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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Bills/Act/Laws

  • Censor Board meets after six years, members ask who’s on film review panel

    Why in the News

    The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), also known as the Censor Board, has held its 149th meeting, its first in six years and the first under its new chairperson. Members used it to ask for a list of the people who have consistently headed Revising Committees in recent years, the panels that re-examine a film when a certification decision is disputed. The request follows an investigation published in September 2025, which found that three board members had been heading most Revising Committees. The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 require the board to meet once every quarter, and the 12-member board had last met on 31 August 2019. No member has been officially reappointed since the board was reconstituted in 2017, though the tenure is three years. A body whose membership has not been renewed and which does not meet is the body from which every panel deciding a contested certification is drawn.

    What is a Revising Committee?

    1. When it is constituted: A Revising Committee re-examines a film where either the producers or the board are dissatisfied with the Examining Committee’s decision.
    2. What it sits above: The Examining Committee is the first panel to view a film and recommend its certificate.
    3. Who staffs it: It is headed by a member of the board, which is why the identity of the recurring heads decides the outcome of contested certifications.

    What did members ask for at the 149th meeting?

    1. The list of recurring panel heads: Members requested a list of those who consistently headed Revising Committees in recent years to review films.
    2. The finding behind the request: An investigation published in September 2025 found that three board members had been heading most Revising Committees.
    3. What else was on the agenda: Recent films that had generated controversy, strategies for moving forward, and industry outreach programmes were discussed at the virtual meeting.

    What do the rules require, and what happened instead?

    1. The meeting requirement: Under the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024, the CBFC board must meet once every quarter.
    2. The record against it: The 149th meeting took place on 29 August, and the board had last met on 31 August 2019.
    3. The board resolved to do what the rules already say: It was discussed that the board should meet at least once quarterly, in accordance with the rules.

    Why is the board’s own composition in question?

    1. No reappointment since 2017: None of the members of the 12-member board has been officially reappointed since that year.
    2. The tenure has long since run out: The stated tenure of a member is three years, and the board was last reconstituted on 1 August 2017.
    3. The consequence for the panels: Revising Committees are headed by board members, so an unrenewed board narrows the pool from which every contested review is drawn.

    What did the 2024 Rules change?

    1. They replaced the earlier framework: The Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 2024 were notified in supersession of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, and that change itself came up for discussion at the meeting.
    2. Age-based categories replaced a single UA mark: The 2024 Rules subdivided the existing UA category into three age-based categories, UA 7+, UA 13+ and UA 16+, in place of the earlier twelve year mark.
    3. The new categories need interpretation: A request for clarification on the difference between the 16 year and the 18 year certification was made at the meeting.

    Challenges to the CBFC’s certification framework

    1. Delay operates as a decision: A certificate is the precondition for theatrical release, so time taken over a review has the same commercial effect as a refusal. Eg. A film awaiting a revision date loses the release window around which its distribution and publicity were booked.
      The Fix: Fix an outer time limit for a Revising Committee to report, with automatic escalation to the board once that limit lapses.
    2. The reviewer and the appellate reviewer come from one pool: Advisory panel members sit on Examining Committees and board members chair the panels that review them, so the second look is not independent of the first. Eg. Both tiers are constituted by the same appointing authority from the same panel lists.
      The Fix: Draw the revision tier from a separate roster with fixed terms, published in advance of any specific film.
    3. The specialist appellate tier no longer exists: The Film Certification Appellate Tribunal was abolished by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so a producer’s remedy against a certification decision now lies in a High Court. Eg. Certification disputes that the tribunal would once have heard are now filed as writ petitions.
      The Fix: Restore a specialist appellate forum, or fix a statutory hearing timeline for certification writs so the remedy matches the release cycle.
    4. Modifications are negotiated rather than adjudicated: A producer facing a restrictive category has an incentive to accept voluntary cuts instead of contesting them. Eg. Voluntary modifications are routinely offered to secure a less restrictive certificate.
      The Fix: Require every accepted modification and its stated ground to be recorded in a published certification order.
    5. The framework does not cover the largest release channel: The Cinematograph Act, 1952 governs films for public exhibition, and content released on a streaming service falls instead under the self-regulation regime of the Information Technology Rules, 2021. Eg. The same title can carry a CBFC certificate in theatres and a self-assigned rating on a streaming platform.
      The Fix: State in law which regime a release falls under by medium, and align the age categories across the two so a rating means the same thing in both.

    Conclusion

    The board has resumed meeting and has put its own functioning on the record as the first item of business. Two decisions now sit with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting rather than with the board: reconstitution of a membership whose term expired years ago, and whether the list of recurring Revising Committee heads is supplied. What to watch is whether the next quarterly meeting is held on schedule, which is the first test of whether the six year gap was an aberration or the operating norm.

    Back2Basics: Central Board of Film Certification

    1. What it is: A statutory body constituted under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, functioning under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
    2. What it does: It certifies films for public exhibition in India, and a film cannot be publicly exhibited without its certificate.
    3. The certificate categories: U for unrestricted public exhibition, UA with its age-based subdivisions, A restricted to adults, and S restricted to a specialised audience.
    4. How it is staffed: It has a chairperson and non-official members appointed by the Centre, with regional offices that constitute the Examining Committees.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022] With reference to the “Tea Board” in India, consider the following statements : 1. The Tea Board is a statutory body. 2. It is a regulatory body attached to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. 3. The Tea Board’s Head Office is situated in Bengaluru. 4. The Board has overseas offices at Dubai and Moscow. Which of the statements given above are correct ? (a) 1 and 3 (b) 2 and 4 (c) 3 and 4 (d) 1 and 4 ANSWER: (d)”

  • Eyes on the road

    Why in the News

    A Supreme Court Bench has asked the Road Transport Ministry to consider a petition seeking a reduction in road traffic deaths through habituating the use of seat belts and helmets. The Court referred the petition to the Centre rather than issuing directions itself, a departure from the interventionist posture it took on road safety in 2019. India carries about 1 per cent of the world’s vehicular fleet and about 11 per cent of the world’s road traffic fatalities, and widespread non-compliance with seat belts and helmets is part of the reason. The measures the petition turns on protect occupants of enclosed vehicles, and the largest share of India’s road deaths is among people who are not inside one. A strategy built on restraint use therefore reaches a minority of the mortality it is meant to reduce.

    What is the ‘Safe System’ approach?

