Content India – New Zealand Free Trade Agreement PESA Mahotsav 2025 & the PESA Act, 1996 India – New Zealand Free Trade Agreement Why in News ? 22 December 2025: Press Information Bureau announced conclusion of the India–New Zealand Free Trade Agreement. Concluded within ~9 months (March–December 2025) → among India’s fastest-negotiated FTAs. Relevance GS II – International Relations Bilateral & Regional Groupings Strengthens India’s engagement with Oceania / Indo-Pacific economic architecture. Enhances India’s role as a rule-shaper in services- and mobility-centric trade agreements. India’s Trade Diplomacy Strategy Post-RCEP calibrated FTA model: market access + protection of sensitive sectors. Continuity with India–UK CETA, India–Oman CEPA → coherent IR–economic alignment. GS III – Indian Economy External Sector & Trade Policy 100% duty-free access for Indian exports; addresses tariff escalation barriers. Improves export competitiveness in textiles, engineering, pharma, leather, processed foods. Strategic Context Oceania Pivot: Positions India as a preferred economic partner in the Pacific–Oceania supply chains. Trade Diplomacy Continuity: Follows India–Oman CEPA (2025), India–UK CETA (2025), EFTA TEPA (2024). Geoeconomic Logic: Diversification away from tariff and non-tariff barriers in traditional markets. India–New Zealand Economic Snapshot New Zealand economy: Per capita income: USD 49,380 Imports (2024): USD 47 bn | Exports: USD 42 bn Overseas investment stock (Mar 2025): USD 422.6 bn Diaspora leverage: ~300,000 persons of Indian origin (~5% of NZ population). Bilateral Trade Trends Merchandise trade: USD 873 mn (2023–24) → USD 1.3 bn (2024–25) (+49%) Exports: USD 711 mn (+32%) India maintains positive trade balance. Long-term trend (2015–25): Exports from India: +130% Imports from NZ: +7.2% Services trade: USD 634 mn (2024); +13% YoY Key sectors: IT, travel, business services. Core Architecture of the FTA Tariff liberalisation: 100% duty-free access for Indian exports into NZ (8,284 tariff lines). NZ average applied tariff 2.2% → 0% at EIF. India’s tariff offer: Coverage: 70.03% tariff lines Exclusions: 29.97% (dairy, sugar, key agri items, metals, arms). Phasing: 30%: Immediate elimination 35.6%: Phased (3/5/7/10 years) 4.37%: Tariff reduction 0.06%: TRQs (apples, kiwi, honey, albumins) Protection of Sensitive Sectors Dairy & core agriculture fully excluded → shields small & marginal farmers. TRQs + Minimum Import Price + seasonality prevent import surges. Reflects India’s calibrated FTA approach post-RCEP exit. Sector-wise Gains to India Textiles & Apparel: NZ imports from world: USD 1.9 bn Tariffs up to 10% → 0% Engineering goods: NZ imports: USD 11 bn India exports (FY25): USD 77.5 bn globally Pharmaceuticals: NZ pharma imports: USD 1.4 bn Regulatory annex for faster approvals. Leather & Footwear: NZ imports: USD 0.51 bn Zero duty across 181 tariff lines. Agri & Processed Food: 1,379 tariff lines (17%) Tea already zero; others peak 5% → 0%. Services & Mobility: Biggest Structural Win Services coverage: Commitments in 118 sectors; MFN in 139 sectors. AYUSH & Traditional Medicine Annex (NZ first-ever): Ayurveda, Yoga, Siddha, Unani, Homeopathy. Coexists with Maori health systems → soft power synergy. Student mobility (binding commitments): Work: 20 hrs/week Post-study visas: STEM Bachelor: 3 yrs Master’s: up to 3 yrs PhD: up to 4 yrs Professional mobility: 5,000 visas (3 yrs) for: AYUSH practitioners, Yoga instructors, Indian chefs, music teachers IT, engineering, healthcare, education, construction. Working Holiday Visa: 1,000 Indians/year, multiple entry, 12 months. Agriculture & Technology Cooperation Action Plans: Apple, Kiwi, Honey. Interventions: Centres of Excellence Planting material & orchard management Post-harvest & food safety Institutional mechanism: Joint Agriculture Productivity Council Outcome: Productivity gains without market distortion. Investment & Regulatory Provisions FDI commitment: USD 20 bn over 15 years. IPR: NZ to amend laws within 18 months for EU-level GI protection. Trade facilitation: Customs clearance: 48 hrs (24 hrs for perishables) Advance rulings, e-documentation. Rules of Origin: Anti-circumvention safeguards. Way Forward Ratification after domestic processes; EIF expected 2026. Model FTA for: Services-heavy agreements Mobility-centric trade diplomacy Balanced agri protection Conclusion The India–New Zealand FTA marks a qualitative shift from tariff-centric FTAs to mobility, services, technology, and soft-power driven trade architecture, aligning directly with Viksit Bharat @2047 goals. PESA Mahotsav 2025 & the PESA Act, 1996 Why in News ? 