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

Civilsdaily

Type: DOMR

  • NTA looks for exam centres, seeks help from technical education body

    NTA looks for exam centres, seeks help from technical education body

    Why in the News

    The National Testing Agency (NTA) has begun assembling a network of government owned computer laboratories to run the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test, Undergraduate (NEET-UG) as a computer based examination. It has asked the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) to collect information from government institutions on their information technology infrastructure and available space. The move follows the government’s decision to shift NEET-UG out of pen and paper mode from next year, taken after a question paper leak forced the cancellation of the examination and a nationwide protest. The constraint the request exposes is physical rather than procedural. A nationwide computer based test needs a geographically distributed network of secure, connected centres, and that network does not yet exist in public hands.

    What is a Standard Testing Centre?

    1. A vetted venue rather than a hired hall: A Standard Testing Centre is a facility identified and developed in advance for computer based testing, instead of being arranged afresh for each examination cycle.
    2. The infrastructure it must carry: Institutions have been asked to report the number of functional computers and computer systems, their information technology systems, networking and internet connectivity, availability of power backup, and CCTV and related facilities.
    3. It must have usable spare capacity: Institutions have also been asked to report vacant space, since a centre needs room that is not already committed to teaching.
    4. Only government institutions qualify at this stage: The information has been sought only in respect of government colleges and institutions approved by AICTE.

    Why is NTA routing the search through the technical education regulator?

    1. AICTE approved institutions are the largest pool of public computer laboratories: Engineering colleges, polytechnic institutes, government university departments and other state run technical or management institutions all sit inside its approval network.
    2. The requirement is geographic spread, not raw seat count: The stated reason is the progressive migration of examinations to computer based mode and the need for a wider geographically distributed network of testing centres.
    3. The request travelled down the institutional chain: NTA wrote to AICTE on 5 August, and AICTE then wrote to Vice Chancellors of state run technical universities and to directors and principals of approved government institutions.
    4. The returns are dated and must be certified: Institutions must submit details that are accurate, complete and duly verified by the competent authority of the institution, by 15 September.

    What forced the shift to computer based testing?

    1. A paper leak invalidated the examination: The Union Education Ministry cancelled the NEET-UG entrance examination held on 3 May after the question paper leaked.
    2. The scale of the disruption: Around 22 lakh candidates had appeared in that examination.
    3. The political cost: The cancellation sparked nationwide protests and the Union Education Minister resigned.
    4. The stated remedy: The government has said NEET-UG will move from pen and paper mode to computer based testing from next year.
    5. The agency itself is being restructured: The search for centres runs alongside an ongoing overhaul of NTA, the nodal autonomous body that conducts NEET-UG and other entrance tests for higher educational institutions.

    Challenges to migrating NEET-UG to computer based testing

    1. The scale has no precedent in computer based testing: No Indian examination has run a computer based test for a cohort of this size in a single sitting, so the centre requirement is a multiple of anything currently operated. Eg. The Joint Entrance Examination (Main) already runs on computer, and it is spread across multiple sessions and days rather than one day.
      The Fix: Publish the shift and session design alongside the centre inventory, so candidates know in advance whether scores will be compared across papers.
    2. Multiple shifts require score normalisation, which is itself contested: Candidates sitting different question papers must be compared through a statistical adjustment rather than through raw marks. Eg. Percentile normalisation in the Joint Entrance Examination (Main) has repeatedly been challenged for producing rank differences between shifts.
      The Fix: Release the normalisation formula and shift wise difficulty data with the result, rather than only the final percentile.
    3. Rural and small town candidates face a familiarity gap: A test taken on a keyboard and screen advantages candidates with routine computer access, and NEET-UG draws heavily from districts where school computer laboratories are shared or non functional. Eg. The very shortage of government computer infrastructure that NTA is now mapping is the same shortage those candidates study under.
      The Fix: Fund a compulsory mock test on the actual examination software at the allotted centre before the examination day.
    4. The centre, not the press, is the historic weak point: Leaks and impersonation cases have originated at the examination venue, and a computer based test moves that risk to local network access and administrator privileges. Eg. The compromise that led to the May cancellation happened before candidates ever reached the hall.
      The Fix: Log and audit every administrator level action at a centre, with the log held by the agency rather than by the host institution.
    5. Host institutions are being asked to supply capacity without a funding line: A college that lends its laboratory absorbs power, staff time and lost teaching hours on examination days. Eg. The AICTE communication seeks an inventory of infrastructure and states nothing about what a host institution receives in return.
      The Fix: Attach a per candidate hosting grant to the Standard Testing Centre designation, paid against certified compliance with the infrastructure norms.

