Content Setting up Five National Centres of Excellence (NCoEs) for Skilling India’s Green Maritime Odyssey Setting up Five National Centres of Excellence (NCoEs) for Skilling Why is this in News? Lok Sabha written reply (15 Dec 2025) by MoS (IC) for Skill Development & Entrepreneurship. Cabinet approval (07 May 2025) for five National Centres of Excellence (NCoEs) announced in Budget 2025–26. Marks a shift from generic skilling to sector-specific, industry-led, globally benchmarked training under PM-SETU. Relevance : GS II – Governance, Social Justice Government policies & interventions: PM-SETU scheme; Budget 2025–26 announcement. Institutional reforms: Shift from state-controlled ITIs to industry-led governance (IMC model). Cooperative federalism: Centre–State–Industry partnership in skilling. Role of international cooperation: India–Singapore collaboration in advanced manufacturing. Capacity building: Strengthening public institutions (NSTIs) for service delivery. What are National Centres of Excellence (NCoEs)? High-end skilling institutions embedded within select National Skill Training Institutes (NSTIs). Focus on: Advanced, future-ready skills. Deep industry integration. Global best practices and certifications. Act as hubs for training, curriculum innovation, and trainer upskilling. Institutional Framework: PM-SETU Scheme PM Skilling and Employability through Upgraded ITIs (PM-SETU). Objective: Modernise ITIs. Improve employability. Align skills with Industry 4.0 requirements. Two components: Component I: Upgradation of 1,000 Government ITIs (Hub-and-Spoke). Component II: Establishment of National Centres of Excellence. Approved NCoEs: Location & Rationale Bhubaneswar (Odisha) Chennai (Tamil Nadu) Hyderabad (Telangana) Kanpur (Uttar Pradesh) Ludhiana (Punjab) Selection criteria: Adequate land area. Trade diversity. Existing training capacity. Scope for expansion. Availability of qualified faculty. Regional logic: Covers east, south, north, and industrial belts. Aligns skilling with regional economic specialisation. Sectoral & Global Partnerships Global partnership with Singapore finalised. MoU signed for Advanced Manufacturing NCoE at NSTI Chennai. Expression of Interest (EoI) floated to onboard Lead Industry Partners for all five NCoEs. Reflects dual-track model: Global benchmarking. Domestic industry anchoring. Governance Model: Institute Management Committee (IMC) Chairperson: Nominated by Lead Industry Partner. Central Government nominees: DGT/MSDE. State Government nominee: Host state. Industry experts: Technical and financial contributors. Director of NSTI: Ex-officio Member Secretary. Industry Associations: FICCI, CII, SSCs, regional bodies. Academia representatives. Size: 9–15 members (flexible). Significance: Breaks traditional government-only control. Ensures industry-driven curriculum, assessment, and placement. Role & Functions of NCoEs Design and deliver industry-aligned training programs. Continuous curriculum upgradation. Trainer capacity building. Facilitate apprenticeships and placements. Serve as knowledge hubs for surrounding ITIs. Component I: Hub-and-Spoke ITI Upgradation 1,000 Government ITIs to be upgraded. Industry collaboration mandatory. States given flexibility to: Propose sector-specific skill centres. Align skilling with local economic needs. Examples: Agriculture, food processing, dairy. Region-specific focus like Seemanchal–Kosi (Bihar). Why is this Reform Significant? Addressing Structural Skill Gaps India faces: Low formal skilling rate (~5–6%). Mismatch between training and industry demand. NCoEs target quality, not just quantity. Industry 4.0 Readiness Focus on advanced manufacturing and emerging technologies. Supports Make in India, PLI-led manufacturing expansion. Federal & Cooperative Approach Centre–State–Industry collaboration. Regional customisation within national framework. Global Benchmarking Singapore partnership brings: Modular curricula. Competency-based certification. Strong industry linkage models. Challenges & Concerns Sustaining industry interest beyond initial phase. Ensuring uniform quality across centres. Avoiding regional imbalance in access. Measurable outcomes: placement quality, wage premiums. Prelims Pointers NCoEs approved under Component II of PM-SETU. Five locations: Bhubaneswar, Chennai, Hyderabad, Kanpur, Ludhiana. Global partner: Singapore (Advanced Manufacturing, Chennai). IMC chaired by Lead Industry Partner nominee. Component I targets 1,000 ITIs via Hub-and-Spoke model. India’s Green Maritime Odyssey Why is this in News? PIB release (15 Dec 2025) outlining India’s green maritime transition. Links Maritime India Vision (MIV) 2030, Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047, Sagarmala, Green Hydrogen Mission, and Indian Ports Bill, 2025 into a single sustainability narrative. Signals India’s intent to emerge as a global green maritime power, not just a logistics hub. Relevance : GS III – Infrastructure, Economy, Environment Infrastructure development: Ports, coastal shipping, inland waterways (Sagarmala). Green growth & decarbonisation: Green hydrogen, LNG, methanol, electric port equipment. Energy transition: National Green Hydrogen Mission (hard-to-abate sector). Blue Economy: Sustainable use of marine resources. Coastal livelihoods and ecosystem protection. Climate change mitigation: Emission reduction in shipping and ports. Logistics & competitiveness: Reduced turnaround time, lower logistics cost. Technology & innovation: Smart ports, digital corridors, shore-to-ship power. What is “Green Maritime”? Integration of economic efficiency + environmental sustainability + social responsibility in ports and shipping. Covers: Clean fuels and low-emission vessels. Renewable-powered ports. Marine ecosystem protection. Climate-resilient and digitally smart maritime infrastructure. Aligned with IMO decarbonisation goals and UN SDGs (9 SDGs relevant to ports). Context: Why Maritime Sustainability Matters for India Coastline: ~7,500 km with mangroves, reefs, lagoons, and dense coastal livelihoods. Maritime sector: Backbone of trade and logistics. Growing environmental footprint (emissions, oil spills, dredging). Challenge: Balance trade expansion with ocean health and coastal resilience. Vision Framework: India’s Green Maritime Roadmap 1. Maritime India Vision (MIV) 2030 Blueprint for: Greener ports. Cleaner shipping. Digital and efficient logistics. Projected investment: ₹3–3.5 lakh crore. Focus areas: Port modernisation. Inland waterways. Shipbuilding and ship repair. Green technologies. 