23–24 December 2025: PESA Mahotsav – Utsav Lok Sanskriti Ka organised by the Ministry of Panchayati Raj at Visakhapatnam. Commemorates the anniversary of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA). Objective: Awareness, capacity-building, and celebration of community-led governance in Fifth Schedule Areas. Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance (CORE AREA) Constitutional Framework Article 244 + Fifth Schedule; operationalisation through PESA. Addresses the governance vacuum left by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. Centre–State Relations States bound by PESA’s mandatory features; limits legislative discretion. Rights-based Governance Consent-based land acquisition; protection against displacement. Constitutional & Demographic Context ST population: ~8.6% of India’s population. Scheduled Areas notified by the President under Article 244 + Fifth Schedule (excluding Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram). 73rd Constitutional Amendment (1993): Added Part IX + Eleventh Schedule (29 subjects). Did not automatically apply to Fifth Schedule Areas → governance gap. PESA Act, 1996 filled this gap by extending Panchayati Raj to Scheduled Areas with tribal-specific safeguards. Core Philosophy of PESA Gram Sabha-centric governance reflecting tribal customary law. Asymmetric decentralisation: stronger village-level powers than general PRIs. Legal override: State laws cannot dilute PESA-mandated powers. Salient Features of the PESA Act  Gram Sabha as the fulcrum: Approval of development plans, projects, and programmes. Mandatory consultation/consent for land acquisition, rehabilitation. Resource sovereignty: Ownership & management of Minor Forest Produce (MFP). Control over minor water bodies and minor minerals. Cultural protection: Safeguards customs, traditions, dispute resolution mechanisms. Administrative accountability: Prior recommendation for mining leases. Regulation of money lending. Democratic deepening: Prevents alienation of tribal land; strengthens social justice. Fifth Schedule Coverage: States with Scheduled Areas: 10 Administrative footprint (Total): Villages: 77,564 Panchayats: 22,040 Blocks: 664 Districts: 45 Rules status: PESA Rules notified: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Telangana. Draft Rules: Odisha, Jharkhand. Government Implementation Measures Capacity-building (2024–25): 2 rounds of master trainer programmes. >1 lakh elected representatives & officials trained. Digital governance: PESA–Gram Panchayat Development Plan Portal (launched Sept 2024). Enables hamlet-wise planning and tracking of: Central & State Finance Commission grants CSS, State schemes, local funds. Institutional support: Dedicated PESA Cell within MoPR (legal, social science, finance experts). Knowledge localisation: Manuals translated into Telugu, Marathi, Gujarati, Odia + tribal languages (Santhali, Gondi, Bhili, Mundari). Centres of Excellence (CoE): Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak: Central share: ₹8.01 crore (5 years). Focus: documentation, training, dispute resolution models, 5 model PESA Gram Sabhas. Evidence from the Ground: Outcomes & Best Practices “PESA in Action” (July 2025): Compilation of 40 success stories across states. 1) Livelihoods & Local Economy (Chhattisgarh – Kanker) Village: Khamdhogi (443 population). Interventions: Mandatory male–female household representation in Gram Sabha. Committees + technical training. Outcomes: Forest produce, fisheries, bamboo-based activities. Shift from subsistence to diversified livelihoods. 2) Customary Law & MFP (Himachal Pradesh – Kinnaur) Product: Chilgoza pine nuts. Gram Sabha control over harvesting & revenue sharing. Equal household distribution + plot-wise allocation. Demonstrates custom + statutory harmony under PESA. 3) Minor Minerals & Revenue (Telangana – Godavari Basin) Tribal Sand Mining Cooperative: ₹40 lakh annual revenue. Funds channelled to education, health, infrastructure. Converts extractive activity into community asset creation. 4) Anti-displacement Shield (Rajasthan – Udaipur) Gram Sabha vetoed eviction under wildlife sanctuary notification. Used PESA + Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1999. Outcome: Land, livelihood, and cultural security preserved. Governance Impact Assessment Economic: Local value capture from forests, minerals, water. Social: Inclusion of women, customary institutions revived. Political: Real decentralisation beyond devolution on paper. Environmental: Community-led sustainable resource management. Challenges Delayed rule-making in some states. Variable administrative compliance with Gram Sabha consent. Capacity asymmetry across regions. Overlap/conflict with forest & mining departments. Conclusion PESA Mahotsav 2025 symbolises a shift from bureaucratic tribal welfare to constitutional self-rule. With data-backed capacity-building, digital planning tools, cultural anchoring, and legal empowerment, PESA is evolving into India’s most radical decentralisation experiment. Effective implementation is central to inclusive growth, federal justice, and democratic deepening in Scheduled Areas.

