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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Amended/Enacted

  • Union Minister says Jharkhand’s opposition to the MMDR Act facilitates coal theft

    Why in the News

    The Union Minister of Women and Child Development has said Jharkhand opposes the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment (MMDR) Act, 2026 to facilitate coal theft. Jharkhand’s Chief Minister calls it a black Bill.

    What does the MMDR Act, 2026 change?

    1. Uniform national levies: The amendment fixes mining taxes and levies nationally instead of State by State, like one national price list for every mine.
    2. Why it was brought: The stated aim is to streamline taxation under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and stop arbitrary State levies.
    3. What went wrong before: A mineral bearing State added fresh cesses, meaning charges on top of the main levy, after auctions closed, so bidders faced new demands.
    4. The takeaway: A bidder can now calculate the levy before bidding, and a mineral bearing State loses the one revenue lever it controlled alone.

    Why does the Centre say Jharkhand is resisting?

    1. Auctions not held on time: The State does not put mineral blocks to auction on schedule.
    2. Five intents alleged: The Centre’s charge names five intents behind the State’s opposition:
      • revenue kept from reaching the State exchequer;
      • mining administration kept dysfunctional;
      • facilities denied to licensed operators;
      • illegal activity allowed to rise;
      • a racket in illegal mining left to flourish.
    3. Coal theft as the motive: The opposition is put down to an interest in personal revenue rather than legitimate State revenue.
    4. Political messaging: The ruling Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), Congress and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) are accused of misleading people about the Act.

    What does the Centre say the State gains?

    1. Investment and jobs: Predictable levies are expected to draw mining investment and keep young people working within the State.
    2. States already applying it: Odisha, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Kerala have implemented the Act.
    3. Opposition ruled States included: Several of those are Congress ruled and welcome the Act, which weakens the claim that it targets Jharkhand.
    4. End of red tapism: The claim is that implementing the Act will end red tapism, meaning delays caused by layers of official permission.

    Why is this a question of federal power?

    1. Minerals belong to the State: Jharkhand’s ground is that minerals and land belong to the State, so the Centre should not decide its entitlements over them.
    2. Constitutional split of power: Entry 54 of the Union List lets Parliament regulate mines once it declares central regulation expedient. Entry 50 of the State List lets a State tax mineral rights.
    3. Court upheld the State levy: A nine judge Bench held in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024) that royalty is not a tax, so the State’s mineral levy stayed beyond challenge.
    4. What Jharkhand stands to lose: The State holds India’s largest coal resources, so a uniform central rate hits its own revenue hardest.

    Challenges

    1. State revenue capped from outside: A mineral bearing State can no longer raise its own levy when mining income falls short.
    2. Auctions still depend on the State: The Act fixes rates, not the pace at which a State puts blocks to auction.
    3. Enforcement stays with the State: Illegal mining is detected and prosecuted by State agencies, so a tax rule cannot stop coal theft.
    4. Past dues remain unsettled: Operators still carry demands raised under the old State cesses.

    Way Forward

    1. Compensate the lost headroom: Route a share of the central mining levy back to the producing State, on a Finance Commission formula.
    2. Publish an auction calendar: The Ministry of Mines should notify State wise auction dates, with missed blocks reverting to central auction.
    3. Close the old cess demands: Notify one settlement window for dues raised after past auctions.
    4. Use Article 263: Place mineral taxation before the Inter State Council, so a producing State’s objection is answered rather than litigated.

    Conclusion

    The quarrel is not about whether a mineral is taxed but about who fixes the charge on a mineral the State owns. Watch whether Jharkhand takes its objection to court, because refusal alone cannot stop a central levy.

    Back2Basics: Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957

    1. Scope of the Act: The Act regulates mineral concessions and the development of major minerals, other than petroleum and atomic minerals.
    2. Who grants a lease: State governments grant prospecting licences and mining leases, under rules the Centre lays down.
    3. Auction and the district fund: The 2015 amendment made auction the only route to a concession and created a District Mineral Foundation in every mining district.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025, GS2, 15 marks] Examine the evolving pattern of Centre-State financial relations in the context of planned development in India. How far have the recent reforms impacted the fiscal federalism in India?”

  • Andhra Pradesh government refuses to defend Centre’s changes to transgender rights law in court

    Why in the News

    The Andhra Pradesh government has told the Supreme Court that it will not defend the 2026 amendments to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, since it had no role in enacting them and the law’s validity is primarily a matter for the Union. The State that issues transgender identity certificates has stepped away from defending the statute it administers.

    What did the 2026 amendments change?

    1. What the law recognised: The 2019 Act let a person’s declaration settle their gender, following National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014). A two judge Bench based identity on self identification.
    2. What the amendment did: The 2026 amendments removed the right to a self perceived gender identity and tied the definition of a transgender person to physiological characteristics.
    3. The stated reason: The ground given in Parliament was that self determination would let people falsely claim a transgender identity to obtain welfare benefits.
    4. The objection: Opposition members argued that removing a right the Court recognised in 2014 attacks the dignity of transgender persons. Members of the National Council for Transgender Persons resigned as protests spread.
    5. The takeaway: A right that rested on a person’s declaration now rests on physical characteristics, which is why the change is being challenged in court.

    What has Andhra Pradesh told the Court?

