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

Civilsdaily

Login

Type: Bills/Act/Laws

  • 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)”

  • 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.

  • 16th National Meet of State Biodiversity Boards and Union Territory Biodiversity Councils

    Why in News

    The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change held the 16th National Meet of State Biodiversity Boards and Union Territory Biodiversity Councils on 6 September 2026.

    Static Context

    1. Governing law: The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 governs the use of India’s biological resources. It gives effect to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
    2. Three tier structure: The Act built a three tier system. The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) at Chennai sits at the top. State Biodiversity Boards (SBB) operate at the state level. Biodiversity Management Committees (BMC) function at the local body level.
    3. Access and benefit sharing: The system regulates access to biological resources and the fair sharing of benefits from their use. The BMCs prepare People’s Biodiversity Registers and can levy collection fees within their jurisdiction.
    4. Nagoya link: The Biodiversity Management Committees are central to realising the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing.

    [2023] Consider the following statements:
    1. In Biodiversity the India, Management Committees are key to the realization of the objectives of the Nagoya Protocol.
    2. The Biodiversity Management Committees have important functions in determining access and benefit sharing, including the power to levy collection fees on the access of biological resources within its jurisdiction.
    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

  • Are nicotine pouches beyond the law?

    Why in the News

    A study led by the ICMR-National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research has found that nicotine pouches are reaching Indian cities through online platforms, hookah shops and gig delivery services. The study follows a World Health Organization (WHO) warning issued in May 2026 on the dangers these products carry. No Indian statute clearly governs them. The two laws written for tobacco and for vaping each exclude the product for a different reason, and its status under the drugs law and the food law is contested. The gap is not a drafting accident, since the executive already holds the power to restrict a product’s import and sale on health grounds.

    What is a nicotine pouch?

    1. The product: A nicotine pouch is a small, tobacco-free sack shaped like a tea bag, containing nicotine, flavourings and plant-based fibres.
    2. How it is used: The user places the pouch between the lip and the gum for up to an hour. Nicotine is absorbed directly into the bloodstream.
    3. What distinguishes it: There is no smoke, no vapour and no spitting. That absence is what keeps it outside the definitions written for cigarettes and for electronic cigarettes.

    Does the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 cover nicotine pouches?

    1. What the Act governs: The Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 (COTPA) regulates the marketing, advertising and sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products.
    2. The definitional limit: The Act’s definition of tobacco products does not extend to every product containing nicotine. A legislature intending to cover every extract of the tobacco plant could have said so.
    3. Strict construction applies: Restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce are construed strictly. Nicotine pouches are not among the products listed in the Act, so they fall outside it.

    Is a nicotine pouch a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940?

    1. Nicotine is unscheduled: Nicotine is not listed as a drug in any schedule of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
    2. Some nicotine products are approved as drugs: Nicotine patches and gums have been approved as drugs by the Drug Controller General of India for therapeutic use in treating nicotine addiction.
    3. The Schedule K exemption cuts both ways: Schedule K under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 lists gums and lozenges and exempts them from licensing and prescription requirements where they contain less than 2 mg of nicotine. An exemption for some nicotine products implies that the rest were meant to be regulated.
    4. The counter-reading: A pouch makes no therapeutic claim and does not purport to treat addiction. It functions as a substitute for a cigarette, which places it outside the character of a drug.

    Why does the ban on vapes not reach nicotine pouches?

    1. What the vaping law does: The Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2019 (PECA) bans the import and sale of vapes.
    2. Its enactment carries an implication: A separate statute would not have been needed had vapes been drugs, since the government could then have regulated them or refused licences under the drugs law. The enactment indicates that the drugs law did not give adequate power to ban them.
    3. The product does not fit the definition: A nicotine pouch contains no electronic device and produces neither smoke nor vapour, so the 2019 Act does not reach it.

    Could a nicotine pouch be treated as food?

