowledge creation, weakens the teaching–learning process, and, in the long run, hampers the nation’s intellectual, social, and economic progress.

    Core Arguments in Favour of Academic Freedom in Universities

    1. Universities as Centres of Critical Inquiry:
      1. Universities must be spaces where students and faculty can challenge existing ideas, debate openly, and explore new perspectives.
      2. Questioning is not rebellion, it is the foundation of knowledge development.
      3. Freedom for Students & Faculty: Students need the right to ask questions without fear. Faculty must have autonomy to challenge conventional wisdom in their fields.
    2. Institutional Autonomy:
      1. Universities must independently decide curriculum and pedagogy.
      2. External political or bureaucratic interference in academic content dilutes intellectual rigour.
      3. Universities contribute ideas for science, technology, economic policy, and social reform.
      4. Act as “conscience-keepers” through public intellectual engagement.
      5. Autonomy fosters accountability but accountability should be through transparent institutional mechanisms, not political intervention
      6. Rankings, despite flaws, can help ensure performance-based accountability
    3. Impact on Innovation & Society:
      1. Restricting academic discourse narrows creativity in research and stifles innovation.
      2. Over time, the economy, society, and polity bear the cost through diminished problem-solving capacity.
    4. Open Intellectual Spaces:
      1. Universities should freely invite diverse voices and speakers.
      2. Restricting platforms for dialogue harms learning outcomes and social progress.

    Erosion of Academic Autonomy: Challenges and Way Forward

    1. Freedom in Research:
      1. Universities and faculty must set research priorities and agendas free from political or ideological bias.
      2. Funding should be based on peer review, not prejudice or preference.
      3. Fundamental research needs time, resources, and tolerance for dissenting views.
      4. Lack of such an environment partly explains why Indian universities have not produced Nobel laureates in recent decades.
    2. The Indian Reality:
      1. Curricula are regulated and straitjacketed; reading lists are often politically vetted.
      2. Promising non-mainstream research, especially in humanities and social sciences, is discouraged.
      3. Government-controlled funding bodies can indirectly dictate research themes.
      4. Even private universities self-censor to avoid antagonising political authorities.
    3. Regulation and Autonomy:
      1. UGC Act, 1956 grants regulation powers but often centralises control.
      2. NEP 2020 proposes Higher Education Commission of India to streamline governance but risks uniformity over diversity.
      3. Autonomy must be administrative, financial, and academic with accountability ensured via transparent governance systems, not political directives.

    Case in Point – Academic Freedom Under Strain in India

    1. JNU Reading List Controversy (2019): Certain texts removed from syllabi for “ideological bias.”
    2. IIT-Madras Student Group Derecognition (2015): Suspension after alleged criticism of government policies.
    3. Ashoka University Resignations (2021 & 2023): Faculty exits over lack of institutional support for academic freedom.
    4. UGC Advisory (2022): Urged avoidance of events critical of government policies.

    Global Context

    1. Restrictions in democracies (Argentina, Hungary, Türkiye) and authoritarian states (China, Russia, Vietnam).
    2. The US faced funding cuts under the Trump administration, risking erosion of its innovation edge.
    3. China limits social sciences freedom but maintains merit-based appointments in top institutions.

    Conclusion

    Academic freedom is not a privilege, it is a necessity for national growth. Curtailing it is an attack on the very roots of innovation, democratic engagement, and societal advancement.

