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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Social Justice

  • [25th Dcember 2025] The Hindu OpED: New labour codes, the threats to informal workers

    [UPSC 2024] Discuss the merits and demerits of the four ‘Labour Codes’ in the context of labour market reforms in India. What has been the progress so far in this regard?

    Linkage: This question directly falls under GS Paper III, Labour Reform, testing the ability to critically evaluate structural labour market reforms under liberalisation. The article on new labour codes provides concrete evidence on demerits which can be used to balance the “merits vs demerits” and assess reform progress.

    Introduction

    India enacted four labour codes in 2019-20 to consolidate existing labour laws relating to wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety. While projected as universalising worker welfare, the codes substantially marginalise unorganised workers, who constitute over 90% of India’s workforce and contribute nearly 65% of GDP. The article flags structural exclusions, regulatory dilution, and erosion of welfare institutions affecting informal labour across sectors.

    Why in the News

    The issue has gained prominence as States, including Tamil Nadu, deliberate on notifying rules under the Social Security Code. Unions and worker organisations have intensified opposition, citing first-time dismantling of long-standing welfare boards, dilution of inspection systems, and absence of funding guarantees. The transition marks a sharp departure from sector-specific, State-level welfare architectures built over decades.

    What are the new labour codes and how were they enacted?

    1. Legislative Consolidation: Replaced 29 labour laws with four codes covering wages, industrial relations, social security, and occupational safety.
    2. Consultative Deficit: Enacted without tripartite consultation at the Indian Labour Conference, violating established labour law-making practice.
    3. Coverage Gap: Unorganised workers excluded from consideration in three codes, except limited mention in the Social Security Code.

    How do the codes affect unorganised workers structurally?

    1. Workforce Magnitude: Unorganised workers constitute over 90% of India’s workforce and generate 65% of GDP.
    2. Policy Blindness: Codes assume uniform work conditions, ignoring sectoral diversity across agriculture, construction, salt pans, beedi, mining, and domestic work.
    3. Legal Erasure: Repeal of sector-specific laws removes tailored protections evolved over decades.

    How does consolidation weaken occupational safety and health?

    1. Regulatory Dilution: Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (OSHWC) Code replaces site-based inspections with process-based systems.
    2. Safety Deficit: Absence of nearly 180 safety rules earlier applicable to construction sites under BOCW Act.
    3. International Violation: Contravenes ILO Convention 81, ratified by India, mandating effective labour inspections.

    Why are occupational diseases inadequately addressed?

      1. Sectoral Health Risks:
    • Construction: High prevalence of silicosis.
    • Agriculture: Cancer linked to pesticide exposure.
    • Salt Work: Chronic eye, skin, and kidney diseases.
    1. Institutional Gap: OSHWC Code ignores diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation obligations.
    2. Convention Breach: Violates ILO Convention 161, which mandates national occupational health services.

    How does the Social Security Code undermine welfare boards?

    1. Institutional Replacement: Creates a single national welfare board with no sectoral differentiation.
    2. Board Dissolution Risk: Threatens dissolution of 39 State-level welfare boards in Tamil Nadu.
    3. Benefit Loss: Eliminates protections such as old-age pensions, maternity assistance, and education support for workers’ children.

    What are the funding-related risks under the new framework?

    1. Cess Abolition: Removes sector-specific cesses (beedi, salt, mining) without replacement revenue.
    2. Funding Uncertainty: No guaranteed employer contribution for welfare funds.
    3. Unutilised Corpus: Centralised e-Shram registration may allow Centre to access nearly ₹11 lakh crore in unspent welfare funds, especially from construction sector.

    How have States responded to these changes?

    1. Legislative Resistance: Andhra Pradesh shut down welfare boards post-codes.
    2. Institutional Strength: Tamil Nadu retains strong welfare architecture under the Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Act, 1982.
    3. Worker Coverage: Approximately 3 crore informal workers registered across welfare boards in Tamil Nadu.

    What needs to be done?

    1. Institutional Protection: Preserve State-level welfare boards and sector-specific laws.
    2. Fiscal Safeguards: Retain saving clauses for welfare funds and statutory cesses.
    3. Legislative Resistance: Refuse notification of rules under the codes, as done by Kerala and Tamil Nadu.
    4. Welfare Continuity: Strengthen existing State welfare infrastructure instead of centralisation.

