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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Transparency and Accountability

  • [8th December 2025] The Hindu OpED: Surveillance apps in welfare, snake oil for accountability

    UPSC RELEVANCE

    [UPSC 2023] E-governance, as a critical tool of governance, has ushered in effectiveness, transparency and accountability in governments. What inadequacies hamper the enhancement of these features?

    Linkage: This question links to GS-2 themes of e-governance, transparency, and accountability. The article’s examples of NMMS, Poshan Tracker, and PDS apps directly show how design flaws and exclusion hinder these very objectives.

    Mentor’s Comment

    Surveillance-driven governance is expanding rapidly across India’s welfare programmes. Mobile apps promising “real-time monitoring” and “perfect accountability” are being deployed at scale, often without adequate evidence, capacity, or safeguards. This article critically evaluates the growing reliance on tech fixes in welfare delivery. For UPSC aspirants, it offers an analytical understanding of digital governance, state capacity, accountability frameworks, and ethical concerns, key themes across GS-2 and GS-4.

    Introduction

    Digital tools entered India’s welfare architecture as instruments to modernise attendance, prevent leakages, and strengthen accountability. Over time, however, their use expanded without evaluating field conditions such as connectivity, device access, literacy, and administrative capacity. Surveillance apps have produced limited gains, created new exclusion risks, and shifted the burden of accountability onto frontline workers instead of programme designers and administrators.

    Why in the news

    Welfare programmes across India are increasingly mandating surveillance apps, ranging from biometric attendance to compulsory photo uploads, to improve accountability. But a series of recent failures, especially in schemes like the National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS) and the Poshan Tracker, has exposed deep flaws. For the first time, governments are publicly acknowledging that these apps are producing unreliable data, penalising genuine beneficiaries, and overburdening frontline workers.

    How did biometric attendance become a dominant tool in welfare programmes?

    1. Biometric punctuality enforcement: Introduced to ensure staff attendance; absenteeism led governments to mandate digital attendance, even threatening punitive action. Example: Block in Uttarakhand where nurses faced punishments for late biometric attendance.
    2. Competing administrative tasks: Conscientious officials stayed back late to complete computerised work, leading to poor next-day biometric compliance.
    3. Impact on health workers: In Rajasthan, RCT evidence showed biometric attendance increased absenteeism, not punctuality.
    4. MGNREGA experience: Wage expenditure tied to digital attendance meant workers paid for tasks they did not perform if supervisors manipulated records.

    Why did the National Mobile Monitoring System (NMMS) generate controversy?

    1. Mandatory photo uploads: Required two geotagged photos daily; failure resulted in wages withheld.
    2. Unrealistic conditions: Poor connectivity in remote areas made uploads impossible.
    3. Limited deterrence of fraud: The app could not confirm whether workers were present all day; supervisors were still able to manipulate attendance.
    4. Excessive burden on workers: Workers anxious about upload deadlines; many were forced to return to worksites simply to capture photos.

    How did the Poshan Tracker create disruptions in nutrition schemes?

    1. Mandatory recognition technology: Ministry required Face Recognition Technology (FRT) for THR pack distribution to children and mothers.
    2. Connectivity problems: Anganwadi worker in Haryana, crowd waiting; app warning: “those who want to eat will continue”, meaning refusal impossible.
    3. Risk of exclusion: Adivasi worker unable to upload photos; THR packs denied to her centre’s beneficiaries.
    4. Extra documentation: Ministry insisted FRT photos must match recorded photographs, adding further layers of control.

    How did ration distribution apps worsen inclusion errors for vulnerable households?

    1. App-based authentication: Some States required biometric or photograph-based verification for the full ration quota.
    2. Penalties for errors: In Jharkhand, uploaded photo mismatch led to partial ration denial.
    3. Burden on elderly/disabled beneficiaries: Those unable to stand for photographs or travel to ration shops lost access entirely.

    Do tech fixes improve accountability in welfare implementation?