    1. No independent discrimination: The State’s affidavit, filed in August, says it has taken no independent action discriminatory towards transgender persons.
    2. The Union has not answered yet: The Centre is yet to respond to at least a dozen petitions challenging the law, so only the administering States are on record.
    3. An ally against the Union’s law: Andhra Pradesh is governed by the Telugu Desam Party, an ally of the party leading the Union government.
    4. The party backed the Bill: A Telugu Desam Party member supported the Bill in the Lok Sabha in March, citing complaints of people falsely adopting a transgender identity to beg.

    How does Uttarakhand’s position differ?

    1. A State defending the amendment: The Uttarakhand government has defended the 2026 amendments in the same proceedings.
    2. Its factual claim: It submitted that the amended law has taken away none of the rights transgender persons held in the State, and that identification, certification and welfare continue as before.
    3. Its explanation: It argued that social attitudes and the way existing services are run shape the rights and healthcare transgender persons actually get, as much as the law does.

    Why does a State’s refusal matter?

    1. States run the certification: The 2019 Act gives the District Magistrate power to issue the certificate of identity, so the definition’s practical meaning is set by State machinery.
    2. The Court reads what States file: Where a central law is administered by States, their affidavits are the evidence of how it operates.
    3. A split defence: Two States governed by allied parties have taken opposite positions on the same amendment, so the Union’s law no longer has a single State defence.

    Challenges

    1. Proof shifts to a physical test: A definition tied to physiological characteristics makes recognition turn on examination, which the 2019 Act was written to avoid.
    2. Statute against a constitutional finding: A right traced to Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 does not fall because the statute recording it was amended.
    3. Entitlements follow the certificate: Welfare access is keyed to the identity certificate, so a narrower definition narrows every scheme built on it. Eg. Garima Greh shelter homes.

    Way Forward

    1. Restore declaration as the basis: Parliament should make self declaration the basis of the certificate again, keeping medical procedure a matter of choice.
    2. One Union affidavit on operation: The Union should file one affidavit stating how the amended definition is to be applied, so District Magistrates are not left improvising.
    3. Put certification data on record: Require every State to publish applications, certificates issued and rejections each year, so the amendment’s effect is measurable.
    4. Fill the council: Reconstitute the National Council for Transgender Persons with community nominees, so objections are heard before rules are framed.

    Conclusion

    The Court is being asked whether identity rests on a person’s own declaration or on physical characteristics. What to watch is whether other States that must administer the Act also decline to defend it.

    Key numbers

    1. Identity card applications in Andhra Pradesh: 3,750 (State affidavit, 2026).
    2. Certificates issued: 3,233 of those applications.
    3. Applications not taken forward: 403.
    4. Applications still pending: 114.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026, GS2, 10 marks] Right to privacy relating to self-identity is very dear to every human being and well protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this context, examine the effect of the amendment in 2026, to the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.”

  • FSSAI proposes ban on sale of analogue ‘paneer’

    Why in the News

    The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has proposed amending its regulations to stop non dairy substitutes being sold as paneer. These are products in which milk fats and milk proteins are replaced with vegetable oils, fats and vegetable proteins. The proposal follows an episode last year in which social media posts alleged that “fake paneer” was served at a Mumbai restaurant. The existing dairy standard already bars vegetable fat from paneer. The contested point is therefore not composition but nomenclature, since a product lawfully licensed as a dairy analogue could still reach the buyer under the name of the dairy product it displaces.

    What does the draft amendment on analogue paneer propose?

    1. Prohibition on the name: The draft notification prohibits the sale of “paneer made of constituents not derived from milk” as paneer.
    2. Stated rationale: The amendment is proposed to restrict the manufacture and sale of analogue products as paneer, to prevent misleading consumers regarding the nature and composition of the product.
    3. Existing licence holders: Products already licensed or registered under the Analogue in Dairy Context category must discontinue use of the term paneer in their nomenclature, labelling or marketing.
    4. Consultation window: FSSAI has invited suggestions on the draft notification within 60 days.

    Why did the existing dairy standard not prevent the name being used?

    1. Compositional rule: Under FSSAI’s dairy products standards, paneer may be made only from milk and milk solids.
    2. Permitted additions: The standard allows acidulants such as lactic acid, citric acid, malic acid, vinegar, glucono delta-lactone and sour whey, along with salt, spices or condiments.
    3. Exclusion of vegetable inputs: Vegetable oils, fats and vegetable proteins are not permitted in paneer under that standard.
    4. The naming gap: The standard fixes what paneer may contain. It does not fix what a product outside that standard may be called, so the term travelled to the very products the standard had excluded.