2. Maritime Amrit Kaal Vision 2047 Long-term roadmap aligned with 100 years of Independence. Investment commitment: ~₹80 lakh crore. More than 300 actionable initiatives. Key thrusts: Green shipping corridors. Methanol, LNG, hydrogen-based vessels. Smart and carbon-neutral ports. Making India a top global shipbuilding nation. Sagarmala Programme: Green Logistics Backbone Flagship port-led development programme. 840 projects worth ₹5.8 lakh crore by 2035. 272 completed (₹1.41 lakh crore). 217 under implementation (₹1.65 lakh crore). Objectives: Reduce logistics cost. Promote coastal shipping and inland waterways. Generate employment. Acts as the execution arm of MIV 2030 and Vision 2047. Clean Fuels & Energy Transition in Maritime Sector National Green Hydrogen Mission Target by 2030: 5 million tonnes/year green hydrogen. ₹8 lakh crore investment. 6 lakh jobs. ₹1 lakh crore fossil fuel import savings. Identified Green Hydrogen Port Hubs: Kandla Paradip Tuticorin Supports zero-emission shipping fuels: hydrogen, ammonia, methanol. India’s Green Port Initiatives (Supply-Side Decarbonisation) Renewable Energy at Ports Solar: Rooftop PV on warehouses and offices. Floating solar on calm port waters. Wind: Onshore wind on port land, breakwaters. Offshore wind near Okha, southern peninsula, Kutch salt fields. Tidal energy: Pilot in Gulf of Cambay/Kutch (8,000–12,000 MW potential). Wave & solar thermal: OWC wave energy pilots (Vizhinjam model). Flagship Green Maritime Programmes Harit Sagar – Green Port Guidelines (2023) Framework for: Carbon neutrality. Zero ecological disturbance. Promotes: Sustainable materials. Cleaner technologies. Ecosystem-sensitive port expansion. Green Tug Transition Programme (GTTP), 2024 Transition from diesel harbour tugs to green alternatives. Part of Panch Karma Sankalp. Government support: 30% financial assistance. Ports procuring green tugs: JNPA VO Chidambaranar Paradip Deendayal Aligns with Make in India and maritime manufacturing. Harit Nauka (Green Vessel) Initiative Promotes greener inland waterway vessels. Targets emissions reduction in riverine transport. Coastal Green Shipping Corridor First corridor: Kandla–Tuticorin. Partners: SCI Deendayal Port Authority VO Chidambaranar Port Authority. Pilot for low-emission coastal shipping. Cleaner Ports: Demand-Side & Operational Reforms Vehicle & Equipment Electrification Target: 50% port vehicles on clean fuels by 2030. Two-phase electrification: Phase I: Ship–shore cranes. Phase II: RTGCs, reach stackers, forklifts, yard equipment. Shore-to-Ship Power Ships at berth draw electricity from shore. Cuts emissions from onboard diesel generators. LNG Bunkering LNG advantages: 80% lower CO₂, PM, NOx than diesel. Sulphur ≤0.5% (IMO compliant). 40–50% cheaper than diesel. India promoting LNG bunkering awareness and infrastructure. Dust & Air Emission Control Diesel usage: 500–5,000 KL per port annually. Measures: Covered storage. Mechanised handling. Emission monitoring (towards automation). Green Belts MoEF&CC mandate: 33% green cover. Benefits: Carbon absorption. Noise and dust reduction. Biodiversity and groundwater recharge. Challenge: Land scarcity at ports. Indian Ports Bill, 2025: Legal Backbone Replaces outdated Indian Ports Act, 1908. Mandates: Global green norms. Disaster and oil-spill readiness. Context: Cargo handling: 855 MT (FY 2024–25). Port capacity: +87% since 2014–15. Turnaround time reduced to 48 hours. 9 Indian ports in World Bank CPPI. Marks shift from regulatory lag to global leadership. Global Green Maritime Diplomacy Sagarmanthan Dialogue Global platform on: Blue economy. Green logistics. Sustainable supply chains. India–Singapore Green & Digital Shipping Corridor Accelerates: Low-emission technologies. Digital maritime tools. Smart port operations. Green Shipping Conclave Focus on: GTTP. Harit Nauka. Sustainable ship recycling (Alang). Marine Pollution & Oil Spill Preparedness Robust oil-spill response plans. Satellite-based monitoring. Oil sensitivity mapping. Priority to mangroves, corals, aquaculture zones. Coordination with Navy and coastal agencies. Strategic Significance Economic Lower logistics costs. Global competitiveness in shipping and ports. Job creation in green maritime technologies. Environmental Decarbonisation of hard-to-abate sector. Marine biodiversity protection. Climate-resilient coastal infrastructure. Geopolitical Positions India as: Indo-Pacific maritime leader. Norm-setter in green shipping. Challenges High upfront cost of green fuels and vessels. Technology readiness (hydrogen, ammonia). Port land constraints for renewables and green belts. Coordination across Centre–State–Port Authorities. Prelims Pointers MIV 2030 investment: ₹3–3.5 lakh crore. Vision 2047 investment: ~₹80 lakh crore. Sagarmala: 840 projects, ₹5.8 lakh crore. First Green Shipping Corridor: Kandla–Tuticorin. Ports Bill replaces 1908 law.

