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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Governance

Important aspects of Society

  • Govt. notifies IST as common time reference across India; gives 180 days for compliance

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution has notified the Legal Metrology (Indian Standard Time) Rules, 2026, making Indian Standard Time (IST) the single reference for legal, administrative, commercial and other official purposes across the country. The Rules come into force 180 days after their publication in the Official Gazette, which gives government departments, businesses and institutions a compliance window to align their systems. The step follows the spread of digital and technology based systems whose records depend on accurate and synchronised time stamps, from banking and payments to telecommunications, railways, power grids and computer networks. A stated feature of the Rules is the reduction of dependence on foreign satellite based time sources that several critical systems currently rely on. The tension is that a legal mandate can fix which clock is authoritative and cannot by itself supply a domestic time signal accurate and reachable enough for the systems being asked to switch.

    What are the Legal Metrology (Indian Standard Time) Rules, 2026?

    1. A single legal reference: The Rules make IST the sole time reference for legal, administrative, commercial and other official purposes across India.
    2. Regulated as a measurement: The nodal authority is the Department of Consumer Affairs, so time is governed as a unit of measurement under legal metrology rather than as a scientific standard alone.
    3. Deferred commencement: Enforcement begins only after the compliance window closes, so existing systems are given time to re-synchronise instead of being placed in immediate default.

    Why does a single time reference matter for the systems that use it?

    1. Financial records: A common reference supports accurate time stamping of banking and digital payment transactions, which is what establishes the order of two competing entries.
    2. Transport coordination: It underpins coordination among railways, airports and other transport systems that run on shared schedules.
    3. Communication networks: Reliable functioning of telecommunication and internet networks depends on synchronised clocks across switching and routing equipment.
    4. Power systems: Precise timekeeping in power systems is what allows a grid disturbance to be sequenced and attributed after the event.
    5. Legal and government records: The upkeep of government and legal records rests on a timestamp that can be relied on as evidence.
    6. Emergency services: Coordination of emergency and other time critical services requires every responding agency to work off the same reference.

    Why are foreign satellite based time sources the actual target?

    1. The current dependence: Several critical systems draw their time signal from foreign satellite constellations rather than from a domestic source.
    2. Divergent sources produce divergent records: Inconsistencies between different time sources affect the coordination and the recording of transactions and operations.
    3. Sovereignty over the signal: A time signal controlled outside the country can be degraded or withdrawn, which places the legal record of a domestic transaction outside national control.
    4. Dissemination is being built: Infrastructure is being created to disseminate accurate IST through Indian institutions and legal metrology laboratories.

    Challenges to enforcing a single legal time reference

    1. Legacy equipment cannot be re-synchronised by notification: Older industrial and utility controllers carry their own internal clocks and no interface to accept an external time input. Eg. Supervisory control equipment in several State distribution utilities still runs on locally set device clocks. Fix. Make an external time input a condition of equipment certification, so replacement cycles carry the requirement instead of a one time drive.
    2. Millisecond accuracy needs a physical network, not a rule: A mandate names the reference and does not deliver the signal at the precision that payment switches and grid protection equipment need. Eg. India’s national time reaches most users through public internet time servers rather than through dedicated links. Fix. Extend optical fibre and radio based time dissemination to regional laboratories before the compliance window closes.
    3. Enforcement capacity sits with State departments: State legal metrology staff who inspect weights and measures are being asked to verify a technical time standard they hold no instruments for. Eg. State legal metrology departments already report inspector shortfalls for routine verification of weighing and measuring instruments. Fix. Fund a reference clock and calibration equipment at each State laboratory as part of the rollout rather than after it.
    4. One legal time does not answer the longitudinal spread: A single reference across a country spanning nearly 30 degrees of longitude leaves the northeast with early sunrise and working hours misaligned with daylight. Eg. Assam has repeatedly sought a separate tea garden time an hour ahead of IST for its plantation working hours. Fix. Meet the demand through statutory flexibility in working hours, since the Rules foreclose a second legal time.

    Conclusion

    What to watch through the compliance window is whether the domestic dissemination network is live before enforcement begins, since a mandate that outruns its infrastructure converts every unsynchronised system into a default. The wider question is whether a legal standard alone can displace a foreign signal that critical systems adopted because it was cheaper and easier to reach.