    1. The statutory definition is wide: The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Food Safety and Standards Act define food as any processed, partially processed or unprocessed substance intended for human consumption.
    2. Courts have read it widely: Rulings on supari and chewing tobacco establish that the definition has a very wide amplitude and covers items that are chewed rather than swallowed.
    3. The consequence: On that reading a nicotine pouch falls within the definition of food, which would bring it under the food safety regime rather than the tobacco or drugs regime.

    What governs the import of nicotine pouches?

    1. Two statutes supply the power: The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 empowers the Central government to prohibit, restrict or regulate imports. Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows the government to prohibit goods wholly or partly by notification, on grounds that include the protection of human, animal or plant life.
    2. Who administers it: The Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) administers the trade statute and publishes the ITC-HS classification (the Indian Trade Clarification code list, which records whether a good is free, restricted or banned).
    3. A new customs sub-category exists: After the World Customs Organization updated the Harmonized System, code 2404 91 30 was introduced for tobacco-free single-use oral nicotine pouches and 2404 91 90 for other oral nicotine products not meant for therapeutic use. These replaced a residual category for other manufactured tobacco substitutes.
    4. The medicament codes do not apply: Codes for medicaments apply only where a product is strictly a cessation aid, which a pouch is not.
    5. The status is “restricted”, not free and not banned: Goods under 2404 91 30 cannot be cleared merely on payment of duty, and they are not prohibited outright as e-cigarettes are. They require a specific licence or permission, and the DGFT cross-references the health and other ministries before deciding.

    Can nicotine pouches be sold at duty-free shops?

    1. They are on sale now: Nicotine pouches are currently available at a few duty-free stores at Indian airports.
    2. The stores are licensed under Indian law: Duty-free stores are licensed under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 and cannot claim to sit entirely outside Indian law.
    3. What the Calcutta High Court actually held: In Flemingo Duty Free Shop Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Kaushik Bhattacharya (2024), the Court held that a duty-free store did not “import” goods into India. It was deemed located outside India for the purposes of the Customs Act, so legal metrology labelling requirements did not apply to it.
    4. The holding is narrow: Reading it as excluding all Indian law would leave no court and no police station with jurisdiction over a crime committed inside such a store.
    5. The permitted list does not include them: Cigarettes, alcohol, jewellery, watches, food and small electronic items are permitted at duty-free shops. A nicotine pouch qualifies only if it is treated as food, and its restricted customs classification makes an import licence unlikely to have been granted.

    Challenges to regulating nicotine pouches in India

    1. The sales channel sits outside every enforcement design: Tobacco control law assumes a physical shop with a visible point of sale, so an online order routed through a delivery platform meets no check. Eg. The draft Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Amendment) Bill, 2020 proposed banning online sale of tobacco products and has never been enacted.
      The Fix: Place the compliance duty on the delivery platform and the payment gateway, so liability attaches where the transaction is actually recorded.
    2. Youth uptake runs ahead of regulation: Flavoured oral nicotine is marketed as a lifestyle product rather than a tobacco product, which removes the stigma that deters first use. Eg. The Global Youth Tobacco Survey conducted in India in 2019 found that 8.5 per cent of students aged 13 to 15 used tobacco in some form.
      The Fix: Prohibit characterising flavours in oral nicotine products, which is the single measure that has cut youth initiation wherever it has been applied.
    3. State action produces a patchwork rather than a rule: Food safety commissioners issue prohibition orders that lapse and must be renewed, so the legal position differs by State and by year. Eg. State bans on gutkha and pan masala are issued under Section 30(2)(a) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and are renewed one year at a time.
      The Fix: Notify a national product standard through the food safety regulator, so the position holds across States without annual renewal.
    4. A restricted classification is not self-enforcing: Goods requiring a licence still enter through courier consignments and passenger baggage, where the volume of parcels exceeds inspection capacity. Eg. Customs seizures of e-cigarettes at Indian airports have continued in every year since the 2019 ban.
      The Fix: Add the oral nicotine codes to the risk-management system used for courier and baggage screening, so consignments are flagged automatically rather than by sampling.
    5. Health evidence is thin at the point where a decision is needed: Long-term data on the cardiovascular and oral effects of tobacco-free nicotine is limited, which lets manufacturers argue harm reduction against combustible tobacco. Eg. The current Indian evidence base rests on an institute-led study of market availability rather than on outcome data.
      The Fix: Commission a national surveillance study on oral nicotine use and its health outcomes, with its results fixed as the trigger for regulatory review.