    Challenges to the ban on the sale of analogue paneer

    1. Detection capacity: Separating vegetable fat from milk fat in a mixed or cooked product needs laboratory testing rather than inspection. Eg. FSSAI’s Food Safety on Wheels mobile vans were introduced to reach districts with no fixed testing laboratory.
      The Fix: Notify a standard test method for vegetable fat in paneer and route samples from unequipped districts to an accredited laboratory.
    2. Loose and unbranded sale: A labelling prohibition binds pre packaged food, so paneer sold loose over a counter carries no declaration to check. Eg. Petty food manufacturers and retailers below the turnover threshold in the Food Safety and Standards (Licensing and Registration of Food Businesses) Regulations, 2011 only register rather than take a licence.
      The Fix: Require a composition declaration on a display board at the point of loose sale, on the model of the display duties the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020 place on food service establishments.
    3. No lawful name for a legitimate product: Barring the term leaves dairy analogues without a name a buyer recognises, which pushes them toward vaguer descriptors. Eg. Vegetable oil based cheese substitutes are sold internationally as analogue cheese rather than as cheese.
      The Fix: Notify a positive naming convention for dairy analogues, so the category carries a lawful name of its own alongside the prohibition.
    4. Price advantage in bulk channels: Vegetable fat substitutes cost less than milk based paneer, so commercial kitchens buying in bulk keep the incentive to source them. Eg. Palm oil, the commonest vegetable fat in such substitutes, is India’s largest imported edible oil and trades far below milk fat.
      The Fix: Extend the nomenclature rule to institutional supply invoices and menus, so a bulk buyer sees the same declaration as a retail consumer.

    Conclusion

    The gap the regulator is closing is one of naming, not of composition. A standard that lists permitted ingredients does not by itself stop a substitute borrowing the name of the product it displaces, and the dairy analogue category gave such products a lawful footing from which to do so. The markers to watch are the final notification once the consultation closes and the compliance date set for existing licence holders.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

    1. Governing Act: FSSAI was established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which consolidated the earlier food laws including the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
    2. Administrative home: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    3. Mandate: It lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    4. Enforcement route: It licenses or registers food businesses, and standards are enforced through State food safety commissioners and designated officers.

    Matching Previous Year Question

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

  • SEBI eases settlement, overhauls PMS

    Why in the News

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has approved a new settlement framework for entities facing enforcement proceedings. The new norms replace the Settlement Proceedings Regulations, 2018 and are aimed at reducing the regulator’s own discretion. The same decision approved a common advertisement code for market intermediaries and a comprehensive overhaul of the Portfolio Managers Regulations. The contested point is whether widening the settlement route prices a violation below the harm it caused.

    What is a settlement proceeding before SEBI?

    1. Closure without a finding: An entity facing enforcement proceedings pays a computed amount and the matter closes without an adjudicated finding against it. The show cause notice starts the period within which an application may be filed.
    2. The deciding body: A High Powered Committee examines the application and retains the power to reject it. Settlement is an option the regulator grants rather than a right the applicant holds.
    3. Exclusions under the 2018 regulations: The Settlement Proceedings Regulations, 2018 excluded whole categories of violation from the route, including those involving significant market impact, substantial investor losses and threats to market integrity.

    What changes in the settlement framework?

    1. A formula in place of an assessment: SEBI has introduced a new formula for calculating settlement amounts. The calculation now drives the figure rather than a case by case assessment.
    2. A fast track below a threshold: A case may be settled without reference to the High Powered Committee where the calculated amount is below Rs 10 lakh. Small matters therefore close without a committee sitting.
    3. A longer filing window: The deadline for filing a settlement application runs to 90 days from the date of the show cause notice, against 60 days earlier.
    4. Statutory anchoring: The new regulations are aligned with provisions introduced in the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956. Those provisions supply a statutory framework for settlement and related mechanisms.

    What changes for portfolio managers and for market advertising?

    1. The Portfolio Managers Regulations overhaul: SEBI approved a comprehensive overhaul of the regulations governing portfolio management services (PMS), the business of running a client’s securities portfolio under a discretionary or advisory mandate. The stated aims are expanding the industry, easing compliance requirements, consolidating the regulations and removing outdated provisions.
    2. The competitiveness objective: The reforms seek to make the business more competitive by improving operational flexibility and simplifying compliance. Consolidation replaces a set of separately amended provisions with one instrument.
    3. A common advertisement code: A single advertisement code will apply to market intermediaries and regulated entities across the securities market. Its stated purpose is to simplify and standardise advertising practices.

    Challenges to the new settlement framework

    1. A settlement produces no adjudicated finding: A matter closed by settlement leaves no ruling for the market to read, so conduct at the margin stays untested. Eg. The objection put to the regulator was that a violator could settle by paying less than the impact caused, and the answer given was that the high powered committee retains the discretion to reject an application.
      The Fix: Publish a reasoned order for every settled matter above a stated value, recording the conduct and the calculation applied.
    2. Unresolved proceedings carry their own cost: An enforcement matter left open for years freezes an entity’s corporate actions whatever the eventual finding. Eg. The National Stock Exchange (NSE) brought its over Rs 22,200 crore public issue to listing only after a decade long regulatory and legal overhang.
      The Fix: Publish a standing disposal timeline for enforcement matters, so speed does not depend on the entity choosing to settle.
    3. A rupee threshold is not indexed: A fast track limit set in rupees covers a changing share of matters as values and participation rise. Eg. The minimum investment in bonds on online bond platforms has been cut to Rs 10,000 to widen retail participation.
      The Fix: Tie the fast track threshold to a published index with automatic revision, so the committee’s caseload stays a policy choice.
    4. Framework changes reprice a business before they are notified: A proposal on how a regulated business earns its revenue moves prices on the day it is published. Eg. An Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) consultation paper, ‘Recalibrating Economics of Insurance Distribution’, triggered heavy selling in insurance distribution stocks.
      The Fix: Publish a dated implementation calendar with every consultation paper, so a regulated entity prices the change rather than the announcement.