    Conclusion

    The four labour codes mark a significant shift in India’s labour market architecture by prioritising consolidation, flexibility, and ease of compliance. However, as highlighted in the article, this reform has simultaneously weakened occupational safety regimes, dismantled sector-specific welfare institutions, and left unorganised workers, who form the backbone of the economy, without assured social security or funding guarantees. Unless States retain and strengthen existing welfare boards, inspection mechanisms, and financing arrangements, labour market reforms risk deepening informality and inequality rather than enabling inclusive and sustainable growth.

  • [24th December 2025] The Hindu OpED: The VB-G RAM G Act 2025 fixes structural gaps

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] Most of the unemployment in India is structural in nature. Examine the methodology adopted to compute unemployment in the country and suggest improvements.

    Linkage: The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 directly addresses structural unemployment and episodic employment by strengthening the statutory employment guarantee. The Act’s emphasis on advance planning, enhanced person-days, and timely payments responds to long-standing concerns over the mitigation of rural unemployment.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The enactment of the Viksit Bharat-Guarantee for Rozgar and Aajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, 2025 marks a decisive recalibration of India’s rural employment guarantee framework. Amid debates on fiscal withdrawal, centralisation, and dilution of rights, this article examines how the Act addresses long-standing structural and implementation gaps in MGNREGA while preserving its legal core.

    Introduction

    The President’s assent to the VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 enhances the statutory rural employment guarantee from 100 to 125 days. Contrary to claims of dilution, the Act seeks to correct fragmentation, weak enforceability, episodic employment, and accountability deficits that emerged during earlier phases of implementation.

    Reframing Welfare and Development as Complementary

    1. Conceptual Continuum: Treats income support, asset creation, agricultural stability, and long-term rural productivity as interlinked outcomes rather than competing objectives.
    2. Statutory Anchoring: Retains the justiciable right to employment while strengthening enforceability through procedural reforms.
    3. Design Philosophy: Embeds welfare delivery within durable infrastructure creation and productivity enhancement.

    Expansion and Strengthening of Legal Entitlements

    1. Enhanced Employment Guarantee: Expands guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, reversing stagnation in entitlements.
    2. Removal of Dilutionary Provisions: Eliminates procedural disincentives that earlier nullified unemployment allowance in practice.
    3. Grievance Redressal: Reinforces time-bound grievance mechanisms to address delayed payments and denial of work.

    Institutionalisation of Demand-Based Employment

    1. Worker-Centric Demand: Preserves demand-based employment generation, ensuring work availability when demanded rather than post-distress.
    2. Advance Planning: Anchors employment planning at the village level, preventing administrative denial of work.
    3. Operational Efficiency: Transforms planning into a facilitative tool rather than a demand-suppressing mechanism.

    Correcting Fragmentation through Coordinated Decentralisation

    1. Gram Panchayat Primacy: Retains gram panchayats as primary planning and implementing authorities with approval powers over local plans.
    2. Vertical Integration: Aggregates village plans at block, district, and state levels to enable inter-sectoral convergence.
    3. Decision Authority: Centralises coherence without centralising execution, correcting fragmentation while preserving decentralisation.

    Fiscal Architecture and Equity-Based Allocation

    1. Budgetary Expansion: Increases allocations from ₹33,000 crore (2013-14) to ₹86,000 crore (2024-25).
    2. Enhanced Central Contribution: Raises the Centre’s share from ₹86,000 crore to nearly ₹95,000 crore, countering claims of withdrawal.
    3. Funding Model: 60:40 Centre-State structure for general states; accords 90:10 for northeastern, Himalayan states and Jammu & Kashmir.
    4. Normative Allocation: Ensures equity through rule-based state-wise allocations determined by objective parameters.

    Improved Delivery Outcomes and Financial Inclusion

    1. Person-Days Generated: Increases from 1,660 crore (pre-2014) to 3,210 crore, stabilising thereafter.
    2. Completed Works: Expands completed assets from 153 lakh to 862 lakh, addressing episodic employment
    3. Women’s Participation: Rises from 48% to 56.73%, strengthening gender inclusion.
    4. Payment Efficiency: Achieves 99% on-time fund transfers; links nearly all active workers to Aadhaar Payment Bridge.

