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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Indian Society

  • People are free to choose religion: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has said people are free to choose their own religion and lashed out at a PIL claiming that there is mass religious conversion happening across the country.

    Right to freedom of Religion

    Article 25 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion to all persons in India. It provides that all persons in India, subject to public order, morality, health, and other provisions:

    • Are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, and
    • Have the right to freely profess, practice and propagate religion.

    It further provides that this article shall not affect any existing law and shall not prevent the state from making any law relating to:

    • Regulation or restriction of any economic, financial, political, or secular activity associated with religious practice.
    • Providing social welfare and reform.
    • Opening of Hindu religious institutions of public character for all the classes and sections of the Hindus.

    What did the Supreme Court say?

    • Instead, a Bench led by Justice Rohinton F. Nariman said people have a right under the Constitution to profess, practise and propagate religion.
    • Justice Nariman said every person is the final judge of their own choice of religion or who their life partner should be. Courts cannot sit in judgment of a person’s choice of religion or a life partner.
    • Religious faith is a part of the fundamental right to privacy.
    • Justice Nariman reminded Mr Upadhyay of the Constitution Bench judgment which upheld inviolability of the right to privacy, equating it with the rights to life, dignity and liberty.

  • SARTHAQ Plan

    Union Education Minister has launched ‘Students’ and Teachers’ Holistic Advancement through Quality Education (SARTHAQ), the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 implementation plan for school education.

    SARTHAQ

    • SARTHAQ keeps in mind the concurrent nature of education and adheres to the spirit of federalism.
    • The plan delineates the roadmap for the implementation of NEP 2020 for the next 10 years.
    • States and Union Territories have been given the flexibility to adapt the plan with “local contextualization”.
    • They have been allowed to modify the plan as per their needs and requirements.

    Envisaged outcomes

    • Increase in Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER), Net Enrolment Ratio (NER), transition rate and retention rate at all levels and reduction in dropouts and out of school children.
    • Access to quality ECCE and Universal Acquisition of Foundational Literacy and Numeracy by Grade 3.
    • Improvement in Learning Outcomes at all stages with an emphasis on teaching and learning through mother tongue/local/regional languages in the early years.
    • Integration of vocational education, sports, arts, knowledge of India, 21st-century skills, values of citizenship, awareness of environment conservation, etc. in the curriculum at all stages.
    • Introduction of Experiential learning at all stages and adoption of innovative pedagogies by teachers in classroom transaction.
    • Integration of technology in educational planning and governance and availability of ICT and quality e-content in classrooms.

  • Address the silent crisis of India’s gender deficit

    The recently released Gener Gap Report paints a grim picture for India. The deal with this issue.

    Where India Stands

    • The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Gender Gap Report 2021 was released last week.
    • The report lays bare our silent crisis of gender inequality, aggravated by the covid pandemic.
    • India has slipped 28 places to 140th position among 156 countries on the WEF’s Global Gender Gap Index.
    • The country is now 37.5% short of an ideal situation of equality, by its index, last year it was a 33.2% deficit on the whole.
    • Back in 2006, we were almost 40% short, but even the slight progress made over the past 15 years has been highly uneven.
    • Gains were made on the education and political empowerment of women, we slid sharply on health and economic parameters.

    Factors to consider

    • Though pandemic has been responsible for the decline to a significant extent, many of our deficiencies are pre-covid.
    • Some of the drop in India’s international rank over the past two years, for example, has to do with regression in the field of political power.
    • The proportion of women ministers more than halved to 9.1% of the total, though our count of female Parliamentarians did not budge from its long stagnancy.
    • Our performance over the past decade-and-a-half has been poor on women’s economic opportunities and participation.
    • Indian workforce has been turning more predominantly male.
    • Senior managerial positions in the corporate sector have not seen sufficient female appointees.
    • At the aggregate level, our income disparity is glaring.
    • Women earn only a fifth of men, which puts India among the world’s worst 10 on this indicator.
    • We fare worse on women’s health and survival, with India beaten to the last rank only by China.

    Why proportionally fewer Indian women in jobs?