    Conclusion

    The decision to move NEET-UG onto computers has already been announced. The capacity to run it has not yet been counted. The agency is conducting an inventory now, which means the size of the network will be known only after the mode has been committed to. The point to watch is what those returns show. If the public system cannot supply enough certified centres, the test either returns to private venues, which is where the security problem originated, or it splits across shifts and sessions, which substitutes a scoring dispute for a leak.

    Back2Basics

    1. What it is: The All India Council for Technical Education is the national body for the planning and coordinated development of technical education in India.
    2. Statutory basis: It was set up in 1945 as an advisory body and given statutory status by the All India Council for Technical Education Act, 1987.
    3. Where it sits: It functions under the Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education.
    4. What it does: It grants approval to technical institutions and prescribes norms and standards for courses and infrastructure, across fields including engineering, technology, management, architecture, pharmacy and hotel management.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Closest microtheme: Domestic Bodies/Agencies.”

  • Over 7,200 CBI cases under Prevention of Corruption Act pending trial, says CVC report

    Over 7,200 CBI cases under Prevention of Corruption Act pending trial, says CVC report

    Why in the News

    The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has reported in its annual report that over 7,200 cases investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were awaiting completion of trial at the end of 2025.

    Where does the anti-corruption pipeline stall?

    1. Trials run past two decades: More than 400 of the 7,229 pending Prevention of Corruption Act trials have been open for over 20 years.
    2. Appeals add a second backlog: 14,083 appeals, revisions and writ petitions under the Act were pending in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
    3. Over a third of those are more than a decade old: 3,161 were 10 to 15 years old, 1,347 were 15 to 20 years old and 739 were over 20 years old.
    4. The wider trial load is larger still: Counting cases outside the Act, 11,510 CBI court cases were pending trial at the end of the year.

    What do the investigation and conviction figures show?

    1. Convictions improved: The conviction rate in CBI cases was 71.71 percent in 2025 against 69.14 percent in 2024.
    2. Investigation pendency is small by comparison: 755 corruption related cases were pending investigation, made up of 679 regular cases, 63 preliminary enquiries and 13 Lokpal references (cases the Lokpal has referred to the CBI for investigation).
    3. A year is the usual limit, and 274 cases crossed it: Of the 679 regular cases, 274 had been pending for over one year.
    4. The intake in 2025: The CBI registered 797 regular cases, 177 preliminary enquiries and recorded 31 Lokpal references during the year.

    What capacity does the vigilance system have?

    1. One in seven CBI posts is vacant: Against a sanctioned strength of 7,300, 1,088 posts were vacant, with the largest gap of 672 in the executive ranks.
    2. Departmental inquiries under the Commission: For officers under CVC jurisdiction, 1,460 departmental inquiries were in process during 2025 and 731 were completed.
    3. Inquiries outside its purview: For employees outside its jurisdiction, 9,883 inquiries were in process and 5,561 were completed.
    4. Complaint disposal kept pace: The Commission received 34,153 complaints in 2025 in addition to 1,260 carried forward from 2024, and disposed of 35,193.

    Challenges to prosecuting corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act

    1. Sanction is a gate the executive controls: Section 19 requires the government’s sanction before a court can take cognisance against a public servant, and Section 17A, added by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, requires prior approval even to begin an inquiry into a decision taken in official capacity. Eg. In Vineet Narain v Union of India (1997) the Supreme Court fixed a three month limit for sanction decisions, and the 2018 amendment wrote that limit, extendable by one month, into Section 19 itself.
      The Fix: Treat sanction as deemed granted when the statutory period lapses without a decision.
    2. Special courts are too few for the load: Section 3 of the Act requires trials before special judges, and the same judges carry other criminal work, so a corruption trial waits behind the general docket. Eg. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India the Supreme Court in 2021 recorded 4,984 pending criminal cases against legislators and directed special courts to prioritise them.
      The Fix: Designate exclusive special judges for Prevention of Corruption Act trials in every district with a CBI court, with a monthly disposal target monitored by the High Court.
    3. State consent limits where the CBI can act: Under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the CBI needs a State’s consent to investigate within it, and a growing list of States has withdrawn general consent so every case needs a fresh order. Eg. West Bengal withdrew general consent in November 2018, and in 2024 the Supreme Court allowed the State’s suit against the Union over CBI investigations to proceed to trial.
      The Fix: Enact a standalone CBI statute defining its jurisdiction, as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice recommended in 2023.
    4. Deputation, not a cadre, staffs the agency: The CBI fills most executive posts by deputation from State police and central forces, so vacancies persist when States decline to release officers. Eg. In May 2013, during the coal block allocation hearing, the Supreme Court described the CBI as a “caged parrot” after the agency’s status report had been shared with the Law Minister.
      The Fix: Expand direct recruitment at the sub inspector and deputy superintendent levels and offer fixed tenure with cadre security to reduce reliance on deputation.