    Back2Basics

    1. Reference meridian: IST is set to the 82.5 degrees East longitude, which passes near Mirzapur in Uttar Pradesh.
    2. Offset: It runs 5 hours 30 minutes ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), the global time scale maintained by atomic clocks.
    3. Custodian: The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi, maintains and disseminates India’s national time using caesium atomic clocks.
    4. Single zone: India uses one time zone for the entire country, unlike several states of comparable longitudinal span that use more than one.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017] Consider the following statements: 1. The Standard Mark of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) is mandatory for automotive tyres and tubes. 2. AGMARK is a quality Certification Mark issued by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (a)”

  • All workers shifted to VB-G RAM G; e-KYC is not mandatory, says Centre

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Rural Development has said that every worker registered under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been migrated to the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin), or VB-G RAM G, irrespective of whether electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) verification of the job card is complete. The statement answers reporting that the job cards of 57 lakh active workers have not completed that verification. The Ministry has not disputed those numbers and says e-KYC is a database authentication measure rather than a precondition for exercising the statutory right to demand employment. The tension is that a verification requirement introduced to clean the worker database sits directly on top of a right that is meant to be exercisable on demand.

    What did the Ministry actually commit to?

    1. Migration is unconditional: Every worker registered under MGNREGA has been moved to the new mission regardless of e-KYC status.
    2. Pending verification does not block work: A pending e-KYC does not prevent a worker from demanding or from receiving employment.
    3. An exception route exists: An exception mechanism is available to facilitate the employment demand and the provision of work for workers whose verification is pending.
    4. The right is characterised as statutory: The Ministry’s position is that e-KYC authenticates the database and does not condition the statutory entitlement.

    What do the coverage numbers show?

    1. The verified total is large: e-KYC has been completed for 15.89 crore workers overall.
    2. Active worker coverage is near complete: 10.27 crore of 10.84 crore active workers have been verified, approximately 95 percent.
    3. The residual is the disputed group: 57 lakh active workers remain unverified, a figure the government has not contested.
    4. Employment provision is reported separately: Around 2.11 crore workers have so far been offered employment under the new mission, and the Ministry states that every worker who demanded employment was offered work as per demand.

    Where does responsibility for the verification sit?

    1. The task is with the States: e-KYC of workers is the responsibility of the concerned State and Union Territory governments.
    2. The stated purpose is database integrity: It is being undertaken to strengthen authentication and maintain an accurate and credible worker database.
    3. The Ministry characterises it as trivial: The process can ordinarily be completed in less than 30 seconds.
    4. The Centre’s role is advisory and supervisory: States have been advised to expeditiously complete verification of all active workers, with the Ministry monitoring the exercise.

    Challenges to biometric authentication of rural workers

    1. Fingerprint authentication fails for manual labourers: Sustained manual work erodes fingerprint ridges, so the biometric most commonly used for authentication is least reliable for the population the scheme is designed for. Eg. Authentication failures among elderly and manual workers were a documented cause of denied ration entitlements after Aadhaar seeding of the Public Distribution System. Fix. Make iris and face authentication, and offline verification against a signed identity document, equally valid at the field level.
    2. Connectivity gaps convert a 30 second process into a multi day one: Online authentication in low network blocks requires repeat visits to a common service centre at the worker’s own cost. Eg. Workers in remote blocks routinely travel to block headquarters for banking correspondent services because village level connectivity is intermittent. Fix. Permit offline capture at the gram panchayat with batch upload, so the worker’s trip does not depend on live connectivity.
    3. Database cleaning has historically deleted genuine workers: Bulk verification drives produce deletions of active job cards recorded as duplicates or as non existent. Eg. Crores of job cards were deleted during MGNREGA database cleaning exercises, with State level audits later finding genuine workers among them. Fix. Require a written, appealable deletion order served on the worker before a job card is removed.
    4. The exception mechanism is only as good as its field awareness: A right that survives on paper still fails where the panchayat functionary treats verification as mandatory. Eg. Aadhaar Based Payment System rollout saw wage payments stall for workers whose seeding was incomplete despite instructions that work could not be denied. Fix. Issue the exception route as a numbered circular to every gram panchayat with a stated escalation officer, rather than as a press statement.