    1. Its starting assumption: The approach assumes that road users will not behave perfectly, so the road environment is designed to absorb error rather than to punish it.
    2. What it acts on: It works on both the probability of a crash occurring and the severity of the crash when one does occur.
    3. Where it places responsibility: Responsibility is shared between the user and the agencies that design, build and manage roads, rather than resting on the user alone.

    Why does enforcing restraint use reach only a third of road mortality?

    1. The fatality mix is dominated by unenclosed users: Road Transport Ministry data for 2024 recorded two-wheeler riders at 46.2 per cent and pedestrians at 20.6 per cent of road deaths.
    2. The arithmetic of the enforcement case: Seat belts and child restraints protect only occupants of enclosed vehicles, so better enforcement of their adoption addresses the reasons underlying one-third of total mortality.
    3. What restraint use does prevent: Post-crash investigations have repeatedly found victims ejected from vehicles, or killed in secondary collisions against the vehicle’s own interior.
    4. Children are the exception within the enclosed group: Child vulnerability is raised by the patchy use of child restraint systems and of rear-seat belts.

    Where does the enforcement and compliance model fall short?

    1. Policing capacity is the binding constraint: Actual policing is wanting, including because of chronic shortages in traffic police cadres.
    2. The vehicle is a lever that is not being used: Manufacturers can be required to fit tamper-proof seat belt reminders, and modification of those systems after purchase can be blocked.
    3. The statute already provided the machinery: The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 instituted or scaffolded various mechanisms to prevent road traffic deaths, and national data so far show no evidence of improvement at the scale India needs.
    4. The social reinforcement is missing: India lacks a public culture that reinforces safe behaviour and deters unsafe behaviour, so compliance depends on the presence of an enforcer.

    Does responsibility for a crash rest with the user or with the road?

    1. The user side is real but bounded: Individual responsibility matters, and so does the duty of care owed by schools and similar institutions.
    2. The design duty does not transfer: Governments are still expected to design roads on the assumption that not everyone will behave perfectly, which is a standard no individual user can satisfy on the state’s behalf.
    3. The dominant violation points away from habit: Speeding has been found to be the dominant recorded violation associated with fatalities, and a national strategy aimed at removing the opportunities for vehicles to reach high speeds may yield greater gains than a further compliance drive.
    4. Neither level of government has taken the design route: The ‘Safe System’ approach has not been systematically employed by the Union government or by State governments.

    What would a Safe System require governments to do?

    1. Identify and fix the locations that concentrate deaths: Accident-prone locations are identified and then rectified, so the same site stops producing crashes.
    2. Build environments that compensate for error: Physical design absorbs a mistake instead of converting it into a fatality.
    3. Reduce children’s exposure to two-wheeler traffic: The exposure itself is treated as the risk, rather than the child’s compliance with a restraint.
    4. Improve timely access to trauma care: Survival after a crash depends on the speed with which definitive care is reached.
    5. Act on severity as well as frequency: The two objectives are distinct, and a measure that lowers crash numbers without lowering impact forces leaves mortality where it was.

    Challenges to adopting the Safe System approach in India

    1. A single corridor has several road owners: A highway passing through a city changes hands between the national authority, the State works department and the municipal body, each with its own design standard. Eg. Urban stretches of national highways inside municipal limits are maintained by the local body, and the corridor itself remains a national highway.
      The Fix: Assign one accountable road owner per corridor, with a statutory duty to rectify identified black spots, meaning locations carrying a recorded cluster of fatal crashes.
    2. Vehicle safety regulation is built around the car: Crash protection standards and consumer ratings cover enclosed vehicles, and the largest share of deaths is among riders. Eg. Crash test ratings under the Bharat New Car Assessment Programme apply to cars and not to two-wheelers.
      The Fix: Extend a crash protection rating and mandatory anti-lock braking across the two-wheeler fleet, and separate rider space on high speed corridors.
    3. Black spot rectification is treated as a works item: Fixing a fatal cluster is funded and measured as civil construction rather than as a safety outcome. Eg. Black spots are carried on a rolling ministry list and closed on completion of the works, not on a subsequent fall in fatalities.
      The Fix: Make an independent road safety audit a condition for opening and for reopening a corridor, with the audit report published.
    4. Trauma care is not built to the clock that decides survival: The referral chain is organised by administrative geography rather than by response time. Eg. Cashless treatment for road accident victims during the first hour after a crash was provided for in the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, and the scheme giving effect to it was notified only in 2025.
      The Fix: Map every high fatality corridor to a designated trauma facility within a stated response time, and fund the ambulance network against that map.
    5. Children travel on two-wheelers under rules nobody checks: The safeguards for a child pillion exist on paper and form no part of routine enforcement. Eg. The Central Motor Vehicles Rules were amended in 2022 to require a crash helmet and a safety harness for a child aged nine months to four years, with a speed cap of 40 kmph.
      The Fix: Enforce the harness and the speed cap through school transport regulation and checks at school gates, where the exposure is concentrated and repeated daily.

    Conclusion

    The referral leaves the design question with the executive, which is where the power to answer it sits. A programme built on habituating restraint use can raise measured compliance without moving the fatality curve, because the users dying in the largest numbers are not inside a vehicle at all. The unresolved question is whether safety is treated as a behaviour problem, which makes the citizen the variable, or as a design problem, which makes the road authority the variable. What to watch is whether the Road Transport Ministry’s response to the petition commits to speed management and corridor redesign with State-level targets, or to another enforcement drive.

    Back2Basics: Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019

    1. What it amended: It amended the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the central statute governing licensing, registration, permits, traffic regulation and third party insurance.
    2. Penalties: It raised the penalties for offences including over-speeding, drunken driving, driving without a licence, and failure to wear a helmet or a seat belt.
    3. Institutions it provided for: It provided for a National Road Safety Board to advise the Centre and the States on road safety and traffic management standards.
    4. Victim support: It provided for a Motor Vehicle Accident Fund to give compulsory insurance cover to all road users in India, and for protection of a Good Samaritan who assists an accident victim.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2014, GS3, 12 marks] National Urban Transport Policy emphasises on ‘moving people’ instead of ‘moving vehicles. Discuss critically the success of the various strategies of the Government in this regard.”