    Conclusion

    The Commission’s numbers show the agency’s work improving at the stages it controls and stalling at the stages it does not. The pendency now sits with the courts and the sanctioning authorities rather than with the investigators. The marker to watch is whether the next annual report shows the oldest trials closing rather than the backlog growing.

    Back2Basics: Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

    1. Origin: Set up in 1964 on the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, and made a statutory body by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
    2. Composition: A Central Vigilance Commissioner and up to two Vigilance Commissioners, appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee of the Prime Minister, the Union Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha.
    3. Powers over the CBI: It exercises superintendence over the CBI’s investigations of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act by virtue of Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and reviews the progress of those investigations.
    4. Reporting: It submits an annual report to the President, and the report is laid before both Houses of Parliament.

    [2026, GS2, 15 marks] “Transparency and accountability in governance are not about controlling corruption but about creating the trust of stakeholders in the policy process by following the Rule of Law and Participatory Governance.” Comment.”

  • Why regulators are tightening the cybersecurity net around India’s financial sector

    Why regulators are tightening the cybersecurity net around India’s financial sector

    Why in the News

    The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has introduced an IT Resilience Index for Market Infrastructure Institutions, converting cyber preparedness into a periodically computed score rather than a one time compliance certificate. The same circular aligns the regulator’s cyber incident reporting portal for regulated entities with a standardised Format for Incident Reporting Exchange (FIRE), a common template that lets an incident be reported in stages as it unfolds. This follows the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) framework for banks and financial institutions issued last month, which mandates board level oversight, a dedicated information technology risk committee and a six hour window to report a cyber incident. Both regulators are responding to artificial intelligence lowering the cost of committing fraud at scale, including deepfake voices used to bypass Know Your Customer (KYC) verification. The tension is that resilience is now scored by the institution being scored, on a six monthly cycle, against threats that move in hours.

    What is the IT Resilience Index?

    1. What it covers: It quantifies the information technology readiness of Market Infrastructure Institutions, meaning the stock exchanges, clearing corporations and depositories through which trading and settlement actually happen.
    2. The nine parameters: Availability and security carry a weight of 20 per cent each, and integrity, governance, reliability and monitoring, modularity and flexibility, and business continuity carry 10 per cent each. Scalability and a residual “others” parameter carry 5 per cent each.
    3. The reporting cycle: Each institution computes the index half yearly and files it within 60 days of the end of each half year. The filing carries a comparative analysis of two consecutive half years on a rolling basis together with the corrective action taken.
    4. When it applies: The framework takes effect from early 2027 and carries an early warning system with continuous monitoring to flag risks before they mature.

    Why is cyber readiness being converted into a score?

    1. The stated risk: Disruption, degraded performance or compromise of these systems can hit critical market operations and damage trust in the securities market itself.
    2. A score reaches the board: Resilience expressed as a number can be measured and benchmarked, which moves it from the technology function into boardroom accountability.
    3. Direction matters more than a snapshot: A comparative filing across two consecutive half years shows whether an institution is improving or slipping, which a point in time audit cannot establish.

    How is incident reporting being standardised?

    1. One template across regulated entities: The reporting portal now follows the FIRE format, so incidents arrive in a comparable structure rather than in each entity’s own narrative.
    2. Reporting follows the incident life cycle: The format carries initial reporting, intermediate updates and a final closure, and it accepts that some information will not be available at the first report.
    3. Two regulators, two clocks: The banking regulator fixes a hard outer deadline for reporting by banks, and the market regulator fixes a staged format for its own regulated entities.

    How is artificial intelligence changing both the threat and the response?

    1. Fraud now scales cheaply: Synthetic voice is being used to defeat customer verification, and complex scams are being run against critical financial services institutions rather than only against individuals.
    2. Breaches have already landed: Cybersecurity threats infiltrated a number of banks during 2026.
    3. Guidelines are pending: The market regulator has said it will shortly issue guidelines for the responsible use of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
    4. The regulator is also a user: Artificial intelligence models already flag suspicious trading patterns, and a team has been constituted to build models covering corporate investigations, extending surveillance from trade data to filed quarterly results.

    Why is the response shifting into the account holder’s own hands?