    Conclusion

    The legal position is intricate and the remedy is not. The executive already holds the power to prohibit import and sale on health grounds, and a notification exercising it would take minutes to issue. The cost of not issuing it is known from the vaping episode: demand settles first, the ban arrives after, and smuggling replaces the legal market it was meant to close. The question before the government is therefore about timing, not about which statute applies.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it is: The ICMR-National Institute of Cancer Prevention and Research is an institute of the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), the country’s apex body for biomedical research, functioning under the Department of Health Research.
    2. Where it is: It is located at Noida in Uttar Pradesh.
    3. Earlier name: It functioned as the Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology before being renamed in 2016.
    4. Mandate: It works on cancer prevention, early detection and population screening, and carries a substantial tobacco control research programme.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2023] With reference to India, consider the following pairs: Action: The Act under which it is covered 1. Unauthorized wearing of police or military uniforms : The Official Secrets Act, 1923 2. Knowingly misleading or otherwise interfering with a police officer or military officer when engaged in their duties : The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 3. Celebratory gunfire which can endanger the personal safety of others : The Arms (Amendment) Act, 2019 How many of the above pairs are correctly matched? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None ANSWER: (b)”

  • No provision in Forest Rights Act to obtain gram sabha consent for projects: Ministry

    No provision in Forest Rights Act to obtain gram sabha consent for projects: Ministry

    Why in the News

    The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs has told the Union Ministry of Power that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 carries no provision for obtaining gram sabha consent for Stage-II forest clearance. It added that such matters do not fall within its purview.

    How does gram sabha consent for forest clearance actually work?

    1. The requirement sits in the diversion rules, not in the Act: The Forest Rights Act, 2006 carries no language on gram sabha consent for diverting forest land to non-forest purposes. The Union government’s rules under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 require that all processes under the Forest Rights Act be completed before a diversion certificate is issued.
    2. Step one, identify and recognise: The guidelines require potential claimants under the Forest Rights Act to be identified, and their rights to be recognised where they apply.
    3. Step two, vest the rights: Recognised rights are then vested in the holders before the diversion proposal can move.
    4. Step three, obtain the no-objection certificate: The concerned gram sabhas then issue a no-objection certificate on the proposal to divert that forest land for the stated purpose. This certificate is what is commonly called gram sabha consent for forest clearance.

    What is the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ stated position?

    1. The communication is dated and specific: The Ministry stated on 31 August that there is no provision for obtaining gram sabha consent for Stage-II forest clearance in the Forest Rights Act, 2006 or the rules made under it.
    2. It disclaims jurisdiction: It concluded that such matters therefore do not fall under its purview.
    3. The Act says otherwise on responsibility: The Forest Rights Act explicitly names the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as the nodal ministry responsible for the law’s implementation.
    4. The disclaimer has a record behind it: The Ministry has previously claimed no role in the Nicobar mega-infrastructure project and in Forest Rights Act implementation cases in Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and other States, arguing that the Act assigns implementation to State and Union Territory governments.

    Why is that position contested?

    1. The requirement is not free-standing: The no-objection certificate is demanded because the diversion rules make completion of the Forest Rights Act processes a precondition. A ministry that owns the Act’s implementation cannot disown the precondition built on it.
    2. No alternative authority exists: The position leaves no ministry able to settle a disputed consent, which is the objection recorded by a Supreme Court advocate who formerly advised the Ministry of Tribal Affairs under both governments.
    3. The timing sharpens the gap: The disclaimer was issued while a parliamentary committee proposal to lower the consent standard is live and awaiting inter-ministerial examination.

    What did the parliamentary committee propose, and why?