  • SC seeks timeline for FSSAI’s food warning label roll-out

    Why in the News

    The Supreme Court has put the two phase rollout of front-of-pack warning labels (FoPL) proposed by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) under scrutiny. A two judge Bench held that a “reasonable, scientifically justified and clearly defined timeline” must divide the two phases, warning that the second phase could otherwise be “indefinitely postponed”. The Court also questioned why a warning should require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess of even one can pose a health risk. The directions came on a public interest litigation seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats. The protective content of the label therefore turns on a threshold and a commencement date that the proposal left to administrative discretion.

    What is front-of-pack labelling?

    1. What it is: Front of pack labelling puts a summary nutrition signal on the front face of a package, so a buyer sees it without reading the nutrition table printed on the back.
    2. A warning is a directive signal: A warning label declares that a product is high in a specified nutrient, which tells the buyer what to do rather than offering a score the buyer has to interpret.
    3. The nutrients of concern: The Indian proposal covers added fat, added sugar and salt, each linked to non communicable disease at excess intake.
    4. The threshold does the work: A product carries a warning only where it crosses a set limit on a nutrient, so the level of that limit and the number of nutrients required decide how much of the market is actually labelled.

    What did the Court hold on the two phase timeline?

    1. The phased design as proposed: Warnings would initially apply to packaged foods high in two or more nutrients of concern, and would extend in a second phase to products high in even one of them.
    2. Why FSSAI wanted the split: The regulator proposed the phased approach to give consumers time to adapt to the new labels and the food industry time to reformulate its products.
    3. The Court’s objection: The Bench held that assessment of consumer acceptability and adequate reformulation time “cannot be reason enough for this uncertainty in time”, and that a clearly defined timeline or transitionary period dividing the two phases must be indicated for the FSSAI’s approach to be a workable one.
    4. The risk it named: Without a fixed timeline the second phase could be “indefinitely postponed”, which would leave the narrower first phase standing as the operative regime.

    Why is the two nutrient trigger being questioned?

    1. The Court’s question: It asked why a warning should initially require a product to be high in at least two nutrients of concern when excess levels of even one could pose health risks.
    2. The petitioners’ ground: The petition contends that the two nutrient requirement lacks a scientific basis and would leave many products outside the first phase.
    3. The alternative the Court floated: It asked FSSAI to consider a model bringing products with the highest levels of nutrients of concern under the warning regime first, followed by those crossing lower thresholds.
    4. What that alternative would change: Sequencing by severity rather than by the count of nutrients would capture a product that is extreme on a single nutrient, which the two nutrient trigger currently leaves out.
    5. The counter claim on the record: Stakeholders objected to placing ultra processed foods on the same footing as minimally processed packaged foods, on the ground that the latter carry greater nutritional benefit.

    What else did the Court direct, and what happens next?

    1. Nutritional literacy in schools: The Bench asked the Union government to incorporate nutritional literacy into school curricula, teaching children how to interpret nutritional information on a label.
    2. Why children were singled out: The Bench recorded that children are particularly “vulnerable” to “impulse or uninformed dietary decision-making”, so a label by itself does not protect them.
    3. The affidavit and the next date: FSSAI was directed to file an affidavit within 10 days setting out its responses and clarifications, and the matter was posted to 28 September.
    4. The petition behind it: The directions came while hearing a public interest litigation filed by the non profit 3S and Our Health Society, seeking mandatory front of pack warnings on packaged foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fats.

    Challenges to front of pack warning labelling in India

    1. The threshold is set administratively and decides the regime: A limit fixed a little higher exempts most of the processed food shelf without any change to the rule’s text. Eg. FSSAI’s earlier Indian Nutrition Rating proposal drew criticism that its thresholds would have left most packaged snacks favourably rated.
      The Fix: Place the numerical thresholds in the regulation itself rather than in guidance, so any change requires the same consultation the regulation did.
    2. A rating signal is weaker than a warning signal: A star or score lets a buyer rationalise a poor product as better than the alternative, and a warning does not. Eg. Chile’s black octagonal “high in” warnings reduced purchases of labelled products, while star rating systems elsewhere recorded smaller effects.
      The Fix: Settle on a single warning format and bar any parallel voluntary rating on the same pack face.
    3. Reformulation can move a nutrient rather than remove it: A manufacturer can substitute an unlabelled ingredient to drop below a threshold without lowering the product’s health cost. Eg. Sugar replaced by non nutritive sweeteners takes a product below a sugar limit while leaving an ultra processed formulation intact.
      The Fix: Add an ultra processed classification to the pack alongside the nutrient warnings, so formulation is disclosed and not only nutrient content.
    4. Advertising sits outside a labelling rule: A warning on the pack does nothing about the promotion that put the product in the trolley. Eg. Children’s programming and digital platforms carry advertising for products high in fat, sugar and salt that no packaging regulation reaches.
      The Fix: Restrict advertising of products carrying a warning label during children’s viewing hours and on platforms with a substantial child audience.
    5. Most food sold in India is unpackaged: Warning labels reach the packaged segment, and not the loose, street and restaurant food where a large share of fat, sugar and salt is consumed. Eg. FSSAI’s menu labelling requirement applies only to chain restaurants above a size threshold and leaves standalone eateries out.
      The Fix: Extend calorie and nutrient disclosure to chain outlets below the current threshold and to food aggregator listings, where the menu is already digital.
    6. Enforcement capacity is the binding constraint: A labelling requirement is only as real as the sampling and prosecution behind it. Eg. Food testing laboratory capacity and food safety officer strength in the States have repeatedly been flagged as short of sanctioned levels.
      The Fix: Publish a State wise compliance sampling rate for front of pack labelling, so enforcement effort is visible rather than assumed.

    Conclusion

    The label’s protective value sits in two numbers the proposal leaves to administrative discretion: the level at which a nutrient triggers a warning, and how many nutrients must cross it. The Court has decided neither. It has refused to let the gap between the phases stay open ended, which converts a design choice into something the regulator must now justify on the record. What to watch is whether the regulator defends the two nutrient trigger with evidence or moves to the severity first sequence the Bench proposed.

    Back2Basics: Food Safety and Standards Authority of India

    1. Its governing statute: FSSAI is a statutory body established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, which consolidated several earlier food laws into a single framework.
    2. Its ministry: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    3. What it does: It frames science based standards for food articles and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    4. How it regulates: It issues regulations such as the Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Regulations, 2020, and licenses and registers food businesses through State food safety commissioners.