    1. The killswitch idea: The banking regulator has flagged a mechanism allowing a user to freeze all financial transactions in their accounts during an ongoing fraud.
    2. The securities market is examining the same tool: The market regulator is evaluating a comparable mechanism as part of its artificial intelligence guidelines.
    3. Compensation was widened first: In June the banking regulator revised its fraud compensation mechanism, enlarging the set of victims who can claim and bringing newer digital scams into the definition of fraud.

    Challenges to the IT Resilience Index

    1. The score is self computed: An institution scores its own controls and files the result, so a weak control can be scored generously without an independent check. Eg. Lapses in access and system controls at a Market Infrastructure Institution surfaced in the co-location proceedings against the National Stock Exchange, not through its own reporting. Fix. Require third party assurance of the score before it is filed, in the same way financial statements are audited.
    2. A half yearly cadence cannot track a live intrusion: An index computed twice a year describes a posture, not an event that unfolds within a trading session. Eg. The National Stock Exchange outage of February 2021 halted cash and derivatives trading for close to four hours. Fix. Pair the half yearly score with a continuous telemetry feed to the regulator’s monitoring desk.
    3. The riskiest dependencies sit outside the perimeter: Cloud providers, data centres and software vendors are shared across institutions, and their failure is not captured by any single institution’s score. Eg. The CrowdStrike update failure of July 2024 disabled Windows systems at banks and airlines across several countries at once. Fix. Score vendor and cloud concentration explicitly, and require a tested failover to an alternative provider.
    4. Disclosure competes with reputation: An institution’s first instinct in a breach is containment, and a reporting clock runs against that instinct. Eg. The 2016 malware compromise of a payment switch led to about 32 lakh debit cards being recalled, and it surfaced weeks after the breach began. Fix. Make timeliness and completeness of incident reporting a scored parameter, so silence costs the institution its index.

    Conclusion

    Cyber readiness has been turned into a score, on the reasoning that a number reaches a board in a way an audit finding does not. The weakness is that the entity being scored computes its own score. The marker to watch is the first round of comparative filings, since that is when it becomes clear whether the index is measuring behaviour or documentation.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022, GS3, 10 marks] What are the different elements of cyber security? Keeping in view the challenges in cyber security, examine the extent to which India has successfully developed a comprehensive National Cyber Security Strategy.”

  • Why is FSSAI tightening the rules on food claims?

    Why in the News

    The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has issued more than 150 notices to food companies in recent months over misleading advertisements, false claims and labelling non compliance. Mondelez India has withdrawn certain health and nutrient comparison claims for Bournvita and removed the related advertisements from e-commerce platforms. The regulator has extended its scrutiny beyond the physical package to online marketplaces and food service establishments. A claim can be withdrawn on notice years after consumers have already acted on it, which is what makes the reach of this enforcement contested.

    What is a health claim, and what is a nutrient comparison claim?

    1. Health claim: A statement suggesting that a product helps deliver a particular health outcome. It can create expectations beyond what the product’s ingredient composition or the available evidence justifies.
    2. Nutrient comparison claim: A claim that positions a product’s nutrient content against another product or against a reference, such as a comparative calcium benefit.
    3. What the regulator governs: Food regulation is not limited to whether a product contains permitted ingredients. It also governs how a product’s nutritional qualities and benefits are communicated.

    Which claims and companies are under scrutiny?

    1. The companies served notices: The list includes Nestlé India, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola India, Abbott India, Red Bull India, Danone India, Mondelez India, Ferrero India and Kenvue.
    2. Bournvita: The product came under public scrutiny in 2023 over its sugar content and its claims about nutritional benefits. The present action does not establish that the product is unsafe, it questions whether particular claims are adequately supported.
    3. Amway India: The company removed “100%” from its “100% Pure Coconut Oil” packaging and promotional material. It also dropped the “Energy Drink” descriptor from its caffeinated XS products.
    4. Juza Foods: The Kerala based company agreed to withdraw claims of immunity, stronger bones and comparative calcium benefits from its baby food products.

    Why has the regulator targeted the word “100%”?

    1. The advisory: In May 2025 FSSAI advised food businesses to stop using “100%” on food labels, packaging and promotional material.
    2. The reasoning: The regulator held that such language conveys a false sense of absolute purity or superiority to consumers.
    3. Why absolute words matter: Words such as “pure”, “natural”, “healthy”, “immunity-boosting” and “100%” influence a purchase before the consumer examines the nutrition panel or the ingredient list.

    Why has enforcement moved to e-commerce?

    1. Notices beyond the shelf: Notices have gone to online marketplaces as well as to restaurants and other food businesses.
    2. Online pages carry different content: An online product page can carry claims, images and promotional language that differ from what appears on the physical package.
    3. How consumers now decide: A purchase is often made off an online banner or product description rather than off the label read in a shop.