    Addressing Structural Weaknesses of the Earlier Framework

    1. Episodic Employment: Reduces migration-driven spikes and post-crisis employment volatility.
    2. Weak Enforceability: Strengthens legal backing of unemployment allowance.
    3. Leakages: Addresses duplication, ghost entries, and fake job cards through digital governance systems.
    4. Crisis Resilience: Incorporates flexibility to respond to disruptions such as COVID-19.

    Contextual Flexibility within Cooperative Federalism

    1. Advance Notification: Empowers states to notify employment periods aggregating up to 60 days aligned with agricultural lean seasons.
    2. Local Customisation: Allows differentiated notification at district, block, or gram panchayat level based on agro-climatic conditions.
    3. Disaster Response: Permits temporary expansion of permissible works and employment during natural disasters.

    Lessons from the previous Governance and Fiscal Failures

    1. Wage Stagnation: Caps wages at ₹100 per day from 2009 despite inflation, undermining real income security.
    2. Allocation Cuts: Reduces allocations from ₹40,000 crore (2010-11) to ₹33,000 crore (2012-13) amid rising demand.
    3. Employment Decline: Falls from 7.55 crore workers (2010-11) to 6.93 crore (2013).
    4. CAG Findings (2013): Highlights 4.33 lakh fake job cards, unpaid wages, delayed payments, and misuse of funds across states.

    Conclusion

    The VB-G RAM G Act, 2025 represents a calibrated structural renewal of India’s rural employment guarantee framework rather than a retreat from welfare commitments. By expanding legal entitlements, correcting fiscal and governance distortions, institutionalising decentralised planning, and improving delivery outcomes, the Act addresses the core weaknesses revealed through years of implementation experience. In doing so, it reinforces the employment guarantee as a legally enforceable instrument of inclusive growth, rural stability, and cooperative federalism, aligned with both constitutional intent and evolving development priorities.

  • FSSAI Egg Safety Drive 

    Why in the News?

    • FSSAI launched a nationwide egg safety drive. Triggered by allegations of nitrofurans residues in eggs

    Regulatory Authority

    • Food Safety and Standards Authority of India
     • Regulates manufacture, storage, distribution, sale, and import of food

    Trigger for Action

    • Viral social media video alleging nitrofurans in Eggoz eggs
     • Raised public health concerns

    Action by FSSAI

    • Directed Food Safety Officers to collect samples
     • Sampling of branded and unbranded eggs
     • Testing in 10 FSSAI laboratories across India

    About Nitrofurans

    • Synthetic antibiotics
     • Banned in food producing animals
     • Residues may occur due to illegal veterinary use
     • Linked to carcinogenic risk

    International Context

    • European Union has banned nitrofurans in food producing animals

    Company Response

    • Eggoz assured consumer safety
     • Committed to publishing lab reports publicly
     • Reaffirmed compliance with food safety norms

    Public Health Significance

    • Strengthens food safety surveillance
     • Protects consumer health
     • Addresses risks of antibiotic residues and AMR

    Prelims Pointers

    • FSSAI functions under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006
     • Eggs are animal origin food products
     • Antibiotic residue monitoring is part of food safety regulation

    In India, the use of carbofuran, methyl parathion, phorate and triazophos is viewed with apprehension. These chemicals are used as (2019)

    (a) pesticides in agriculture 

    (b) preservatives in processed foods 

    (c) fruit-ripening agents 

    (d) moisturising agents in cosmetics

  • 20yrs on, a radical revamp of the rural jobs framework

    Introduction

    Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), enacted in 2005, institutionalised a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment for rural households and became the backbone of India’s rural safety net. Over two decades, it generated billions of person-days of work and served as a counter-cyclical buffer during economic shocks. The proposed Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) or VB-G RAM G Bill seeks to replace this framework with a restructured employment model, redefining work guarantees, funding patterns, and state responsibilities. The transition reflects a deeper policy shift from entitlement-based welfare to administratively calibrated employment provisioning.

