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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI)

    Why in the News?

    • Government has constituted the Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI) under a new legal framework to regulate the online gaming ecosystem.

    What is OGAI

    • Online Gaming Authority of India (OGAI) is a central regulatory body for online gaming
    • Established under: Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act 2025
    • Nodal Ministry: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
    • Operational from: May 1, 2026

    Key Functions

    • Acts as: Central authority for online gaming
    • Covers: Online games and Esports
    • Categorises games into: Money games and Non-money games
    • Maintains: Official registry of games
    • Handles: User complaints and Public grievances
    • Enforcement Coordination Works with: Financial institutions and Law enforcement agencies
    [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

  • Government to tighten AI labelling rules for social media over ‘unsatisfactory compliance’

    Why in the News?

    The government’s decision to tighten AI labelling rules marks a clear step-up in digital regulation, triggered by poor compliance from platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and X. Earlier, platforms only needed to show “prominent” labels, but now they must display continuous and clearly visible labels throughout the content, making the rules much stricter. This change is important because cases of harmful AI content, such as deepfake images of women created by X’s Grok, have exposed serious gaps in regulation, raising concerns about privacy, dignity, and large-scale misinformation.

    What are the AI Content labelling rules for social media?

    1. The Government of India has notified the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026 (effective February 20, 2026), making AI content labelling mandatory on social media platforms. These rules are designed to curb the spread of deepfakes, misinformation, and non-consensual sexual content (CSAM).
    2. AI content labelling on social media is the mandatory or voluntary tagging of images, videos, and audio created or altered by artificial intelligence (AI) to distinguish them from human-made content. 
    3. It aims to increase transparency, reduce misinformation (deepfakes), and comply with regulations by using visible labels (e.g., “AI-generated”) or hidden metadata.

    Key Features of the Amended IT Rules (2026):

    1. Mandatory Labelling: Social media platforms must prominently label “synthetically generated” or AI-generated images and videos that appear realistic.
    2. User Declaration: Platforms with over five million users must obtain a user declaration for AI-generated content and conduct technical verification before publishing.
    3. Excluded Content: Routine smartphone photo editing, filters, and film special effects are exempt from mandatory labelling.
    4. Permanent Metadata: Platforms must try to embed permanent metadata or watermarks to trace the origin of AI content.
    5. Takedown Timelines:
      1. 2 hours: Non-consensual deepfakes and intimate imagery must be removed within 2 hours of a complaint.
      2. 3 hours: Other illegal content must be removed within 3 hours of a court/government order.
    6. Loss of Safe Harbour: Non-compliance with these rules can result in the loss of safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, making platforms liable for the content.

    Key Proposed AI Labeling Amendments (April 2026) and how do the proposed amendments strengthen accountability of intermediaries?

    1. Continuous On-Screen Labels: The new proposal mandates that AI labels remain continuously and clearly visible throughout the entire duration of the video or audio content, rather than just in the beginning or occasionally.
    2. Expansion of Scope: The labeling requirement applies to “synthetically generated information” (SGI), which includes text, audio, images, and videos created or altered via AI to appear authentic.
    3. Platform Accountability: Social media intermediaries must ensure these labels are present. Failure to comply could lead to a loss of “safe harbour” protection, meaning platforms could be held liable for user-generated content.
    4. User Responsibilities: Users are required to declare if content is AI-generated upon uploading, which platforms must then verify using “reasonable and proportionate technical measures“.
    5. Stricter Takedown Timelines: The proposal includes a heavily reduced takedown timeline, requiring platforms to remove illegal, non-consensual deepfakes within 2 to 3 hours of a lawful order.
    6. Feedback Deadline Extended: The deadline for public feedback on these proposed changes has been extended to May 7, 2026. 

    These moves, which follow initial rules announced in February 2026, are designed to combat the rising misuse of deepfakes and misinformation, ensuring that AI-generated material is easily distinguishable from real content

    What regulatory gap prompted stricter AI labelling norms?

    The primary regulatory gap that prompted stricter AI labelling norms was the transition from a standard of “prominent visibility” to a mandate for “continuous and clearly visible display” throughout the entire duration of the content. 