    Conclusion

    The Ministry’s clarification settles the legal position and leaves the administrative one open, since the entitlement is denied at the panchayat counter rather than in the policy document. What to watch is whether the exception mechanism is actually invoked for the unverified workers in the coming employment season, measured by work provided to them rather than by the verification percentage.

    Back2Basics

    1. Statute: Enacted in 2005 and administered by the Ministry of Rural Development, it is the legal basis of the rural employment guarantee.
    2. The guarantee: It provides at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment in a financial year to every rural household whose adult members volunteer to do unskilled manual work.
    3. Demand driven design: Work must be provided within 15 days of a demand being registered, failing which the worker is entitled to an unemployment allowance from the State.
    4. Delivery unit: The job card issued to a household is the document that records registration, demand and days of work provided.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2011] Among the following who are eligible to benefit from the “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act”? (a) Adult members of only the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe households (b) Adult members of below poverty line (BPL) households (c) Adult members of households of all backward communities (d) Adult members of any household ANSWER: (d)”

  • Indian Standard Time made the single legal time reference through new Legal Metrology rules

    Why in the News

    The Department of Consumer Affairs has notified the Legal Metrology (Indian Standard Time) Rules, 2026. The rules make Indian Standard Time (IST) the single legal time reference for use across sectors.

    Core facts

    1. Notifying body: The rules were notified by the Department of Consumer Affairs, under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution.
    2. Parent law: The rules are framed under the Legal Metrology Act, 2009. This Act governs weights, measures and standards of measurement in India.
    3. Mandate: The rules mandate use of IST for legal, administrative, commercial and official purposes. Use of any alternative time reference is barred unless expressly permitted.
    4. Synchronisation method: Government offices and public institutions must synchronise clocks using Network Time Protocol (NTP) and Precision Time Protocol (PTP). These are internet protocols that distribute a common reference time to connected devices.
    5. Source of time: IST is maintained by the CSIR National Physical Laboratory (NPL). It is set at Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) plus 5 hours 30 minutes.
    6. Exemptions: Scientific, astronomical and navigational uses are exempt with prior government approval.
    7. Enforcement: Compliance is checked through periodic audits. Penalties apply for violations.

    Static Context

    1. One Nation, One Time: The reform is the operational form of the One Nation, One Time idea. A draft version was first issued for public comment in early 2025.
    2. Legal Metrology institutions: The Legal Metrology wing sits under the Department of Consumer Affairs. It enforces uniform weights, measures and now uniform time.
    3. CSIR National Physical Laboratory: NPL is the national measurement standards laboratory. It keeps India’s atomic time scale and disseminates IST.
    4. Why uniform time matters: Power grid synchronisation, telecom, banking, digital governance and defence need one accurate time base. Many networks earlier drew time from foreign satellite sources such as the Global Positioning System (GPS).

    Prelims angle

    1. Custodian fact: IST is maintained by CSIR NPL, not by the India Meteorological Department or ISRO.
    2. Offset fact: IST equals UTC plus 5:30, based on the 82.5 degree East longitude reference.
    3. Legal base fact: The rules flow from the Legal Metrology Act, 2009, a consumer affairs law, not from a science ministry statute.
    4. Protocol fact: NTP and PTP are the mandated synchronisation protocols.

    Mains angle

    GS3 (Science and Technology in everyday life) and GS2 (government regulation and standardisation). A question can ask how a single national time standard strengthens critical infrastructure security and consumer fairness.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files for legal metrology or Indian Standard Time. Closest tracked Microtheme is Certification/Promotional Bodies (Governance), covering national standards and certification bodies.”

  • Why is FSSAI tightening the rules on food claims?

    Why in the News

    The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued more than 150 notices to food companies in recent months over misleading advertisements, false claims and labelling non compliance. Mondelez India has withdrawn certain health and nutrient comparison claims for Bournvita and removed the related advertisements from e-commerce platforms. The regulator has extended its scrutiny beyond the physical package to online marketplaces and food service establishments. A claim can be withdrawn on notice years after consumers have already acted on it, which is what makes the reach of this enforcement contested.