Content Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work CSR as Corporate Obligation for Grassland Restoration & GIB Conservation Right to Disconnect: Drawing the line after work Why is it in News? Private Member’s Bill introduced in Parliament proposing a statutory Right to Disconnect for employees. Comes after consolidation of labour laws into four Labour Codes (2019–2020), especially: Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (OSHWC Code) Industrial Relations Code, 2020 Reflects growing concern over digital overreach, 24×7 connectivity, and blurred work–life boundaries in platform-driven and white-collar employment. Rare significance: Very few Private Member’s Bills become law, making it a normative agenda-setter rather than immediate legislation. Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance Labour law reform and regulatory capacity of the State Role of Parliament and significance of Private Member’s Bills Fundamental Rights in the workplace (Article 21: dignity, autonomy, mental health) State regulation of employer–employee power asymmetry Practice Question “The Right to Disconnect reflects a shift from regulating physical workplaces to regulating employer control in the digital age.”Examine the significance of this shift in the context of India’s labour law framework. (150 words) Structural Context: Why the Bill Matters ? Digitalisation of work: Remote work, hybrid models, platform labour, gig work. Employer control now exercised through emails, calls, messaging apps, task trackers. Indian labour law remains time-centric, designed for: Factory floors Physical supervision Fixed workplaces The Bill marks the first explicit legislative recognition that: Work now extends beyond physical space Connectivity itself can be a form of control Core Provision of the Bill Grants employees the right to not respond to: Work-related calls Emails Messages beyond prescribed working hours. Prohibits penalisation for exercising this right. Key Legal and Conceptual Gaps Undefined Concept of “Work” in a Digital Economy Indian labour law does not define “work” for digital contexts. OSHWC Code, 2020 regulates: Working hours Overtime Rest intervals Critical ambiguity: Does after-hours digital engagement = “work”? If not, can overtime protections apply? Result: Communication is regulated without being integrated into working-time law. The right risks becoming a behavioural norm, not an enforceable labour standard. Disconnect without Reclassification = Weak Protection The Bill: Regulates response behaviour But does not reclassify availability, standby time, or employer control as work. Consequence: Employers may still: Implicitly expect availability Structure workloads assuming after-hours responsiveness Without redefining work, enforcement becomes difficult. Interaction with Existing Labour Codes OSHWC Code: Prescribes maximum daily/weekly hours. Overtime is compensable only if classified as “work”. Bill does not clarify: Whether digital engagement triggers overtime. Whether refusal to respond affects performance appraisal. Creates a normative–legal mismatch. Constitutional Dimension: An Unanswered Question Clear linkage with Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty): Mental health Autonomy Dignity Rest and leisure (implicit) However, the Bill: Does not articulate constitutional grounding. Leaves unclear whether the right is: Merely statutory, or An extension of fundamental rights into the workplace. Risk: Divergent judicial interpretations. Weak constitutional backing during challenges. What India Has Not Done (Yet) ? European Union Judicial evolution of “working time”: Employer control, not activity, is decisive. ECJ rulings (SIMAP, Jaeger, Tyco): On-call time Standby periods Availability under employer control → treated as working time. France Does not redefine work. Clearly demarcates: Working time Rest time Digital communication regulated through: Collective bargaining Employer policies aligned with working-time law. Germany Strict enforcement of: Maximum working hours Mandatory rest periods Digital engagement integrated into existing labour standards. Key takeaway: Right to Disconnect works only when employee time is legally recognised as working time. Indian Specificity: The Missing Link Indian labour codes: Mix mandatory standards (hours, safety) With contractual flexibility (policies, agreements) The