    1. Unsatisfactory compliance: Social media platforms failed to ensure consistent labelling despite February notification. For instance, only about 30% of AI-generated test posts were correctly flagged across major platforms.
    2. Inconsistent visibility: Labels appeared briefly or were not prominently displayed throughout content duration.
      1. Under earlier guidelines, AI labels often appeared only briefly or were placed in a way that was easily missed by users. The new 2026 amendments specifically aim to eliminate “blink-and-miss” disclaimers by requiring the label to remain on screen from start to finish.
    3. Regulatory dilution: Earlier proposal mandating labels to occupy 10% space was diluted, reducing effectiveness.
    4. Traceability Gaps: To prevent the removal of disclosures, the new norms mandate embedding permanent metadata or unique identifiers into synthetic content to ensure it remains traceable even when shared. 

    What is the significance of redefining Synthetic Generated Information (SGI)?

    Redefining Synthetically Generated Information (SGI) under India’s IT Rules 2026 is significant because it shifts from a reactive, general content moderation model to a proactive, AI-specific regulatory framework.

    1. Definition of SGI (Feb 2026 Rules): Refers to information created, modified, or generated using AI tools that can mimic real persons, events, or content.
      1. Includes deepfakes, AI-generated videos, audio, images, or text that appear real.
      2. Focuses on content that can mislead users or distort reality.
    2. Scope in February 2026 Rules:
      1. Broad coverage: Any AI-generated content that resembles real-world entities.
      2. Mandatory labelling: Required “prominent” disclosure, but no clarity on duration or format.
      3. Carve-outs included: Routine editing (filters, enhancement, dubbing) excluded as “good-faith use”.

    What changes in the Proposed New Rules?

    1. Stricter visibility requirement:
      1. Continuous and clearly visible labelling throughout the content duration.
      2. Removes ambiguity of “prominent” labels.
    2. Sharper focus on harm:
      1. Targets SGI that violates laws or leads to misrepresentation of identity/events.
      2. Expands regulatory intent from disclosure for the prevention of misuse.
    3. Platform accountability strengthened:
      1. Requires verification of user declarations about SGI.
      2. Mandates technical safeguards to detect and prevent harmful SGI.
    4. Enforcement mechanism: Platforms must take immediate action (remove, disable access, suspend accounts) upon detection.

    Why is this significant?

    1. Clear classification: Defines AI-generated content as SGI, ensuring regulatory clarity.
    2. Carve-outs provision: Excludes routine and good-faith editing (audio/video enhancement) from SGI definition.
    3. Misrepresentation control: Targets content that violates laws or misrepresents real-world events or identities.

    What risks associated with AI-generated content triggered regulatory urgency?

    1. Deepfake misuse: Grok-generated images of women in revealing clothing raised dignity and privacy concerns.
    2. Misinformation threat: AI content risks distorting facts and influencing public perception.
    3. Identity manipulation: Enables impersonation and false representation of individuals.
    4. Global backlash: Incident led to bans in some countries and forced platform-level corrective measures.

    How does the amendment impact Big Tech platforms?

    1. Enhanced compliance burden: Requires continuous monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
    2. Liability exposure: Failure to act may attract legal consequences under IT Rules.
    3. User accountability integration: Platforms must ensure users disclose AI-generated content.
    4. Content moderation expansion: Strengthens obligations for proactive detection and removal.

    What are the implications for digital governance in India?

    1. Regulatory evolution: Moves from reactive to proactive AI governance.
    2. Platform responsibility shift: Transfers greater accountability to intermediaries.
    3. Rights protection: Strengthens safeguards for privacy, dignity, and authenticity.
    4. Policy alignment: Aligns with global concerns on AI ethics and misinformation control.

    Conclusion

    The proposed amendments signal a decisive shift towards stricter AI governance, emphasizing transparency and accountability. Effective implementation will determine whether India can balance innovation with safeguards against misinformation and digital harm.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Social media and encrypting messaging services pose a serious security challenge. What measures have been adopted at various levels to address the security implications of social media? Also suggest any other remedies to address the problem.

    Linkage: AI labelling rules and SGI regulation fall under GS-3 (Cyber Security, Emerging Technologies), focusing on risks like deepfakes, misinformation, and platform accountability. They also link to GS-2 (Governance) through regulation of intermediaries and GS-4 (Ethics) via concerns of privacy, dignity, and responsible AI use.

  • AI Labelling Rules  

    Why in the News?

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology proposed stricter AI content labelling norms due to unsatisfactory compliance by social media platforms.