    What is a health claim, and what is a nutrient comparison claim?

    1. Health claim: A statement suggesting that a product helps deliver a particular health outcome. It can create expectations beyond what the product’s ingredient composition or the available evidence justifies.
    2. Nutrient comparison claim: A claim that positions a product’s nutrient content against another product or against a reference, such as a comparative calcium benefit.
    3. What the regulator governs: Food regulation is not limited to whether a product contains permitted ingredients. It also governs how a product’s nutritional qualities and benefits are communicated.

    Which claims and companies are under scrutiny?

    1. The companies served notices: The list includes Nestlé India, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola India, Abbott India, Red Bull India, Danone India, Mondelez India, Ferrero India and Kenvue.
    2. Bournvita: The product came under public scrutiny in 2023 over its sugar content and its claims about nutritional benefits. The present action does not establish that the product is unsafe, it questions whether particular claims are adequately supported.
    3. Amway India: The company removed “100%” from its “100% Pure Coconut Oil” packaging and promotional material. It also dropped the “Energy Drink” descriptor from its caffeinated XS products.
    4. Juza Foods: The Kerala based company agreed to withdraw claims of immunity, stronger bones and comparative calcium benefits from its baby food products.

    Why has the regulator targeted the word “100%”?

    1. The advisory: In May 2025 FSSAI advised food businesses to stop using “100%” on food labels, packaging and promotional material.
    2. The reasoning: The regulator held that such language conveys a false sense of absolute purity or superiority to consumers.
    3. Why absolute words matter: Words such as “pure”, “natural”, “healthy”, “immunity-boosting” and “100%” influence a purchase before the consumer examines the nutrition panel or the ingredient list.

    Why has enforcement moved to e-commerce?

    1. Notices beyond the shelf: Notices have gone to online marketplaces as well as to restaurants and other food businesses.
    2. Online pages carry different content: An online product page can carry claims, images and promotional language that differ from what appears on the physical package.
    3. How consumers now decide: A purchase is often made off an online banner or product description rather than off the label read in a shop.

    What does the crackdown still leave unaddressed?

    1. Withdrawal comes late: A company can remove a claim after receiving a notice, and consumers may already have encountered that claim for years.
    2. Messaging survives across platforms: An advertisement can disappear from one platform and its messaging remain present elsewhere.
    3. Listings change faster than checks: Online listings change rapidly, which makes sustained monitoring necessary rather than one time correction.
    4. Compliance is episodic: The regulator’s task is to make compliance routine rather than a temporary response to regulatory scrutiny.

    Conclusion

    The shift being sought is from broad marketing language to claims that can be demonstrated. This matters as India confronts rising obesity and unhealthy diets, and FSSAI has linked its food safety messaging to that wider push for healthier eating. For a consumer, a health claim on a food packet remains a claim and not a guarantee.

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

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

    Why in the News

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

    What would the proposed label carry?

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

    How will the rollout be phased?

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

    Which products are exempt?

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

    Why do nutrition experts call the proposal ineffective?

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

    Conclusion

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

    Back2Basics

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

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

  • 57 lakh active workers await e-KYC under new job scheme

    Why in the News

    The e-KYC verification rate of active rural employment guarantee workers stands at 94.88 per cent, two months after the launch of the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, Gramin (VB-G RAM G), leaving 57 lakh active workers unverified. The Union Rural Development Minister had assured, ahead of the scheme’s rollout, that existing e-KYC verified job cards under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) would remain valid until new Gramin Rozgar Guarantee Cards are issued, and states had been asked to complete verification of all remaining active workers by the end of February, a deadline that was missed. e-KYC verification has now been made a condition for availing work under the new scheme, raising questions about whether unverified workers can access employment despite the Ministry’s assurance that no eligible worker will be left behind.

    What is the Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission, Gramin (VB-G RAM G)?

    1. What it replaces: VB-G RAM G is the new rural employment guarantee scheme that has replaced MGNREGS.
    2. Access condition: e-KYC verification of job cards is a condition for availing work under the new scheme.
    3. Transition safeguard: The Ministry has allowed exceptions in a few cases and assured that existing verified job cards remain valid until new cards are issued.