Content Governor’s Assent to State Bills Not Just Insurance, Indians Need Universal Healthcare Governor’s Assent to State Bills Why is this in News? April 2025: Supreme Court judgment in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu Fixed clear timelines for Governors to act on State Bills. Held that indefinite inaction is unconstitutional. Allowed judicial intervention, including deemed assent in cases of unexplained delay. Mid–2025: Supreme Court’s advisory opinion in Special Reference No. 1 of 2025 (Presidential Reference) Held that: Judicially imposed timelines lack textual constitutional basis. Deemed assent is alien to the constitutional scheme. Governors and President enjoy wide discretionary latitude, even permitting delays. Effectively diluted the April 2025 judgment, though formally not overruling it. Relevance GS II – Polity & Constitution Articles involved: Article 200, Article 201, Article 361 Themes: Role, powers, and discretion of the Governor Constitutional morality vs textualism Legislative procedure and assent mechanism Judicial review and advisory jurisdiction (Article 143) GS II – Federalism & Centre–State Relations Cooperative vs coercive federalism Union control through Governors Reservation of Bills for President and its misuse Sarkaria & Punchhi Commission recommendations Practice Question “The Governor’s power of assent under Article 200 is procedural, not supervisory.” Examine this statement in the light of recent Supreme Court judgments.(250 Words) Constitutional Basics: Article 200 Article 200 – Governor’s Options on a State Bill When a Bill is presented, the Governor may: Grant assent Withhold assent Return the Bill (except Money Bills) for reconsideration Reserve the Bill for the consideration of the President First Proviso to Article 200 If the Governor returns a Bill and the State Legislature re-passes it (with or without amendments), The Governor “shall not withhold assent” thereafter. Core principle: The Governor’s role is procedural, not supervisory. The April 2025 Judgment: State of Tamil Nadu Case Key Findings Indefinite delay by Governors violates: Federalism Democratic accountability Legislative supremacy Governors cannot convert assent power into a veto-by-silence. Major Innovations Timelines imposed for Governor’s action. Prolonged inaction treated as constitutionally impermissible. Courts empowered to: Direct action In extreme cases, deem assent granted Significance Strengthened: Federal balance Elected legislatures over unelected authorities Especially crucial for Opposition-ruled States facing Raj Bhavan obstruction. Special Reference No. 1 of 2025: The Course Reversal Core Holdings No explicit constitutional text authorising: Judicial timelines Deemed assent Governor’s discretion under Article 200 has “elasticity”. Advisory opinion claims not to overrule earlier judgment, but: Carries high persuasive authority due to Constitution Bench status. The “Constitutional Dialogue” Argument Court’s Position Article 200 creates a dialogue between: Legislature Governor President Critique Dialogue requires: Timely and meaningful response Governors’ motivated silence converts dialogue into: Obstruction Policy paralysis Problem: The Reference judgment tolerates silence while preaching dialogue. Dilution of Safeguards Under Article 200 1. Removal of Timelines April judgment: Clear, reasoned timelines. Reference opinion: Timelines unconstitutional. Effect: Prolonged inaction attracts only: A direction to “decide”, not consequences. 2. Undermining the First Provison Earlier Position (Tamil Nadu Case) After reconsideration by Assembly: Governor must assent Referral to President only in exceptional cases New Position (Special Reference) Governor can: Refer even reconsidered and re-enacted Bills to the President Do so without constraints Impact: Converts President’s reservation into a constitutional black hole. Negates the binding nature of legislative reiteration, contrary to text. False Equivalence: Checks vs Balances Court’s Justification Governor must act as a check to: Prevent repugnancy Prevent unconstitutional laws Counter-Argument Judicial review already exists to test constitutionality. Assent power is: Procedural Not a preliminary judicial review Key Distinction: Courts correct unconstitutional laws after enactment. Denial or delay of assent leaves no effective remedy. Federalism and Centre–State Relations Missed Opportunity States and Sarkaria Commission concerns: Arbitrary reservation of Bills to the President Reference could have: Subjected such referrals to judicial scrutiny Instead Confers unfettered discretion on Governors. Strengthens Union dominance over States. Constitutional Implications Democratic Deficit Unelected Governors gain: Blocking power over elected legislatures Federal Retrogression Shifts balance: From cooperative federalism To hierarchical control Separation of Powers Assent power elevated from: Procedural step To quasi-constitutional gatekeeping Overall Assessment April 2025 judgment: Progressive, democracy-affirming, federalist. Special Reference No. 1 of 2025: Constitutionally conservative in form, Politically enabling in effect. Net Result: Retreat from principled restraint on gubernatorial power. Assenting power transformed from a balance into a check, undermining legislative supremacy. Conclusion The advisory opinion in the 16th Presidential Reference represents a subtle yet significant constitutional retrogression. By dismantling judicially enforced discipline over gubernatorial assent and legitimising expansive discretion, the Court has weakened federalism, diluted democratic accountability, and reopened the door to executive obstruction of State legislatures—an outcome at odds with the spirit, structure, and text of Article 200. Not Just Insurance, Indians Need Universal Healthcare  Why is this in News? December 12 marked Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Day. Renewed policy debate in India on: Rising out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE). Over-reliance on insurance-led models (e.g., PM-JAY). Weak public primary healthcare and growing private sector dominance. The editorial argues that insurance ≠ universal healthcare, and India must pivot towards a publicly funded, comprehensive health