    Conclusion

    Board approval is not notification. The framework’s effect turns on the calculation formula and on how many matters bypass the committee once the regulations are in force. The regulator has traded a case by case judgement for a published rule. That is the trade it describes as reducing its own discretion. The thing to watch is the share of enforcement matters disposed through the fast track route in the first full year, and whether a reasoned order is published for the rest.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2013, GS2, 10 marks] The product diversification of financial institutions and insurance companies, resulting in overlapping of products and services strengthens the case for the merger of the two regulatory agencies, namely SEBI and IRDA. Justify.”

  • Centre doubles validity of green clearances for ports to 20 years

    Why in the News

    The Centre has notified a relaxation in the country’s environmental clearance process, doubling the validity of clearance granted to ports and harbours to a minimum of 20 years. The notification amends the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006, which governs the environmental clearance process. Two further extensions of five years each are now available, subject to conditions. The amendment follows requests from industry and the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways to rationalise the earlier framework. The change trades the repeated re-appraisal of a coastal project against a longer settled clearance for the developer.

    What is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006?

    1. Prior clearance requirement: New projects in specified sectors require prior environmental clearance (EC) before they may proceed.
    2. Coverage beyond new projects: Project expansion, modernisation, capacity additions and product-mix changes beyond specified thresholds also require clearance.
    3. Basis of the decision: Clearance rests on environmental impact assessments, public hearings where applicable, and final appraisal by expert committees.

    What does the amendment change for ports and harbours?

    1. Validity doubled: Environmental clearance for a port or harbour project is now valid for a minimum of 20 years.
    2. First extension: Clearance can be extended by five years beyond the 20-year period. Appraisal committees must review the adequacy of existing environmental safeguards before that extension is allowed.
    3. Second extension: A further five-year extension may be granted in “deserving cases” where the project remains non-operational.
    4. Recommending authority: The sectoral expert appraisal committee or the state-level expert appraisal committee can recommend the second extension after examination and subject to environmental safeguards.

    Why was a longer validity period sought?

    1. Ten-year ceiling: Environmental clearance for ports and harbours was valid for an initial period of ten years, extendable by a further period of one year.
    2. Fresh clearance burden: A project that had not completed that window had to seek fresh clearance from the beginning.
    3. Industry and ministry request: The notification records a request to rationalise the validity period, made by industry and by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways.

    Challenges to the 20-year clearance validity for ports

    1. Ageing environmental baseline: A single appraisal can now govern a coastal project for two decades, so the site conditions assessed at appraisal may no longer hold when work actually proceeds. Eg. The earlier framework forced a project to return for a fresh clearance after ten years.
      The Fix: Tie each five-year extension to a fresh baseline study of the site, rather than to a review of the existing safeguards alone.
    2. No repeat public consultation: The public hearing sits before the first appraisal, so people affected later in the extended window have no statutory occasion to be heard. Eg. Under the EIA Notification, 2006 public hearings precede the expert committee’s final appraisal.
      The Fix: Attach a public compliance hearing at the project site to every extension application.
    3. Dormant projects holding clearance: The second extension is available precisely where a project has not started operating, so a coastal site stays committed with no construction on the ground. Eg. The amendment allows the further five years in “deserving cases” of non-operational projects.
      The Fix: Make that extension conditional on a dated construction schedule, with the clearance lapsing if the schedule is missed.

    Conclusion

    The validity question is now settled in favour of predictability for port developers. Environmental protection rests entirely on how appraisal committees use the extension review, since the automatic trigger that forced a coastal project back for a fresh look has been removed. The thing to watch is whether those committees record their safeguard reviews in a form the public can read.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Consider the following statements: The Environment Protection Act, 1986 empowers the Government of India to 1. state the requirement of public participation in the process of environmental protection, and the procedure and manner in which it is sought 2. lay down The standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources Which of the statements given above is/ are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 (b)”

  • 1986 ruling holds, can’t penalise for not singing: SC at Vande Mataram hearing

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has said that a person who declines to recite one or all stanzas of the national song cannot be subjected to “criminal consequences”. A three-judge Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India said it will examine whether refusal to sing the Vande Mataram can carry penal consequences. The Bench was hearing a challenge by Carnatic vocalist T M Krishna to the law mandating the singing of all six stanzas. The Centre has amended Section 3 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, extending to Vande Mataram the same legal protection that Jana Gana Mana carries. The Bench reminded the Centre of Bijoe Emmanuel and Others vs State of Kerala and Others (1986). It said the law declared in that case will govern the amended Act. The contest is between an elected legislature’s power to declare what the national song is and an individual’s freedom not to sing it.

    What is the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971?

    1. Amended Section 3: Section 3 now extends to Vande Mataram the same legal protection the Act already gave Jana Gana Mana.
    2. A new expression in the statute: The amendment introduced the expression “national song” into the Act. The Act itself does not define what a national song is.
    3. The operative guideline: The requirement to sing all six stanzas at official functions rests on an office memorandum. That memorandum is not gazetted and cites no enabling provision.
    4. Custom and usage: By custom and usage the national song has always been understood as Vande Mataram.

    What did Bijoe Emmanuel (1986) settle?