Bill does not clarify whether: Right to disconnect is non-waivable, or Can be diluted via contracts and HR policies. Conclusion What the Bill achieves ? Acknowledges digital transformation of work. Initiates legal discourse on constant connectivity. What it fails to resolve ? Definition of work in a digital economy. Integration with working-time and overtime law. Constitutional anchoring under Article 21. Net assessment: Best seen as a normative starting point, not a complete labour reform. Signals the need for future judicial and legislative evolution in Indian labour jurisprudence. CSR as Corporate Obligation for Grassland Restoration & GIB Conservation  Why is it in News? 19 December 2025: A Supreme Court of India judgment reinterpreted Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) under the Companies Act as a legally enforceable obligation, not voluntary charity. The ruling arises from ongoing litigation to prevent deaths of the Great Indian Bustard (GIB) caused by power transmission infrastructure. Continues the Court’s conservation jurisprudence since 2021, balancing: Wildlife protection Renewable energy expansion Corporate environmental accountability Relevance GS II – Polity & Governance Expanding role of judiciary in environmental governance Constitutional duties under Article 51A(g) Corporate accountability and legal personhood Judicial balancing of development and environmental protection GS III – Environment & Ecology Biodiversity conservation (Great Indian Bustard) Linear infrastructure vs wildlife habitats Grassland ecosystems and conservation financing CSR as a tool for internalising environmental externalities Practice Questions “By reading CSR as a constitutional obligation, the Supreme Court has altered the nature of corporate responsibility in India.”Analyse this statement in light of recent environmental jurisprudence. (150 words) What is New in the Judgment?  CSR re-framed: CSR spending is treated as discharge of constitutional duty, not corporate philanthropy. Environmental and wildlife protection are read within CSR’s legal meaning under the Companies Act. Constitutional anchoring: Corporations, as legal persons, share duties under Article 51A(g) (duty to protect environment). CSR expenditure on ecology = constitutional compliance, not discretionary goodwill. Why This Matters for Conservation Financing? Direct implication: Conservationists now have a stronger legal basis to demand corporate funding for: GIB recovery programmes Grassland restoration Mitigation of infrastructure-induced ecological harm CSR + Project-linked funding: If enforced, CSR can support recurring costs, not just one-time pilots: Captive breeding and chick release Habitat restoration and long-term grassland maintenance Monitoring and mitigation near power corridors Background: Supreme Court’s GIB Protection Trajectory 2021 Interim Order Restricted overhead transmission lines across ~99,000 sq km of GIB habitat. Mandated: Undergrounding where feasible Committee-led feasibility assessment Triggered tension with: Renewable energy projects Power evacuation infrastructure 2024–25 Course Correction Expert committee constituted to: Balance species survival, climate commitments, and renewable expansion 2025 judgment operationalises this balance: Shifts from blanket-area restrictions to priority habitat zones Narrows but deepens conservation and mitigation obligations What the Judgment Enables ? Legal clarity: CSR can be compelled for prevention and ecological recovery, not just compensatory actions. Targeted conservation: More detailed habitat–infrastructure planning reduces friction with renewables. Cost internalisation: Corporations linked to ecological risk can be made to internalise environmental externalities. What the Judgment Does Not Do ? No quantification: Does not specify: Which companies pay How much Timelines Project-wise allocation Audit & enforcement gap: CSR non-compliance penalties remain under existing law. No dedicated monitoring architecture for conservation outcomes. Ecological mapping challenge: GIBs are mobile; risks may lie outside notified priority zones. Shifts burden to accurate habitat mapping, a known weakness. Grasslands at the Centre: Why CSR is Critical ? India’s grasslands are: Ecologically rich but legally undervalued Often classified as “wastelands” Restoration requires: Long-term funding Continuous management CSR, if enforced: Can underwrite maintenance-heavy ecosystems where market incentives are weak. Outcome vs Doctrine: The Real Test Doctrinal advance: Strong CSR + Article 51A(g) = enforceable environmental obligation Implementation risk: High Depends on: Speed of undergrounding and rerouting State capacity and utility