system. Relevance GS II – Social Justice (Health) Public health system design Universal Health Coverage (SDG 3.8) Equity, access, and affordability in healthcare Role of the State in welfare provisioning GS II – Governance & Federalism Health as a State subject (Entry 6, State List) Centre–State coordination under NHM and PM-JAY Fiscal federalism and health financing Practice Question Distinguish between Universal Health Coverage and Universal Healthcare.Why is this distinction important for India’s health policy? (250 Words) Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Defined by WHO as ensuring: Access to promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative, and palliative care Without financial hardship. Grounded in: Right to Health (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). WHO World Health Reports (2010, 2019). SDG 3.8. Universal Health Coverage vs Universal Healthcare UHC (Narrow, insurance-centric): Focus on financial protection. Emphasis on hospitalisation and tertiary care. Universal Healthcare (Comprehensive): Strong public provisioning. Focus on primary and secondary care. Addresses social determinants of health. India’s Health System: Structural Reality Persistent Challenges Low public health expenditure: ~1.3–1.5% of GDP. High OOPE: ~45–50% of total health expenditure. Insurance schemes mainly cover: Hospitalisation. Limited disease packages. Major exclusions: Outpatient care. Diagnostics. Medicines. Preventive services. Consequences Medical expenses remain a leading cause of impoverishment. Insurance often: Encourages over-medicalisation. Leads to provider-induced demand. Benefits private hospitals disproportionately. Insurance-Led Model: Core Limitations Does not strengthen health infrastructure. Treats health as a market commodity, not a public good. Fragmented disease-based packages distort care priorities. Fails to address: Continuity of care. Preventive and promotive health. Increases private sector leverage over public policy. Comparative Global Experience East and Southeast Asia Countries like China, South Korea, Thailand: Adopted UHC through insurance. Simultaneously invested heavily in public health systems. Outcomes: Strong primary and secondary care. Better health indicators. Caveat: High fiscal burden (China faced rising costs due to hospital-centric expansion). Key Lesson Insurance works only when embedded in a robust public healthcare backbone. Private sector dominance without regulation leads to: Cost escalation. Policy capture. India’s Missed Opportunity Historical Commitment Bhore Committee (1946): Advocated state-funded universal healthcare. Emphasised primary care as foundation. Post-independence: Chronic underinvestment. Gradual shift towards selective, insurance-based interventions. Current Schemes NHM (earlier NRHM): Strengthened primary care but remains underfunded. PM-JAY: Expanded insurance coverage. Did not significantly reduce OOPE. Result: Parallel systems with weak integration. False Equivalence: Insurance as Healthcare Insurance is a financing tool, not a healthcare system. Courts, policies, and political discourse often conflate: Financial coverage with health outcomes. Health outcomes depend on: Availability. Accessibility. Quality. Continuity of care. What India Actually Needs ? Strategic Shift Required From UHC-as-insurance → Universal Healthcare-as-public service. Core Pillars Substantial increase in public health spending (≥3% of GDP). Strengthening: Primary Health Centres. Community Health Centres. Urban primary healthcare. Integration of: Preventive, promotive, and curative care. Regulation of private sector: Standard treatment protocols. Price controls. Addressing social determinants of health: Nutrition. Sanitation. Housing. Education. Governance and Federal Dimensions Health is a State subject (Entry 6, State List). Central insurance-heavy schemes risk: Centralisation. Weakening State public health systems. Cooperative federalism needed: Flexible funding. State-led health system strengthening. Ethical and Constitutional Perspective Right to life under Article 21 increasingly interpreted to include health. Treating healthcare as insurance undermines: Equity. Universality. Dignity. Overall Assessment Insurance-based UHC is: Necessary but not sufficient. Without strong public provisioning: UHC becomes fiscally costly and socially inequitable. India stands at a policy crossroads: Either deepen marketisation of health, Or reclaim healthcare as a public good. Conclusion India’s health challenge is not merely one of financial protection but of systemic capacity and equity. Universal Health Coverage, when reduced to insurance, offers a narrow and inadequate solution. A genuine commitment to universal healthcare demands sustained public investment, strengthened primary care, and recognition of health as a constitutional and social obligation rather than a market-mediated entitlement.

Content Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill) Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025 One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025) Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR Viksit Bharat – Guarantee For Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill (VB-GRAM Bill) Why is this in News? The Union Government is set to introduce the VB-GRAM Bill in the Lok Sabha to replace MGNREGA, 2005. The Bill proposes a structural shift: From demand-driven employment guarantee → supply-driven, budget-capped framework. Strong Opposition objections on: Dilution of legal right to work. Increased State financial burden. Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name. Centralisation of power via area notification by the Union. Relevance GS II: Welfare schemes, rights-based vs executive-driven governance Federalism, Centre–State fiscal relations Decentralisation, role of Panchayati Raj Institutions GS III: Inclusive growth, rural employment, poverty alleviation Public finance, fiscal discipline vs social protection MGNREGA (2005): Core Basics Legal right to employment under Article 21 (Right to livelihood – judicial interpretation). Guarantees: 100 days of unskilled manual work per rural household per year. Work on demand within 15 days, failing which unemployment allowance is payable. Cost sharing: Centre: ~90% (wages + material). States: ~10% (mainly unemployment allowance). Decentralised: Gram Panchayat as principal planning and implementing authority. Key objectives: Livelihood security. Creation of durable rural assets. Strengthening grassroots democracy. What is VB-GRAM Bill?  Replaces MGNREGA with a new employment and livelihood mission. Key shifts: Supply-driven scheme (no statutory demand guarantee). Fixed annual budget cap decided by Union Government. Employment only in Centre-notified rural areas. Guaranteed workdays increased from 100 → 125 days. State contribution raised to 40% of total expenditure. Demand-Driven vs Supply-Driven: Conceptual Difference Demand-Driven (MGNREGA) Employment is a right, not discretion. Fiscal outlay expands automatically with demand. Strong shock absorber during: Droughts. Pandemic-like crises. Agrarian distress. Supply-Driven (VB-GRAM) Employment limited by budget ceilings. Government decides: Where work is provided. How much work is available. Converts entitlement into welfare discretion. Key Changes at a Glance Aspect MGNREGA VB-GRAM Bill Nature Legal right Welfare scheme Workdays 100 125 Trigger Worker demand Govt allocation Budget Demand-responsive Fixed, capped Area coverage All rural India Centre-notified areas State share ~10% ~40% Federal tilt Decentralised Centralised Constitutional & Federalism Concerns Article 246 + Seventh Schedule: Rural employment, agriculture, land → State List/Concurrent List orientation. Increased State share: Unfunded mandate. Violates spirit of cooperative federalism. Central notification of eligible areas: Weakens Gram Sabha autonomy (Article 243). Socio-Economic Implications Positive Arguments (Government’s Likely Rationale) Fiscal predictability and expenditure control. Better targeting of backward regions. Alignment with Viksit Bharat 2047 productivity narrative. Shift from relief-oriented work to “livelihood mission”. Negative Implications Exclusion risk for distress-hit but non-notified areas. Loss of automatic safety net during economic shocks. Higher State burden may lead to: Delays in wage payments. Reduced work provision. Weakens women’s participation (MGNREGA had ~55–60% women workers). Potential rollback of poverty reduction gains: MGNREGA contributed significantly to fall in rural poverty and distress migration. Political Economy Dimension Removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name: Symbolic break from rights-based welfare architecture. Shift reflects broader trend: From rights-based legislations (RTI, MGNREGA, NFSA) To executive-driven missions. Raises question: Welfare state → Developmental state with fiscal discipline? Governance & Accountability Issues No clarity on: “Parameters” for budget allocation. Criteria for area notification. Reduced legal enforceability: No unemployment allowance guarantee. Potential erosion of social audit effectiveness. Way Forward Retain statutory demand-based core, even with budget rationalisation. Transparent, rule-based criteria for area notification. Restore balanced Centre-State cost sharing. Strong social audit and grievance redress mechanisms. Parliamentary scrutiny via Standing Committee. Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) Bill, 2025 Why is this in News? The Union Government has introduced the VBSA Bill, 2025 to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC). Government has proposed referring the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) amid strong Opposition resistance. Opposition alleges: Executive overreach in higher education. Erosion of federalism and institutional autonomy. Imposition of Hindi through nomenclature. Excessive regulatory and penalty powers. Relevance GS II: Governance, regulatory institutions, executive accountability Federalism (education in Concurrent List) Parliamentary processes (JPC, legislative scrutiny) GS I: Education, linguistic diversity, cultural pluralism UGC: Background and Role Established under UGC Act, 1956. Constitutional basis: Entry 66, Union List – coordination and determination of standards in higher education. Core functions: Funding universities. Setting minimum standards. Recognition of institutions. Criticism of UGC: Over-centralisation. One-size-fits-all regulation. Slow approvals and compliance-heavy culture. What is the VBSA Bill, 2025? Proposes creation of Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan (VBSA) as a single, overarching regulator for higher education. Aligns with NEP 2020 vision of regulatory overhaul and graded autonomy. Seeks to subsume or replace existing regulatory architecture led by UGC. Key Features of the VBSA Bill Regulatory Restructuring UGC replaced by VBSA with: Expanded powers over recognition, compliance, penalties, and closure. Stronger executive involvement in appointments and oversight. Graded Autonomy Framework Institutions categorised based on performance. Autonomy linked to: Accreditation scores. Compliance history. Critics argue autonomy is conditional, not inherent. Compliance and Penalty Regime Introduces: Intrusive inspections. Heavy financial penalties. Powers to suspend or shut institutions. Shift from facilitative regulation → command-and-control oversight. Language and Nomenclature Issue Naming the authority and Bill in Hindi. Opposition from non-Hindi-speaking States: Seen as cultural centralisation. Contradicts linguistic pluralism under Articles 29–30. Federalism Concerns Education is in the Concurrent List (Entry 25). VBSA centralises: Regulatory