    • One explanation is that sociocultural attitudes go against women going out to work, unless the family lacks sustenance, and deprivation has been in decline for decades.
    • Another is that families prefer educated mothers to invest time in teaching their kids.
    • Both these motives are said to be influenced by upward income mobility and a quest for better lives.
    • Yet, the covid setback to both family incomes and gender progress would suggest the reasons are mostly attitudinal.

    Way forward

    • If the reasons are attitudinal, tax incentives and other schemes are unlikely to get women taking up more jobs.
    • What we need are new forms of social persuasion, which must go with credible assurances of gender equity in every sphere.

    Conclusion

    A country’s economic progress is inextricably linked to empowered women. So, India needs to act on the silent crisis of India’s gender deficit to move up the economic ladder.

  • Time to undo the RTE bias against private non-minority institutions

    The article highlights the issues with the exemption of aided and non-aided minority institutions from the Right to Education Act.

    Is RTE enforceable against individuals?

    • Most fundamental rights are enforceable against the state, not against private individuals.
    • Certain rights, however, are horizontally enforceable too, that is, they can be enforced against individuals.
    • The Right to Free and Compulsory Education Act or RTE falls in the latter category.
    • The right to education was initially mentioned in Article 45 as a part of the Directive Principles.

    Evolution of Article 21A

    • The Supreme Court in 1992 held in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka that the right to education was a part of the right to life recognised in Article 21.
    • The next year, the court in Unnikrishnan JP v. State of Andhra Pradesh held that the state was duty-bound to provide education to children up to the age of 14 within its economic capacity.
    • The court also acknowledged that private educational institutions, including minority institutions, would have to play a role alongside government schools.
    • The right to education was finally given the status of a fundamental right by the 86th constitutional amendment in the year 2002 by the addition of Article 21A in the Constitution.
    • The Supreme Court held in P. A. Inamdar case that there shall be no reservation in private institutions and that minority and non-minority institutions would not be treated differently.

    Impact of 93rd amendment

    • In 2005, the Constitution was amended by the 93rd amendment to include Clause(5) to Article 15 which dealt with the fundamental right against discrimination.
    • The clause permitted the state to provide for advancement of “backward” classes by ensuring their admission in institutions, including private institutions.
    • The clause, however, excluded both aided and unaided minority educational institutions thus overruling the Supreme Court’s judgment in P.A. Inamdar case.

    Discrimination in RTE

    • When the RTE Act was subsequently enacted in 2009, it did not directly discriminate between students studying in minority and non-minority institutions.
    • Subsequently, the provision of 25 per cent reservation in private institutions was however challenged in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India where the court upheld the validity of the legislation exempting only unaided minority schools from its purview.
    • In response to the judgment, the RTE Act was amended in 2012 to mention that its provisions were subject to Articles 29 and 30 which protect the administrative rights of minority educational institutions.
    • So, the onus on private unaided schools was much higher than that on government schools, while even aided minority schools were exempt.
    • But the constitutional provision enabling the RTE Act, that is, Article 21, does not make any discrimination between minority and non-minority institutions.

    Issues

    • The above provisions of RTE made it violative of Article 14 and also economically unviable for many private schools.
    •  Not only has RTE unreasonably differentiated between minority and non-minority schools without any explicable basis, there is also no rational nexus between the object of universal education sought to be achieved by this act and the step of excluding minority schools from its purview.
    • Given the doctrine of harmonious construction of fundamental rights, it is unclear why the court granted complete immunity to minority institutions when several provisions of RTE would not interfere with their administrative rights.
    • RTE has provisions such as prevention of physical/mental cruelty towards students as well as quality checks on pedagogical and teacher standards which children studying in minority institutions should not be deprived of and to that extent be discriminated against.

    Way forward

    • The Kerala High Court held in Sobha George v. State of Kerala that Section 16 of RTE, which forbids non-promotion till the completion of elementary education, will be applicable to minority schools as well. 
    • The bench said that the courts must examine whether provisions such as Section 16 of RTE are statutory rights or fundamental rights expressed in a statutory form.
    • If the latter, then the Pramati case judgement will not be fully available to minority institutions.
    • The Supreme Court should take inspiration from the prudent decision delivered by the Kerala High Court and overrule its own judgment delivered in the Pramati Educational Society.

    Consider the question “What are the issues with the exemption of aided and non-aided minority institution from the RTE Act.”