    Key Change

    • Under Information Technology Rules 2021:
      • AI-generated content must have:
      • Continuous and clearly visible labels
      • Displayed for the entire duration of content

    Scope

    • Applies to platforms like: YouTube, Instagram, and X

    Key Term

    • Synthetically Generated Information (SGI):
      • Includes AI-generated audio, video, images
      • Excludes routine editing and quality enhancement

    Platform Obligations

    • Ensure proper labelling
    • Require user disclosure of AI content
    • Remove unlawful content
    • Use safeguards to prevent misuse

    Significance

    • Enhances transparency
    • Reduces misinformation and deepfakes
    • Strengthens digital platform accountability
    [2025] Consider the following statements regarding Al Action Summit held in Grand Palais, Paris in February 2025: 
    I. Co-chaired with India, the event builds on the advances made at the Bletchley Park Summit held in 2023 and the Seoul Summit held in 2024. 
    II. Along with other countries, US and UK also signed the declaration on inclusive and sustainable AI. 
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 
    [A] I only [B] II only [C] Both I and II [D] Neither I nor II

  • Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in India

    Why in the News?

    • CSR spending by listed companies rose by 23% in FY25, reaching about ₹22,212 crore, driven by strong profit growth.

    What is CSR

    • Corporate Social Responsibility refers to:
      • Companies investing in social, environmental, and developmental activities
    • Mandated under:
      • Companies Act, 2013 (effective April 2014)

    CSR Legal Framework

    Mandatory Requirement

    • Eligible companies must spend: At least 2% of average net profits (last 3 years)

    Applicability Criteria

    Applies to companies with:

    • Net worth ≥ ₹500 crore
    • Turnover ≥ ₹1,000 crore
    • Net profit ≥ ₹5 crore

    Key Trends (FY25)

    • CSR spending: ₹22,212 crore (up 23%)
    • Companies spending CSR: 98% compliance
    • Increase due to: Higher corporate profits

    Sector-wise Allocation

    • Highest spending: Education
    • Second: Healthcare
    • Low spending:
      • Slum development
      • Disaster management
      • Armed forces welfare
    [2024] With reference to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) rules in India, consider the following statements: 
    1. CSR rules specify that expenditures that benefit the company directly or its employees will not be considered as CSR activities. 
    2. CSR rules do not specify minimum spending on CSR activities. 
    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

  • [17th April 2026] The Hindu OpED: India’s rural models are shaping development diplomacy

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2020] Micro-Finance as an anti-poverty vaccine is aimed at asset creation and income security of the rural poor in India.” Evaluate the role of Self Help Groups in achieving the twin objectives along with empowering women in rural India.Linkage: The PYQ directly links to NRLM’s SHG-based model, which ensures financial inclusion, women empowerment, and livelihood generation at scale. It forms the core foundation of India’s development diplomacy, as this SHG model is now being replicated globally, especially in Africa.

    Mentor’s Comment

    India’s National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) is gaining international traction as multiple African nations actively explore its Self Help Group (SHG)-based model. This marks a shift from traditional aid to replicable grassroots development frameworks. This is significant because India is no longer merely a recipient or donor of development assistance but an exporter of institutional models. This is backed by striking achievements, 10 crore households reached, 90 lakh SHGs mobilised, and women earning over ₹1 lakh annually. 

    What is National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM)?

    Also now known as Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana-NRLM (DAY-NRLM), it is a flagship poverty alleviation program run by the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. It aims to reduce rural poverty by mobilizing poor households into Self-Help Groups (SHGs), providing them with financial support, skills training, and sustainable livelihood options, primarily focusing on empowering rural women. 

    Key Aspects of DAY-NRLM:

    1. Objective: To empower at least one woman from each of the 10 crore+ rural poor households through SHGs, enabling them to improve their livelihoods and break out of poverty.

    Core Approach:

    1. Social Mobilization: Organizing rural poor into Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and their federations.
    2. Financial Inclusion: Providing revolving funds, community investment funds, and facilitating bank linkages to SHGs (often at 7% interest, with an additional 3% subsidy for timely repayment).
    3. Livelihood Promotion: Supporting both farm-based (e.g., agriculture, livestock) and non-farm activities, including skill development and entrepreneurship.