    Value Addition

    India’s Academic Freedom Snapshot

    1. Academic Freedom Index 2023: Low score; declining trend since 2013
    2. QS World University Rankings – Few Indian universities in global top 200; autonomy cited as a factor
    3. NAAC Accreditation: Less than 35% of HEIs accredited
    4. UGC Autonomy Regulations: 82 universities granted autonomy (2018–2023)
    5. Global Comparison: US, UK, Germany ranked significantly higher in academic freedom

    Regulation of Indian Universities

    1. University Grants Commission (UGC) Act, 1956: regulates standards, allocates funds, recognises institutions.
    2. AICTE: governs technical education institutions
    3. NAAC: accredits higher education institutions
    4. National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 proposes:
      1. Higher Education Commission of India (single regulator)
      2. Academic, administrative, and financial autonomy
      3. Flexibility in curriculum and interdisciplinarity
    • Challenges:
      1. Political interference in appointments and syllabus
      2. Over-centralisation vs. institutional diversity
      3. Risk of self-censorship in private institutions

    Mapping Micro Themes

    GS Paper Topic/Theme Micro Theme Example
    GS Paper II Education & Rights Academic freedom as a democratic necessity Art. 19(1)(a) & 21 protecting campus speech
    GS Paper II Higher Education Regulation UGC, NEP 2020, institutional autonomy IIT autonomy reforms
    GS Paper III Innovation & R&D Freedom boosting research productivity Correlation between autonomy and patents

    Practice Mains Question

    Essay: “The quest for uniformity is the worst enemy of creativity.”

    1. Evaluate the relationship between academic freedom and democratic accountability in India.

  • Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has recently called returning sterilised stray dogs to the streets under the Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program as “unreasonable and absurd” and ordered they be moved to shelters.

    About Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program:

    • Purpose: Humane, scientifically proven method to control stray dog populations and reduce rabies.
    • Legal Basis: First under Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 (under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960); updated as Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.
    • Development: Created with support from the World Health Organization (WHO).
    • Core Method: “Catch–sterilise–vaccinate–release” model; prohibits relocation or culling.
    • Implementation: Managed by municipalities, municipal corporations, and panchayats.
    • Authorisation: Only organisations recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) can conduct programs.
    • Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023:
      • Implemented to comply with Supreme Court guidelines in Writ Petition No. 691 of 2009.
      • Assigns responsibility to local bodies (municipalities, corporations, panchayats) to conduct ABC programs for sterilisation and immunisation of stray dogs.
      • Prohibits relocation of stray dogs as a means of population control; instead, they must be sterilised and returned to the same area.
      • Only organisations recognised by the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) can conduct ABC programs.

    Key Features:

    • Sterilisation Target: Minimum 70% of stray dogs in an area within one reproductive cycle (~6 months).
    • Focus: Female sterilisation at a 70:30 female-to-male ratio.
    • Rabies Control: Mandatory rabies vaccination (ABC–ARV) for every sterilised dog.
    • Infrastructure: Kennels, veterinary facilities, vehicles, and hygienic shelters required.
    • Recordkeeping: Detailed records for catching, surgery, vaccination, and release.
    • Monitoring: State and local committees ensure compliance and handle complaints.
    • Legal Protection: Mass relocation or killing prohibited under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act, 1960.
    [UPSC 2010] Consider the following statements:

    1. Every individual in the population is equally susceptible host for Swine Flu.

    2. Antibiotics have no role in the primary treatment of Swine Flu

    3. To prevent the future spread of Swine Flu in the epidemic area, the swine (pigs) must all be culled.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 and 2 only* (b) 2 only  (c) 2 and 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

     

  • [pib] State Health Regulatory Excellence Index (SHRESTH)

    Why in the News?

    The Union Health Ministry has launched the State Health Regulatory Excellence Index (SHRESTH), a first-of-its-kind national framework to benchmark and strengthen state drug regulatory systems.

    About State Health Regulatory Excellence Index (SHRESTH):

    • Purpose: National initiative by Union Health Ministry to benchmark and strengthen state drug regulatory systems.
    • Developer: Designed by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO).
    • Objective:  To benchmark and improve the performance of state-level drug regulatory authorities across India through a transparent, data-driven framework.
    • Method: Uses a transparent, data-driven framework and acts as a virtual gap assessment tool for maturity certification.