    1. The facts: Students belonging to Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled for refusing to sing the national anthem. They had stood respectfully in silence during the anthem.
    2. The holding: The Supreme Court held that the expulsion violated their fundamental rights.
    3. Its standing today: The declaration of law in that case has not yet been questioned, the Bench said. It expects that declaration to govern the amended Act.
    4. What is not in dispute: The Bench said that what the national song is, is not in dispute before it.

    Why did the Bench not take up the secularism argument?

    1. The petition’s ground: The plea argues that the guideline on singing all six stanzas violates the constitutional principle of secularism. The last four stanzas carry explicit Hindu references.
    2. The Bench’s view: A national song expressing homage to a particular God or form of God would not perhaps impact secularism, the Bench said.
    3. The Centre’s position: The Solicitor General argued that secularism “will never be this narrow”.
    4. The question taken up instead: The Bench said the question whether a conscientious objector, meaning a person who refuses on grounds of conscience, can be subjected to penal consequences may require examination.

    What is the vagueness objection to the amended law?

    1. An undefined term in a penal statute: A penal statute cannot operate in the realm of vagueness. The Act makes conduct punishable and leaves the expression at the centre of that offence undefined.
    2. Risk of misuse: Counsel for the petitioner called the absence of a definition a serious lacuna in the Act that can be misused.
    3. A change in settled scope: The national song has been understood as two stanzas. For the first time after 80 years it is being presented as more than two.
    4. Consensus before penalty: Use of the term national requires the building of public opinion and consensus. It cannot be thrust on citizens with penal consequences attached.

    Where does the line fall between the legislature’s choice and the individual’s right?

    1. The legislature’s domain: It is for the democratically elected state to decide what the national song is, whether two stanzas or four, the Bench said.
    2. The Court’s limited remit: It is not the remit of the Court to second guess the national sentiments and aspirations associated with Vande Mataram.
    3. The individual’s protection: Nobody who feels an infraction of Article 25 and Article 26 rights would be subjected to penal consequences. The same protection extends to a conscientious objector who declines to recite one or all stanzas.
    4. Extent of penalty reserved: The extent of penal consequences requires examination, the Bench said.
    5. Scope of the hearing: The Bench declined to take note of the Solicitor General’s remark that “lawmaking cannot be as per Naxalite’s ideas”. It confined itself to the constitutional issue before it.

    Conclusion

    A statute can borrow the authority of the word national without saying in law what that word covers. That is the gap this hearing has exposed. The Court has split the question in two, leaving the choice of the national song to the elected legislature and signalling that an individual’s refusal to sing it cannot be punished. The Centre has been asked to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks, and the extent of penal consequences is what the Bench has reserved for itself to decide.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2017, GS2, 15 marks] Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.”

  • Govt: No bank charge on UPI payment up to Rs 2,000

    Why in the News

    The Ministry of Finance has notified that no bank or system provider may impose any charge, directly or indirectly, on a payment made through RuPay debit cards or through the Unified Payments Interface (UPI), the National Payments Corporation of India’s real time system for transferring money between bank accounts using a virtual address, up to Rs 2,000. The notification does not specify any charge for transactions above that amount, which opens the way for a fee on higher value person to merchant payments. It follows the Taxation and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed by Parliament last month, which removed the statutory bar on charging for these payment modes. The contested point is that a threshold covering 96 per cent of person to merchant transactions by number leaves roughly two thirds of their value open to a charge.

    What is the Merchant Discount Rate?

    1. What it is: The Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) is the fee a bank that processes a card or digital payment levies on the merchant receiving it.
    2. What it pays for: It covers transaction processing, settlement and payment infrastructure costs across the chain of banks and providers that carry the payment.
    3. The usual range: An MDR normally runs between 1 and 3 per cent of transaction value on debit and credit card payments.
    4. The exemption since 2020: No MDR has been levied on RuPay debit cards and UPI transactions since January 2020, a decision taken to promote adoption of digital payments.

    What has the notification done, and who decides a fee above the threshold?

    1. The prohibition: The notification bars any charge, direct or indirect, on RuPay debit card payments and on UPI transactions of up to Rs 2,000, whether imposed on the person making or the person receiving the payment.
    2. The silence above the threshold: The ministry did not specify charges for transactions above Rs 2,000, which is what creates the opening for an MDR on higher value person to merchant payments.
    3. The deciding body: Whether an MDR is imposed above the threshold will be decided by the UPI and Services Steering Committee, headed by the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI), with 22 members including banks, third party application providers such as PhonePe and Google Pay, the Payments Council of India and the Indian Banks’ Association.
    4. The rate under discussion: Payments industry officials have suggested an MDR of around 0.4 to 0.5 per cent for UPI payments to large merchants, which would help meet the industry’s annual cost of about Rs 20,700 crore.

    What legal change made this possible?

    1. The provision amended: The Bill amended Section 10A of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, which had barred any bank or system provider from imposing a charge on payments made through the electronic modes prescribed under Section 269SU.
    2. The modes covered: Those prescribed modes were RuPay debit cards, BHIM UPI and the UPI QR code.
    3. Who the underlying obligation binds: Section 269SU of the Income Tax Act, 1961 applies to businesses with a turnover of over Rs 50 crore, requiring them to offer the prescribed electronic payment modes.
    4. What the amendment enables: Removing the exemption paves the way for an MDR on UPI and RuPay debit card payments to large merchants such as e commerce platforms.
    5. The stated rationale: The amendment is presented as an enabling provision for UPI’s long term sustainability, technological advancement and resilience against emerging risks.