    What does the data show about the verification gap?

    1. Overall registration lags active workers: The e-KYC rate is 71 per cent among all registered workers against 94.88 per cent among active workers, those who availed work at least once in the last three years, leaving 57 lakh active workers unverified.
    2. Employment generation has fallen sharply: Person-days generated under VB-G RAM G in July, 7.67 crore, were 49.94 per cent lower than the 15.33 crore person-days generated under MGNREGS in July of the previous year.
    3. Wide state variation: Tamil Nadu has the highest e-KYC rates among large states, 99.32 per cent for active workers and 84.89 per cent overall, followed by Rajasthan at 95.66 per cent and 69.45 per cent, Uttar Pradesh at 94.21 per cent and 58.89 per cent, and Andhra Pradesh at 90.4 per cent and 82.32 per cent, while Bihar’s overall rate of 58.05 per cent is among the lowest for large states.

    Why did States miss the e-KYC deadlines?

    1. First deadline missed: The Rural Development Ministry asked States on 30 January to complete e-KYC verification of all remaining active workers within a week, as revealed by a Right to Information application filed by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.
    2. Second deadline also missed: States were again asked on 12 February to complete verification by the end of February, and nearly seven months later the target remains unmet.

    Challenges to VB-G RAM G’s rollout

    1. Verification bottleneck denying access: Making e-KYC mandatory before the backlog is cleared risks excluding otherwise eligible workers from guaranteed work. Eg. 57 lakh active workers remain unverified two months into the rollout. Fix. Extend the grace period for unverified active workers until states clear the backlog, rather than making verification a hard gate from the outset.
    2. State capacity variation: The wide gap between states, Bihar’s 58.05 per cent overall rate against Tamil Nadu’s 84.89 per cent, points to weak last-mile administrative capacity in some states. Eg. Bihar remains among the lowest performing large states despite repeated Ministry deadlines. Fix. Direct targeted central enumerator support to the lowest-performing states rather than applying a uniform national deadline.

    Conclusion

    The transition to VB-G RAM G is proceeding despite an unresolved verification backlog. The Ministry’s next milestone is closing the gap for the 57 lakh unverified active workers before its assurance of uninterrupted access is tested against actual demand for work.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    PrelimsPYQ.csv: “Among the following who are eligible to benefit from the “Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act”? … (d) Adult members of any household” Answer: (d) — “MGNREGA benefits any adult member of a rural household, regardless of caste or economic status, providing 100 days of guaranteed work annually.” (2011, Microtheme: SchemeXRural/Agri, Subject: Governance)

  • Govt. track record on free coaching plan is poor: Congress

    Why in the News

    The Congress has questioned the Centre’s decision to launch free online coaching for students, citing the government’s poor implementation record under an existing coaching scheme. The criticism follows a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment report, tabled on 10 August, showing the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment enrolled only 2,790 of a targeted 10,500 candidates, about 26 per cent, under its existing free coaching scheme over three years, with the scheme’s allocation declining every year. It also follows the Leader of the Opposition’s remarks at a Kota event on 17 June that Indian families spend 2.5 times more on coaching centres than the Union government invests in education. The Congress has termed the free online coaching announcement an “accountability-evading gimmick,” questioning the government’s capacity to deliver at scale.

    What is the Social Justice Ministry’s free coaching scheme?

    1. Administering ministry: The scheme is run by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and other disadvantaged groups.
    2. Enrollment target: It had set a target of enrolling 10,500 candidates over three years.
    3. Funding trend: Its budgetary allocation has declined each year since.

    What does the committee’s report reveal about the scheme’s implementation?

    1. Sharp enrollment shortfall: Only 2,790 of the targeted 10,500 candidates, about 26 per cent, were enrolled over three years.
    2. Declining allocation: Funding for the scheme fell each year even as the shortfall persisted.
    3. Political context of the new announcement: The Congress says the Prime Minister’s Independence Day announcement of free online coaching followed public pressure after the Opposition Leader’s remarks on coaching dependence at Kota.