    Key Features:

    • State Categories: Manufacturing states assessed on 27 indices; distribution-focused states/UTs assessed on 23 indices.
    • Evaluation Themes: Human resources, infrastructure, licensing, surveillance, and responsiveness.
    • Data Submission: Monthly metric data submitted by the 25th; scores shared on the 1st of the next month.
    • Performance Benchmarking: Rankings encourage cross-learning and adoption of best practices.
    • Capacity Building: Workshops, joint trainings, and regulatory audits to strengthen state systems.
    • Digital Integration: Dashboards like Not of Standard Quality (NSQ) for real-time monitoring.
    • Global Standards: Supports India’s goal to meet WHO-equivalent medicine quality norms, building on WHO Maturity Level-3 vaccine status.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following statements:

    Statement-I: India’s public sector health care system largely focuses on curative care with limited preventive, promotive and rehabiliative care.

    Statement-II: Under India’s decentralized approach to health care delivery, the States are primarily responsible for organizing health services.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

    Options: (a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is the correct explanation for Statement-I

    (b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II is not the correct explanation for Statement-I *

    (c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect

    (d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

     

  • [4th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: The ‘right to repair’ must include ‘right to remember’

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2015] India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) which has a database containing formatted information on more than 2 million medicinal formulations is proving a powerful weapon in the country’s fight against erroneous patents. Discuss the pros and cons making this database publicly available under open-source licensing.

    Linkage: This question directly discusses the “Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)” and its role in protecting “traditional knowledge” from erroneous patents. This is highly relevant as the source champions the idea of treating repair as a “cultural and intellectual resource” and recognizing “tacit knowledge”.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  In May 2025, the Indian government accepted a report proposing a Repairability Index for mobile phones and appliances, marking a significant policy shift toward sustainable electronics and the Right to Repair. This move comes amid growing global and domestic recognition of repair as a cultural, environmental, and intellectual resource. It ties into India’s digital and AI policy evolution, yet highlights a blind spot — the continued exclusion of informal repair ecosystems from mainstream policy frameworks, even as they remain central to material resilience and circular economy goals.

    Today’s editorial analyses the Repairability Index for mobile phones and appliances. This topic is important for GS Paper II (Governance) and GS Paper III (Science and Technology) in the UPSC mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the Indian government made an important move to support eco-friendly electronics by approving a report that suggests a Repairability Index.

    What is India’s Repairability Index?

    • India’s Repairability Index was introduced by the Department of Consumer Affairs under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.
    • It is part of the broader Right to Repair framework announced in 2022, aimed at empowering consumers, reducing electronic waste, and promoting sustainable consumption practices in line with India’s LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment)movement.
    • This index will rank products based on:
      • Ease of repair
      • Availability of spare parts
      • Duration of software support

    What is the significance of it?

    • Sustainable consumption – Promotes products that last longer and are repairable. Eg: Smartphones with modular parts like Fairphone (Dutch electronics company known for producing sustainable and repairable smartphones).
    • Informed consumer choices – Enables buyers to compare repairability before purchase. Eg: Choosing a laptop with a higher repair score.
    • Reduction in e-waste – Minimizes discarding of electronics due to minor faults. Eg: Repairing washing machines instead of replacing them.
    • Accountability of manufacturers – Pushes brands to provide spare parts and repair guides. Eg: Brands like Apple offering self-service repair kits.
    • Support for circular economy – Aligns with India’s LiFE initiative and green goals. Eg: Encouraging reuse and repair to lower carbon footprint.

    Why is informal repair knowledge important?

    India’s Repairability Index promotes affordable, sustainable repairs by valuing informal repair knowledge

    • Affordable & Accessible Repairs: Informal repair shops offer low-cost services, especially in rural and low-income areas. Eg: Mobile repair kiosks in small towns reduce reliance on costly authorized centers.
    • Skill Preservation & Livelihoods: Supports local employment and traditional skills, often passed down informally. Eg: TV/radio technicians in informal markets maintain electronics affordably.
    • E-waste Reduction & Sustainability: Extends product lifespan, minimizing electronic waste and promoting circular economy. Eg: Refurbishing laptops in Delhi’s Nehru Place instead of discarding them.