    Why does the Rs 2,000 threshold matter for UPI’s economics?

    1. Small share by number: Only 4 per cent of person to merchant UPI payments in 2025 to 26 were for more than Rs 2,000.
    2. Large share by value: Those same transactions accounted for about two thirds of total person to merchant UPI payment value.
    3. The base: More than 24,000 crore UPI transactions worth Rs 314 lakh crore were made during the year.
    4. What the design achieves: The threshold protects the small ticket everyday payment from any charge while leaving the value where a percentage fee actually earns revenue open to one.

    How has the state paid for zero MDR so far?

    1. The incentive scheme: The government subsidises payments of up to Rs 2,000 made to small merchants through its incentive scheme for promotion of RuPay debit cards and low value BHIM UPI person to merchant transactions.
    2. The cap and the exclusion: The incentive is capped at 0.15 per cent of transaction value, and large merchants are not covered by the scheme at all.
    3. What it costs: The Budget for 2026 to 27 estimated the payout at Rs 2,000 crore. Rs 2,196.21 crore was paid in 2025 to 26, up from Rs 1,922.77 crore in 2024 to 25.
    4. The sustainability finding: A March report of the Standing Committee on Finance recorded that the absence of MDR makes the UPI ecosystem financially unsustainable.

    Challenges to reintroducing a Merchant Discount Rate on UPI

    1. Merchant pass through to the customer: A merchant charged a percentage fee recovers it by quoting a higher price or by preferring cash for large tickets. Eg. Many small retailers added a surcharge on card payments before the Reserve Bank of India barred the practice on debit cards.
      The Fix: Bar surcharging by contract with the acquiring bank and make the ban a condition of merchant onboarding.
    2. Threshold gaming by splitting payments: A fixed value threshold invites a single large payment being broken into several below the cut off. Eg. A Rs 5,000 purchase settled as three separate UPI transfers falls entirely inside the exempt band.
      The Fix: Apply the threshold to the aggregate value settled to one merchant from one payer in a day rather than to a single transaction.
    3. Definition risk on the large merchant: The charge is designed to fall on large merchants, and the line between a large and a small merchant sits on self declared turnover. Eg. Section 269SU already uses a Rs 50 crore turnover test that a merchant can restructure across entities.
      The Fix: Anchor the classification to verified Goods and Services Tax turnover rather than to a declaration made at onboarding.
    4. Fiscal and commercial funding running in parallel: An incentive subsidy and an MDR answer the same infrastructure cost, and running both leaves the split unstated. Eg. The subsidy payout has risen each year while the industry’s stated annual cost has stayed far above it.
      The Fix: Publish a stated glide path withdrawing the incentive as MDR revenue begins, so the two do not fund the same cost twice.

    Conclusion

    The zero fee regime on UPI was paid for by the exchequer, and the bill grew every year while the payments industry’s own cost stayed several times larger. The notification shifts the funding of the large value end of the system from the Budget to the merchant, and leaves the small everyday payment where it was. What to watch is whether the UPI and Services Steering Committee sets a rate above the threshold at all, and whether merchants at that end of the market stay on UPI once it does.

    Back2Basics: National Payments Corporation of India

    1. What it is: NPCI is the umbrella organisation for retail payments and settlement systems in India.
    2. How it was set up: It was incorporated in 2008 as a not for profit company, promoted jointly by the Reserve Bank of India and the Indian Banks’ Association.
    3. Its statutory anchor: It operates under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, which is the law governing payment systems in India.
    4. What it runs: Its systems include UPI, RuPay, the Immediate Payment Service, the National Automated Clearing House and FASTag.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023, GS3, 10 marks] What is the status of digitalization in the Indian economy? Examine the problems faced in this regard and suggest improvements.”

  • E-commerce firms brought under tighter regulation

    Why in the News

    The Union Consumer Affairs Department has notified the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) (Amendment) Rules, 2026, published in the gazette on 9 September and operational from 1 January 2027. The Rules require a platform to disclose the importer and country of origin for imported goods, and to publish its own legal identity and grievance contacts. They set a 48 hour clock for acknowledging a consumer complaint and one month for redressing it. The stated purpose is protection against dark patterns and bundled fees, meaning practices that shape a purchase before any dispute arises. The obligation now attaches to the platform rather than to the seller listing on it, which shifts the burden of a purchase decision from the buyer’s diligence to the platform’s disclosure.

    What are the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules?

    1. The parent statute: The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 replaced the 1986 Act and empowered the Union government to make rules preventing unfair trade practices in electronic commerce.
    2. The 2020 baseline: The Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 were framed under that power and set the existing duties for platforms, which the 2026 amendment extends.
    3. Who the Rules bind: An e-commerce entity is the platform that owns or operates the digital marketplace, and the duties attach to that entity and not only to the seller whose listing appears on it.
    4. The enforcement route: Contraventions are actionable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, including through the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA), the regulator the Act created to act against unfair trade practices on its own motion.

    What must a platform now disclose?