    Why This Policy Shift Matters Now

    The proposed overhaul comes at a time when official data reveals a steady decline in MGNREGA employment intensity despite rising budgetary allocations. Average days of employment per household fell from 51.52 days in 2020-21 to 35.52 days in 2025-26, while the total individuals who worked declined from 11.19 crore to 6.25 crore during the same period. This disconnect between expenditure and employment outcomes, coupled with persistent wage arrears and fiscal pressures on the Centre, has prompted a rethinking of the rural employment guarantee framework for the first time since its inception.

    A Gradual Decline in Employment Outcomes

    1. Average employment days: Declined from 51.52 (2020-21) to 35.52 (2025-26) per household.
    2. Households completing 100 days: Reduced from 7.19 lakh to 4.74 lakh, indicating shrinking access to full entitlements.
    3. Total individuals employed: Fell sharply from 11.19 crore to 6.25 crore, despite higher nominal allocations.
    4. Average wage per person: Increased from ₹200.77 to ₹266.98, reflecting inflation adjustment rather than employment expansion.
    5. Expenditure trend: Actual spending rose even as person-days stagnated, indicating cost pressures rather than job creation.

    Redefining the Employment Guarantee

    1. Household entitlement: Retains 100 days per household, but limits the scope for extended employment.
    2. Individual eligibility: Introduces a cap of 125 days per individual, reducing flexibility for households with high dependency on wage labour.
    3. Expanded discretionary employment: Allows additional 50 days only under specific conditions such as SC/ST households, disaster-hit areas, or drought-affected regions.
    4. Shift in legal framing: Weakens the justiciable right to work by increasing administrative discretion in work allocation.

    Restructuring the Funding Architecture

    1. Centre’s responsibility: Continues to pay full unskilled wages.
    2. States’ responsibility: Bear full material costs and a share of skilled wages, increasing fiscal pressure on state budgets.
    3. Fiscal implications: States face higher upfront expenditure at a time of shrinking fiscal space and competing welfare commitments.
      1. The proposed framework shifts rural employment financing to a CSS-like structure, 60:40 for most states, 90:10 for NE and Himalayan states, and 100% Central funding for UTs without legislatures, marking a departure from MGNREGA’s earlier wage-centric Central funding.

    Normative Allocation and Centralised Control

    1. Normative allocation: Replaces demand-driven funding with pre-determined allocations decided by the Centre.
    2. Objective criteria: Allocation based on labour budgets, past expenditure, and agricultural calendars.
    3. Reduced state autonomy: States lose flexibility to respond to local employment demand spikes.
    4. Administrative oversight: Central government gains greater control over expenditure approvals and fund releases.

    Seasonal Pauses in Employment

    1. Pause during peak agricultural seasons: Introduces a 60-day pause during sowing and harvesting periods.
    2. Rationale: Ensures adequate agricultural labour availability.
    3. Regional variation: Agricultural calendars differ across states, making uniform pauses administratively complex.
    4. Impact: Reduces income smoothing for landless labourers dependent on continuous wage employment.

    Shift in Governance and Panchayat Role

    1. Gram Panchayat function: Continues as the primary implementing agency.
    2. Planning structure: Integrates Panchayat plans into larger district and state labour plans.
    3. Administrative layering: Adds oversight mechanisms, reducing Panchayat-level autonomy in work selection and execution.
    4. Accountability shift: Moves from citizen-driven demand to bureaucratic allocation.

    Budgetary Implications

    1. FY 2025-26 allocation: ₹86,000 crore for rural employment.
    2. Administrative and material costs: Estimated at ₹1.51 lakh crore including state share.
    3. Cost pressures: Rising wages and material expenses increase fiscal stress without proportional employment gains.

    Conclusion

    The proposed overhaul of the rural employment framework marks a decisive shift from MGNREGA’s rights-based, demand-driven architecture to a fiscally calibrated, centrally managed scheme. By introducing normative allocations, CSS-style funding ratios, and tighter limits on employment days, the reform prioritises expenditure control and administrative predictability over employment assurance. While this may ease Central fiscal pressures, it risks weakening the role of rural employment as a social safety net, making the success of the new framework contingent on states’ fiscal capacity and the Centre’s willingness to balance efficiency with inclusion.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Examine the pattern and trend of public expenditure on social services in the post-reforms period in India. To what extent this has been in consonance with achieving the objective of inclusive growth?