    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)”

  • 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)”

  • ‘Seeds Bill will not harm farmer rights’

    Why in the News

    The Union Agriculture Minister has said the proposed Seeds Bill will not be detrimental to the rights of farmers. The statement followed a meeting with about 20 farmers’ organisations on the draft Seeds Bill and the draft Pesticides Management Bill. The Centre’s stated case is that the Seeds Act, 1966 no longer matches contemporary farming practice, and that 70% of the seed Indian farmers use falls outside its purview. The Ministry has said every policy will be finalised on the basis of consensus after discussion with farmers, and that traditional seeds will be conserved. The contest is between tighter regulation of the seed trade, which runs on registration and traceability, and the informal exchange through which most smallholders obtain planting material.

    Why does the Centre want new seed and pesticide statutes?

    1. The governing law is six decades old: The Seeds Act, 1966 is no longer in tune with contemporary farming practices, on the Ministry’s own assessment.
    2. Most seed sits outside its reach: 70% of the seed used by Indian farmers falls outside the purview of the existing Act, so the standards it sets govern a minority of actual sowing.
    3. Spurious seed is the stated target: A crackdown on “fake” seeds is the immediate purpose of replacing the Act.
    4. Traceability is the proposed mechanism: A traceability system, which links a seed lot back to its producer through the supply chain, is intended to let a farmer identify the right seed before sowing.
    5. A parallel pesticide statute: A new pesticide management law is sought on the same logic, to identify substandard pesticides in the market.

    Who has been consulted, and on what terms?

    1. Scope of the consultation: About 20 farmers’ organisations were brought in on both draft Bills together rather than on the seed law alone.
    2. Who was in the room: The Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, various factions of the Bharatiya Kisan Union, the All India Kisan Coordination Committee (AIKCC) and the Kisan Mahapanchayat, among others, presented their views.
    3. The official side: The Union Agriculture Secretary and other senior officials of the ministry attended.
    4. The stated decision rule: The Centre has committed to finalising policy by consensus with farmers, and to conserving traditional seed varieties.

    Challenges to the Seeds Bill

    1. Registration can narrow informal exchange: Compulsory registration of varieties raises the cost of selling seed outside the formal trade, which is where most smallholder exchange happens. Eg. Farm saved and farmer to farmer seed still supplies a large share of the area under pulses and coarse cereals.
      The Fix: Write an express exemption for the sale and exchange of unbranded farm saved seed into the statute itself rather than leaving it to subordinate rules.
    2. Overlap with the existing plant variety law: Farmers’ rights to save, use, sow, exchange and sell the produce of a protected variety already sit in the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, and a new seed statute can cut across them. Eg. That Act bars a farmer only from selling branded seed of a protected variety, not from exchanging it.
      The Fix: State the relationship between the two statutes on the face of the Bill, so the earlier right is not read down by implication.
    3. Compensation for seed failure is hard to obtain: A farmer who sows spurious or poorly germinating seed loses an entire season and then has to prove causation to recover anything. Eg. Cotton growers in Telangana and Maharashtra have repeatedly reported germination failure in purchased seed lots.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory time bound compensation route through a district level seed committee rather than leaving the farmer to consumer litigation.
    4. Enforcement capacity sits with the States: Seed inspection and seed testing laboratories are run by State governments and are thinly staffed, so a traceability mandate can outrun the machinery meant to police it. Eg. Sampling and prosecution depend on notified State seed inspectors and a limited network of notified seed testing laboratories.
      The Fix: Fund State seed testing laboratory capacity and tie dealer licence renewal to sampling and reporting performance.

    Conclusion

    Neither draft has reached Parliament, and the consultation route the Ministry has chosen makes the text itself the thing to watch rather than the assurance around it. The unresolved question is where the line falls between a seed a farmer may freely exchange and a seed that must be registered, labelled and traced. An assurance that rights will not be harmed carries weight only if that line is drawn in the statute rather than in rules framed later.

    Back2Basics: Seeds Act, 1966

    1. What it regulates: The Act governs the quality of seed sold in India by empowering the Centre to notify kinds and varieties of seed and to prescribe minimum standards for them.
    2. The standards it sets: Notified seed must meet prescribed limits for germination and genetic and physical purity, and must carry a label stating them.
    3. Who enforces it: State level seed certification agencies certify seed and notified seed inspectors draw samples and prosecute violations.
    4. What it leaves out: The Act regulates only notified kinds and varieties, so seed outside that list is not covered by its standards.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Indian Patents Act, a biological process to create a seed can be patented in India. 2. In India, there is no Intellectual Property Appellate Board. 3. Plant varieties are not eligible to be patented in India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 3 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 3 only (d) 1, 2 and 3 ANSWER: (c)”

  • Mining, money & federalism: Why a new law is at the centre of a political tussle in Odisha

    Why in the News

    Parliament has passed the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026. It sets a uniform national tax framework for major minerals and limits the power of States to levy taxes on mining lands. The step overrides the financial effect of Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024). A nine judge Constitution Bench had held there, by a majority of 8 to 1, that States hold the power to tax mineral rights and mineral bearing lands. The contest is over who collects the revenue that mining generates, and Odisha is where it is sharpest. Three States have taken the amendment to the Supreme Court, so a question the largest Bench to hear it had settled is open again.

    What does the 2026 amendment change about who can tax mining?

    1. A bar on State levies: The new Section 9D provides that no tax, cess or other levy shall be imposed by a State on mineral rights or on mineral bearing lands, whether computed on mineral quantity, mineral value, royalty payable or otherwise.
    2. A conditional exception only: A State may levy only in accordance with such conditions or restrictions as the Central Government prescribes.
    3. Wider central reach: Amendments to Section 2 and Section 13 extend the Centre’s control to mineral bearing lands.
    4. Rule making is centralised: The Centre is given sole authority to frame the rules that restrict the taxing power of States over minerals.

    What did the Supreme Court hold in 2024?

    1. Royalty on extraction: States were held competent to levy royalty on the extraction of minerals from land within the State.
    2. Tax on mineral bearing land: The same ruling held that States may tax the lands which comprise mines and quarries.
    3. The central law was read as no bar: The Bench held that the parent mining statute did not take away the taxing competence of the States in this field.
    4. Past dues were opened up: Recovery of dues for earlier years was permitted in staggered instalments, which is the origin of the arrears claims now in dispute.

    Why is Odisha the sharpest site of the dispute?