    What does the crackdown still leave unaddressed?

    1. Withdrawal comes late: A company can remove a claim after receiving a notice, and consumers may already have encountered that claim for years.
    2. Messaging survives across platforms: An advertisement can disappear from one platform and its messaging remain present elsewhere.
    3. Listings change faster than checks: Online listings change rapidly, which makes sustained monitoring necessary rather than one time correction.
    4. Compliance is episodic: The regulator’s task is to make compliance routine rather than a temporary response to regulatory scrutiny.

    Conclusion

    The shift being sought is from broad marketing language to claims that can be demonstrated. This matters as India confronts rising obesity and unhealthy diets, and FSSAI has linked its food safety messaging to that wider push for healthier eating. For a consumer, a health claim on a food packet remains a claim and not a guarantee.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2015, GS2, 12 marks] For achieving the desired objectives, it is necessary to ensure that the regulatory institutions remain independent and autonomous. Discuss in the light of the experiences in recent past.”

  • Soon, red hexagonal label to warn of high fat, sugar, salt in snacks

    Why in the News

    The Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) has told the Supreme Court that it proposes a red hexagonal front of pack label to warn consumers when a packaged food is high in salt, added sugar or added fat. The proposal answers the Court, which is hearing a plea by 3S and Our Health Society, a Kerala based non-profit organisation. No notification has been issued. What is contested is whether the phasing and the trigger conditions attached to the label leave most unhealthy products outside it.

    What would the proposed label carry?

    1. Shape and placement: The label is a red hexagon carried on the front of the packet, so the warning is visible before the pack is turned over.
    2. Language and size: The warning will be in English, in a font one point larger than the font used in the nutritional information table at the back of the pack.
    3. The declarations: The label will state “high fat”, “high sugar”, “high salt” or “highly sweetened beverage”, as applicable, to let consumers identify products high in the specified nutrients.
    4. The thresholds: What counts as high is set against the thresholds in the Dietary Guidelines for Indians, 2024, issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research and the National Institute of Nutrition (ICMR-NIN).

    How will the rollout be phased?

    1. The first phase: Only products high in at least two of the ingredients of concern will carry the warning label.
    2. The second phase: The warning will extend to products high in even one ingredient.
    3. The stated reason: FSSAI said the two phase plan is meant to secure consumer acceptability and to give industry adequate time for reformulation.

    Which products are exempt?

    1. Single ingredient foods: Food products with a single ingredient fall outside the labelling requirement.
    2. Foods inherently rich in the nutrients: Ghee, edible oil, salt, sugar, jaggery and honey are exempt, subject to the other requirements under the food safety and labelling regulations.

    Why do nutrition experts call the proposal ineffective?

    1. The two nutrient trigger: The Convener of Nutrition Advocacy in Public Interest (NAPi) India said many unhealthy products will not need the warning label in the first phase, since they are high in just one nutrient.
    2. No date for the second phase: FSSAI has given no timeline for the phase in which every product high in fat, sugar or salt must carry the warning.
    3. The word “added”: The warning is triggered only by added sugar or added fat, and the added quantity is difficult to estimate.
    4. Natural sugars escape the trigger: High levels of naturally occurring sugars also harm health, and the proposed trigger does not capture them.
    5. Presentation: The proposed font size is too small, and the message should also be carried in Hindi.

    Conclusion

    FSSAI has accepted warning labelling in principle, and the conditions attached to it decide how many products will actually carry a warning. The petitioner has circulated a revised draft, invited public comments on it, and will file a rejoinder once those comments are received. The next milestone is the notification itself, which will show whether the second phase carries a date.

    Back2Basics

    1. Statutory basis: FSSAI was established under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
    2. Parent ministry: It functions under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.
    3. Mandate: It lays down science based standards for articles of food and regulates their manufacture, storage, distribution, sale and import.
    4. Labelling powers: Packaging and labelling requirements for packaged food, including what must be declared on the pack, are framed under regulations it issues.

    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)”

  • NITI Aayog: Degrees like BA, B.Sc, B.Com have ‘weak job linkages’, need reforms

    NITI Aayog: Degrees like BA, B.Sc, B.Com have ‘weak job linkages’, need reforms

    Why in the News

    NITI Aayog has flagged that unemployment among graduates remains far higher than the national average, and that over-reliance on generic degrees such as BA, B.Sc and B.Com is contributing to the problem. The finding comes amid a renewed push to redesign India’s skilling architecture toward specialised, job-linked programmes.

    What does NITI Aayog’s assessment find?