    1. Accountability diversion: Apps target frontline workers (anganwadi workers, nurses, teachers) instead of programme designers who control budgets and logistics.
    2. Narrow definition of accountability: Focus limited to procedural compliance rather than service quality.
    3. Over-reliance on automation: Governments assume apps can “prove” honesty or dishonesty; instead, structural gaps remain untouched.
    4. Manipulation persists: Despite apps, fraud, delays, and ghost entries continue, because the administrative ecosystem, not workers, drives corruption patterns.

    Limited effect of tech surveillance

    1. User rejection: Nurses in several states stopped using apps mandated by NHM due to technical and workload issues.
    2. False confidence in data: Administrators felt the ANA tool provided proof of malnutrition despite underlying measurement problems.
    3. Infrastructure mismatch: Apps needed smartphones, servers, data connectivity, conditions often absent in rural welfare ecosystems.
    4. Shifting blame: When NMMS and Poshan Tracker failed, ministries blamed “misuse” instead of app design flaws.

    Accountability Without Capacity: A Flawed Approach

    1. Fragmented accountability: Failures frequently attributed to workers; rarely to poor programme design.
    2. Blame-shifting: Ministries argued NMMS failures were due to workers manipulating apps.
    3. Overproduction of technology: Industries push surveillance apps and governments adopt them without field-testing.
    4. Cost to welfare: Data obsession overshadows quality of service delivery, including nutrition, health outreach, and ration reliability.

    Conclusion

    Surveillance apps in welfare promise transparency but frequently deliver exclusion, burden frontline workers, and create a false sense of accountability. The article shows that technological solutions, when applied without understanding field realities, act like “snake oil”, seductive yet ineffective. Real accountability requires strengthening administrative capacity, improving worker conditions, and focusing on welfare outcomes rather than digital compliance rituals.

  • What is Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program?

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has ordered all States and Union Territories to remove stray dogs from public areas and relocate them to shelters after sterilisation and vaccination under the Animal Birth Control Rules, 2023.

    About Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program:

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

    Key Features:

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

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

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

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

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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

     

  • India AI: Governance Guidelines

    Introduction

    Artificial Intelligence has evolved from an assistive tool to an autonomous decision-maker, influencing governance, economy, security, and social life. Recognizing both its potential and perils, the Government of India, through MeitY’s drafting committee (July 2025), released the India AI Governance Guidelines.It is  rooted in the vision of “AI for All”. The framework aims to foster inclusive growth, innovation, and ethical use of AI, ensuring that India’s AI journey is safe, transparent, and globally credible.

    Why in the News

    For the first time, India has articulated a unified, principle-based framework on AI governance, a techno-legal and institutional roadmap aligning AI with constitutional values and national priorities. It promotes voluntary frameworks over strict regulation marking a shift from restraint to responsible innovation.

    What are the Core Principles Guiding India’s AI Governance?

    1. Seven Sutras: Trust, People First, Innovation over Restraint, Fairness & Equity, Accountability, Understandable by Design, Safety, Resilience & Sustainability. These are adapted from the RBI’s FREE-AI Committee report and designed to be sector-neutral and technology-agnostic.
    2. Trust as Foundation: Builds confidence in AI systems by ensuring transparency, safety, and ethical use.
    3. People First: Emphasizes human oversight and empowerment, preventing machine dominance.
    4. Innovation over Restraint: Encourages experimentation with accountability, not prohibition.
    5. Fairness & Equity: Prevents algorithmic discrimination and digital exclusion.

    How Does the Framework Promote AI Development and Infrastructure?

    1. Compute Expansion: Over 38,000 GPUs made available to startups and researchers at subsidized rates.
    2. AIKosh Data Platform: Houses 1,500 datasets and 217 models from 20 sectors, ensuring data accessibility with privacy.
    3. Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI): Combines Aadhaar, UPI, and Bhashini for scalable, low-cost AI deployment.
    4. MSME Enablement: AI-linked loans via SIDBI & Mudra, tax rebates for certified AI adoption, and starter packs for sectors like textiles and logistics.

    How Does India Address Risk and Regulation in AI?