    1. The stakes as the Opposition states them: The Biju Janata Dal (BJD) puts the cost to Odisha at Rs 12,000 crore a year in foregone revenue and Rs 1 lakh crore in arrears.
    2. The procedural objection: A letter from the former Chief Minister of Odisha to the State’s ruling party Members of Parliament records that the Bill was passed with less than 10 minutes of discussion in the Lok Sabha.
    3. The framing of the contest: The Opposition presents the law as an attack on federalism and on the financial rights of the State rather than as a technical tax measure.
    4. Street level escalation: The Congress and the Left have announced a gherao of the Odisha Assembly on 29 September.
    5. The legal challenge is already under way: Karnataka, Kerala and Telangana have moved the Supreme Court against the amendment, and the Odisha unit of the Congress has said it will do the same.
    6. Why the State is so exposed: The economy and the politics of Odisha are closely tied to mining, so a change in mineral taxation reaches its budget directly.

    What is the case made for a uniform national framework?

    1. Multiple levies deter industry: On the State government’s own argument, arbitrary and multi level levies on mineral bearing land would cause extensive damage to the industrial ecosystem of the State.
    2. Mining revenue has already risen sharply: The State’s Steel and Mines Minister puts earnings from the mining sector at about Rs 50,000 crore, against about Rs 5,000 crore before 2014.
    3. A second channel already reaches States: States continue to receive money for mining affected areas through the District Mineral Foundation (DMF), a non profit trust set up by the State government.
    4. The earlier reform is offered as the cause: That rise in receipts is attributed to the last amendment of the parent Act in 2015, which moved major mineral concessions to competitive auction.

    Challenges to the MMDR Amendment Act, 2026

    1. A statute answering a constitutional finding invites a second round: Where a Bench locates a taxing power in the State List, an ordinary central law restricting its exercise raises the question of legislative competence rather than settling it. Eg. Royalty and cess on minerals has been litigated repeatedly since the India Cement judgment of 1990.
      The Fix: Route the change through a constitutional amendment or a Finance Commission mediated compensation formula rather than through a bar inserted by ordinary law.
    2. Producing districts carry the costs of mining and lose the levy: Land degradation, displacement and water stress sit in the mining district, with the taxing power moving upward. Eg. The iron ore districts of Keonjhar and Sundargarh in Odisha carry heavy overburden dumping and haulage traffic.
      The Fix: Make a fixed share of central mineral receipts a statutory entitlement of the producing district rather than a discretionary allocation.
    3. Revenue predictability for States falls: A levy that can be permitted or withdrawn through prescribed central conditions cannot be budgeted for with confidence. Eg. Mineral rich States had already built projected receipts into their medium term fiscal statements.
      The Fix: Fix the permitted State levy in the Act itself with a floor, so it is not alterable by executive prescription.
    4. Uniformity ignores unequal mineral endowment: A single national framework treats a State with large reserves and a State with none as comparable for taxation purposes. Eg. Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh together account for the bulk of India’s iron ore and coal output.
      The Fix: Build an endowment weighted transfer into the framework so producing States are not equalised downward.
    5. Litigation freezes investment decisions: A pending challenge to the taxing framework leaves both States and lessees uncertain about liability for the interim period. Eg. The 2024 ruling itself came at the end of litigation running over three decades on the same question.
      The Fix: Seek an early and time bound hearing along with an interim arrangement on collection, so liability does not accumulate unresolved.

    Conclusion

    The dispute is no longer about the rate at which minerals are taxed. It is about whether a fiscal power the Court located with the States can be narrowed by ordinary central legislation. Until the challenge is decided, mineral rich States must budget for revenue they may not be permitted to collect. The marker to watch is whether the Court treats the new bar as a permissible exercise of the Union’s mining power or as an encroachment on a State legislative field.

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

    1. What it governs: It is India’s principal law for the development and regulation of mines and minerals.
    2. The Union’s declared control: The Act declares that the Union should take control of mining and mineral development to the extent provided by the Act.
    3. Major and minor minerals: Major minerals are regulated centrally under this Act, and minor minerals such as sand, building stone and ordinary clay are governed by State rules.
    4. The 2015 overhaul: That amendment moved allocation of major mineral concessions to auction, created the District Mineral Foundation and the National Mineral Exploration Trust (NMET), and strengthened penalties for illegal mining.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements: I. India has joined the Minerals Security Partnership as a member. II. India is a resource-rich country in all the 30 critical minerals that it has identified. III. The Parliament in 2023 has amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowering the Central Government to exclusively auction mining lease and composite license for certain critical minerals. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III ANSWER: (c)”

  • First sector wide Corporate Social Responsibility framework for coal companies

    Why in News

    1. New framework launched: The Ministry of Coal launched the first sector wide Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) framework for Indian coal companies on 8 September 2026.

    Core facts

    1. First of its kind: This is the first sector specific CSR framework since statutory CSR began under the Companies Act, 2013.
    2. Design agency: The Indian Institute of Corporate Affairs developed the framework. It targets communities in coal mining areas.
    3. Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana (TBSY): This scheme funds treatment for thalassaemia and aplastic anaemia. Empanelled hospitals expanded from 4 to 21 nationally.
    4. TBSY support: It provides up to ₹10 lakh per patient for a bone marrow transplant. The total budgeted outlay is ₹130 crore across four phases.
    5. TBSY record: Over 1,050 bone marrow transplants have been completed. Coal India Limited (CIL) delivers this programme.
    6. Nanha Sa Dil: This programme addresses congenital heart defects in newborns. It began in March 2024 in four districts of Jharkhand.
    7. Nanha Sa Dil record: Over 200,000 children were screened. More than 1,500 corrective cardiac surgeries were performed free of cost. Subsidiaries SECL, CCL, NCL and WCL scaled the programme.

    Static Context

    1. Statutory CSR was introduced through Section 135 of the Companies Act, 2013.
    2. CSR rule: Qualifying companies must spend 2 percent of average net profits of the preceding three years on CSR.
    3. Applicability: The rule applies to companies meeting thresholds on net worth, turnover or net profit.
    4. Coal India Limited is a Maharatna central public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Coal.

    Prelims angle

    1. CSR statutory basis: Section 135, Companies Act, 2013, and the 2 percent spending norm.
    2. Scheme mapping: Thalassemia Bal Sewa Yojana and Nanha Sa Dil are run by coal sector enterprises, a testable pairing.