    Conclusion

    RTE as legislation may be well-intentioned, but the time has come to relook at the discriminatory nature of RTE against private non-minority institutions, and to that extent, undo the damage done by 93rd Amendment and the subsequent SC judgments.

  • CJI’s remarks on Uniform Civil Code

    The Chief Justice of India (CJI) has lauded Goa’s Uniform Civil Code and encouraged “intellectuals” indulging in “academic talk” to visit the state to learn more about it.

    Again a controversial, conventional yet contested topic has come at our dispense! Save such articles for general idea esp. for essays.

    What is a Uniform Civil Code?

    • A Uniform Civil Code is one that would provide for one law for the entire country, applicable to all religious communities in their personal matters such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, adoption etc.
    • Article 44, one of the directive principles of the Constitution lays down that the state shall endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for the citizens throughout the territory of India.
    • These, as defined in Article 37, are not justiciable (not enforceable by any court) but the principles laid down therein are fundamental in governance.

    Greater role for State

    • Fundamental rights are enforceable in a court of law.
    • While Article 44 uses the words “the state shall endeavour”, other Articles in the ‘Directive Principles’ chapter use words such as “in particular strive”; “shall, in particular, direct its policy”; “shall be the obligation of the state” etc.
    • Article 43 mentions “state shall endeavour by suitable legislation” while the phrase “by suitable legislation” is absent in Article 44.
    • All this implies that the duty of the state is greater in other directive principles than in Article 44.

    What are more important — fundamental rights or directive principles?

    • There is no doubt that fundamental rights are more important.
    • The Supreme Court held in Minerva Mills (1980): Indian Constitution is founded on the bedrock of the balance between Parts III (Fundamental Rights) and IV (Directive Principles).
    • To give absolute primacy to one over the other is to disturb the harmony of the Constitution.
    • Article 31C inserted by the 42nd Amendment in 1976, however, lays down that if a law is made to implement any directive principle, it cannot be challenged on the ground of being violative of the FRs under Articles 14 and 19.

    Does India not already have a uniform code in civil matters?

    • Indian laws do follow a uniform code in most civil matters – Indian Contract Act, Civil Procedure Code, Sale of Goods Act, Transfer of Property Act, Partnership Act, Evidence Act etc.
    • States, however, have made hundreds of amendments and therefore in certain matters, there is diversity even under these secular civil laws.
    • Recently, several states refused to be governed by the uniform Motor Vehicles Act, 2019.

    What about personal laws?

    • If the framers of the Constitution had intended to have a Uniform Civil Code, they would have given exclusive jurisdiction to Parliament in respect of personal laws, by including this subject in the Union List.
    • But “personal laws” are mentioned in the Concurrent List.
    • Last year, the Law Commission concluded that a Uniform Civil Code is neither feasible nor desirable.

    Is there one common personal law for any religious community governing all its members?

    • All Hindus of the country are not governed by one law, nor are all Muslims or all Christians.
    • Not only British legal traditions, even those of the Portuguese and the French remain operative in some parts.
    • In Jammu and Kashmir until August 5, 2019, local Hindu law statutes differed from central enactments.
    • The Shariat Act of 1937 was extended to J&K a few years ago but has now been repealed.

    Various customary laws

    • Muslims of Kashmir were governed by a customary law, which in many ways was at variance with Muslim Personal Law in the rest of the country and was, in fact, closer to Hindu law.
    • Even on the registration of marriage among Muslims, laws differ from place to place. It was compulsory in J&K (1981 Act), and is optional in Bengal, Bihar (both under 1876 Act), Assam (1935 Act) and Odisha (1949 Act).
    • In the Northeast, there are more than 200 tribes with their own varied customary laws.
    • The Constitution itself protects local customs in Nagaland. Similar protections are enjoyed by Meghalaya and Mizoram.
    • Even reformed Hindu law, in spite of codification, protects customary practices.

    How does the idea of a Uniform Civil Code relate to the fundamental right to religion?