power. Norm-setting. Enforcement mechanisms. States fear: Reduced say in higher education governance. Marginalisation of State universities. Kerala and Tamil Nadu objections reflect: Long-standing Centre–State friction in education policy. Executive Overreach: Core Criticism Concentration of powers: Rule-making. Enforcement. Penalisation. Weak parliamentary or independent checks. Undermines: Institutional autonomy. Academic freedom. Risks politicisation of: Curriculum. Appointments. Institutional functioning. Implications for Higher Education Potential Advantages Uniform national standards. Faster decision-making. Alignment with global benchmarks. Reduced multiplicity of regulators. Serious Risks Chilling effect on academic freedom. Compliance burden on public universities. Disproportionate impact on State-funded institutions. Possible decline in diversity of pedagogical models. Comparison: UGC vs VBSA Aspect UGC VBSA (Proposed) Nature Statutory regulator Statutory super-regulator Autonomy Limited but institutional Conditional, performance-linked Federal balance Relatively accommodative Strong central tilt Penalty powers Limited Extensive, including closure Language sensitivity Neutral Hindi-centric nomenclature Why JPC Reference Matters Allows: Detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny. Stakeholder consultations (States, universities, faculty). Signals: Political sensitivity. Federal and cultural contestation. However: Final outcome still depends on government majority. Constitutional & Governance Lens Article 246 + Seventh Schedule: Balance between Centre and States. Academic freedom as part of: Article 19(1)(a) (judicial interpretation). Risk of undermining university autonomy, a core democratic institution. Way Forward Clearly demarcate: Standard-setting vs day-to-day regulation. Independent appointments mechanism. Strong appellate and grievance redress bodies. Linguistically neutral nomenclature. Formal role for States in regulatory councils. One in Six People Exposed to Conflict Worldwide (ACLED Report, 2025) Why is this in News? ACLED (Armed Conflict Location and Event Data) released its 2025 global conflict assessment. Key headline: 831 million people exposed to conflict in 2025. Roughly one in six people globally. Reveals: Sharp rise in violent events. Increasing state involvement in violence, including against civilians. Changing nature of warfare, especially use of commercial drones by non-state actors. Relevance GS II: International relations, global conflict trends Role of UN, multilateralism, peacekeeping GS III: Internal security: non-state actors, emerging technologies in warfare What is ACLED? An independent, globally recognised conflict data collection and analysis organisation. Tracks: Political violence. Armed conflict. Protest events. Used by: UN agencies. Governments. Researchers and humanitarian organisations. Key Global Findings (2025) Scale of Conflict ~200,000 violent events recorded globally. Nearly double compared to four years ago. 10% of global population exposed to conflict environments. Nature of Contemporary Conflicts 1. Increased Violence, Reduced Restraint Armed actors show: Higher willingness to use force. Disregard for civilian harm. Reflects erosion of: International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Norms protecting non-combatants. 2. Rising Role of State Forces 74% of violent events involved state forces in 2025. State-led violence against civilians: Increased from 20% (2020) → 35% (2025). Indicates: Militarisation of internal conflicts. Shrinking space for civilian protection. Civilians at the Centre of Violence 56,000+ incidents of violence directed at civilians. Highest in the last five years. Two critical patterns: States increasingly targeting civilians. Non-state groups causing the majority of fatalities. Region-wise Trends Europe Largest increase in violence globally. Driven overwhelmingly by: Russia–Ukraine war. Highest number of people affected since 2022 invasion. West Asia 48% decline in violent events compared to 2024. Key reasons: End of Syria’s civil war. Ceasefires in Gaza and Lebanon. Reduced Israeli and Turkish air campaigns: Led to 17% global drop in aerial warfare. Africa Continues to bear: High civilian fatalities. Complex multi-actor conflicts. Sudan, DRC, Myanmar remain major hotspots. State vs Non-State Actors: A Nuanced Picture State Actors Israel and Russia: Responsible for ~90% of cross-border state violence targeting civilians. Myanmar military: Accounted for ~33% of state violence against its own civilians. Non-State Armed Groups Responsible for ~60% of civilian fatalities. Major perpetrators: Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Sudan: 4,200 civilians killed.   ~11% of all non-state group fatalities globally. Allied Democratic Forces (ADF): ≥1,370 civilian deaths. M23 movement (DRC): 1,100 civilian deaths.   Numbers likely undercounted due to reporting gaps. Technological Shift in Warfare Weaponisation of Commercial Drones 469 non-state armed groups have used drones at least once in last five years. 