compliance Translation of corporate funds into measurable ecological outcomes Conclusion The judgment marks a paradigm shift: From CSR as charity → CSR as constitutional and statutory duty It strengthens conservation law without rewriting statutes. Its success will hinge not on judicial reasoning alone, but on: Administrative delivery Corporate compliance Ecological results on the ground Great Indian Bustard (GIB)  Scientific name: Ardeotis nigriceps IUCN Red List status: Critically Endangered (CR) Estimated population: ~150 individuals globally; majority in India Primary habitat: Arid and semi-arid grasslands, scrublands, open plains Key states: Rajasthan (largest population), Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka Major threat: Collision with overhead power transmission lines (leading cause of adult mortality) Other threats: Grassland degradation and diversion Infrastructure expansion (roads, renewables) Low reproductive rate (1 egg per breeding cycle)

Content India, New Zealand wind up FTA talks, set to boost trade Forests can’t be used for non-forestry purposes: Supreme Court India tops global doping list for the third consecutive year On the Right to a Healthy Environment How are we protecting astronauts from deadly space debris? India, New Zealand wind up FTA talks, set to boost trade Why in News ? India and New Zealand concluded negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement on Monday. Negotiations completed in ~9 months (March–December 2025) — among India’s fastest FTAs. FTA expected to: Provide tariff-free access for Indian goods to New Zealand. Bring USD 20 billion investments over 15 years. Double bilateral trade to USD 5 billion within 5 years. Formal signing targeted in first half of 2026. Relevance GS II (International Relations): Bilateral relations, Indo-Pacific strategy GS III (Economy): Trade policy, FTAs, agriculture protection Investment flows and services exports India–New Zealand Economic Context New Zealand economy: GDP (nominal): ~USD 250 bn Per capita income: ~USD 49,000 Highly export-oriented, agriculture-heavy India–NZ trade (pre-FTA): Bilateral trade: ~USD 2.5–2.7 bn Trade balance: broadly balanced Indian diaspora in NZ: ~300,000 persons of Indian origin ~5% of NZ population → strong socio-economic bridge Core Trade Architecture of the FTA A. Tariff Liberalisation 95% of New Zealand exports to India: Tariffs removed or reduced Includes: timber, apples, kiwifruit, wine, wool, forestry products India’s export gains: Tariff-free access for: Pharmaceuticals Textiles & apparel Engineering goods IT & business services Generic medicines B. Sensitive Sector Protection (India’s Red Lines) No market access conceded in politically and livelihood-sensitive sectors: Dairy products Rice & wheat Sugar Onions Spices Edible oils Rubber Soya products Reflects calibrated trade liberalisation, not blanket opening. Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal explicitly stated that farmer and dairy interests were fully protected. Mobility & Services: A Strategic Gain for India Temporary employment visas for Indian professionals: Quota: 5,000 annually Duration: Up to 3 years Coverage: Skilled occupations Significance: Boosts India’s Mode-4 (movement of natural persons) interests. Reinforces India’s strength in human capital exports. Supports remittance flows and skill upgrading. Investment Dimension: USD 20 Billion Over 15 Years Expected inflows into: Renewable energy Agri-processing & food logistics Dairy technology (without product import liberalisation) Education and vocational training Digital services and fintech Strategic value: Long-term, patient capital, not volatile portfolio flows. Supports India’s manufacturing + services ecosystem. Strategic & Geoeconomic Significance A. Indo-Pacific & Oceania Pivot Strengthens India’s economic footprint in the Pacific–Oceania region. Complements India’s: Act East Policy Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) Counters excessive trade dependence on: China-centric supply chains Traditional Western markets B. Continuity in India’s Trade Diplomacy Part of a sequence: India–EFTA TEPA (2024) India–UK CETA (2025) India–Oman CEPA (2025) Signals: Shift from defensive trade posture to selective openness. Emphasis on speed + safeguards. Risks & Challenges Implementation risks: Non-tariff barriers (SPS standards, quality norms) Mutual recognition of standards Domestic adjustment: Competition for select agri-exports (fruits, timber) Global uncertainty: Commodity price volatility Shipping & logistics disruptions Overall Assessment The India–New Zealand FTA is: Trade-expanding but politically prudent Investment-oriented, not just tariff-centric Strong on services and mobility