    1. Balanced Regulation: No separate AI law yet existing laws (IT Act, DPDP Act, Copyright Act, etc.) govern AI harms.
    2. Key Risk Areas: Deepfakes, data poisoning, discrimination, loss of control, national security threats.
    3. India-specific Risk Framework: Classifies harms empirically and promotes voluntary, proportionate compliance.
    4. Content Authentication: Suggests watermarking and provenance tools aligned with global C2PA standards.

    How Will Institutions Enforce AI Safety and Accountability?

    1. AI Governance Group (AIGG): Apex inter-ministerial body chaired by the Principal Scientific Adviser, coordinating AI policy across ministries.
    2. Technology & Policy Expert Committee (TPEC): Offers domain expertise on law, data, security, and governance.
    3. AI Safety Institute (AISI): Anchors technical safety, risk research, and international collaborations like the Global Network of AI Safety Institutes.
    4. Accountability Measures:
      • Graded Liability System based on role and risk.
      • Transparency Reports, Grievance Redressal Systems, Peer Monitoring, and Self-certifications for compliance.

    What is India’s Global and Long-term Vision for AI Governance?

    1. Foresight & Diplomacy: Positions India as a voice of the Global South in AI governance debates (G20, UN, OECD).
    2. AI Incident Reporting System: Centralised database tracking AI harms for national security and regulatory learning.
    3. Techno-Legal Architecture: Concepts like DEPA for AI Training embed consent and privacy by design.
    4. Action Plan:
      • Short-term: Build institutions and awareness.
      • Medium-term: Develop standards, risk frameworks, and legal clarity.
      • Long-term: Evolve global leadership and adaptive legal frameworks.

    Conclusion

    India’s AI Governance Guidelines represent a paradigm shift from regulation to enablement, balancing innovation with public trust. By rooting governance in human values, institutional cooperation, and digital infrastructure, India positions itself as a responsible AI power, one that prioritizes inclusivity, transparency, and resilience. The framework sets a precedent for the Global South, reflecting India’s vision of “AI for All, AI for Good”.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] e-governance, as a critical tool of governance, has ushered in effectiveness, transparency and accountability in governments. What inadequacies hamper the enhancement of these features?

    Linkage: The AI Governance Guidelines integrate e-governance and AI to improve transparency, accountability, and citizen-centricity. This addresses the same governance challenges this question targets.

  • [pib] Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)

    Why in the News?

    The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) has announced major reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency, and inclusivity in the national rehabilitation system.

    About the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI):

    • Overview: It is a statutory body established under the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992, and came into statutory force on 22 June 1993.
    • Vision: To build a skilled, ethical, and inclusive rehabilitation workforce aligned with India’s disability rights framework and United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) commitments.
    • Nodal Agency: Functions under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India.
    • Historical Background: Initially set up as a registered society in 1986, later granted statutory powers to regulate rehabilitation education and practice nationwide.
    • Regulatory Role: Acts as the national authority for training, education, and certification of professionals working in rehabilitation and special education.
    • Central Rehabilitation Register (CRR): Maintains and updates the CRR, a national database of all certified rehabilitation professionals in India.
    • Scope of Coverage: Regulates 16 professional categories including special educators, audiologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and clinical psychologists.

  • What is Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR)?

    Why in the News?

    The Supreme Court has allowed the Union Government to reconsider its additional Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) dues from Vodafone-Idea for FY 2016–17, giving relief to the debt-ridden telecom firm.

    About Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR):

    • Overview: AGR is the revenue base used by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to calculate license fees and spectrum usage charges (SUC) owed by telecom operators.
    • Origin: Introduced under the National Telecom Policy, 1999, AGR represents a share of total earnings payable by service providers to the government.
    • DoT’s Interpretation: Encompasses all revenues, both core telecom (e.g., call, SMS, data) and non-telecom (e.g., interest, rent, capital gains, dividends).
    • Telecom Operators’ View: Contended that AGR should cover only core operational revenues, excluding non-telecom income unrelated to telecom services.
    • Components (as upheld by the Supreme Court, 2019):
      • Included: Call charges, data usage, roaming/interconnection fees, value-added services, interest, rent, and forex gains.
      • Excluded: Goods and Services Tax (GST) and revenue already shared with other operators.
    • Financial Fallout: The 2019 verdict imposed ₹1.47 lakh crore in retrospective dues, triggering a liquidity crisis and sectoral consolidation.
    • Current Context (2025): The Supreme Court has permitted policy reconsideration of excess AGR demands, signalling a more flexible, reform-oriented telecom regime.