    What are the challenges related to the informal repair sector?

    • No Legal Recognition: Informal repairers lack licensing, social security, and financial support. E.g.: Mobile repairers in small towns operate without official status or access to schemes.
    • Bias Toward Authorized Centres: Policies favour OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) -authorized repairs, sidelining local technicians. Eg: Warranties void if not repaired at authorized service centers.
    • Exclusion from Policy Frameworks: Right to Repair and e-waste policies neglect grassroots repair ecosystems. Eg: Informal markets like Nehru Place not integrated into national repair planning.

    Which steps can link repair to AI and sustainability goals?  

    • AI-Powered Predictive Maintenance: AI algorithms detect faults early and recommend timely repairs, reducing waste. Eg: Smart appliances (e.g., washing machines) alert users before breakdowns, helping extend product life.
    • AI-Driven Repair Diagnostics: AI tools assist technicians by analyzing errors and suggesting solutions, even in informal sectors. Eg: Mobile apps using AI (like Bhashini-based tools) guide rural repairers to fix smartphones or electronics.
    • Support for Circular Economy: Integrate AI with repairability data (e.g., India’s Repairability Index) to promote reuse and reduce e-waste.

    Way forward: 

    • Recognize Informal Repair Sector: Include informal technicians in policy frameworks and skilling programs under schemes like Skill India.
    • Strengthen India’s Repairability Index: Ensure it includes access to spare parts, repair manuals, and supports local repair ecosystems.
    • Promote Open Access to Repair Tools: Mandate OEMs to share diagnostic tools and data with certified independent and informal repairers.
    • Leverage AI for Inclusive Repair Solutions: Use AI-powered platforms to assist grassroots repairers and map repair needs, boosting sustainability goals.

  • Who are Denotified, Semi-Nomadic and Nomadic Tribes (DNTs)?

    Why in the News?

    At an event in New Delhi, Denotified, Semi-Nomadic and Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) strongly demanded a permanent National Commission to address their long-standing marginalisation.

    Who are Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs)?

    • Denotified Tribes (DNTs):
      • Colonial Tag: Branded “criminal by birth” under the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871.
      • Legal Reversal: Act repealed in 1949; tribes de-notified in 1952.
      • Persistent Stigma: Continue to face police profiling and social exclusion.
    • Nomadic Tribes (NTs):
      • Lifestyle: No fixed habitation; move cyclically for livelihood.
      • Occupations: Animal herding, salt trading, performing arts, traditional healing.
    • Semi-Nomadic Tribes (SNTs):
      • Hybrid Living: Alternate between mobile and semi-settled life.
      • Movement: Shift seasonally but often retain a base settlement.

    Current Status in India:

    • Population Share: Around 10% of India’s population.
    • Communities: ~150+ Denotified, 500+ Nomadic tribes.
    • Major States: Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh.
    • Examples of Communities (not exhaustive):
      • Denotified: Bedia, Pardhi, Sansi, Kanjar, Lodha, Nat, Chhara, Bhantu
      • Nomadic: Banjara, Gadia Lohar, Rabari, Madari, Kalbelia, Nat
      • Semi-Nomadic: Abor, Adi, Aka, Apatani, Dafla, Galo, Nishi, Tagin

    Major Committees & Commissions:

    Year Contribution
    Criminal Tribes Inquiry Committee 1947 Criticized criminal branding
    Ayyangar Committee 1949 Led to repeal of Criminal Tribes Act
    Kaka Kalelkar Commission 1953 Recognized DNTs, no full classification
    B.P. Mandal Commission 1980 Suggested NTs for OBC list
    Constitution Review Commission 2002 Urged protective measures for DNTs
    Renke Commission 2008 Listed 500+ communities, lacked implementation resources
    Idate Commission 2017–2018 Listed 1,200+, proposed permanent commission

     

    [UPSC 2019] Consider the following statements about Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India:

    1. PVTGs reside in 18 States and one Union Territory. 2. A stagnant or declining population is one of the criteria for determining PVTG status.