Represents India’s evolving FTA template: Protect core livelihoods Leverage market access + talent mobility Anchor long-term strategic partnerships Conclusion A fast, calibrated FTA that deepens India’s Pacific engagement while ring-fencing farmers and leveraging India’s core strengths — services, skills, and scale. Forests can’t be used for non-forestry purposes: Supreme Court Why in News ? The Supreme Court of India ruled that forest land cannot be diverted for non-forestry purposes (including agriculture) without prior statutory approvals. The ruling came while cancelling cultivation permissions granted by district authorities in Gujarat to a cooperative farming society over 134 acres of forest land. Relevance GS II (Polity & Governance) Federalism Rule of law Judicial review of executive action GS III (Environment) Forest conservation Environmental legislation Sustainable development Legal Background: The Forest (Conservation) Framework Core law: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Section 2 of the Act: Prohibits: De-reservation of forests Use of forest land for non-forest purposes Unless prior approval of the Central Government is obtained. “Non-forest purpose” explicitly includes: Agriculture Mining Industry Infrastructure Commercial plantations (other than permitted forestry activities) What the Supreme Court Held ? Mandatory Central approval is a jurisdictional requirement, not a procedural formality. District collectors / state authorities: Have no independent power to permit non-forest use. Cannot bypass or dilute Section 2 safeguards. Cultivation on forest land, even if: Cooperative-led Livelihood-oriented Administratively sanctioned → remains illegal without central clearance. Key Constitutional & Jurisprudential Principles Reinforced A. Environmental Rule of Law Statutory environmental protections override executive discretion. Administrative convenience ≠ legal authority. B. Doctrine of Public Trust Forests are held by the State in trust for present and future generations. Cannot be alienated or repurposed casually. C. Sustainable Development Economic activity allowed only within ecological limits. Agriculture ≠ environmentally benign by default if it degrades forests. Federal Dimension: Centre–State Balance Forests fall under Concurrent List (42nd Constitutional Amendment). Central oversight under the Forest (Conservation) Act ensures: Uniform national ecological standards. Prevention of competitive forest diversion by states. Judgment reaffirms central supremacy in forest diversion approvals. Administrative Lapses Highlighted District authorities: Granted cultivation rights without legal competence. Ignored statutory clearance procedures. Reflects systemic issues: Weak legal literacy at district level. Pressure to regularise encroachments post-facto. Tension between short-term livelihoods and long-term ecology. Implications of the Judgment A. Governance Implications Strengthens enforcement of forest laws. Curtails discretionary misuse of land records and revenue powers. Signals zero tolerance for “administrative regularisation” of illegality. B. Environmental Implications Protects forest cover from: Gradual agricultural creep. Fragmentation and biodiversity loss. Reinforces India’s climate commitments (carbon sinks). C. Livelihood & Social Implications Raises concerns for: Communities dependent on forest land. However: Livelihood solutions must flow through legal routes: Forest Rights Act, 2006 Agro-forestry policies Rehabilitation & alternative land allocation Interface with Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 Judgment does not dilute FRA rights. Distinction: Recognised forest rights (individual/community) → legally protected. Administrative cultivation permissions without FRA process → invalid. Reinforces need for: Proper Gram Sabha-led FRA recognition, not executive shortcuts. Critical Evaluation Strengths: Upholds ecological constitutionalism. Prevents piecemeal erosion of forest law. Concerns: Requires parallel strengthening of: FRA implementation Livelihood alternatives Administrative capacity at local levels Conclusion The Supreme Court has drawn a hard legal line: forests are ecological assets governed by statute, not revenue land open to administrative discretion—even for agriculture. India tops global doping list for the third consecutive year  Why in News ? World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) released its 2024 Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report. India recorded the highest number of doping offenders globally for the third consecutive year. Contextually sensitive as India: Is preparing to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games Aspires to