    1. The report is dated: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Undertakings reported on NHPC Limited on 3 August, and the Power Ministry’s deliberations with the Tribal Affairs Ministry followed from it.
    2. The delay figure: Based on discussions with NHPC officials, the committee recorded an average forest clearance time of 106 months for under-construction projects.
    3. The bottleneck it identified: It found the requirement that all concerned gram sabhas consent to be the single most critical bottleneck.
    4. The stalled project named: The Teesta-IV hydroelectric project is indefinitely stalled because consent from a small minority of gram panchayats remains pending.
    5. The proposed dilution: The committee endorsed NHPC’s recommendation for a qualified super-majority, meaning consent from 70 to 75 per cent of affected gram sabhas, for large hydropower projects of national importance. It asked the Power Ministry to examine the feasibility of that proposal with the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

    Challenges to gram sabha consent under the Forest Rights Act

    1. Consent can be recorded without a real assembly: Resolutions are produced without quorum or without convening the habitation actually affected. Eg. Villagers of Hariharpur, Salhi and Fatehpur alleged forged gram sabha consent for the Parsa coal block in the Hasdeo Aranya forests of Chhattisgarh.
      The Fix: Require a video record and a habitation-wise attendance roll for every consent resolution, uploaded before the diversion certificate is issued.
    2. Rights recognition lags, so the assembly may hold no title: Community forest resource rights remain unrecognised across most eligible villages, which weakens the standing of the body being asked to consent. Eg. Recognition of community forest resource rights has advanced in Maharashtra and Odisha and stalled across most other States.
      The Fix: Complete community forest resource recognition across the affected district before a diversion proposal is admitted for consideration.
    3. The rules have already moved consent later in the sequence: Consent now arrives after a project has an in-principle approval, which reduces it to a formality. Eg. The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2022 removed the gram sabha consent step from the stage preceding in-principle approval.
      The Fix: Restore the consent step ahead of in-principle approval, so no project is sanctioned before the affected assembly has been heard.
    4. Compliance is certified by the authority pushing the project: The State administration both promotes the project and certifies that the statutory process was followed. Eg. The environment ministry accepts the State’s compliance certificate at the final clearance stage without independent verification.
      The Fix: Route the compliance certificate through the State tribal welfare department, accompanied by a published list of recognised claimants.

    Conclusion

    Two positions now stand directly against each other. The statute names one ministry as responsible for its implementation, and that ministry says the consent question is not its business. Nothing in the system supplies an alternative authority to settle a contested consent, so a disputed resolution has no forum. That gap matters most now, because a proposal to lower the consent standard is live and no ministry has claimed the authority to rule on it.

    [2021] At the national level, which ministry is the nodal agency to ensure effective implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006?

    (a) Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

    (b) Ministry of Panchayati Raj

    (c) Ministry of Rural Development

    (d) Ministry of Tribal Affairs”

  • Judicial integrity – a case the Court cannot ignore

    Why in the News

    A sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India, Justice Sandeep Mehta, wrote three letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on 2, 10 and 17 August seeking the immediate transfer of the Acting Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The letters allege victimisation of judges, maladministration, improper shifting of cases to his own Bench, and nepotism in appointments to the Permanent Lok Adalat. The last of the three records concern at the CJI’s inaction, with Justice Sharma due to retire on 26 September. The stated response is that allegations cannot be treated as findings and must be dealt with strictly through the established institutional mechanism. The tension is that the established mechanism is precisely what has not worked, since the appointment system carries no published criteria and the removal machinery has never removed a judge.

    What is the “master of the roster” power?

    1. What the power is: The Chief Justice of a court holds the exclusive administrative authority to constitute Benches and to assign cases among them.
    2. Where it comes from: It rests on convention and on the Supreme Court’s own rulings treating the Chief Justice as first among equals for administrative purposes, not on any statutory provision.
    3. Its reach in this case: The power covers roster allocation for the whole court, and it is exercised by the Acting Chief Justice wherever the office of Chief Justice is vacant.

    What do the letters allege?