    Linkage: The question examines whether social-sector spending translates into inclusive growth. The article shows this gap through rising allocations but declining MGNREGA employment outcomes.

  • [10th December 2025] The Hindu OpED: Charting an agenda on the right to health

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021]“Besides being a moral imperative of a Welfare State, primary health structure is a necessary precondition for sustainable development.” Analyse. 

    Linkage: This question is relevant to GS II (Social Justice – Health) as it focuses on the state’s welfare responsibility through primary healthcare. It links to the right to health and sustainable development, highlighting the need for strong public health systems over market-led models.

    Mentor’s Comment

    This article analyses the National Convention on Health Rights and its significance in reframing health care as a rights-based public good. It highlights systemic failures in public health financing, privatisation-driven inequities, medicine access barriers, and workforce distress, while foregrounding the demand for a legally enforceable right to health in India.

    Why in the News

    The National Convention on Health Rights (December 11-12) is being held in New Delhi, coinciding with Human Rights Day and Universal Health Coverage Day, bringing together 400+ health professionals, community leaders, and activists from over 20 states. It is significant as it attempts a post-COVID national reset of India’s health policy discourse, challenging the long-standing trend of commercialisation and privatisation of health care. The convention highlights a stark contradiction: while health crises have intensified, public health spending remains at just 2% of the Union Budget, with per capita public spending at only ₹25 per day, forcing households into high out-of-pocket expenditure. The event is notable for explicitly framing health as a justiciable right, not merely a welfare objective.

    Introduction

    India’s health system stands at a crossroads where rising private sector dominance, weak public provisioning, and inequitable access coexist with constitutional commitments to dignity and equality. The National Convention on Health Rights seeks to reclaim health care as a public responsibility by addressing structural distortions exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic and by proposing an alternative rights-based framework.

    Privatisation and the Erosion of Public Health Systems

    1. Privatisation of Services: Expansion of public-private partnerships has transferred medical colleges and health facilities to private entities, weakening public capacity and oversight.
    2. Cost Escalation: Commercial health care has made treatment unaffordable for large sections dependent on public provisioning.
    3. Regional Resistance: Movements in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat highlight citizen-led opposition to health sector privatisation.
    4. Regulatory Gaps: The Clinical Establishments Act, 2010 remains weakly implemented, allowing opaque pricing and unnecessary medical procedures, including excessive caesarean sections.

    Inadequate Public Financing and Insurance-Centric Models

    1. Budgetary Allocation: Public health receives only 2% of the Union Budget, insufficient for universal access.
    2. Out-of-Pocket Expenditure: Low public spending results in high household health costs, deepening poverty.
    3. Insurance Dependence: Government-sponsored insurance schemes prioritise hospitalisation rather than preventive and primary care.
    4. Structural Limitation: Insurance-based models fail to strengthen health systems or reduce systemic inequities.

    Health Workforce Crisis and Structural Injustice

    1. Pandemic Exposure: COVID-19 highlighted the indispensable role of doctors, nurses, paramedics, and support staff.
    2. Workplace Insecurity: Health workers face inadequate social security, unsafe working conditions, and poor remuneration.
    3. Justice Deficit: The convention stresses the absence of legal and institutional mechanisms to protect health workers’ rights.
    4. Systemic Link: Workforce distress directly undermines service quality and system resilience.

    Access to Medicines and Regulatory Barriers

    1. Household Burden: Medicines constitute nearly 50% of household medical spending, making them the most significant cost driver.
    2. Market Distortions: Irrational fixed-dose combinations, unethical marketing, and high retail mark-ups inflate prices.
    3. Policy Barriers: Patent regimes, regulatory gaps, and GST on medicines limit affordability.
    4. Public Manufacturing: Strengthening public sector drug production is identified as critical for universal access.