    Key Components:

    1. Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP): Empowers women farmers.
    2. Start-up Village Entrepreneurship Programme (SVEP): Supports rural start-ups.
    3. Aajeevika Skills: Imparts vocational skills for job placement.
    4. Implementation: It operates as a centrally sponsored program funded 75:25 by the Centre and States (90:10 for North Eastern states).
    5. Target Group: Identified through a process called Participatory Identification of Poor (PIP), which ranks households based on vulnerability

    How has NRLM transformed rural livelihoods in India at scale?

    1. Scale Expansion: Covers 742 districts and 10 crore households, demonstrating unprecedented outreach in poverty alleviation.
    2. Institutional Formation: Mobilised over 90 lakh SHGs, creating federated community institutions at village and cluster levels.
    3. Income Enhancement: Women SHG members earn ₹1,00,000+ annually, indicating sustained livelihood generation.
    4. Financial Inclusion: Over 50 million women accessed bank credit, improving formal financial participation.
    5. Local Economy Impact: Accounts for 60% of local government expenditure, integrating SHGs into governance structures.

    Why is the SHG-based model gaining global attention, especially in Africa?

    1. Contextual Relevance: Aligns with large informal economies in Africa where micro-enterprises dominate.
    2. Women Empowerment: Focus on collective agency resonates with gender-based development strategies.
    3. Low-Cost Governance: Operates through community-led systems, reducing dependence on state-heavy structures.
    4. Scalability: Demonstrates ability to scale from village to national level without losing efficiency.
    5. Case Evidence: African nations (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi, Kenya, Rwanda) engaging in knowledge exchanges and field visits.

    How does India’s development diplomacy differ from traditional models?

    1. Shift in Approach: Moves from financial aid and technical assistance to institutional model sharing.
    2. South-South Cooperation: Promotes peer learning rather than top-down Western templates.
    3. Capacity Building: Focuses on training missions, exposure visits, and institutional linkages.
    4. Knowledge Platforms: Establishment of Livelihoods Knowledge Exchange Platforms ensures continuous engagement.
    5. Outcome Orientation: Ensures long-term community capacity instead of short-term project outputs.

    What structural strengths make NRLM a globally replicable model?

    1. Social Mobilisation: Builds trust-based networks through SHGs, enhancing participation.
    2. Institutional Architecture: Creates federated structures ensuring decentralised governance.
    3. Financial Discipline: Encourages credit linkage and repayment systems, ensuring sustainability.
    4. Skill Development: Integrates livelihood training and entrepreneurship support.
    5. Governance Integration: Embeds SHGs into local governance systems, ensuring accountability.

    What challenges may limit global adaptation of the NRLM model?

    1. Contextual Variations: Differences in political systems and social structures may affect replication.
    2. State Capacity Constraints: Weak administrative systems in some countries may limit scaling.
    3. Cultural Barriers: Variations in gender norms may hinder women-led participation.
    4. Financial Ecosystem Gaps: Limited banking penetration in some regions affects credit linkage.
    5. Sustainability Risks: Requires long-term commitment, not short project cycles.

    How is India institutionalising this emerging development diplomacy?

    1. Policy Integration: Embeds livelihood models within India’s development cooperation framework.
    2. Cross-border Engagement: Facilitates training, exposure visits, and pilot projects.
    3. Digital Collaboration: Promotes digital governance and financial inclusion tools.
    4. Long-term Partnerships: Expands into multi-year collaborations with African governments.
    5. Global Positioning: Positions India as a leader in grassroots development innovation.

    Conclusion

    India’s NRLM-led development diplomacy reflects a paradigm shift from resource transfer to knowledge transfer, rooted in grassroots realities. Its success lies in scalability, inclusivity, and sustainability, positioning India as a norm entrepreneur in global development discourse.

  • IT rules amendments: Why pre-censorship fears hangs in the air

    Why in the News?

    The proposed March 2026 amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, have sparked debate because they aim to bring the entire digital news space, including user-generated “news and current affairs” content, under tighter regulation. This marks a shift from earlier rules that mainly targeted large publishers and platforms. Now, even individual creators and ordinary users may have to follow publisher-like compliance, raising concerns about pre-censorship and limits on free speech. The issue is more serious because the government already has strong blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act, which have been widely used in recent years.