    Conclusion

    The dispute centres on whether the Centre can execute a new free online coaching commitment given its own record on the existing scheme. The government has not yet released implementation details for the new initiative, and the enrollment and funding data for the existing scheme remain the yardstick against which its rollout will be judged.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    No direct PYQ traced in the provided files.

  • Why India’s R&D system needs a map of where funds really go

    Why India’s R&D system needs a map of where funds really go

    Why in the News

    A NITI Aayog report, ‘Ease of Doing R&D in India’, drawing on a survey of over 400 institutional leaders and 850 scientists, has found that close to 80% of funding under the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF, India’s apex research funding body, whose governing board is headed by the Prime Minister and which is mandated to draw much of its funding from non-governmental sources alongside Central contributions) is concentrated in the IITs, despite ANRF’s own mandate to support a wider base of universities and research bodies. The report also flagged that multiple central agencies may be funding overlapping research areas, leading to what it calls “inefficient” use of public money. NITI Aayog’s proposed response is the Unified Project Management System (UPMS), meant to streamline planning, funding, monitoring and evaluation of public R&D projects across ministries. The article argues that UPMS does not by itself fix the deeper gap it is meant to solve: India has no system that can tell funders, researchers or the public who is being funded, by whom, for what, and whether that funding has already been given elsewhere.

    What is a persistent digital identifier (PID), and why does India’s R&D funding lack one?

    1. Persistent digital identifier (PID): A permanent, unique, machine-readable identifier attached to every research grant, comparable to how a PAN number identifies a taxpayer or an IMEI number identifies a phone.
    2. Attached metadata: Each PID is meant to carry a standard set of details, which agency gave the money, to which institution, to which named researcher, what amount, over what period, and in which field, linked so officials can track outcomes when the PID is cited in a published paper.
    3. Scattered and inconsistent records today: This information already exists inside Indian funding agencies, but scattered across dozens of separate databases, in inconsistent formats, often as free text. Eg. A researcher’s name may appear as “IISc, Bangalore” in one dataset and “Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru” in another, enough for an automated system to fail to recognise them as the same institution.

    What does the NITI Aayog report reveal about India’s R&D funding?

    1. Concentration in a few institutions: Close to 80% of ANRF funding is concentrated in the IITs, despite ANRF’s mandate to support a wider base of universities and research bodies than the traditional funding model has managed.
    2. Possible duplication across agencies: Multiple Central agencies are possibly funding similar research areas, resulting in overlap and “inefficient” use of public money, per the report’s survey of over 400 institutional leaders and 850 scientists.
    3. The underlying gap: Both findings point to the same root cause, the absence of a system that can tell funders, researchers or the public who is funded, by whom, for what, and whether that funding has already been given elsewhere.

    How have other countries solved this identifier problem?

    1. Crossref’s Grant Linking System (global, non-profit): Built by the open digital infrastructure organisation Crossref, this system now has more than 2 lakh grants registered worldwide from funders seeking to track duplication and concentration.
    2. Research Organisation Registry (ROR) and ORCID: A funder ID identifies the funding agency down to the division or department; a ROR ID identifies the receiving institution; an ORCID identifier, already familiar to Indian researchers since most journals require it, identifies the individual researcher so funding can be aggregated per person.
    3. Grant DOI, since 2020: Crossref extended its system to a permanent identifier for the grant itself, which can be linked to whatever the grant produces, papers, patents or data.
    4. Government-owned national portals compatible with the global standard: The U.K.’s “Gateway to Research” portal and the European Union’s CORDIS and OpenAIRE infrastructure run their own government-owned single points of entry for funding agencies, while generating identifiers fully compatible with the Crossref/ROR/ORCID standards, giving national governments ownership without breaking compatibility with the global dataset.
    5. Documented scale of the problem elsewhere: A 2013 analysis of U.S. federal grant applications using automated text-matching estimated duplicate or overlapping funding may have cost the U.S. nearly $70 million; a 2020 analysis of nearly 20,000 competitive grants in Denmark found funds concentrated among a small group of researchers and a narrow set of topics, a pattern the article says mirrors what NITI Aayog flagged for India.

    What are India’s options going forward?