    Social Discrimination and Health Inequities

    1. Structural Exclusion: Caste, gender, disability, and sexuality shape access to health care.
    2. Marginalised Groups: Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, LGBTQ+ persons, persons with disabilities, and those living with HIV face systemic discrimination.
    3. Intersectional Determinants: Food security, environmental pollution, and climate change exacerbate health vulnerabilities.
    4. Rights Framework: Non-discrimination is positioned as central to the right to health.

    Reimagining Health Care as a Fundamental Right

    1. Public Provisioning: Emphasis on strong, decentralised, community-led public health systems.
    2. Participatory Governance: Inclusive planning and local accountability mechanisms strengthen service delivery.
    3. Legal Anchoring: Health care framed as an enforceable fundamental right rather than a discretionary policy choice.
    4. Political Engagement: Parliamentary dialogue sought to translate convention outcomes into policy reform.

    Conclusion

    The National Convention on Health Rights articulates a coherent alternative to market-driven health care by grounding access, affordability, and equity within a rights-based public framework. It reinforces the principle that health systems must serve people rather than profits.

  • Care as disability justice, dignity in mental health

    Introduction

    Mental health systems globally and in India continue to prioritise biomedical treatment and functional integration. They often overlook lived experiences of distress, social exclusion, and structural vulnerability. There is a need for a fundamental shift: from care as a technical service to care as disability justice, grounded in dignity, equity, and relational accountability.

    Reframing Mental Health Care Beyond Treatment

    1. Dignity-Centred Care: Positions dignity, rather than cure or productivity, as the primary objective of mental health systems.
    2. Disability Justice Lens: Recognises mental illness as shaped by intersecting social, economic, and political structures.
    3. Relational Accountability: Frames care as embedded in relationships, not limited to institutional or clinical settings.

    Limits of Dominant Psychosocial Disability Models

    1. Productivity Bias: Prioritises economic functionality and independence as markers of recovery.
    2. Reductionist Integration: Treats community inclusion as an end-state without addressing exclusionary social norms.
    3. Invisible Chronic Distress: Marginalises individuals whose suffering does not conform to biomedical recovery trajectories.

    Structural Determinants of Mental Distress

    1. Material Deprivation: Highlights housing insecurity, income precarity, and food scarcity as persistent stressors.
    2. Social Abandonment: Identifies shame, rejection, and relational breakdown as under-recognised drivers of distress.
    3. Political and Cultural Loss: Notes erosion of cultural meaning, safety nets, and social identity as contributory factors.

    Multiplicity of Explanations for Mental Illness

    1. Biological Factors: Includes neurotransmitter alterations and inflammatory markers.
    2. Psychological Factors: Covers trauma, grief, and interpersonal loss.
    3. Socio-Structural Factors: Integrates caste, gender, class, and institutional neglect into causation analysis.
    4. Intersectionality: Emphasises overlapping vulnerabilities rather than single-cause explanations.

    Care as Relational and Material Practice

    1. Everyday Care Practices: Includes shelter, nutrition, social connection, and safety as therapeutic.
    2. Non-Linear Recovery: Rejects uniform timelines and outcome metrics.
    3. Shared Responsibility: Frames care as a collective moral obligation rather than individual compliance.

    Justice-Oriented Mental Health Engagement

    1. Recognition of Harm: Acknowledges that distress often arises from unjust social arrangements.
    2. Ethical Accountability: Asks what society owes to those it has marginalised.
    3. Transformative Focus: Shifts emphasis from symptom management to social repair.

    Implications for Education, Research, and Practice

    1. Curricular Reorientation: Calls for training that values lived experience and contextual care.
    2. Practice Diversity: Recognises non-specialist and community-based care providers.
    3. Interdisciplinary Learning: Supports integration of social theory, ethics, and practice.
    4. Systemic Support: Emphasises that professional competence requires institutional backing, not credentials alone.

    Conclusion

    Mental health care must be reimagined as an ethical, relational, and justice-oriented practice rather than a narrowly clinical intervention. By centering dignity and disability justice, the article calls for a paradigm shift that recognises suffering as socially produced and care as a shared societal responsibility.