    What is the AGR Dispute?

    • Legal Conflict:  between telecom operators and the DoT on the scope of “gross revenue” used for fee computation.
    • Operators’ Argument: Only telecom-related income, from calls, SMS, and internet, should form part of AGR.
    • DoT’s Position: AGR must also include non-core revenues, expanding liability through inclusion of financial and ancillary income.
    • Supreme Court Ruling (2019): Upheld DoT’s broad definition, mandating payment of full dues with interest, penalty, and interest on penalty.
    • Sectoral Consequence: The judgment destabilised telecom finances, leading to the exit of smaller players and near-duopoly between Reliance Jio and Bharti Airtel.
    • Vodafone-Idea Case: With dues over ₹58,000 crore, Vi became the worst-hit; the government later converted part of its dues into equity, acquiring a 49% stake to prevent insolvency.
    • Policy Evolution: AGR, once a litigation issue, now reflects a governance reform debate, balancing fiscal interests, sector viability, and consumer protection within India’s telecom ecosystem.

     

  • Labelling of AI-Generated Content on Social Media

    Why in the News?

    The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology proposed mandatory labelling of Artificial Intelligence–generated synthetic content on social media to curb deepfakes, under draft amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

    2025 Draft Amendment on AI Content:

    • AI Regulation: Introduced by MeitY to address synthetic and AI-generated media such as deepfakes.
    • Mandatory Disclosure: Users must self-declare AI-generated content; platforms must detect and label undeclared synthetic material.
    • Labelling Standards: Labels to cover 10% of image/video area or duration (audio); applies to text, audio, and video formats.
    • Platform Obligations: Ensure metadata embedding and automated verification of user declarations.
    • Legal Liability: Non-compliance leads to loss of “safe harbour” protection under Section 79(1), making intermediaries liable for hosted content.
    • Public Consultation: Comments open till 6 November 2025.

    Back2Basics: IT Rules, 2021:

    • Legal Basis: Framed under Sections 87(2)(z) and 87(2)(zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to regulate social media, digital news, and OTT platforms.
    • Objective: To ensure accountability, transparency, and user protection in India’s digital ecosystem while balancing free speech with responsible governance.
    • Evolution: Replaced the IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2011, expanding obligations for intermediaries like Facebook, X (Twitter), YouTube, and Instagram.
    • Scope: Applies to social media intermediaries, messaging services, digital news publishers, and OTT streaming platforms.
    • Compliance Framework: Platforms must appoint Chief Compliance Officer (CCO), Nodal Contact Person, and Resident Grievance Officer (RGO),  all based in India.
    • Traceability Clause (Rule 4(2)): Mandates messaging services to identify the “first originator” of unlawful content, raising privacy and surveillance concerns.

    Regulation of Social Media Content in India:

    • Legislative Basis: Governed by the IT Act, 2000, notably Section 69A (blocking powers) and Section 79(1) (safe harbour for intermediaries).
    • Obligations: Intermediaries must remove unlawful content within 36 hours of a government or court order.
    • 2023 Amendment: Proposed removal of false content about the government; implementation stayed by Supreme Court.
    • Judicial Context:
      • Shreya Singhal (2015): Struck down Section 66A, upholding free speech.
      • K.S. Puttaswamy (2017):  Recognised privacy as a fundamental right influencing digital governance.

  • Cutting off online gaming with scissors of prohibition

    Introduction

    In a surprising move at the end of the Monsoon Session 2025, the Parliament passed the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025. The Act outlaws online real money games, citing societal harms such as addiction and financial ruin, while aiming to encourage e-sports. What makes this development significant is the abruptness of the ban, absence of stakeholder consultation, and the wiping out of a sunrise sector that had attracted heavy foreign investment and promised thousands of quality tech jobs.