    1. Most graduates work outside their field of study: Over 90% of India’s graduates are employed in roles not aligned with their qualifications.
    2. The disconnect is curriculum level: NITI Aayog states that curriculum in most institutions remains outdated and misaligned with evolving industry needs, producing degrees and diplomas with weak job linkages.
    3. The proposed direction is sector specific: The think tank makes the case for moving toward specialised, job-linked programmes in high-growth sectors such as green industries and electric vehicles, with greater emphasis on apprenticeships.

    Conclusion

    NITI Aayog’s assessment reframes graduate unemployment as a curriculum design problem rather than only a labour demand problem, and its recommendation is a shift from generic degrees toward sector-specific, apprenticeship-linked training in high-growth industries.

    “[2015, GS3, 12 marks] The nature of economic growth in India in recent times is often described as a jobless growth. Do you agree with this view? Give arguments in favour of your answer.”

  • Opposition raises concerns over ‘weakening’ of ISRO; Centre hits back

    Why in the News

    Opposition parties in Parliament questioned the government’s push to privatise parts of the space sector, citing recent resignations at the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and asking whether the shift toward private participation is weakening the organisation. The government responded by citing the $44-billion space economy target, the Kulasekarapattinam spaceport under development, and continued investment in the Sriharikota launch facility, arguing that private participation is expanding, not displacing, ISRO’s role.

    What is the Opposition’s specific concern?

    1. Reported resignations at ISRO cited as evidence of institutional strain: Opposition members pointed to recent resignations at ISRO as a sign that the organisation is losing talent, and linked this to the government’s parallel push to open the space sector to private companies.
    2. Question framed as public-versus-private capacity, not merely personnel: The core question raised was whether directing new space-sector opportunities toward private players comes at the cost of ISRO’s own institutional capacity and morale, rather than being framed as a narrow human-resources issue alone.

    How did the government respond?

    1. The $44-billion space economy target as the framing device: The government’s rebuttal centred on India’s targeted space economy size, cited at $44 billion, arguing that reaching this scale requires private capacity in addition to, not instead of, ISRO’s own programmes.
    2. The Kulasekarapattinam spaceport as evidence of expansion: The government cited the Kulasekarapattinam spaceport, under development in Tamil Nadu specifically to support the small-satellite launch vehicles that private and ISRO missions alike are expected to use, as evidence of continuing public investment in launch infrastructure.
    3. Continued investment in Sriharikota: The government also pointed to ongoing investment in the Sriharikota launch facility, ISRO’s principal spaceport, as evidence that ISRO’s core launch infrastructure is being expanded rather than run down.

    What is the structural relationship between ISRO and India’s growing private space sector?

    1. IN-SPACe as the facilitating body for private entry: The Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe), an autonomous body under the Department of Space, was created specifically to authorise and facilitate private-sector participation in space activities that were previously the exclusive domain of ISRO.
    2. NewSpace India Limited as the commercial arm: NewSpace India Limited, the public sector undertaking under the Department of Space, commercialises ISRO-developed technology and manages the transfer of ISRO capabilities to industry.
    3. Private launch capability is still at an early, unproven stage: Private Indian space companies have made progress, including new propulsion technologies, but have not yet demonstrated launch capability at the scale or reliability of ISRO’s own vehicles, meaning private participation currently supplements rather than substitutes for ISRO’s launch role.

    Conclusion

    The exchange reflects a genuine disagreement over sequencing rather than over the direction of India’s space policy: both sides accept that private participation is expanding, and the dispute is over whether that expansion is currently coming at ISRO’s institutional expense. Whether the resignations flagged by the Opposition reflect a broader retention problem, or are within the range any large scientific organisation experiences, will only be clear from data the government has yet to place before Parliament.

    Back2Basics: Indian National Space Promotion and Authorisation Centre (IN-SPACe)

    1. An autonomous, single-window agency under the Department of Space, established to authorise, promote, and regulate private-sector space activities in India.
    2. Created as part of the 2020 space-sector reforms that opened satellite building, launch vehicle development, and space-based services to private Indian companies.
    3. Functions separately from ISRO, which retains its own research, development, and launch mandate, so the two operate as parallel rather than competing structures.
    4. Reviews and clears private-sector proposals for satellite launches, ground infrastructure, and related space activities.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2026] Consider the following statements about involvement of private entities in India’s space programme:
    1. IN-SPACe is an autonomous agency formed to facilitate participation of private entities.
    2. Agnikul Cosmos launched the world’s first flight using 3D-printed rocket engine.
    3. Skyroot Aerospace has developed liquid fuel for GSLV.
    (a) 1 only
    (b) 2 and 3 only
    (c) 1 and 2 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3
    ANSWER: C”

  • Invisible actors

    Why in the News

    An editorial criticises the Election Commission of India for allowing large-scale, allegedly fraudulent Form 7 deletion applications to be filed during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand. Form 7 is the prescribed form under electoral roll rules for objecting to another person’s inclusion on the roll or seeking their deletion. Large volumes of such applications, filed in bulk and allegedly by parties with no direct connection to the individual voters concerned, raise the concern that a mechanism meant for genuine, individual objections is instead being used as a tool to strike names off the roll at scale, without the safeguards a genuine objection process would apply.