    1. Origin of imported goods: Platforms must disclose the details of the importer and the country of origin for imported goods.
    2. Its own identity and locations: Every e-commerce entity must provide its legal name, the principal geographic address of its headquarters and of all its branches, and the details of its website.
    3. Where a buyer can reach it: Contact details for customer care and for the grievance officer must be provided.

    What obligations do the Rules place beyond disclosure?

    1. Acknowledge within two days: The grievance officer must acknowledge receipt of any consumer complaint within 48 hours.
    2. Redress within a month: The complaint must be redressed within one month.
    3. Dark patterns are named: The amendment is framed as protecting buyers against dark patterns, meaning interface design that steers a user into a choice they did not intend. Eg. A pre ticked add on, or a countdown that manufactures urgency.
    4. Bundled fees are named: The Rules also address fees bundled into a displayed price, where the amount a buyer finally pays differs from the amount that drew them to the listing.

    Challenges to enforcing the E-Commerce Rules

    1. Disclosure without verification: The Rules require the platform to display what the seller declares about origin, and impose no duty to verify that declaration. Eg. Country of origin fields on marketplace listings have remained inconsistent since the 2020 Rules first required them, with the same product listed under different origins by different sellers.
      The Fix: Make the platform liable for a materially false origin declaration on a listing it hosts, so verification becomes cheaper than the penalty.
    2. The clock times the reply, not the remedy: A platform that records a refusal inside one month has complied with the redress requirement. Eg. A rejected return closed within the window counts as redressed under the same clause as a refunded one.
      The Fix: Require the grievance officer’s closure to record the remedy actually given, and make an unremedied closure appealable to the CCPA.
    3. An enumerated list of dark patterns dates quickly: Interface nudges can be redesigned faster than a rule can name them. Eg. The CCPA’s 2023 guidelines on dark patterns named 13 specified practices, and new variants appeared outside that list.
      The Fix: Add a residual test turning on whether the interface obtained consent the user would not have given had the choice been presented neutrally.
    4. The grievance officer is not independent: The officer deciding the complaint is the platform’s own employee, assessing the platform’s own conduct. Eg. The Information Technology Rules had to create a Grievance Appellate Committee above platform grievance officers after first level redress proved inadequate.
      The Fix: Create an appellate tier above the platform grievance officer, so a rejected complaint has a route that does not begin in a consumer court.
    5. Cross border sellers sit outside reach: A foreign seller shipping directly to an Indian buyer has no Indian entity for the Rules to bind. Eg. Listings fulfilled from outside India name no Indian importer, which is precisely the field the Rules require to be displayed.
      The Fix: Require any platform serving Indian buyers to appoint a resident authorised representative answerable under the Rules, on the model used for foreign data fiduciaries.
    6. The practices stay lawful until commencement: The Rules were gazetted in September and commence on 1 January 2027, so the conduct they name remains permitted in the intervening months. Eg. The festive season carrying the year’s highest online sales volumes falls inside that gap.
      The Fix: Bring the disclosure obligations into force on notification and reserve the transition period for the systems dependent grievance timings alone.

    Conclusion

    The amendment moves the burden of a purchase decision from the buyer’s diligence to the platform’s disclosure. It leaves open who is answerable when the disclosure itself is wrong. A timed grievance channel run by the platform’s own officer measures response speed rather than outcome, so compliance can rise without redress improving. What to watch is whether enforcement directions issue against a named platform under the new obligations, since a rule tested only through individual consumer complaints moves at the pace of those complaints.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to foreign-owned e-commerce firms operating in India, which of the following statements is/are correct ? 1. They can sell their own goods in addition to offering their platforms as market-places. 2. The degree to which they can own big sellers on their platforms is limited. Select the correct answer using the code given below : (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 ANSWER: (b)”

  • Bihar decides to drop ‘fail’ from Class 10, 12 marksheets

    Why in the News

    Bihar’s Education Department has decided that Class 10 and 12 marksheets issued by the Bihar School Examination Board will no longer carry the word “fail,” replacing it with “Kaushal ke liye patra” (eligible for skills). The state’s Education Minister announced the change at a review meeting, saying the Board would amend its rules and issue instructions, and that a student’s inability to secure expected marks should not be treated as a reflection of talent. The change follows other recent moves in Bihar’s school system aimed at reducing conventional classroom pressure, including a shorter “no bag day” on Saturdays, and comes as the department also plans special preparatory classes for students appearing for supplementary examinations.

    What is changing on Bihar’s Class 10 and 12 marksheets, and why now?

    1. A terminology change, not a grading change: The word “fail” will be replaced with “Kaushal ke liye patra (eligible for skills)” on marksheets, while the underlying pass criteria and examination structure are unchanged.
    2. Mental health is the stated rationale: The Education Minister said the change is meant to protect student morale, framing a failing mark as a gap in results rather than a judgment on a student’s ability.
    3. Supplementary examination support is being added alongside: The department will run special preparatory classes for a month for students appearing in the Matric supplementary examination, aimed at improving their chances of clearing it.
    4. The change follows a wider set of reforms: Bihar has also introduced a shorter “no bag day” on Saturdays, from 9:30 am to 1 pm instead of 9:30 am to 4 pm, to expose students to theatre, music and other creative activities.

    What does Bihar’s own recent school reform pattern reveal?