14% increase over the previous year. Significance: Democratisation of military technology. Low-cost, high-impact tools bypass traditional state monopoly on force. Raises challenges for: Airspace control. Counter-terrorism. Civilian safety. Broader Implications International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Rising civilian targeting signals: Weak enforcement of Geneva Conventions. Normalisation of civilian harm. Global Security Conflicts are: More frequent. More lethal. More fragmented. Multi-actor conflicts harder to resolve diplomatically. Humanitarian Impact Increased displacement. Food insecurity. Collapse of health and education systems in conflict zones. India and Global Governance Lens Reinforces need for: Stronger multilateral conflict prevention. UN Security Council reform. Regulation of emerging military technologies (drones, AI). Relevant for India’s role in: UN peacekeeping. Global South diplomacy. Norm-building on warfare ethics. Biosecurity in India: Risks, Preparedness, and the Need for a Unified Framework Why is this in News? Renewed policy focus following expert commentary highlighting: Gaps in India’s biosecurity preparedness. Absence of a unified national biosecurity framework. Concerns amplified by: Rapid advances in biotechnology. Rising role of non-state actors. India’s low response capacity score on the Global Health Security Index (GHSI) (Rank: 66). Relevance GS II: Governance, institutional coordination, national security architecture GS III: Internal security, disaster management, science & technology Health security, bioterrorism, dual-use technologies What is Biosecurity? Biosecurity: Set of practices, policies, and systems to prevent intentional misuse of: Biological agents. Toxins. Biotechnology. Covers: Laboratory security. Surveillance and early detection. Containment of deliberate outbreaks. Protection of human, animal, and plant health. Biosecurity vs Biosafety: Biosafety: Prevents accidental release of pathogens. Biosecurity: Prevents deliberate misuse. Strong biosafety protocols are a prerequisite for biosecurity. Global Context: Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Adopted in 1975. First treaty to: Prohibit development, production, stockpiling of biological weapons. Mandate destruction of existing stockpiles. India: A signatory to the BWC. Participates in export-control regimes like the Australia Group. Why Does India Need Robust Biosecurity? Structural Vulnerabilities Geography: Porous borders → cross-border bio-risks. Ecology: Biodiversity-rich zones vulnerable to zoonotic spillovers. Demography: High population density → rapid transmission potential. Economy: Heavy dependence on agriculture and livestock. Emerging Threat Landscape Non-state actors exploring biological tools: Example: Alleged preparation of Ricin toxin for terror use. Rapid spread of new-age biotechnologies: Gene editing. Synthetic biology. Lower entry barriers: Dual-use research increasingly accessible. India’s Existing Biosecurity Architecture Legal Framework Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 Governs hazardous microorganisms and GMOs. Biosafety Rules, 1989 2017 Guidelines Recombinant DNA research. Biocontainment standards. WMD Act, 2005 Criminalises biological weapons and delivery systems. Institutional Mechanisms Department of Biotechnology (DBT): Research governance and lab safety. National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC): Outbreak surveillance and response. Department of Animal Husbandry & Dairying: Livestock biosecurity, transboundary animal diseases. Plant Quarantine Organisation of India: Agricultural import-export regulation. National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA): Guidelines on biological disaster management. Key Gaps in India’s Biosecurity System Fragmentation Multiple agencies with overlapping mandates. Lack of: Central coordination. Unified command during bio-emergencies. Capability Deficits GHSI Ranking: 66 Detection score: Improved. Response capacity: Declined. Indicates: Surveillance without commensurate response readiness. Inadequate surge capacity. Governance Gaps No dedicated National Biosecurity Policy or Authority. Limited integration of: Health. Agriculture. Defence. Internal security. Risks Ahead if Gaps Persist High-impact, low-probability events: Bioterror attacks. Engineered pandemics. Massive human cost: Lives of billions potentially at risk. Economic consequences: Food security shocks. Supply-chain disruptions. Strategic vulnerability: Biosecurity as a national security issue, not just public health. Way Forward: Building a National Biosecurity Framework Core Elements Needed Unified National Biosecurity Strategy: Clear roles and responsibilities. Central Coordinating Authority: Inter-ministerial integration. Capability Mapping: Identify lab, surveillance, response gaps. Regulation of Dual-Use Research: Ethical oversight. Capacity Building: Skilled workforce. Rapid response units. International Cooperation: Intelligence-sharing. Norm-setting on emerging biotechnologies. Amicus Suggestions on Disabled Cadets Similar to DMA’s 2022 Plan Why is this in News? The Supreme Court, in a case concerning medically discharged officer cadets, received amicus curiae recommendations. The amicus suggested adopting provisions similar to the Department of Military Affairs (DMA) 2022 proposal. The issue highlights: Disability rights in armed forces. Gaps between policy intent and implementation. Constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity. Relevance GS II: Welfare of armed forces, role of judiciary Executive accountability and policy implementation GS I: Disability issues, social justice Who are Medically Discharged Cadets? Officer cadets discharged due to: Injuries or disabilities attributable to or aggravated by military training. Many are released before commissioning, leading to: Denial of pensions and post-service benefits. Unequal treatment compared to commissioned officers. Legal & Constitutional Background Constitutional Provisions Article 14: Equality before law. Article 21: Right to life with dignity. Article 33: Permits restrictions on armed forces, but not arbitrary discrimination. Statutory Framework Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act): Recognises service-related disability. Mandates non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation. Judicial trend: Courts have repeatedly held that training-related injuries are service-related. What Did the DMA Propose in 2022? A comprehensive welfare package for disabled officer cadets, including: Statutory disability pension with parity: Same benefits as commissioned officers. Broad-banding of disability percentage: Prevents denial due to marginal