    Mains angle

    1. GS3 and GS4: A question can examine whether mandatory CSR produces genuine social value or compliance driven spending, using coal sector health schemes as evidence.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024] With reference to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) rules in India, consider the following statements:
    1. CSR rules specify that expenditures that benefit the company directly or its employees will not be considered as CSR activities.
    2. CSR rules do not specify minimum spending on CSR activities.
    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
    Final answer: (a)”

    “[2013, GS3, 10 marks] With a consideration towards the strategy of inclusive growth, the new Companies Bill, 2013 has indirectly made CSR a mandatory obligation. Discuss the challenges expected in its implementation in right earnest. Also discuss other provisions in the Bill and their implications”

  • BJD stages protest over Mines and Minerals Amendment Act

    Why in the News

    The Biju Janata Dal has demanded constitutional intervention to reverse the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026, marching to the Lok Bhavan in Bhubaneswar and submitting a memorandum addressed to the President through the Governor. The demand answers the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mineral Area Development Authority v. Steel Authority of India (2024). That judgment recognised the power of State governments to impose taxes and levies on mines and mineral bearing lands. It also dealt with recovery of such dues for the period beginning 1 April 2005, which the party values at more than Rs 1 lakh crore in arrears for Odisha alone. The contest is between Parliament’s power to limit State taxation in the name of mineral development and a State’s claim on the revenue from minerals it owns.

    What has the party actually asked for?

    1. Reversal, not amendment: The memorandum seeks constitutional intervention for the reversal of the 2026 amendment rather than a modification of its terms.
    2. The route chosen: The petition was addressed to the President and routed through the Governor, placing the objection outside the legislative process the amendment has already cleared.
    3. The stated test: Any legislative measure that substantially curtails the rights and financial interests of a State in relation to mines and mineral bearing lands deserves careful constitutional and legal examination.

    What is at stake for Odisha’s revenue?

    1. The arrears claim: The State was estimated to become entitled to more than Rs 1 lakh crore towards arrears of mining related taxes and levies following the 2024 judgment.
    2. The recurring claim: A further approximately Rs 12,000 crore of additional annual revenue was estimated to follow from the recognised taxing power.
    3. Why the base is large: Odisha’s reserves of iron ore, coal, bauxite, chromite and other minerals have historically been a major source of revenue for the State government, so a change in the taxing head moves a large absolute sum.

    How does the amendment reverse the judgment’s effect?

    1. The provision used: A new Section 9D bars a State from imposing any tax, cess or other levy on mineral rights or mineral bearing lands, whether measured by quantity, value or royalty, except in accordance with conditions the Central Government prescribes.
    2. The constitutional hook: Entry 50 of the State List gives States the power to tax mineral rights subject to any limitations imposed by Parliament by law relating to mineral development, and this is the first exercise of that limitation.
    3. The stated justification: Some States had stacked around fourteen separate charges, with land taxes reaching 20 per cent, on the ground that blocks were being made commercially unviable.
    4. The disputed edge: The judgment recognised a separate State power to tax lands under Entry 49 of the State List, which Entry 50’s limitation clause does not reach, and that gap is what a challenge would target.

    Challenges to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2026

    1. A statutory limit on a constitutional head: Curbing a State land tax through a central mining statute rather than a constitutional amendment leaves the reversal open to challenge on the ground that Parliament used a power it does not hold over Entry 49. Eg. Odisha and Jharkhand have both said they will test the amendment in the Supreme Court.
      The Fix: Settle the boundary between Entry 49 and Entry 50 by a reference under Article 143 before assessments under the new section are raised, rather than after a decade of recovery litigation.
    2. A recognised entitlement is extinguished after it accrued: The 2024 judgment allowed recovery from 1 April 2005, so States had already booked receivables that the amendment removes prospectively and retrospectively at once. Eg. Odisha’s estimated arrears rest entirely on that recovery window.
      The Fix: Protect dues that accrued before the amendment’s commencement by an express saving clause, so the limitation operates only on future levies.
    3. Mineral revenue is concentrated in a few States: A uniform national bar falls almost entirely on the small group of mineral bearing States, which cannot substitute the lost head from any other source. Eg. Odisha, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh carry the bulk of India’s iron ore, coal and bauxite output and therefore the bulk of the foregone levy.
      The Fix: Compensate the affected States from a share of central mining receipts for a fixed transition period, on the model used for the Goods and Services Tax transition.
    4. Input cost stability is bought with fiscal centralisation: Capping State levies stabilises costs for steel, aluminium, cement and power at the price of removing a State’s only mineral specific tax head. Eg. The uneven and rising input cost that followed the 2024 judgment is the stated reason for the amendment.
      The Fix: Prescribe a ceiling rate for State levies under Section 9D rather than a bar, so cost predictability is achieved without extinguishing the head.

    Conclusion

    The dispute has moved from the courtroom to the constitutional offices and is heading back to the courtroom. A State whose taxing power was recognised by a judgment has been overridden by an ordinary central statute, and the party in opposition in that State has taken the objection to the President rather than to Parliament, where the amendment has already passed. What to watch is whether the mineral bearing States file the challenge they have threatened, and whether it is framed on Entry 49 rather than Entry 50.

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

    1. Scope: It is the parent law for every mineral except petroleum and natural gas, and it sets who may explore, who may mine and what they pay.
    2. Ownership and leasing: The State government owns the mineral in its territory and signs every lease, even for a block the Centre has auctioned.
    3. Auction as the only route: The MMDR Amendment Act, 2015 made competitive auction the sole route to a mineral concession, replacing discretionary first come first served allocation.
    4. The 2023 shift: For 24 critical and strategic minerals the Centre took over the auction itself, moving the auctioning authority upward while leaving State ownership untouched.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2025] Consider the following statements: I. India has joined the Minerals Security Partnership as a member. II. India is a resource-rich country in all the 30 critical minerals that it has identified. III. The Parliament in 2023 has amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 empowering the Central Government to exclusively auction mining lease and composite license for certain critical minerals. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) I and II only (b) II and III only (c) I and III only (d) I, II and III ANSWER: (c)”

  • Concerns over the Census questions

    Why in the News

    The Central government has notified the questions to be asked of every individual during the population enumeration phase of the 2027 Census. In a departure from past Censuses, the schedule seeks personal details that cannot be used to generate any useful statistics: the names of the parents of every individual, nationality as declared, the permanent residential address, the place of COVID-19 vaccination, the number of bank accounts held, and mobile, Aadhaar, voter identity and passport numbers. The same details are the ones required to prepare or update a population register. The contest is over whether a questionnaire built partly out of identifiers still serves the statistical purpose the Census exists for.