    The Fallout of the Ban

    1. Job Losses: The industry was projected to employ 1.5 lakh people by 2025 in programming, design, analytics, and customer support. The ban curtails these opportunities in a job-scarce economy.
    2. Revenue Sacrifice: Online real money games were expected to generate ₹17,000 crore in GST revenues, benefiting both Centre and States. The ban erases this fiscal opportunity.
    3. Investor Confidence: Sudden policy reversals discourage foreign direct investment (FDI), raising doubts about India’s policy stability.
    4. Innovation Slowdown: Online gaming sits at the intersection of technology, payments, and digital content, key drivers of Digital India. The ban risks stifling entrepreneurship and innovation.

    Why Did the Government Ban Real Money Gaming?

    1. Societal Harm: The government argues online gaming has led to addiction, financial ruin, and behavioral issues comparable to drug dependence.
    2. Public Pressure: State-level cases of suicides and debt traps pushed policymakers to respond.
    3. Moral Positioning: The Centre framed the issue as a public health crisis requiring urgent intervention.

    Could Regulation Have Been a Better Alternative?

    1. Responsible Gaming Tools: Platforms had developed age-gating, self-exclusion, deposit/time limits, KYC/AML checks, and bot-detection to promote safer gaming.
    2. International Practices: Globally, ethical advertising and technological safeguards regulate the sector rather than outright bans.
    3. State Frameworks: States like Tamil Nadu were experimenting with balanced regulatory frameworks, creating scope for a middle path.

    Risks of the Ban

    1. Illegal Networks: Players may migrate to offshore and underground apps, which pay no taxes and are beyond Indian jurisdiction.
    2. Loss of Accountability: With regulated firms shut down, compulsive gamers are left vulnerable to fraud and unsafe practices.
    3. Federal Overreach: Betting and gambling fall under the State List; the Centre’s unilateral move undermines federalism.
    4. Constitutional Challenge: Article 19(1)(g) guarantees the Fundamental Right to practice any trade or business. The ban raises issues of proportionality and constitutional validity.

    The Middle Ground

    1. Licensing System: Grant licenses to vetted firms with strict compliance norms.
    2. Clear Distinction: Differentiate between games of skill (legitimate) and games of chance (gambling).
    3. Taxation Regime: Ensure predictable and fair taxation, boosting both revenue and compliance.
    4. Capacity Building: Strengthen regulatory institutions instead of relying on prohibition.

    Conclusion

    The Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, highlights the clash between state paternalism and economic freedom. While societal concerns around addiction are real, prohibition is a blunt instrument that risks pushing activity underground, sacrificing jobs, revenues, and investor trust. A regulatory middle path could have safeguarded both citizens and India’s economic interests.

    Value Addition

    Understanding the Online Gaming Sector

    1. E-sports: Organised competitive digital sports requiring strategy, coordination, decision-making; emerging as a legitimate sport.
    2. Online Social Games: Casual, skill-based games for recreation, learning, or social interaction; considered safe with minimal social risks.
    3. Online Money Games: Involve financial stakes (chance/skill/mixed); linked to addiction, financial losses, money laundering, and suicides.

    Game of Skill vs Game of Chance in India

    Game of Skill

    1. Outcome depends predominantly on knowledge, training, strategy, or judgment.
    2. Examples: Chess, Rummy, Fantasy sports (judicially recognised in some cases).
    3. Legal Status: Judicially upheld as legitimate business activity, not gambling. Protected under Article 19(1)(g) (right to trade/profession).

    Game of Chance

    1. Outcome depends mainly on luck or randomness, not player skill.
    2. Examples: Lotteries, Roulette, Dice-based betting.
    3. Legal Status: Considered gambling; regulated/prohibited by States (as per State List, Entry 34 of 7th Schedule).

    Regulation in India

    Judicial Precedents:

    1. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India (1957) – distinguished games of skill from gambling.
    2. K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1996) – horse racing recognised as a game of skill.

    Federal Context: Betting & gambling are State subjects; hence regulation differs across states.

    Digital Loophole: Many online games operate in a grey zone → recent legislation like the Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 seeks to ban money games irrespective of skill/chance classification.

    Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Acy, 2025

    Why the Bill was Brought

    1. Addiction & Financial Ruin: 45 crore people affected; losses of over ₹20,000 crores due to online money games.
    2. Mental Health & Suicides: Financial distress linked to addiction resulted in suicides.
    3. Fraud & Money Laundering: Offshore platforms used for illegal financial flows.
    4. National Security Risks: Evidence of terror financing and illegal messaging.
    5. Closing Legal Loopholes: Existing gambling laws did not cover the digital domain.
    6. Balanced Approach: Distinguishes between exploitative money games and constructive e-sports/educational games.

    Key Provisions of the Bill

    1. Applicability: Applies to all of India, including offshore platforms targeting Indian users.
    2. Promotion of E-Sports: Recognised as legitimate sport; guidelines by Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports; incentives, training, research centres.
    3. Promotion of Social & Educational Games: Registration of safe, age-appropriate games; focus on skill-building, culture, education.
    4. Ban on Online Money Games: Complete prohibition on games involving stakes (chance/skill/mixed); advertising and transactions banned.
    5. Online Gaming Authority: National regulator to register/categorise games, issue guidelines, handle grievances.
    6. Strict Penalties:
      1. Offering money games → up to 3 years jail + ₹1 crore fine.
      2. Advertising → up to 2 years jail + ₹50 lakh fine.
      3. Repeat offences → up to 5 years jail + ₹2 crore fine.
    7. Corporate Liability: Company officers accountable; independent directors exempt if due diligence is shown.
    8. Powers of Enforcement: Search, seizure, and arrests without warrant under BNSS, 2023.

    Complementary Measures Already in Place

    1. IT Act & Rules: Intermediaries must register; illegal platforms blocked (1,524 blocked between 2022–2025).
    2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 111 & 112 criminalise unlawful betting/cyber fraud.
    3. IGST Act, 2017: Offshore suppliers must register; GST Intelligence empowered to block non-compliant platforms.
    4. Consumer Protection Act, 2019: CCPA cracks down on misleading ads and celebrity endorsements.
    5. Advisories: MoIB & Education Ministry issued guidelines on safe gaming practices.
    6. Cybercrime Portal & Helpline (1930): Citizens enabled to report fraud and financial scams.
    7. International Reference: WHO: Recognises gaming disorder in ICD classification – loss of control, neglect of daily activities, continuation despite harm.

    PYQ Relevance:

    [UPSC 2020] Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission. Discuss.

    Linkage: Both the RTI Amendments (2020) and the Online Gaming Bill (2025) highlight rising executive control at the cost of autonomy and federal balance. In RTI, the independence of Information Commissions was weakened; in Gaming, sweeping central powers risk arbitrariness and undermine states’ jurisdiction. Both raise questions of transparency, proportionality, and constitutional freedoms, showing a trend of centralisation in governance.

  • [13th September 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: RTI’s shift to a ‘right to deny information’

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission. Discuss.

    Linkage: The RTI’s strength lay in ensuring both citizens’ access to information and the independence of Information Commissions as watchdogs of transparency. Amendments such as those under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023–25, which expand the scope of “personal information” and override disclosure norms, severely limit this autonomy. This erosion risks converting RTI into a “Right to Deny Information,” thereby weakening institutional independence and citizen empowerment.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 was once celebrated as a revolutionary step in India’s democratic journey, giving citizens a direct tool to hold the State accountable. But recent amendments through the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 have been termed a “fundamental regression of democracy.” By transforming RTI into a potential “Right to Deny Information (RDI),” the amendments threaten transparency, accountability, and the fight against corruption. This article unpacks the gravity of these changes, their implications for governance, and why the muted public response is a cause for deep concern.

    Introduction

    The RTI Act (2005) rests on the principle that in a democracy, government-held information belongs to the people. It has empowered ordinary citizens to expose corruption, inefficiency, and arbitrariness in governance. Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, originally a balanced safeguard to protect personal privacy, has now been drastically curtailed by the DPDP Act, reducing it to six words. This shift fundamentally alters the spirit of transparency, tilting the Act from being a “Right to Know” towards a “Right to Deny.”