    Why is bulk filing of Form 7 applications a concern?

    1. Form 7 was designed for individual, evidence-backed objections: The form allows any registered elector to object to another entry on the roll, but the process assumes each objection is filed on a specific, documented ground by someone with knowledge of that particular voter’s circumstances.
    2. Bulk filing bypasses the individual-knowledge assumption: Reports of large batches of Form 7 applications filed together, in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Uttarakhand, suggest a coordinated filing exercise rather than genuine, case-by-case objections raised by people with actual knowledge of each voter.
    3. No standard operating procedure to screen bulk filings: The Election Commission has not published a standard operating procedure specifying how a Booth Level Officer or Electoral Registration Officer should treat an unusually large batch of objections filed from a single source or in a short window, leaving field-level officials to process each one individually regardless of the pattern.
    4. Risk of disenfranchisement without adequate verification: A voter whose name is objected to through a bulk-filed Form 7 may be removed from the roll on a ground that was never actually verified against that specific individual’s circumstances, if the volume of filings overwhelms the verification capacity at the local level.

    What safeguard does the editorial call for?

    1. A standard operating procedure for anomalous filing patterns: The editorial’s central demand is a documented, uniform procedure specifying how Electoral Registration Officers must treat Form 7 applications filed in unusually large batches or from a common source, rather than processing every filing as an ordinary individual objection.
    2. Verification against the objected voter, not just the objector’s paperwork: A functioning safeguard would require direct verification with the individual whose name is objected to before any deletion is finalised, rather than relying solely on the documentation the objecting party submits.

    Conclusion

    The editorial’s concern is that the Special Intensive Revision, meant to correct genuine errors in the electoral roll, is vulnerable to being used to strike voters off the roll at scale through a bulk-filed, individually-framed objection form that field officials are not equipped to screen. A published standard operating procedure for anomalous Form 7 filing patterns is the specific safeguard the editorial says is missing.

    Back2Basics: Form 7

    1. The prescribed form under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 for objecting to the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll, or seeking the deletion of an entry on stated grounds such as death or shift of residence.
    2. Can be filed by any registered elector against another entry on the same roll, not only by the individual whose own entry is in question.
    3. Processed by the local Electoral Registration Officer, who is required to give the affected voter an opportunity to be heard before a name is deleted.
    4. Became a point of controversy during the 2026 Special Intensive Revision after reports of large-volume, bulk filings in several States.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”

  • Hyderabad and adjoining constituencies drive Telangana’s record SIR deletions

    Why in the News

    A data analysis of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) draft rolls shows Telangana recorded the highest deletion rate of any State, at 21.7 percent, concentrated heavily in Hyderabad’s urban assembly constituencies. The analysis also flags a shift in the gender ratio of the deleted rolls, a pattern that raises the question of whether urban migration and residential churn, rather than uniform electoral-roll error, is driving Telangana’s outlier deletion rate.

    What does the deletion pattern in Telangana show?

    1. Telangana’s 21.7 percent deletion rate is the national outlier: No other State’s SIR draft rolls recorded as high a share of entries deleted as Telangana’s 21.7 percent, making it the sharpest single data point to emerge from the SIR exercise so far.
    2. Deletions cluster in Hyderabad’s urban assembly constituencies: The deletion rate is not evenly spread across Telangana; it concentrates disproportionately in the assembly constituencies that make up Hyderabad and its adjoining urban belt.
    3. Gender ratio shifts within the deleted rolls: The analysis flags a change in the male-to-female ratio among deleted entries compared with the surviving roll, suggesting the deletions are not gender-neutral in their incidence.

    Why would an urban belt like Hyderabad see such a high deletion rate?