    What is a population census?

    1. The United Nations definition: A census is the total process of planning, collecting, processing, analysing, disseminating and evaluating demographic, economic and social data at the smallest geographic level, at a specified time, covering all persons in a country or in a well delimited part of it.
    2. Its output is statistics, not records: The exercise generates statistics for the use of the government in particular and society in general, so the information an individual gives is used only to compile the relevant statistics.
    3. Confidentiality is a founding principle: Principle 6 of the United Nations Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics requires individual data collected by statistical agencies to be strictly confidential and used exclusively for statistical purposes. India has adopted these principles.

    What is new in the 2027 questionnaire?

    1. Household relationships: Respondents must give the details of the parents of every individual, and of the spouses of the married persons in the household.
    2. Status and residence: Nationality as declared and the permanent residential address are to be recorded.
    3. A pandemic era question: The place of COVID-19 vaccination is to be recorded.
    4. Financial detail: The total number of bank accounts held by each person is to be recorded.
    5. Identifiers: Mobile number, Aadhaar number and voter identity card number are to be recorded if available, along with the passport number of Indian passport holders and whether the person holds a driving licence.
    6. The length of the schedule: The questionnaire runs to 40 questions, many of them requiring descriptive answers.

    Why have names never entered Census databases?

    1. A name identifies, it does not measure: An individual’s name has no relevance to the exercise beyond identifying the person during enumeration. Names have been placeholders and have not been present in Census databases.
    2. India has never computerised them: There have been no attempts in the Indian Censuses to computerise names at all.
    3. Other countries record names for a declared later use: Some countries include the name and open past Census data for genealogical study. Eg. Past data from the United States Census can be accessed 72 years after the exercise, and India has no comparable rule or policy.

    Which households cannot answer these questions?

    1. Institutional households: Wardens of hostels, old age homes and jails must supply the names of every resident along with the names of their parents.
    2. Students are counted where they are not present: Large numbers of children study away from home in hostels and as paying guests. February falls towards the end of the academic year, so they may not be at home and would not be eligible for enumeration at their normal households.
    3. Ordinary households have gaps too: A respondent may not know the details of grandparents living with them.
    4. Visitors and staff are also covered: Visitors and domestic servants living in a household for the entire duration of the enumeration period are to be enumerated there, and the respondent may be unable to obtain their details.

    What can the identifier questions actually produce?

    1. ‘If available’ is undefined: It is unclear whether availability refers to the household member concerned or to the respondent. Read as the respondent, the numbers will not reach the Census, since respondents are frequently housewives or elderly parents who do not hold these details for every member.
    2. The numbers do not tabulate: These are not data items usable for any tabulation, beyond determining whether such a number exists.
    3. The field cost is prohibitive: More than 30 lakh enumerators would have to sit with households to record these numbers correctly, and they may lack the time and patience to obtain the relevant records.
    4. The respondent carries no duty of care: The respondent is not a Census functionary, so an individual whose identifiers are disclosed by a household respondent has no protection against their misuse.

    What would the bank account question have to be to work?

    1. The tabulation it supports is narrow: The total number of bank accounts held by each person yields a distribution of persons by number of accounts, and little else.
    2. The same distribution exists elsewhere: For account holders, the number can be obtained by tabulating accounts against each Permanent Account Number (PAN), which is required to open a bank account.
    3. A simpler question meets the policy need: If the object is only to identify persons without any bank account, asking whether the person holds one is enough.
    4. The field reality: A schoolteacher appointed as an enumerator will struggle to get a correct count of accounts from upper class respondents, who may not answer even the simpler questions.

    Why was the nationality question dropped after 1961?

    1. Declaration does not establish status: Nationality as declared may serve no useful purpose, since a person residing illegally may declare Indian nationality.
    2. India tried it and abandoned it: The question was asked in the 1951 and 1961 Censuses and was discarded from 1971 onwards.
    3. A comparable decision abroad: The United States decided, after considerable debate, not to include the citizenship question in its 2020 Census.

    Is the Census being used to build the National Population Register?

    1. The proposal has a history: Proposals to update the National Population Register (NPR) during the 2021 Census exercise drew objections from several States.
    2. States control the field staff: The Census is conducted by enumerators appointed by the State government under Section 4(2) of the Census Act, 1948, so a State may refuse the use of its staff for work that is not part of the Census. The Citizenship Act says nothing about a State government’s role in preparing the NPR.
    3. The new questions fit the register, not the statistics: Details of parents, permanent address and nationality are useful for preparing or updating the NPR, which is to form the basis for preparing the National Register of Citizens. They add no statistics of their own.
    4. Extraction would breach confidentiality: Collecting the information through the Census questionnaire and later extracting it for another organisation within the government may violate the principle of confidentiality.
    5. The objection is to the route, not the register: Preparing a population register or a citizen register is unobjectionable and its uses are well recognised. The collection for it should run through a transparent process with a legal basis, without jeopardising the Census.

    What does the length of the schedule do to data quality?

    1. Respondent fatigue: The time a long descriptive schedule takes per household invites disinterest, and the respondent answers similar questions again for every individual in the household.
    2. Casual replies follow: A disinterested respondent supplies answers that are recorded as data, so fatigue enters the dataset rather than showing up as non-response.
    3. Enumerator workload: Recording names and addresses has significantly increased the enumerator’s workload.
    4. The output degrades: Loading the Census with questions that generate no statistics may seriously affect the quality of Census data.