    Why is this in the news?

    For the first time since its enactment, the RTI Act faces a drastic truncation of one of its most crucial provisions. Section 8(1)(j), which earlier struck a delicate balance between privacy and transparency, has now been reduced in length and scope, effectively allowing authorities to deny a vast range of information. The problem is massive, nearly 90% of RTI requests could now be rejected as “personal information.” Yet, unlike earlier RTI amendments that triggered massive public protests, the current change has seen notable public and media apathy, making this a silent but severe assault on India’s democratic ethos.

    How has the original Section 8(1)(j) changed?

    1. Balanced safeguard: Earlier, information could be denied only if it had no connection to public activity or was an unwarranted invasion of privacy, unless larger public interest was served.
    2. Acid test provision: Any information that could not be denied to Parliament or State legislatures could not be denied to citizens.
    3. Case-by-case privacy: Privacy, as acknowledged in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of India, was contextual and evolving, requiring nuanced interpretation.
    4. New truncated version: Reduced to just six words, making it vague and easier for Public Information Officers (PIOs) to deny information.

    What is the ambiguity around ‘personal information’?

    1. Natural person view: “Person” means a normal human being.
    2. DPDP definition: Expansive—includes companies, firms, associations, Hindu undivided families, and even the State.
    3. Result: Almost all government-held information can be linked to some “person,” enabling blanket denials.
    4. Overriding clause: DPDP Act overrides all other laws, with penalties up to ₹250 crore for violations, making PIOs fearful and risk-averse.

    How does this impact transparency and anti-corruption efforts?

    1. Loss of citizen monitoring: Citizens as watchdogs against corruption lose power. Other mechanisms like vigilance bodies or Lokpal have been ineffective.
    2. Denial of essential documents: Even mundane details, like corrected marksheets or pension beneficiary lists, can be refused. Rajasthan’s earlier use of such data to weed out “ghost employees” will now be impossible.
    3. Scope for corruption: By labeling corruption-related details as “personal information,” the law makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.
    4. Larger public interest clause weakens: Though Section 8(2) allows disclosure in larger public interest, it is rarely applied (<1% of cases).

    Why is there limited public outrage?

    1. Guise of data protection: Amendments are packaged under “privacy,” which appears benign or even desirable.
    2. Ego-driven perception: People instinctively think their information should remain private, ignoring how transparency aids collective accountability.
    3. Muted media response: Compared to earlier protests (e.g., changes to Information Commissioner tenure and salaries), public discussion is minimal.

    What needs to be done?

    1. Media engagement: Widespread discussion in print, digital, and regional media.
    2. Political accountability: Citizens must push parties to commit reversal of amendments in manifestos.
    3. Public opinion building: Civil society must highlight the democratic regression caused.
    4. Recognising gravity: The assault on RTI must be treated as seriously as threats to any other fundamental right.

    Conclusion

    The RTI Act, 2005  is not just a legal framework but a democratic ethos, where citizens are owners, not petitioners, of government-held information. The DPDP Act’s amendment transforms this ethos into an ethos of denial, threatening both transparency and accountability. Unless citizens, media, and political actors mobilise to resist, India risks losing one of its most powerful democratic tools.

  • Should Commercial speech on digital platform be regulated

    Introduction

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

    Why in the news

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

    The presence or absence of a regulatory vacuum

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

    The question of dignity as a ground for restricting free speech

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

    The risk of silencing uncomfortable speech

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

    The place of commercial speech in free expression

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

    Judicial polyvocality and consistency of precedent

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

    Safeguards needed in future regulations

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

    Conclusion

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

    Value Addition

    Social Media Regulation in India

    Existing legal framework:

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

    Judicial interventions:

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

    Comparative Global Perspective

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

    International Bodies and Global Norms

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

    Good Examples

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

    Way Forward for India

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

    UPSC Relevance

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

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

  • Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program

    Why in the News?

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

    About Animal Birth Control (ABC) Program:

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

    Key Features:

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

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

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

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

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

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