    Key Features of the Draft Amendment (March 30, 2026):

    1. Command-and-Control Compliance (Rule 3(4)): Intermediaries must comply with any clarification, advisory, order, or standard operating procedure (SOP) issued by MeitY, strengthening compliance requirements.
    2. Expanded Content Regulation (Part III): The oversight of the Inter-Departmental Committee is expanded to cover content beyond complaints.
    3. Definition of News: The applicability of rules for news and current affairs is broadened to include non-publisher users sharing news.
    4. Data Retention: Proposed rules may extend retention periods, potentially conflicting with user privacy rights.
    5. Public Consultation: The deadline for feedback on these drafted rules has been extended following industry concerns.

    Why do the IT Rules amendments raise concerns of pre-censorship?

    1. Expanded Scope: Includes user-generated “news and current affairs” content under regulatory purview; earlier focus was on publishers and intermediaries.
    2. Compliance Burden: Imposes publisher-like obligations (due diligence, takedown expectations); affects independent creators disproportionately.
    3. Self-Censorship Risk: Encourages pre-emptive content moderation by creators and platforms; reduces diversity of viewpoints.
    4. Example: Independent digital commentators may avoid sensitive topics to prevent takedown risks.

    How do existing legal provisions like Section 69A shape this debate?

    Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, shapes the debate on digital content regulation in India by acting as the primary legislative tool for government-mandated online censorship, balancing, in theory, national security with free speech.

    1. Statutory Authority: Section 69A of the IT Act empowers blocking of online content on grounds of sovereignty, security, and public order.
    2. The “Chilling Effect” and Self-Censorship: The lack of transparency, often due to confidentiality clauses (Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules), means users are often unaware of why their content was blocked. This lack of accountability creates a “chilling effect,” where creators self-censor, particularly regarding political content or criticism of the government.
    3. Expansion of Power (App and Account Bans): The scope of 69A has broadened from blocking specific URLs to blocking entire websites, social media accounts (e.g., journalists, researchers), and banning apps (e.g., TikTok, PUBG).
    4. Institutional Mechanism: Section 79(3)(b) allows central and state governments to issue blocking orders to platforms.
    5. Implication: Raises question of necessity of additional layers of regulation.

    What are the implications for India’s digital creator economy?

    1. “Gray Zone” Disappearance: Creators, YouTubers, and social media influencers who discuss news and current affairs will likely be reclassified under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), losing their independent status and falling under stricter regulation.
    2. “Safe Harbor” Risk: Platforms (YouTube, Instagram, X) face losing their immunity (Section 79 of the IT Act) if they fail to comply with government advisories or directives, forcing them to over-moderate and potentially remove content proactively.
    3. Three-Hour Takedown Window: Platforms must remove unlawful content within three hours of a government order, creating immense operational pressure to censor content, including satire or commentary.
    4. Ecosystem Disruption: Affects fast-growing digital content economy driven by independent creators.
    5. Reduced Reach: Algorithms and compliance pressures may limit visibility of independent voices.
    6. Brand Impact: Brands may avoid association with non-compliant or controversial creators.
    7. Outcome: Leads to consolidation in favor of large, compliant entities.

    Does the amendment blur the distinction between users, creators, and publishers?

    Yes, the proposed 2026 amendments to India’s Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, are widely understood to blur the distinction between users, creators, and publishers. By extending regulatory scrutiny, previously reserved for professional media, to individuals posting “news and current affairs,” the draft rules effectively treat ordinary creators, influencers, and commentators as formal publishers. 

    1. Role Convergence: Users as Publishers: The amendments expand the scope of Part III of the IT Rules to cover individual users who independently create and post news-related content. This subjects influencers, YouTubers, and social media users to the same compliance and governmental oversight as media organizations.
    2. Expansion of “News” Definition: The rules could classify user-generated content, including satire, political commentary, and analysis, as “news and current affairs,” subjecting creators to a formal grievance system.
    3. Regulatory Overreach: Removes traditional distinction between platform liability and user expression.
    4. Control Shift: Expands state oversight from content to content creators themselves.
    5. Example: A viral social media post may be treated as formal news content.

    How does the amendment affect freedom of expression and constitutional safeguards?