    1. Reduced classroom time is a recurring theme: The Saturday “no bag day” order, issued under the Chief Minister’s announcement, cuts formal instruction time in favour of non-academic activity, mirroring the marksheet change’s emphasis on reducing pressure over reducing rigour.
    2. Teacher workload is being reallocated, not reduced: Teachers are now required to spend an additional hour after classroom duties on lesson planning, laboratory management and remedial classes, shifting effort toward preparation and remediation.
    3. The announcement doubled as a Teachers’ Day preview: The same review meeting discussed the September 5 Teachers’ Day function, where one teacher per district will receive a state award, tying the marksheet change to a broader push to recognise and support the teaching workforce.

    Challenges to a terminology-only fix for exam-related student distress

    1. Renaming does not remove the underlying selection pressure: A student who does not clear the exam still cannot progress to the next stage or apply for further study, so the anxiety around the outcome persists even if the label softens. Eg. Kerala and several other states have separately debated “no detention” policies without resolving the same underlying pressure around board exam outcomes. Fix. Pair the marksheet change with post-result counselling support and multiple re-attempt windows so students have a genuine path forward, not only a softer label.
    2. Selective terminology change can obscure rather than address failure rates: Removing the word “fail” without addressing why students underperform risks treating the symptom, language, rather than the cause, such as teaching quality or foundational learning gaps. Eg. Bihar has run remedial classes only for the supplementary examination cohort, not as a standing intervention through the academic year. Fix. Extend structured remedial teaching to the full academic year rather than limiting it to a pre-supplementary exam crash course.

    Conclusion

    Bihar’s decision replaces the word “fail” with a skills-oriented label on its board marksheets, framed as a mental health measure, while leaving the underlying pass-fail structure and supplementary examination process intact. Whether the change eases student distress or merely renames it will depend on whether the state follows through with sustained academic support rather than a one-time terminology.

  • Govt. eases norms for defence exports, licences

    Why in the News

    The Defence Ministry has simplified its Defence Export Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and overhauled the Open General Export Licence (OGEL) framework to help Indian defence manufacturers access global markets faster. Stakeholder consultation with concerned ministries and government agencies has been dispensed with for exports of non-lethal defence items to most destinations, though safeguards continue for sensitive countries, and the same consultation requirement has been removed altogether for exports linked to international tenders and exhibitions.

    What has changed under the revised Export SOP?

    1. Reduced consultation for non-lethal exports: Stakeholder consultation with concerned ministries and agencies is no longer required for exporting non-lethal defence items to most destinations, though safeguards remain in force for sensitive countries.
    2. No consultation for tenders and exhibitions: The same consultation requirement has been dropped for exports of all items meant for international tenders and exhibitions, letting Indian companies pursue overseas opportunities faster.

    How has the OGEL framework been restructured?

    1. Consolidated procedures: Three separate OGEL SOPs, covering major platforms and equipment, parts and components, and intra-company technology transfer, have been merged into a single framework.
    2. Longer validity and wider country coverage: OGEL validity has been extended from two years to three, and its country coverage expanded from 41 countries to all countries except those designated negative or sensitive.
    3. A new licence category for long-term contracts: Indian companies with long-term contracts or agreements with foreign original equipment manufacturers can now obtain an OGEL for eligible items tied to that specific manufacturer, with validity aligned to the underlying contract.
    4. Expanded item coverage: OGEL eligibility now extends to civil-end-use exports of specified small-calibre arms components and protective equipment.

    Challenges to the liberalised export and licensing regime

    1. Diversion risk from wider country coverage: Extending OGEL coverage to all countries except a negative list raises the risk that dual-use or sensitive items reach unintended end users through re-export or transhipment. Eg. Widened general licensing regimes elsewhere have previously required retrofitted end-use verification systems after initial liberalisation exposed gaps, as seen in tightened United States Commerce Control List enforcement following early Export Administration Regulations liberalisation. Fix. Pair the wider OGEL coverage with mandatory post-export end-use certification audits for a sample of shipments to non-treaty destinations.
    2. Consultation removal versus oversight continuity: Dispensing with stakeholder consultation for non-lethal exports speeds approvals but removes a cross-ministry check that previously caught destination-specific concerns before shipment. Eg. Non-lethal classification itself can be contested, since components with civil and military dual use, such as certain protective equipment, may be misclassified at the exporter’s discretion. Fix. Retain a post-facto sampling audit by the Department of Defence Production even where pre-export consultation is waived.

    Conclusion

    The Defence Ministry’s overhaul of the Export SOP and the OGEL framework liberalises licensing timelines, validity and country coverage for Indian defence exporters while explicitly retaining safeguards for sensitive countries and technologies. The stated intent is to let Indian manufacturers respond faster to international tenders and deepen co-production ties with foreign original equipment manufacturers.

    Back2Basics: What is an Open General Export Licence (OGEL)?

    1. An OGEL is a standing, one-time authorisation that lets an eligible exporter self-generate export authorisations for multiple consignments of specified defence items without seeking a separate approval for every individual shipment.
    2. It is administered by the Defence Ministry’s Department of Defence Production and covers major platforms and equipment, parts and components, and intra-company technology transfers.
    3. Its use remains subject to end-destination safeguards, so items bound for negative or sensitive countries continue to require case-by-case authorisation outside the OGEL route.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    No direct PYQ traced in the provided files.