    1. Build a sovereign national registry: India could develop and maintain its own India-specific grant registry from the ground up, giving it full control and the ability to tailor the system to its own agencies, federal structure and State research schemes.
    2. Join the existing global infrastructure: India’s funding agencies could become members of the Crossref ecosystem directly, which can be implemented faster since the technical standards and governance already exist internationally.
    3. A hybrid middle path: India could build a single national portal, the NITI Aayog’s own proposed UPMS, that internally mints Crossref-compatible grant DOIs and links every record to ROR and ORCID identifiers, following the model of the U.K.’s Gateway to Research and the EU’s CORDIS/OpenAIRE.

    Challenges to the Unified Project Management System (UPMS)

    1. Legacy data inconsistency: Migrating scattered, free-text agency records into a structured PID system requires resolving years of inconsistent naming across agencies before the system can produce reliable data. Eg. The same institution recorded as “IISc, Bangalore” in one dataset and “Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru” in another. Fix. Mandate a common institutional and researcher master list, cross-validated against existing ORCID and ROR records, before agencies are required to report through UPMS.
    2. Compliance is not self-enforcing: A national portal only produces reliable data if every Central and State funding agency consistently deposits data into it; a voluntary or partially adopted system reproduces the same blind spots the report identifies. Fix. Make UPMS reporting a precondition for releasing funds under any Central research scheme, so compliance is enforced through the funding process itself.

    Conclusion

    NITI Aayog’s Unified Project Management System addresses the process of streamlining India’s R&D funding, but by itself does not supply the persistent digital identifier and metadata infrastructure that would let funders, researchers and the public actually see where public research money goes and whether it has already gone somewhere else. The next milestone is whether UPMS is designed to mint Crossref-compatible identifiers and how many agencies are made to report through it.

    “[2024, GS2, 15 marks] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?”

  • SEBI’s ITRI: Global test for India’s future-ready financial architecture

    SEBI’s ITRI: Global test for India’s future-ready financial architecture

    Why in the News

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced an IT Resilience Index (ITRI) to assess the technological robustness of Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs), meaning stock exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations. The index responds to growing global concern about outages and cyberattacks at systemically important financial market infrastructure. It follows comparable resilience frameworks already adopted by regulators in the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia. The tension is between certifying resilience on paper through a scored index and ensuring MIIs make the operational investment the index is meant to incentivise.

    What does the ITRI assess?

    1. Nine weighted parameters: The index scores each market infrastructure institution across nine parameters covering system uptime, cyber-incident preparedness, disaster recovery capability and related technology governance measures.
    2. Comparative design: SEBI has drawn on resilience frameworks used by regulators in the United Kingdom, the European Union, the United States, Singapore, Hong Kong and Australia in constructing the index.

    Why has SEBI shifted from compliance-checking to a quantitative resilience score for MIIs?

    • Systemic-risk trigger: Rising technological dependence in capital markets means even minutes of disruption at an MII can affect millions of investors and billions of rupees in trades.
    • Regulatory foundation: SEBI’s 2015 circular first classified MIIs as systemically important, mandating a robust cybersecurity framework.
    • Boardroom shift: Retail participation through online platforms, algorithmic trading volumes, and faster settlement cycles have made technology reliability inseparable from market efficiency.
    • Global first: ITRI is among the first attempts by any regulator to design a resilience barometer as measurable as capital adequacy is for banks.

    How does ITRI’s weighting structure reflect SEBI’s risk-prioritisation approach?

    • Nine-parameter design: ITRI rests on nine parameters, each weighted by a systemic-risk hierarchy, with sub-parameters to be defined by the Industry Standards Forum of MIIs.
    • Highest-weighted parameters: Availability and security carry the highest weight, at 20% each, as the first line of defence for market functioning.
    • Recovery-focused weighting: Business Continuity and Reliability carries 10% weight, reflecting a regulatory shift from preventing failures to absorbing shocks and recovering quickly.
    • Growth-risk calibration: Scalability carries only 5% weight, reflecting SEBI’s view that rapid market growth does not yet pose an immediate stability risk.
    • Early Warning System: MIIs will build an Early Warning System to detect parameter deterioration before it causes performance issues or disruptions.

    What do global resilience frameworks show about the alternatives to a single numeric index?