    1. Article 19(1)(a): While Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, amendments often test the “reasonable restrictions” clause of Article 19(2). Recent regulatory changes, such as the setting up of government “Fact-Check Units” (FCU), enable the executive to define “fake or misleading” information, moving beyond the constitutional requirement that restrictions be strictly backed by law.
    2. Chilling Effect: There will be fear of compliance penalties, potential for arrests, or the blocking of digital platforms. This may cause individuals and news entities to self-censor, leading to the suppression of legitimate, dissenting, or satirical voices.
    3. Accountability vs Freedom: Balancing misinformation control and civil liberties remains unresolved.
      1. The tension between the state’s duty to control harmful content (misinformation, hate speech) and the citizen’s right to free expression remains unresolved. The Bombay High Court, in Kunal Kamra v. Union of India (2024), acknowledged that while misinformation is a concern, empowering the state as the sole arbiter of truth is a disproportionate restriction on free speech.
    4. Outcome: Risk of indirect censorship through regulatory pressure.

    Is the amendment aligned with the objective of tackling misinformation and deepfakes?

    1. Target Misalignment: While addressing deepfakes and misinformation, the framework broadly impacts all content.
    2. Precision Gap: Lack of targeted mechanisms for harmful content specifically.
    3. Effectiveness Question: Over-regulation may reduce trust and innovation without fully addressing misinformation.
    4. Example: Satirical content being blocked alongside harmful misinformation.

    Conclusion

    The IT Rules amendments represent a decisive move towards tighter digital regulation but risk undermining the foundational principles of free expression and participatory democracy. A calibrated approach that distinguishes between harmful content and legitimate expression remains essential.

    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 PYQ tests themes of transparency, accountability, and institutional autonomy vis-à-vis executive control in governance. IT Rules amendments similarly raise concerns of expanded executive control over digital content, potentially impacting free speech and independent information flow.

  • Cinematograph Act, 1952  

    Why in the News?

    • Leak of Tamil film Jana Nayagan before release has highlighted stricter anti-piracy provisions under the amended Cinematograph Act, 1952.

    About Cinematograph Act, 1952

    What it is

    • Primary law governing:
      • Film certification
      • Public exhibition of films in India
    • Established: Central Board of Film Certification

    Objectives

    • Ensure films adhere to: Public order, Decency, and Morality
    • Provide age-based classification
    • Prevent film piracy

    Certification Categories

    • U (Universal): Suitable for all
    • UA (Parental Guidance): UA 7+, UA 13+, and UA 16+
    • A (Adults Only): 18+
    • S (Specialised): Restricted to specific groups (e.g., doctors)

    Key Features (2023 Amendments)

    1. Strong Anti-Piracy Provisions

    • Prohibits:
      • Unauthorized recording in theatres
      • Unauthorized exhibition of pirated content
    • Even attempt to record is punishable

    2. Severe Penalties

    • Imprisonment: 3 months to 3 years
    • Fine: ₹3 lakh to 5% of production cost

    3. Perpetual Validity

    • Film certificates now: Valid indefinitely
    • Earlier: Valid for 10 years

    4. Refined UA Classification

    • Sub-categories introduced: Better age guidance for parents

    5. Removal of Govt Revisional Power

    • Central Government can no longer:
      • Overrule CBFC decisions
      •  Strengthens CBFC autonomy

    6. Certification for Other Media

    • Films rated: A or S
    • Cannot be shown on TV unless:
      • Re-certified with modifications

    7. Fair Use Provision

    • Allows limited use under: Copyright Act, 1957
    • For: Education, Criticism, and Reporting
    [2025] With reference to India, consider the following pairs:
    Organization: Union Ministry 
    1. The National Automotive Board: Ministry of Commerce and Industry 
    2. The Coir Board: Ministry of Heavy Industries 
    3. The National Centre for Trade Information: Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 
    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched? 
    [A] Only one [B] Only two [C] All the three [D] None

  • e-SafeHER Programme  

    Why in the News?

    • The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology launched e-SafeHER, a large-scale cybersecurity training initiative aimed at empowering 1 million rural women.

    About e-SafeHER Programme

    • A cybersecurity awareness and training programme for rural women
    • Operates under: Information Security Education and Awareness Programme
    • Focus: Bridging gap between digital access and digital safety

    Aim

    • Train 1 million women by 2029
    • Promote safe digital participation
    • Strengthen cybersecurity awareness in: Digital payments and Online livelihoods
    [2017] In India, it is legally mandatory for which of the following to report on cyber security incidents?
    1 Service providers 
    2 Data Centres 
    3 Body corporate 
    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 
    (a) 1 only (b) 1 and 2 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Utility Led Aggregation Model to Boost PM Surya Ghar Scheme

    Why in the News?