    3. There are 95 PVTGs officially notified in the country so far. 4. Irular and Konda Reddi tribes are included in the list of PVTGs.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    Options: (a) 1, 2 and 3 (b) 2, 3 and 4 (c) 1, 2 and 4* (d) 1, 3 and 4

     

  • National Cooperation Policy (NCP), 2025

    Why in the News?

    The National Cooperation Policy (NCP) 2025 recently unveiled by Union Home and Cooperation Minister Amit Shah has drawn criticisms from SKM (Samyukt Kisan Morcha).

    Also in news:

    • The Union Cabinet has also approved a ₹2,000 crore Central Sector Scheme to aid National Cooperative Development Corporation (NCDC) from 2025–26 to 2028–29.
    • NCDC was established in 1963 as a statutory Corporation under Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare (now functions under the Ministry of Cooperation since 2021).

     

    About Cooperatives in India:

    • What is it: A cooperative is a voluntary, autonomous association of individuals who unite to meet common economic, social, or cultural needs through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.
    • Key Principles:
      • One member, one vote: Equal say in governance, regardless of financial contribution.
      • Based on collective benefit, democratic control, and mutual aid.
    • Historical Evolution:
      • 1904 & 1912: Cooperative Acts laid the foundation for the cooperative movement in India.
      • Post-independence: Emphasis on rural credit, dairy, and agriculture cooperatives (e.g., Amul).
      • Key Institutions: NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development), NCDC (National Cooperative Development Corporation).
    • Constitutional & Legal Backing:
      • 97th Constitutional Amendment (2011):
        • Article 19(1)(c): Right to form cooperative societies.
        • Article 43B: Directive Principle promoting cooperative societies.
        • Part IXB (Articles 243ZH to 243ZT): Provides governance framework.
      • MSCS Act, 2002: Governs multi-state cooperatives (under Central Registrar).
      • State List (Entry 32): State legislatures regulate intra-state cooperatives.
    • Scale:
      • India has over 8.42 lakh cooperatives with 29 crore members (~27% of global total).
      • Leading states: Maharashtra, Gujarat, Telangana, MP, Karnataka.
      • Notable cooperatives: IFFCO, Amul — ranked among top 300 cooperatives globally.

    National Cooperation Policy (NCP) 2025:

    • Launch: Introduced by Union Minister Amit Shah on July 24, 2025.
    • Vision: “Sahakar se Samriddhi” — promoting prosperity through cooperatives.
    • Objective:
      • Establish a comprehensive national framework for cooperative growth (2025–2045).
      • Replace the 2002 policy and drive inclusive development through grassroots cooperatives.
    • Key Features:
      • 2 lakh new Primary Agricultural Credit Societies (PACS) in 5 years
      • Scheme convergence: e.g., PM Matsya Sampada Yojana, NPDD
      • Inclusive focus: Women, Dalits, Adivasis, youth
      • Sector expansion: Into 25+ areas—dairy, fisheries, exports, technology
      • Education: First cooperative university—Tribhuvan Sahkari University
      • Export support: Through National Cooperative Exports Limited (NCEL)
      • Digital thrust: Emphasis on digitisation and platform integration

    Issues with NCP, 2025:

    • Federalism Undermined
      • Entry 32: Cooperatives are a State Subject
      • SC Verdict (2021): Centre cannot regulate intra-state cooperatives
      • Criticism: Policy lacks ratification by half the states (Article 368(2))
    • Corporate Entry Fears
      • Emphasis on digital platforms may enable indirect corporatisation
      • Potential marginalisation of small farmers and FPOs
    • Weak Social Inclusion
      • Lacks focus on Minimum Support Price (MSP), surplus sharing
      • No robust support for producer cooperatives or fair wages
      • Inclusion of tribals, Dalits, women remains rhetorical
    [UPSC 2021] With reference to ‘Urban Cooperative banks’ in India, consider the following statements:

    1. They are supervised and regulated by local boards set up by the State Governments.

    2. They can issue equity shares and preference shares.

    3. They were brought under the purview of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 through an Amendment in 1966.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?”

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only* (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1, 2, and 3

     

  • India’s Police must get out of Dirty Harry’s shadow

    Why in the News?

    Recently, the custodial death of Ajith Kumar in Tamil Nadu has reignited concerns about police torture and custodial violence in India, drawing attention to the ongoing abuse of power, lack of accountability, and systemic failures in law enforcement. 

    Note: “Dirty Harry’s shadow” is the ethical grey zone that officers may enter when they justify unethical or illegal behavior (e.g., excessive force, illegal search, or planting evidence) on the grounds that it’s necessary to serve a greater good (like convicting a dangerous criminal). 

    What is the status of custodial torture in India?

    • Between 2010 and 2020, NHRC data reports 17,146 custodial deaths (judicial/police), averaging nearly five deaths per day.
    • From 2001 to 2020, only 26 police personnel were convicted out of 1,888 recorded custodial deaths, reflecting a severe lack of accountability in the system.

    Why does custodial torture persist in India despite legal safeguards?

    1. Weak Enforcement of Legal Safeguards: Supreme Court guidelines (e.g., D.K. Basu guidelines) are often ignored, especially by lower-level police.
    The D.K. Basu guidelines are a set of procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court of India in 1996 in the landmark case D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal to prevent custodial torture, deaths, and abuse of police power.

    Key Guidelines (To be followed during arrest and detention):

    1. Arrest memo must be prepared, signed by the arrestee and a witness, with time and date.
    2. Inform a relative/friend: The person arrested must be allowed to inform someone about the arrest.
    3. Right to legal counsel: The arrestee has the right to meet their lawyer during interrogation.
    4. Medical examination: Arrestees must be medically examined every 48 hours by a government doctor.
    5. Copy of arrest memo: Sent to the local magistrate for records.
    6. Daily diary entry: Time, place of arrest, and custody details must be recorded in the police diary.
    7. Police identification: Arresting officers must have name tags and their details must be recorded.
    8. Notice board in police station: Display of rights of arrested persons.
    9. Timely production before magistrate: Within 24 hours of arrest, as per Article 22 of the Constitution.
    1. Lack of Accountability: Very few police personnel are punished, creating a culture of impunity.
      3. Societal Indifference and Pressure: Public tolerance for “tough policing” and pressure to solve cases fast encourages use of force to extract confessions.
    2. Legal Gaps That Enable Torture:
    • No Standalone Law: There’s no specific law criminalising custodial torture. The 2010 Prevention of Torture Bill was never passed.
    • Non-Ratification of UNCAT: India signed but hasn’t ratified the UN Convention Against Torture, so it lacks binding obligations to reform.
    • Poor Protection for Victims/Witnesses: Those who report torture often face threats, with little legal protection – delaying or discouraging justice. Eg: The Jayaraj-Bennicks case (2020)

    Should India ratify the UN Convention Against Torture?

    • Enhances Legal Accountability and Human Rights Protections: Ratifying UNCAT would require India to enact a dedicated anti-torture law, ensuring clear definitions, accountability, and punishment for custodial abuse. Eg: In the Jayaraj and Bennicks case (2020), the absence of a strong torture law delayed justice and highlighted the need for international legal standards.
    • Strengthens India’s Global Human Rights Image: As a democracy and UN member, ratification would align India with global norms, reinforcing its commitment to human dignity and justice. India often faces criticism at UN Human Rights Council reviews for non-ratification, which weakens its diplomatic stance on rights issues.