assessment differences. Family pension provisions. Healthcare coverage: Access to Ex-Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS). Rehabilitation support: Prosthetics. Physiotherapy. Mental health care. Resettlement assistance: Skill development and alternative employment. Status: Proposal approved by Service Headquarters. Yet to be implemented by the government. Amicus Curiae’s Key Suggestions Implement DMA 2022 plan in toto for disabled cadets. Extend statutory disability pension even if discharge occurs pre-commission. Apply broad-banding to ensure parity and fairness. Ensure continuity of medical and rehabilitation support. Avoid ad hoc, case-by-case relief; adopt a uniform policy. Core Issues Highlighted Arbitrary Classification Cadets injured: Before commissioning → denied benefits. After commissioning → eligible. Violates reasonable classification test under Article 14. Gap Between Policy and Practice DMA framework exists. Non-implementation reflects: Bureaucratic inertia. Weak accountability mechanisms. Dignity and Moral Obligation Cadets injured while preparing to serve the nation. Denial of support undermines: State’s duty of care. Military morale and ethical governance. Broader Implications Military Human Resource Management Discourages talented youth from joining armed forces. Weakens trust in institutional fairness. Disability Rights Discourse Tests inclusivity within uniformed services. Aligns with India’s commitments under: UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Civil-Military Relations Welfare of soldiers and cadets central to: Democratic oversight. Professional armed forces. Way Forward Immediate implementation of DMA 2022 proposal. Statutory backing to avoid executive discretion. Time-bound decision-making in disability assessment. Independent medical boards with transparency. Harmonisation with RPwD Act, 2016. GRAP-IV in Delhi–NCR Why is this in News? On 13 December 2025, air quality in Delhi–NCR deteriorated to ‘Severe+’ levels. Daily average AQI crossed 450, prompting authorities to invoke GRAP-IV, the strictest stage of India’s air-pollution emergency framework. Decision taken by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) following an emergency meeting, citing: Rising AQI trend. Unfavourable meteorological conditions (low wind speed, temperature inversion). Relevance  GS III (Environment & Disaster Management) Air pollution and urban environmental challenges Public health emergencies due to environmental degradation Disaster management: response to severe air-quality events Sustainable urban development What is GRAP? GRAP – Graded Response Action Plan: A pre-defined, stage-wise emergency response framework to tackle air pollution in Delhi–NCR. Approved by the Supreme Court in 2016 (MC Mehta case). Statutory backing: Implemented and enforced by CAQM under the CAQM Act, 2021. Objective: Move from ad-hoc bans → predictable, rule-based escalation of actions as pollution worsens. GRAP Stages and AQI Thresholds GRAP Stage AQI Range Air Quality Category GRAP-I 201–300 Poor GRAP-II 301–400 Very Poor GRAP-III 401–450 Severe GRAP-IV >450 Severe+ / Hazardous What is GRAP-IV? Emergency pollution control stage activated when: AQI exceeds 450. Reflects conditions posing serious health risks, even to healthy individuals. Focus: Immediate reduction of pollution sources, regardless of economic disruption. Measures Enforced Under GRAP-IV Transport Restrictions Ban on entry of BS-IV trucks into Delhi. Exceptions: Vehicles carrying essential commodities. Emergency services. Construction and Infrastructure Complete ban on: Construction and demolition (C&D) activities. Highways, roads, flyovers, overbridges. Power transmission, pipelines, telecom infrastructure. Rationale: C&D dust is a major PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ contributor. Educational Institutions Hybrid mode for: Classes VI–IX and XI. Objective: Reduce exposure of children to toxic air. Lower transport-related emissions. Offices and Workplaces 50% capacity rule for: Public, municipal, and private offices. Remaining staff: Work From Home (WFH). Aim: Curtail vehicular movement and congestion. Institutional Framework Behind GRAP Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) Statutory body (2021). Jurisdiction: Delhi + NCR states (Haryana, UP, Rajasthan). Powers: Issue binding directions. Override State government actions if required. Addresses: Fragmentation in air-quality governance. Why Does Delhi–NCR Repeatedly Enter GRAP-IV? Structural Causes Geography & meteorology: Landlocked region. Winter temperature inversion. Emission sources: Vehicular emissions. Construction dust. Biomass and waste burning. Industrial emissions. Seasonal factors: Crop residue burning (October–November). Low wind speeds in winter. Critical Evaluation of GRAP-IV Strengths Rule-based, predictable response. Judicial backing ensures compliance. Region-wide coordination via CAQM. Immediate health protection focus. Limitations Reactive, not preventive: Triggered after pollution becomes hazardous. High economic and social cost: Construction halt. Disrupted livelihoods. Weak enforcement at local levels. Does not address year-round emission sources. GRAP-IV vs Long-Term Air Pollution Control Aspect GRAP-IV Long-Term Measures Nature Emergency response Structural reform Time horizon Short-term Continuous Focus Source suppression Emission reduction Examples Bans, WFH, closures Clean energy, transport reform, urban planning Way Forward  Short-Term Better forecasting and early activation of lower GRAP stages. Strict enforcement of dust-control norms year-round. Medium to Long-Term Shift from seasonal firefighting to: Clean transport transition. Industrial emission standards. Waste management reforms. Strengthen airshed-based governance beyond NCR. Integrate GRAP with: National Clean Air Programme (NCAP). State-level clean air action plans.