    Government is pushing Utility Led Aggregation (ULA) model to achieve PM Surya Ghar target of 1 crore rooftop solar households by March 2027.

    What is Utility Led Aggregation (ULA)

    Under ULA model:

    • DISCOMs install rooftop solar
    • For households that:
      • Cannot afford solar systems
      • Lack infrastructure

    DISCOMs:

    • Pay upfront cost
    • Recover later through electricity savings

    PM Surya Ghar Targets

    • Target: 1 crore households
    • Achieved so far: 35 lakh households
    • ULA expected to add: 30 lakh households
    • Total expected: 65 lakh households

    Current Implementation

    • ULA installations sanctioned: 12.58 lakh households
    • States/UTs include:
      • Andhra Pradesh
      • Odisha
      • Kerala
      • Telangana
      • Bihar
      • Tripura
      • J&K
      • Andaman & Nicobar
      • Ladakh

    PM Surya Ghar Scheme

    • Free electricity up to 300 units per month
    • Rooftop solar for households
    • Subsidy + loan support

    Renewable Energy Growth

    • 55.3 GW added in 2025-26
    • Solar power: 44.6 GW
    • Non fossil capacity: Nearly 50% installed capacity
    • But electricity generation: Only 25%
    • Reason:Solar and wind are intermittent
    [2025] Consider the following statements about ‘PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana’: 
    I. It targets installation of one crore solar rooftop panels in the residential sector. 
    II. The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy aims to impart training on installation, operation, maintenance and repairs of solar rooftop systems at grassroot levels. 
    III. It aims to create more than three lakhs skilled manpower through fresh skilling and up-skilling, under scheme component of capacity building. 
    Select the correct answer using the code given below: (a) I and II only (b) I and III only (c) II and III only (d) I, II and III

  • Understanding India’s internet censorship regime

    Why in the News?

    A recent study testing 294 million domains across six major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in 2025 reveals significant inconsistencies in website blocking. Despite receiving identical blocking orders, ISPs do not block the same domains. Out of 43,083 blocked domains, only 1,414 were uniformly blocked, highlighting a fragmented censorship regime. This is a major concern because it demonstrates that internet censorship in India is not centrally uniform but ISP-dependent, marking a shift from the assumption of standardised enforcement.

    How does India’s legal framework enable internet censorship?

    India’s legal framework enables internet censorship primarily through broad executive powers granted by the Information Technology Act of 2000 (IT Act), supported by constitutional, penal, and procedural regulations that prioritize national security and public order.

    1. Information Technology Act, 2000 (ITA): The IT Act is the primary legislation used for digital censorship.
      1. Section 69A: Empowered by the 2008 amendment, this section allows the central government to issue directives to block public access to any information online. Grounds include the interest of sovereignty, integrity, defense of India, security of the state, or public order.
      2. IT Blocking Rules, 2009: These govern the process of Section 69A, allowing for confidential takedown orders, which often lack transparency, limiting the ability of content creators to challenge them.
      3. Section 79 (3)(b): This section dictates that “intermediaries” (like ISPs, search engines, and social media sites) must remove content upon receiving “actual knowledge” or being notified by the government that their platform is being used for unlawful acts. Failure to comply can lead to a loss of “safe harbor” protection, making them liable for user content.
    2. IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: These rules significantly tightened control over online content.
      1. Content Takedown Timelines: Intermediaries must remove “unlawful” content within set timeframes (often within 36 hours, but tighter for specific content) after receiving a complaint or government notice.
      2. Mandatory Grievance Redressal: Platforms must establish an internal mechanism to handle complaints, strengthening the government’s ability to demand removal.
      3. Expedited Removal for Specific Content: Recent amendments (as of 2026) have proposed removing content within as little as three hours.
      4. Traceability Requirement: The rules require messaging platforms to be able to identify the “first originator” of a message, raising privacy concerns.
    3. Licensing Conditions under Telecom Regulatory Framework:
      1. Binding Obligations: Requires ISPs to comply with directions issued by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and other competent authorities
      2. Enforcement Mechanism: Non-compliance can lead to penalties, suspension, or cancellation of licenses
      3. Operational Impact: Ensures that censorship orders are effectively implemented at the network level.
      4. Example: ISPs blocking specific domains or services following government directives during security situations.
    4. Confidentiality Clause in Blocking Rules (2009):
      1. Secrecy of Orders: Mandates strict confidentiality regarding blocking requests and directions.
      2. Transparency Deficit: Prevents public disclosure of reasons, scope, and number of blocked websites.
      3. Accountability Constraint: Limits scope for judicial review, public scrutiny, and informed debate.
      4. Example: Users are often unaware why a particular website is inaccessible, as blocking orders are not publicly available. 