    1. Interference with the roster: Cases were allegedly shifted improperly to the Acting Chief Justice’s own Bench, in misuse of the master of the roster power.
    2. Pressure on colleagues: Judges were allegedly intimidated with the threat of retributive measures including transfers, on the basis of claimed proximity to the CJI.
    3. Favouritism at the Bar: The letters refer to specific instances of alleged favouritism towards a chosen few among the lawyers.
    4. Appointments outside the court: Nepotism is alleged in appointments to the Permanent Lok Adalat, the statutory body that decides disputes relating to public utility services and whose award is final and binding.
    5. The state of the record: There has been no official denial of the reports concerning the contents of the letters, and Justice Sharma has publicly denied the accusations as baseless.

    What is the record behind the appointment itself?

    1. A long acting tenure: The High Court functioned under an Acting Chief Justice for about 11 months, which is not a sound institutional arrangement for a court of that size.
    2. An earlier transfer out: Justice Sharma was transferred to the Patna High Court in 2022.
    3. A rejected repatriation: His request to return to the Rajasthan High Court was rejected by the Collegium in 2023, which instead proposed his transfer to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
    4. A reversal without a stated reason: He was nonetheless retransferred to the Rajasthan High Court in 2025 and then allowed to function as Acting Chief Justice with wide administrative and judicial powers.

    How did the institution respond?

    1. The Bar acted first: Lawyers staged a sit-in protest on the High Court premises, following which Justice Sharma opted out from hearing cases.
    2. The Collegium moved on the vacancy: On 31 August the Supreme Court Collegium recommended the appointment of Justice Sanjay Agrawal as the new Chief Justice of the Rajasthan High Court, and that appointment has since been made.
    3. The complaint itself drew no step: For several weeks no cogent step was initiated on the letters, with the retirement date approaching.
    4. The trust cost is measurable: Transparency International’s 2002 report, based on a household survey, identified the judiciary as the second-most corrupt institution in certain South Asian countries including India.

    Why does the appointment system produce this?

    1. There are no criteria at all: The selection of judges proceeds without published standards against which a candidate can be assessed or a rejection explained.
    2. The Collegium and the Executive must collaborate: The unavoidable joint working of the Collegium and the Union Executive under the present system makes appointments partisan, opaque and often arbitrary.
    3. The filter cannot do the job asked of it: A process built this way is incapable of identifying the cleanest and most meritorious candidates.
    4. The link to corruption is direct: Corruption in the judiciary is inseparable from the method of selecting candidates for judicial office, so the accountability problem starts at entry rather than at removal.

    Why does the removal machinery not work?

    1. The inquiry statute is dormant: The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968 is inadequate to tackle judicial corruption and has for all practical purposes become defunct.
    2. A criminal investigation cannot begin: In K. Veeraswami vs Union of India (1991) the Supreme Court held that the permission of the CJI is a necessary precondition for registering a First Information Report against a judge of the higher judiciary. The requirement is circular in practice, because the police will not seek permission without clinching evidence and cannot obtain that evidence without investigating.
    3. Impeachment has failed as a route: Removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, as provided by Articles 124(4) and 217(1)(b) of the Constitution, has not worked in practice.
    4. The internal route has no teeth: The in-house mechanism adopted by the Supreme Court in 1999 has not proved fault-free or effective.
    5. The legislative fix lapsed: The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill passed the Lok Sabha in 2012 and lapsed with the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha in 2014, and the later effort to revive it with changes remained a non-starter.

    What do other systems do differently?

    1. Canada invites applications: Candidates apply for judicial office rather than being identified privately, so the pool and the criteria are both visible before a selection is made.
    2. The United Kingdom uses an independent body: Judicial selection is conducted by a body separate from both the judiciary and the executive, which breaks the circularity of judges choosing judges.
    3. Neither is currently available in India: Both arrangements remain unthinkable in the Indian setting, which is why the accountability argument keeps returning to the removal stage rather than the entry stage.

    How have earlier Chief Justices responded to comparable situations?