    • Article 25 lays down an individual’s fundamental right to religion;
    • Article 26(b) upholds the right of each religious denomination or any section thereof to “manage its own affairs in matters of religion”;
    • Article 29 defines the right to conserve distinctive culture.
    • An individual’s freedom of religion under Article 25 is subject to “public order, health, morality” and other provisions relating to FRs, but a group’s freedom under Article 26 has not been subjected to other fundamental rights
    • In the Constituent Assembly, there was division on the issue of putting UCC in the fundamental rights chapter. The matter was settled by a vote.
    • By a 5:4 majority, the fundamental rights sub-committee headed by Sardar Patel held that the provision was outside the scope of FRs and therefore the UCC was made less important than freedom of religion.

    Minority opinion in the Constituent Assembly

    • Some members sought to immunize Muslim Personal Law from state regulation.
    • Mohammed Ismail, who thrice tried unsuccessfully to get Muslim Personal Law exempted from Article 44, said a secular state should not interfere with the personal law of people.
    • B Pocker Saheb said he had received representations against a common civil code from various organisations, including Hindu organisations.
    • Hussain Imam questioned whether there could ever be uniformity of personal laws in a diverse country like India.
    • B R Ambedkar said, “no government can use its provisions in a way that would force the Muslims to revolt”.
    • Alladi Krishnaswami, who was in favour of a UCC, conceded that it would be unwise to enact UCC ignoring strong opposition from any community.
    • Gender justice was never discussed in these debates.

    How did the debate on a common code for Hindus play out?

    • In June 1948, Rajendra Prasad, President of the Constituent Assembly, warned Nehru that to introduce “basic changes” in personal law was to impose “progressive ideas” of a “microscopic minority” on the Hindu community as a whole.
    • Others opposed to reforms in Hindu law included Sardar Patel, Pattabhi Sitaramayya, M A Ayyangar, M M Malaviya and Kailash Nath Katju.
    • When the debate on the Hindu Code Bill took place in December 1949, 23 of 28 speakers opposed it.
    • On September 15, 1951, President Prasad threatened to use his powers of returning the Bill to Parliament or vetoing it. Ambedkar eventually had to resign.
    • Nehru agreed to trifurcation of the Code into separate Acts and diluted several provisions.

  • SC bats for women officers in Army

    The Supreme Court has held that the Army’s “selective” evaluation process discriminates against and disproportionately affects women short service commission officers seeking a permanent commission.

    Must read

    [Burning Issue] Women in Armed Forces

    What did the Court say?

    • The Court held the view that the evaluation criteria set by the Army constituted systemic discrimination against the petitioners (women officers).
    • The evaluation pattern of women officers has caused them economic and psychological harm.
    • In a series of directions, the court ordered that the cases of women officers who have applied for the permanent commission should be reconsidered in a month and the decision on them should be given in two months.

    Asks for permanent commission

    • They would be considered for permanent commission subject to disciplinary and vigilance clearance.
    • The court said physical standards should be kept at a premium during selection.
    • The court highlighted how one of the Army’s “administrative requirements” was to benchmark women officers, under consideration for permanent commission, with male officers who are lowest in merit.
    • This is arbitrary and irrational, said Justice Chandrachud.

  • Orunudoi Scheme

    Ahead of the Assam Assembly elections, the Orunudoi scheme, with women as its primary target group, is the most popular.

    There can be confusion from the name of the scheme.

    Orunudoi Scheme

    • Through Orunodoi — announced in the 2020-21 Budget — monthly assistance of Rs 830 is transferred to women members of marginalised families of Assam.
    • On account of being a DBT, or a Direct Benefit Transfer scheme, the money is credited directly to the bank account of the woman head of a family because they are primary caretakers of the household.
    • The scheme gives a choice to the poor and needy households on how they want to spend their money.

    Eligibility criteria

    • The applicant, a woman, has to be a permanent resident of Assam, whose composite household income should be less than Rs 2 lakh per annum.
    • Families with specially-abled members and divorced/widowed/separated /unmarried women are prioritized.
    • Poorer families, those without the National Food Security Act (NFSA) or ration cards, are also given priority.

  • Places of Worship Act, 1991

    The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to respond to a plea challenging the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. The court has opened the doors for litigation in various places of worship across the country including Mathura and Varanasi.

    Take this ‘wonderful’ question from CS Mains 2019:

    Q.What are the challenges to our cultural practices in the name of secularism?