    1. High residential churn in a metro labour market: Hyderabad’s urban constituencies see high rates of migration for work, with residents frequently changing addresses within the city or moving in and out of it, a pattern the SIR’s Shifted category is specifically designed to capture.
    2. Rental housing turnover complicates address verification: A large share of Hyderabad’s urban population lives in rented accommodation with shorter tenancies than owner-occupied housing, making door-to-door verification more likely to find an address where the previously registered voter no longer lives.
    3. Duplicate registration risk from repeated internal migration: Voters who moved within Hyderabad, or into it from elsewhere in Telangana, without formally updating their electoral roll entry each time, are more likely to end up registered more than once, feeding the Duplicate category of the ASDDO framework.

    Conclusion

    Telangana’s 21.7 percent deletion rate, concentrated in Hyderabad’s urban constituencies, is consistent with the residential churn that a fast-growing metro labour market produces, though the gender-ratio shift in the deleted rolls is a pattern that needs its own explanation before the deletion rate can be read as a purely administrative correction. The final roll, after the objection window closes, will show how much of the 21.7 percent survives scrutiny.

    Back2Basics: ASDDO categorisation

    1. The five-category framework, Additional, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, and Objected, the Election Commission uses to classify every entry removed during a Special Intensive Revision.
    2. “Shifted” covers voters found to have moved residence since their last registration, the category most directly linked to urban migration patterns.
    3. “Duplicate” covers voters registered more than once, often from repeated, unrecorded address changes.
    4. The categorisation is meant to make each deletion auditable against a specific, stated ground rather than an unexplained removal.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”

  • 1.07 crore names removed in Karnataka’s draft SIR rolls

    Why in the News

    The Election Commission of India’s draft electoral rolls under the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) show 1.07 crore names removed from Karnataka’s electoral rolls, shrinking the State’s registered electorate to 4.46 crore. Discrepancy notices have been issued to affected voters, and the deletions have been categorised under the ASDDO framework: Additional, Shifted, Duplicate, Dead, and Objected entries. Opposition parties have flagged the ASDDO categorisation as opaque, arguing that voters cannot easily determine which specific ground led to their own name being struck off.

    What is the Special Intensive Revision, and what has it found in Karnataka?

    1. A door-to-door re-verification of the electoral roll: The Special Intensive Revision (SIR) is the Election Commission’s mechanism for a fresh, ground-level re-verification of every entry on a State’s electoral roll, distinct from the routine annual summary revision.
    2. 1.07 crore names deleted from Karnataka’s rolls: The draft rolls published under the SIR remove 1.07 crore entries from Karnataka’s electoral list, a reduction large enough to shrink the State’s registered electorate to 4.46 crore.
    3. Deletions grouped under five ASDDO categories: Every deleted entry is classified as Additional (a duplicate registration elsewhere), Shifted (moved residence), Duplicate (registered more than once), Dead (deceased), or Objected (formally objected to by another party), the ASDDO framework the Election Commission uses to justify each deletion.
    4. Discrepancy notices issued to affected voters: Voters whose names were flagged for possible deletion have been sent discrepancy notices, intended to give them a chance to respond before the final roll is published.

    Why is the ASDDO categorisation being called opaque?

    1. No voter-level breakdown published against each category: Opposition parties argue that the aggregate 1.07 crore figure is not accompanied by a transparent, checkable breakdown showing how many entries fall under each of the five ASDDO categories, making it difficult to assess whether deletions are concentrated in a particular category prone to error.
    2. Individual voters cannot easily verify their own category: A voter who finds their name removed has limited means to determine which of the five categories was applied to their specific entry, or to see the evidence behind that categorisation, before the final roll is locked in.
    3. Scale of deletion invites scrutiny of the underlying process: A reduction of over a crore names is large enough, relative to Karnataka’s total electorate, that opposition parties are asking whether the field verification exercise behind the SIR was itself uniformly rigorous or prone to erroneous deletions in specific segments.

    Conclusion

    Karnataka’s SIR draft rolls have removed 1.07 crore names and issued discrepancy notices to affected voters, but the opacity around the ASDDO breakdown leaves the accuracy of that large a deletion unverifiable from outside the Election Commission’s own process. The final electoral roll, after voters respond to the discrepancy notices, will determine how many of the 1.07 crore deletions are contested and reversed before the list is locked.

    Back2Basics: Special Intensive Revision (SIR)

    1. A ground-level, door-to-door re-verification of a State’s entire electoral roll conducted by the Election Commission of India under its powers over roll preparation under the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
    2. Distinct from the routine annual Summary Revision, which updates the existing roll rather than re-verifying every entry from scratch.
    3. Uses Booth Level Officers to physically verify voter details house by house before publishing a draft roll for public objections.
    4. Has drawn political controversy in multiple States over the scale of deletions and the transparency of the verification process behind them.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2024, GS2, 10 marks] Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees with particular reference to “one nation-one election” principle.”