    Challenges to the 2027 Census

    1. The decadal series carries a gap: The last completed Census was in 2011, so sampling frames, welfare targeting and constituency data have run for over a decade on an ageing base. Eg. Household surveys draw their samples from Census frames, which have not been refreshed since 2011.
      The Fix: Fix a statutory calendar for enumeration and for data release, so the exercise cannot be deferred by administrative decision.
    2. The general data protection regime does not cover this risk: Census records rely on the secrecy provisions of the Census Act. The general law carries wide exemptions for government processing. Eg. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits the Union government to exempt instrumentalities of the State from its obligations.
      The Fix: Notify an express purpose limitation for Census records that bars their transfer into any non statistical database.
    3. Digital self enumeration excludes the least connected: The 2027 Census offers self enumeration through a digital application, which the households most likely to be missed are least able to use. Eg. Internet access and smartphone ownership remain lowest among the poorest rural households.
      The Fix: Keep full enumerator coverage as the default and treat self enumeration as an additional channel rather than a substitute.
    4. Caste enumeration adds a classification burden: The 2027 Census will record caste, and caste names vary across regions, languages and spellings, which makes field coding unreliable. Eg. The 1931 Census, the last to enumerate caste comprehensively, recorded several thousand caste and sub caste entries.
      The Fix: Publish a pre coded State wise caste list with a residual open field, so enumerators record rather than classify.

    Conclusion

    The questionnaire stands notified, and enumeration will run on it unless the government revises the schedule before the field work begins. The unresolved point is not whether the state may build a population register, which nobody disputes. It is whether the Census, whose cooperation from a household rests on the assurance that answers become numbers and nothing else, is the right instrument to build one with. Every question that cannot be tabulated tests that assurance, and a household that begins to doubt it answers the rest of the schedule differently.

    Back2Basics: National Population Register

    1. What it is: A register of the usual residents of the country, prepared at the local, sub district, district, State and national level.
    2. Legal basis: It is prepared under the Citizenship Act, 1955 and the Citizenship (Registration of Citizens and Issue of National Identity Cards) Rules, 2003.
    3. Who is a usual resident: A person who has resided in a local area for six months or more, or who intends to reside there for the next six months or more, irrespective of citizenship.
    4. Its status now: The register was first prepared in 2010 alongside the house listing phase of Census 2011 and was updated in 2015.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files”

  • Jute: India’s Golden Fibre

    Jute: India’s Golden Fibre

    Why in the News

    India is the world’s largest producer of raw jute. India produced 94.03 lakh bales of jute and mesta in 2025-26. India is also the leading producer of jute goods globally, accounting for around 75% of estimated world production. The sector supports nearly 40 lakh farm families and provides direct employment to around 3.70 lakh workers. Jute’s biodegradable and recyclable nature makes it an important alternative to synthetic materials.

    Jute: The Golden Fibre

    • Jute is called the “Golden Fibre” because of its golden colour and silky lustre.
    • Jute + Mesta are collectively classified as raw jute due to their similar end uses.
    • Mesta is a bast fibre crop and can serve as an alternative to jute, particularly in drier regions.
    • Major producing states: West Bengal, Bihar, Assam, Odisha, and Jharkhand
    • West Bengal has the largest concentration of jute mills.

    Agro-climatic Conditions

    • Requires hot and humid conditions.
    • Rainfall: around 700-1,500 mm during the growing period.
    • Generally sown during March-April.
    • Harvested within 100-110 days.
    • Cultivation is concentrated in eastern and northeastern India.
    • Predominantly rainfed and mainly cultivated by small and marginal farmers.

    Importance of Jute

    • Biodegradable and recyclable natural fibre.
    • Strong, durable, breathable and versatile.
    • Used in: Packaging, Agriculture, Construction, Industrial textiles, Technical textiles
    • Provides thermal and acoustic insulation.
    • Has high moisture absorption and low static generation.
    • Can be blended with natural and synthetic fibres for value-added products.

    Jute Geotextiles

    • Jute Geotextile (JGT) is a technical textile made from jute fibres.
    • Used for: Soil erosion control, Slope and embankment protection, Riverbank and canal protection, Road construction, Railway track formation, Drainage systems, Soft-soil stabilisation
    • Being biodegradable, it supports soil restoration and ecological regeneration.
    • Helps regulate soil temperature and reduce surface disturbance, supporting seed germination and plant establishment.

    Government Initiatives

    Minimum Support Price

    • MSP of raw jute for 2026-27: ₹5,925 per quintal.
    • Provides a 61.8% return over the all-India weighted average cost of production.
    • MSP increased from ₹2,400 per quintal in 2014-15.

    Jute Corporation of India (JCI)

    • Sole nodal agency for implementing MSP policy for raw jute.
    • Procures directly from farmers when market prices fall below MSP.
    • Operates through Departmental Purchase Centres (DPCs).

    National Jute Development Programme (NJDP)

    • Umbrella programme for development and promotion of the jute sector.
    • Implemented by the National Jute Board (NJB).
    • Focuses on:
      • Increasing farm productivity and farmer incomes.
      • Jute diversification.
      • Market development.
      • Promotion of jute as an alternative to plastics.

    JUTE-ICARE

    Improved Cultivation and Advanced Retting Exercise

    • Launched in 2015-16.
    • Promotes scientific cultivation, mechanisation and improved retting.
    • Supports farmers through certified seeds and field demonstrations.
    • Implemented with CRIJAF and JCI.

    Jute Diversification Scheme

    Promotes value addition through:

    • Jute Raw Material Banks
    • Jute Resource-cum-Production Centres
    • Capital subsidy for machinery
    • Jute retail outlets
    • Export incentives for jute diversified products

    Jute Packaging

    • The Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory Use in Packing Commodities) Act provides for mandatory use of jute packaging for specified commodities.
    • Government mandates jute packaging for: 100% of foodgrains, and 20% of sugar

    Digital Initiatives

    JUTE-SMART

    • End-to-end e-governance platform for procurement and supply of jute sacking bags.
    • Developed by the Office of the Jute Commissioner.
    • Digitises procurement, registration and compliance processes.

    Jute Crop Information System

    • Developed by ISRO’s National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) in collaboration with JCI and NJB.
    • Uses remote sensing and field data to monitor jute cultivation.
    • BHUVAN JUMP: Mobile application for field-level jute monitoring.
    • PATSAN: Web-based platform providing near-real-time jute surveillance and analytics.

    Jute and Sustainable Development

    • Contributes to rural employment, environmental sustainability and green industrialisation.
    • Provides an alternative to plastic and synthetic materials.
    • Supports farmers, workers, artisans and MSMEs.
    • Promotes technical textiles through products such as jute geotextiles.
    • Creates opportunities for value addition and exports.

    [2011] The lower Gangetic plain is characterized by a humid climate with high temperature throughout the year. Which one among the following pairs of crops is most suitable for this region?

    (a) Paddy and cotton

    (b) Wheat and Jute

    (c) Paddy and Jute

    (d) Wheat and cotton.