    What reforms are needed? (Way forward)

    • Enact a Dedicated Anti-Torture Law: Clearly define torture, prescribe strict punishment, and ensure victim compensation and rehabilitation.

    • Set Up Independent Oversight Bodies: Create state and district-level police complaints authorities for unbiased investigation.

    • Ensure Custodial Surveillance: Install CCTVs in all custody areas and mandate regular monitoring and audits.

    • Train Police on Human Rights: Conduct regular training programs focused on rights-based policing and legal safeguards.

    Mains PYQ:

    [UPSC 2023] The Constitution of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society”. Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty.

    Linkage: The article explicitly links the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation of “dignity and bodily autonomy as fundamental rights” in the K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017) to the ongoing issue of rampant torture in custody. This question allows for a discussion on how judicial interpretations have broadened the scope of fundamental rights, which are directly challenged by the “Dirty Harry” policing methods that the source criticises. 

  • Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under POSH Act

    Why in the News?

    A student in Odisha, died by suicide after her sexual harassment complaint was rejected by her college’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), showing the urgent need for stronger grievance systems.

    About Internal Complaints Committee (ICC):

    • Legal Basis: Mandated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
    • Applicability: Mandatory in all organizations with 10 or more employees.
    • Purpose: Provides a redressal mechanism to ensure a safe and dignified workplace for women.
    • Composition:
      • A Presiding Officer who is a senior woman employee.
      • At least two internal members with legal or social expertise.
      • One external member from an NGO or with knowledge of sexual harassment issues.
      • Minimum 50% of ICC members must be women.

    Powers and Functions:

    • Complaint Handling:
      • Accepts complaints within 3 months of the incident.
      • Offers conciliation (on request) or initiates a formal inquiry.
    • Inquiry Process:
      • Holds powers similar to a civil court (summon, evidence collection, sworn statements).
      • Must complete inquiry within 90 days.
    • Confidentiality: Identity of complainant, respondent, witnesses, and proceedings must be kept confidential.
    • Post-Inquiry Actions:
      • Recommends disciplinary action or closure.
      • Employer must act on recommendations within 60 days.
      • Assists in filing FIRs if the complainant seeks criminal action.

    Back2Basics: POSH Act, 2013

    • Full Form: The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
    • Background:
      • Originated from the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) issued by the Supreme Court.
      • Inspired by the Bhanwari Devi case and public pressure after the Nirbhaya case (2012).
    • Constitutional and Global Basis:
      • Upholds gender justice under Article 15.
      • Based on India’s commitment to CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979) (ratified in 1993).
    • Key Provisions
      • Workplace Scope: Includes private and public sectors, government offices, NGOs, informal sectors, and domestic work.
      • Definition of Harassment: Covers physical contact, unwelcome advances, sexually coloured remarks, explicit content, and verbal or non-verbal conduct.
      • Mandatory ICC: All organizations with 10+ employees must set up an Internal Complaints Committee.
      • Local Committee: District-level Local Committees must be set up for smaller workplaces or domestic workers.
    • Employer Responsibilities:
      • Conduct awareness sessions and training.
      • Ensure safety and publish the organization’s POSH policy.
    • Timelines:
      • Complaints must be filed within 3 months.
      • Inquiries must be completed within 90 days.
    • Penalties:
      • Fine of up to ₹50,000 for non-compliance.
      • Repeat violations can lead to license cancellation.

     

    [UPSC 2007] Consider the following statements:

    1. The Judge (Inquiry) Bill 2006 contemplates establishing a Judicial Council which will receive complaints against Judges of the Supreme Court, Chief Justices, and Judges.

    2. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a woman can file a petition before a 1st Class Judicial Magistrate.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2* (d) Neither 1 nor 2