    Why does censorship vary across ISPs despite identical orders?

    1. Non-uniform Implementation: ISPs interpret and execute government blocking orders differently based on internal protocols, leading to variation in outcomes.
    2. Technical Discretion: ISPs choose different blocking techniques such as DNS, HTTP, or TLS filtering depending on their technical setup and preferences.
    3. Operational Constraints: Variations in infrastructure capacity, technical expertise, and financial resources influence how effectively orders are implemented.
    4. Compliance Prioritisation: ISPs differ in urgency and strictness while implementing orders, causing delays or partial enforcement.
    5. Lack of Standardisation: Absence of uniform technical guidelines results in fragmented enforcement across networks.

    What technical mechanisms are used for website blocking?

    1. DNS Blocking: Redirects domain queries to false or incorrect IP addresses through DNS poisoning, preventing access at the resolution stage. Example: Access request to example.com gets redirected to an incorrect or null IP address.
    2. HTTP Blocking: Restricts access at the application layer by intercepting HTTP requests and returning error or denial responses.
    3. TLS Blocking: Interferes with encrypted HTTPS connections by blocking or disrupting secure handshakes.
    4. IP Blocking: Blocks specific IP addresses hosting content, restricting access at the network layer.
    5. Key Insight: Most Indian ISPs rely primarily on DNS blocking due to its low cost, ease of deployment, and minimal infrastructure requirements.

    What does the empirical data reveal about the scale of censorship?

    1. 294 Million Domains Tested: Large-scale testing conducted across six major ISPs in 2025 to assess censorship patterns.
    2. 43,083 Domains Blocked: Indicates significant extent of content restriction across networks.
    3. Only 1,414 Commonly Blocked: Demonstrates that very few domains are uniformly blocked across all ISPs.
    4. Inter-ISP Variation: Same blocking orders result in different lists of blocked websites across providers.
    5. Inference: Internet censorship in India operates in a fragmented, inconsistent, and decentralised manner rather than a uniform system.

    What are the implications for users and digital rights?

    1. Unequal Access: Same website may be accessible on one ISP but blocked on another, leading to inconsistent user experience.
    2. Opacity: Users remain unaware of blocking reasons due to confidentiality of government orders and lack of disclosures.
    3. Freedom of Expression: Arbitrary and inconsistent restrictions weaken the protection under Article 19(1)(a).
    4. Accountability Gap: Limited transparency reduces scope for judicial review and public oversight.
    5. Chilling Effect: Uncertainty about access may discourage users from engaging with certain online content.

    Why is DNS blocking problematic as a primary tool?

    DNS (Domain Name System) is the “phonebook of the internet,” translating human-friendly domain names (like example.com) into machine-readable IP addresses (like 192.0.2.1). This system allows users to access websites using memorable names instead of complex numerical addresses, acting as a crucial intermediary for web browsers to find and connect to servers.

    1. Low Precision: Blocks entire domains instead of targeting specific unlawful content, leading to overblocking.
    2. Circumvention Risk: Easily bypassed using VPNs, proxy servers, or alternative DNS services.
    3. Security Risks: DNS poisoning may redirect users to malicious or unintended websites, compromising safety.
    4. Lack of Effectiveness: Ineffective against dynamic or mirror websites that frequently change domains.
    5. Over-Reliance: Excessive dependence on DNS blocking reflects technological limitations in implementing more precise methods. 

    Conclusion

    India’s internet censorship regime reflects legal backing but weak procedural uniformity and transparency. Addressing these gaps requires standardised implementation, greater accountability, and judicial oversight to balance state interests with fundamental rights.

    PYQ Relevance

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

    Linkage: The PYQ Examines limits of state power over online speech under Article 19(1)(a) and safeguards against arbitrary censorship. Similar to Section 66A concerns, the current internet censorship regime (Section 69A, ISP blocking) raises issues of overreach, opacity, and disproportionate restrictions on digital expression.