    1. The 1990 precedent, advice to step back: When an inquiry was underway against Justice V. Ramaswami for alleged misconduct, the then CJI advised him to take leave and keep away from judicial work.
    2. The 1993 precedent, work withheld after a failed motion: The impeachment motion against him failed in Parliament following the Congress party’s strategic abstention. He attempted to resume judicial work with about nine months of tenure remaining, and the then CJI refused to allocate any cases to him for hearing.
    3. The recent precedent, immediate transfer: After partly burnt currency notes were reportedly found at the Delhi residence of Justice Yashwant Varma, the then CJI quickly transferred him to the Allahabad High Court, where he was practically not allocated judicial work.
    4. The Court’s own statement of the duty: In XXX vs Union of India (2025) the Supreme Court emphasised the responsibility of the CJI in matters relating to judicial integrity and allegations of corrupt practices.

    Challenges to judicial accountability in India

    1. Asset declaration rests on resolution rather than statute: Judges of the higher judiciary declare their assets under an internal resolution, so a failure to declare carries no legal consequence. Eg. Publication of the declarations on the Supreme Court’s website began only in 2025.
      The Fix: Place the declaration requirement in statute, with an annual filing deadline and a public register maintained by an authority outside the court.
    2. The selection record stays outside disclosure: The reasons recorded for an elevation, a rejection or a transfer are not published, so a questionable appointment cannot be traced to a reasoning. Eg. The 2023 rejection of a repatriation and the 2025 reversal of that position were never explained on the record.
      The Fix: Publish the Collegium’s recorded reasons for every recommendation and every transfer at the time the decision is communicated.
    3. The in-house procedure runs to no timeline: An internal inquiry proceeds at the discretion of the CJI, with no fixed stage limits and no published outcome. Eg. The procedure can end in advice to resign, leaving no finding on the record at all.
      The Fix: Fix statutory timelines for each stage of the inquiry and require publication of the finding, with reasons, on completion.
    4. Removal depends on parliamentary arithmetic: The final step turns on the numbers in both Houses rather than on the inquiry’s finding, so a party decision can defeat a proved case. Eg. No judge of the higher judiciary has ever been removed under the constitutional procedure.
      The Fix: Make an adverse inquiry finding trigger the automatic withdrawal of judicial work, so the consequence does not wait on a vote.

    Conclusion

    Two failures are operating at once and neither can substitute for the other. Entry into the higher judiciary is decided without published criteria, and exit from it is governed by a statute that has never produced a removal, which leaves everything in between resting on how quickly one officeholder chooses to act. That is not accountability but discretion, and discretion is what the present controversy has tested. The measure of what follows is whether a complaint carrying verifiable material now generates a recorded step with a date attached to it, rather than a retirement that closes the file.

    Back2Basics: The Collegium system

    1. What it is: The mechanism through which the higher judiciary selects its own judges, evolved through the Supreme Court’s judgments rather than from the text of the Constitution.
    2. Its origin: The Second Judges Case (1993) and the Third Judges Case (1998) read the word “consultation” in Articles 124 and 217 as requiring the concurrence of the CJI, and fixed the collegium’s composition.
    3. Its composition: The CJI and the four senior most judges of the Supreme Court decide Supreme Court appointments; the CJI and the two senior most judges decide High Court appointments and transfers.
    4. The failed replacement: The National Judicial Appointments Commission, created by the 99th Constitutional Amendment, was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2015 as violating judicial independence, leaving the collegium in place.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2019] Consider the following statements: 1. The- motion to impeach a Judge of the Supreme Court of India cannot be rejected by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha as per the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 2. The Constitution of India defines and gives details of what Constitutes ‘incapacity and proved misbehaviour’ of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India. 3. The details of the process of impeachment of the Judges of the Supreme Court of India are given in the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. 4. If the motion for the impeachment of a Judge is taken up for voting, the law requires the motion to be backed by each House of the Parliament and supported by a majority of total membership of that House and by not less than two-thirds of total members of that House present and voting. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 (b) 3 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 3 and 4 (c)”