    Places of Worship Act, 1991

    • It was passed in 1991 by the P V Narasimha Rao-led government.
    • The law seeks to maintain the “religious character” of places of worship as it was in 1947 — except in the case of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, which was already in court.
    • The law was brought in at the peak of the Ram Mandir movement, exactly a year before the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
    • Introducing the law, then Home Minister S B Chavan said in Parliament that it was adopted to curb communal tension.

    What are its provisions?

    The objective of the law describes it as an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship.

    • It aims to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.
    • Sections 3 and 4 of the Act declared that the religious character of a place of worship shall continue to be the same as it was on August 15, 1947.
    • No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination into one of a different denomination or section.
    • Section 4(2) says that all suits, appeals or others regarding converting the character of a place of worship, that was pending on August 15, 1947, will stand abated when the Act commences and no fresh proceedings can be filed.
    • However, legal proceedings can be initiated after the commencement of the Act if the change of status took place after the cut-off date of August 15, 1947.

    What does it say about Ayodhya, and what else is exempted?

    • Act does not to apply to Ram Janma Bhumi Babri Masjid.

    Besides the Ayodhya dispute, the Act also exempted:

    • any place of worship that is an ancient and historical monument or an archaeological site, or is covered by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958;
    • a suit that has been finally settled or disposed of;
    • any dispute that has been settled by the parties or conversion of any place that took place by acquiescence before the Act commenced.

    What has the Supreme Court said about the Act?

    • In the 2019 Ayodhya verdict, the Constitution Bench led by former CJI Ranjan Gogoi referred to the law and said it manifests the secular values of the Constitution and strictly prohibits retrogression.
    • In providing a guarantee for the preservation of the religious character of places, Parliament determined that independence from colonial rule furnishes a constitutional basis for healing the injustices of the past.
    • The law addresses itself to the State as much as to every citizen of the nation. Its norms bind those who govern the affairs of the nation at every level.
    • Those norms implement the Fundamental Duties under Article 51A and are hence positive mandates to every citizen as well.

    Why is the law under challenge?

    • A politician has challenged the law on the ground that violates secularism.
    • He has also argued that the cut-off date of August 15, 1947, is “arbitrary, irrational and retrospective” and prohibits Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and Sikhs from approaching courts to “reclaim” their places of worship.
    • Such places, he argued, were “invaded” and “encroached” upon by “fundamentalist barbaric invaders”.
    • The right-wing politicians have opposed the law even when it was introduced, arguing that the Centre has no power to legislate on “pilgrimages” or “burial grounds” which is under the state list.
    • Another criticism against the law is that the cut-off is the date of Independence, which means that the status quo determined by a colonial power is considered final.

  • How to grow better colleges

    The article highlights the important role students can play in improving the quality of colleges and institution in India.

    Improving the colleges

    • The global QS ranking is out and India has 12 universities and institutions in the top-100 in particular subjects.
    • We have many colleges offering higher education but typically they are not very good.
    • Today, with a huge number of students going to college, education is tied strongly to career prospects.
    • If studying and thinking harder do not lead to even a decent chance of career improvement, it is natural for most students to lose academic ambition.

    Career prospects in various colleges

    • For admission in IIT, many work extremely hard to secure admission, but then lose motivation and drift towards near-certain graduation.
    • IIT admission is a value signal to future employers who do not see much relevance in the actual syllabus.
    • The entry wall is high, the exit wall is low, and the four-year syllabus is an obstacle course between the student and an employer with whom eye contact was made from atop the entry wall itself.
    • Students of varied subjects thus remain uninterested in their core syllabi.
    • Lower-ranked colleges may attract a slightly different mix of employment prospects, some in core areas.
    • In many colleges, both good and bad ones, high grades correlate only loosely with career outcomes. 

    Improving the college

    • Very few jobs actually require the highest quality education — the best academic and research jobs.
    • In such a system, it may not be worthwhile or even practical for a mediocre college to unilaterally improve itself.
    • Having improved, it remains to convince society that it deserves to displace the pre-eminent colleges at the top.
    • For lower-ranking colleges to improve itself, its students must first see useful value in a better education.
    • That requires system-wide growth in opportunity.