    • United Kingdom — FCA/PRA: Operational resilience rules require institutions to identify important business services and demonstrate recovery capability from severe shocks, without a single numeric score.
    • European Union — DORA: The Digital Operational Resilience Act functions as a regulatory rulebook rather than a numerical scorecard.
    • United States: No single resilience index exists for exchanges; technology resilience is embedded into general regulatory oversight instead.
    • Singapore — Monetary Authority of Singapore: Technology risk guidelines are considered particularly relevant to India given comparably high digital financial penetration and large retail investor bases.
    • Hong Kong: Cyber resilience assessment frameworks use measurable maturity levels, making them the closest structural parallel to SEBI’s numeric approach.

    Can a single numeric score capture resilience across MIIs with different technology architectures?

    • Architecture heterogeneity: Stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories operate different technology architectures and functions, raising doubts about a common index applying uniformly.
    • Weight uncertainty: Questions remain on the statistical estimation of the assigned weights, finalised through Technical Advisory Committee discussions rather than validated outage data.
    • Provisional status: The current weights are a starting framework that SEBI may have to refine using actual outage data, cyber incidents and stress tests.
    • Pace mismatch: Technology risks evolve faster than regulatory frameworks, making the index vulnerable to obsolescence even as it is being implemented.
    • Investment burden: Building automated monitoring systems, continuous testing and redundant infrastructure requires substantial investment from MIIs.

    Back2Basics: Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs)

    1. MIIs are the entities that provide the trading, clearing and settlement backbone of the securities market: stock exchanges, depositories and clearing corporations.
    2. They are classified as systemically important, since their failure or compromise can disrupt trading and settlement across the entire market rather than a single participant.
    3. SEBI regulates MIIs under the SEBI (Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations) Regulations and the SEBI (Depositories and Participants) Regulations.

    Conclusion

    SEBI’s ITRI converts technology resilience from a compliance checklist into a quantitative, weighted score, a model most global regulators have not attempted. Whether this scoring approach works depends on unresolved questions: the statistical basis of the weights, the comparability of a single index across MIIs with different architectures, and whether a high score actually translates into faster recovery during an actual technology shock. Until validated against real incident data, ITRI remains a measurement framework rather than a proven resilience guarantee.

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

  • Congress urges PM to scrap caste census questionnaire

    Congress urges PM to scrap caste census questionnaire

    Why in the News

    The Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the questionnaire prepared for the caste census be scrapped. They have asked that a new questionnaire be prepared to ensure accurate enumeration of castes.

    What is being contested about the questionnaire’s design?

    1. The objection targets an open-ended format: The two leaders object to an open-ended format proposed for recording caste details, arguing it could allow the same caste to be recorded under different names, sub-castes, and linguistic variants, undermining accurate counts.
    2. They demand consultation before the survey form is finalised: The letter asks the government to formulate a new survey form only after consulting political parties, experts, and the public, rather than proceeding with the existing draft.
    3. The stated purpose is enumeration accuracy, not the census itself: The objection is to the questionnaire’s design, not to the decision to conduct a caste census, and the leaders frame the current format as an obstacle to the caste enumeration’s own stated purpose of social justice.

    Constitutional & Legal Angle

    • Article 15: Prohibits discrimination on grounds including caste and enables special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Article 16(4): Enables reservation in public employment for backward classes that are not adequately represented.
    • Article 46: Directs the State to promote the educational and economic interests of weaker sections, particularly SCs and STs.
    • Article 340: Provides for a Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes.
    • Article 17: Abolishes untouchability, making caste-related discrimination a key constitutional concern.
    • Privacy dimension: Caste is sensitive personal information, so enumeration also requires safeguards against misuse and unauthorised disclosure. UPSC has repeatedly tested the Right to Privacy under Article 21.

    Why Accurate Caste Data Matters

    • Reliable data → identify deprivation → better targeting of welfare → evidence-based reservation policy → social justice
    • Poor classification can lead to:
      • Under-counting of communities
      • Over-counting due to duplicate names
      • Difficulty comparing data across regions and time
      • Distorted assessment of representation and deprivation

    “[2009] Which one among the following South Asian countries has the highest population density ?

    (a) India

    (b) Nepal

    (c) Pakistan

    (d) Sri Lanka