    Mental Health in India

    1. About 10.6% of Indian adults, roughly 11 out of every 100 adults, were living with a diagnosable mental health disorder, according to a 2015-16 National Mental Health Survey (NMHS) conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS).
    2. The survey also revealed:
      1. 15% of India’s adult population experiences mental health issues requiring intervention
      2. The lifetime prevalence of mental disorders was 13.7%, indicating that around 14 out of every 100 people in India have experienced a mental disorder at some point in their lives
      3. Mental health disorders are more prevalent in urban areas (13.5%), compared to rural areas (6.9%).

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] In a crucial domain like the public healthcare system, the Indian State should play a vital role to contain the adverse impact of marketisation of the system. Suggest measures through which the State can enhance the reach of public healthcare at the grassroots level.

    Linkage: The article directly links to GS-II (Social Justice, Health) by highlighting the limitations of market-centric and outcome-driven public healthcare in addressing mental health and disability. It also enriches GS-IV by framing mental health care as an ethical obligation grounded in dignity, compassion, and justice rather than mere service delivery.

  • Measles  

    Why in the News?

    • According to recent global health reports, measles caused approximately 95,000 deaths in 2024, despite the presence of a highly effective vaccine.
    • Most deaths occurred among unvaccinated children under five, highlighting concerns about declining immunization coverage, vaccine hesitancy, and disruptions in routine immunization services in several regions.
    • The spike has raised alarms globally, making measles a significant public health priority in 2025.

    About Measles

    • Type: Highly contagious airborne viral disease.
    • Causative Agent: Measles virus (family Paramyxoviridae, genus Morbillivirus).
    • Severity: Can lead to pneumonia, encephalitis, blindness, and death.

    Who Is at Risk?

    • Any non-immune person.
    • Higher risk:
      • Unvaccinated young children
      • Pregnant persons
    • Common in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.

    Treatment

    • No specific antiviral treatment.
    • Management is supportive (hydration, fever control, nutrition, monitoring complications).

    Prevention

    • Measles-Rubella (MR) vaccine offers long-term protection.
    • India:
      • Measles vaccine included in Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) in 1985.
      • Ongoing campaigns aim to eliminate measles and rubella.

    UPSC Prelims Pointers

    • Measles virus → Paramyxoviridae.
    • Virus survives 2 hours in air/surfaces → high transmission.
    • No antiviral; vaccine is key preventive tool.
    • Koplik spots → diagnostic hallmark.
    • India introduced measles vaccine in Universal Immunization Programme (UIP) → 1985.
    • Recent spike in global deaths makes measles a current affairs hotspot.
    HINI virus is sometimes mentioned in the news with reference to which one of the following diseases? (2015)

    (a) AIDS 

    (b) Bird flu 

    (c) Dengue 

    (d) Swine flu

  • Shingles Disease 

    Why in the news?

    A recent large study shows that shingles vaccination can reduce the risk of death from dementia and may help slow disease progression.

    What is Shingles

    • A viral infection characterized by a painful rash
    • Causative agent: Varicella zoster virus (VZV)
      • Same virus responsible for chickenpox
      • Remains latent in nerve cells after recovery from chickenpox
      • Can reactivate later in life

    Transmission

    • Shingles itself is not contagious
    • But the virus can spread to people without prior immunity, causing chickenpox (not shingles)

    Symptoms

    • Cluster of blisters appearing in a band-like pattern on one side of the body (typically torso, neck, or face)
    • Pain, burning, tingling sensation
    • Fever, fatigue, headache
    • Can lead to post-herpetic neuralgia (long-term nerve pain)
    HINI virus is sometimes mentioned in the news with reference to which one of the following diseases? (2015)

    (a) AIDS 

    (b) Bird flu 

    (c) Dengue 

    (d) Swine flu

  • Ultra-Processed Food Epidemic in India

    Why in the news?

    A recent Lancet three-paper series highlights the rapid rise in ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption globally, including India, and its strong link to rising obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and premature mortality. The case of an 18-year-old Indian youth with obesity and early-onset metabolic disorders illustrates the growing public health crisis.

    What are Ultra-Processed Foods?