    How to achieve system-wide growth in opportunity

    • Such growth cannot be legislated from above. It must occur organically, from below.
    • There are several stakeholders involved in such transition.
    • 1) At the top are policymakers.
    • Policymakers are trying and have achieved many things.
    • In recent years, however, our demographics have caught up with us.
    • We have more than 650 million people under age 25.
    • No other country is close. We need more than policies.
    • 2) Next is industry. It faces a learning curve for technology.
    • Countries that wish to lead must develop their own technology, even at high cost.
    • Indian industry can often choose between importing slightly older technology from outside or developing things in-house.
    • A slow growth in the latter has begun and may pull our college system upward over time.
    • 3) Our next stakeholders are college teachers.
    • For a college to flourish, it needs many students who compete to enroll.
    • Our entrance exams for good engineering colleges are hard.
    • Our nationally renowned degree colleges which admit based on board marks are frequently forced to set very high cutoffs.
    • The need for more engineering colleges, for many students who are clearly good enough, has led to the creation of several private colleges that teach well in large volumes.
    • Quality of teachers’ is improving.
    • College teachers improve as their employers aim higher, and as their students bring more into the classroom.
    • 4) Finally, we have students. If students demand better instruction, colleges will sooner or later supply it.

    Way forward for students

    • Students must aim to relate their learning to society.
    • They must see their learning not as an obstacle course but as an initiation into a process that yields tangible long-term value.
    • Indian society does not merely have people looking for work.
    • It also has work looking for people: Work in food, health, design, manufacturing, transport, safety, garbage, water, energy, farming, and a hundred other things that we can do better.
    • Room for improvement is plentiful, though the market models may not be efficient or mature yet.
    • The walls between our classrooms and our lives must be broken, if our colleges are to flourish.
    • In recent decades, India has also attracted much work from overseas. Growth in that direction may well be sustained.

    Consider the question “India has many colleges and institutions offering higher education but few could get the spot in the list of top global institutes. Examine the factors responsible for this. Suggest the measures to deal with this issue.”

    Conclusion

    Such change, driven by student aspirations, will be organic, bottom-up, and unstoppable.

  • National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP)

    The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development has slammed the Centre’s meagre pension allocations under National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP).

    What did the new report flag?

    • The panel slammed the government’s laxity in raising the amount, pointing out the recommendations to increase the sums.
    • It observed the meagre amount of assistance ranging from â‚č200 to â‚č500 per month under the different components of this Scheme.
    • The panel also flagged delays and statewide disparities in the payment of wages and unemployment allowances under the flagship MGNREGA scheme.

    NSAP

    • NSAP is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of the GoI that provides financial assistance to the elderly, widows and persons with disabilities in the form of social pensions.
    • It was launched on 15th August 1995.
    • The scheme represents a significant step towards the fulfilment of the Directive Principles in Article 41.
    • Article 41 of the Constitution of India directs the State to provide public assistance to its citizens in case of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement.
    • For getting benefits under NSAP the applicant must belong to a Below Poverty Line (BPL) family.

    Check this PYQ from CSP 2012:

    Q. Who among the following can join the National Pension System (NPS)?

    (a) Resident Indian citizens only

    (b) Persons of age from 21 to 55 only

    (c) All-State Government employees joining the services after the date of notification by the respective State Governments

    (d) All Central Governments Employees including those of Armed Forces joining the services on or after 1st April 2004

    Components of NSAP

    • The NSAP at its inception in 1995 had three components namely
    1. National Old Age Pension Scheme (NOAPS,
    2. National Family Benefit Scheme (NFBS) and
    3. National Maternity Benefit Scheme (NMBS).
    • The NMBS was subsequently transferred on 1st April 2001 from the Ministry of Rural Development to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    • On 1st April 2000, a new Scheme known as Annapurna Scheme was launched.
    • In February 2009, two new Schemes are known as Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme (IGNWPS) and Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme (IGNDPS) were introduced.

    Presently NSAP comprises of five schemes, namely –

    1. Indira Gandhi National Old Age Pension Scheme (IGNOAPS)
    2. Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme (IGNWPS)
    3. Indira Gandhi National Disability Pension Scheme (IGNDPS)
    4. National Family Benefit Scheme NFBS) and
    5. Annapurna