    According to the NOVA classification, ultra-processed foods are:

    • Industrial formulations with multiple chemical and cosmetic ingredients
    • Made using high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, flavour enhancers, emulsifiers, preservatives, colours
    • Designed for long shelf life, hyper-palatable taste and convenience
      Examples: Soft drinks, chips, packaged noodles, biscuits, sugary beverages, chocolates, breakfast cereals, frozen pizzas, ready-to-heat meals, chicken nuggets, processed meats.

    Difference from Processed Foods:
     Processed = minimal changes (washing, canning, cooking).
     Ultra-processed = heavy industrial formulations, low nutrients, high calories.

    Note: NOVA is a food classification system developed by the University of São Paulo (Brazil) that categorises foods based on the extent and purpose of industrial processing, not nutrients.

    India’s UPF Consumption – Why It’s a Concern?

    • Huge surge in consumption: Retail sales of UPFs in India jumped from USD 0.9 billion (2006) → USD 38 billion (2019) (approx. 40-fold increase).
    • Rising NCD (Non-Communicable Diseases) burden: As per ICMR–INDIAB (2023): Obesity: 28.6%, Diabetes: 11.4%, Prediabetes: 15.3%, Abdominal obesity: 39.5% and Childhood obesity rising: 2.1% → 3.4% (NFHS).
    A company marketing food products advertises that its items do not contain trans-fats. What does this campaign signify to the customers? (2011)

    1. The food products are not made out of hydrogenated oils. 

    2. The food products are not made out of animal fats/oils. 

    3. The oils used are not likely to damage the cardiovascular health of the consumers. 

    Select the correct answer using the code given below: 

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

  • 2.25 Crore Ineligible Beneficiaries removed  from Free Ration Scheme

    Why in the News?

    About 2.25 crore ineligible people were removed from the NFSA free ration list in the past 4–5 months to ensure benefits reach only rightful beneficiaries.

    About Free Ration Scheme:

    • Foodgrain Allocation: The scheme provides 5 kg of free foodgrains (wheat or rice) per person per month to poor households for basic sustenance.
    • Criteria for Ineligibility: Ineligible individuals included those owning four-wheelers, earning above the income threshold, holding company directorships, or deceased persons.
    • Verification Process: The Centre identified suspect entries and shared them with States for verification and deletion.
    • Role of State Governments: States are responsible for identifying beneficiaries, issuing ration cards, and continuously updating lists.
    • Current Coverage: The scheme currently covers around 80.56 crore people, with scope to add about 0.79 crore more beneficiaries.
    • Ration Card & Distribution Network: India has over 19 crore ration card holders and around 5 lakh fair price shops.
    • Beneficiary Categories:
      • Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY): 35 kg per household per month
      • Priority Households (PHH): 5 kg per person per month

    About National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA):

    • Enactment: NFSA was signed into law on 12 September 2013, with effect from 5 July 2013.
    • Coverage Goal: It aims to provide subsidized food grains to about two-thirds of India’s population, covering 75% rural and 50% urban populations.
    • Legal Entitlements: It converts food security schemes into legal entitlements for eligible households.
    • Subsidized Prices: Mandated Targeted Public Distribution System prices:
      • Rice – ₹3/kg
      • Wheat – ₹2/kg
      • Coarse grains – ₹1/kg
    • Household Head Provision: The eldest woman aged 18 or above in a household is designated as the head for issuing ration cards.
    • Nutritional Support: Pregnant women, lactating mothers, and children (6 months–14 years) receive free meals under ICDS and Mid-Day Meal schemes.
    • Maternity Benefits: Pregnant and lactating women are entitled to a ₹6,000 maternity benefit, paid in installments.
    • Entitlements Under NFSA:
      • Priority Households: 5 kg foodgrains per person per month
      • AAY Households: 35 kg per month
      • Universal coverage of ICDS and Mid-Day Meals
    [UPSC 2018] With reference to the provisions made under the National Food Security Act, 2013, consider the following statements:

    1. The families coming under the category of ‘below poverty line (BPL)’ only are eligible to receive subsidies food grains.

    2. The eldest woman in a household, of age 18 years or above, shall be the head of the household for the purpose of issuance of a ration card.

    3. Pregnant women and lactating mothers are entitled to a ‘take-home ration’ of 1600 calories per day during pregnancy and for six months thereafter.

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