host the 2036 Olympic Games Relevance GS II (Governance) Institutional accountability Global regulatory compliance GS III (Sports ) Integrity in sports Public policy and youth development  What is Doping? Doping: Use of prohibited substances or methods to artificially enhance athletic performance. Governed globally by: World Anti-Doping Code Prohibited List (updated annually) Violations include: Presence of banned substances Refusal to submit samples Tampering Trafficking or administration India’s Doping Numbers: Key Data (2024) A. Absolute Numbers Samples tested: 7,113 Positive cases: 260 Global rank: 1st (highest absolute violations) B. Positivity Rate India: 3.6% Global comparison: Norway: 1.75% USA: 1.15% No other country crossed 1.75%  India’s positivity rate is more than double the next highest country. Global Comparison: Why India Stands Out ? A. Absolute Violations (2024) India: 260 France: 91 Italy: 85 USA: 76 Russia: 76 Germany: 54 China: 43  India exceeds the second-highest country by nearly 3 times. B. Testing Volume vs Violations China: Tests conducted: >24,000 Violations: 43 India: Tests conducted: 7,113 Violations: 260  Despite 3× fewer tests, India reports 6× more violations than China. Inference: India’s problem is not under-testing alone, but high prevalence of doping. Sport-wise Distribution in India (2024) Sport Positive Cases Athletics 76 Weightlifting 43 Wrestling 29 Boxing 17 Powerlifting 17 Kabaddi 10 Pattern Endurance & strength-based sports dominate Long-standing trend across multiple years Indicates: Performance pressure Inadequate medical supervision Normalisation of substance use at lower levels Elite & Grassroots Signals A. Elite Level Reetika Hooda: Under-23 world champion Paris Olympics quarter-finalist Tested positive; provisionally suspended (July 2025) Signals that doping is not confined to fringe athletes. B. Grassroots Level University Games 2025: Athletes reportedly withdrew from events after anti-doping officials arrived. Suggests: Fear of testing Low deterrence credibility Poor awareness of banned substances Institutional Response: India’s Defence A. National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) National Anti-Doping Agency argues: Higher numbers reflect better detection, not higher drug use. Claims strengthened testing, intelligence, and enforcement. B. Critical Assessment Argument partially valid, but: Countries with higher testing volumes show lower positivity Indicates a structural doping culture, not merely detection bias International Pressure A. International Olympic Committee (IOC) International Olympic Committee: Expressed concern over widespread doping in India Urged authorities to “set their house in order” B. Indian Olympic Association (IOA) Indian Olympic Association: Constituted a new anti-doping panel (August 2025) Legal & Policy Response National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025 Recently passed by Parliament. Aligns Indian law with WADA compliance requirements. Key provisions: Explicit prohibition of doping Institutionalised testing & enforcement Clear adjudication and appeal mechanisms Objective: Restore international credibility Prevent sanctions or compliance downgrades Structural Causes Behind India’s Doping Crisis Early specialisation & medal pressure Low sports science penetration Poor supplement regulation Coaches as informal medical advisors Weak athlete education, especially at state & university levels Reward-heavy incentive structures without ethical safeguards Implications for India A. Sporting Credibility Threatens India’s image as a clean sporting nation Risk to hosting ambitions (CWG 2030, Olympics 2036) B. Athletes Career-ending bans Loss of sponsorships Psychological stress and stigma C. Governance Potential WADA non-compliance scrutiny Increased international monitoring Way Forward  Mandatory anti-doping education from junior level Coach certification linked to doping compliance Regulation of supplements & gym culture Independent testing at state & university events Shift from medal-centric to athlete-welfare-centric model Conclusion India’s doping crisis is not a detection anomaly but a systemic integrity failure—posing a direct challenge to its sporting credibility and global ambitions unless structural reform follows legal tightening. On the Right to a Healthy Environment  Why in News ? Recurring winter smog in Delhi–NCR with severe AQI levels has revived debate on whether the right to a clean and healthy environment should be explicitly constitutionalised. Existing protection relies largely on judicial interpretation of Article 21, not an express fundamental right. Raises questions of state responsibility, enforceability, and environmental federalism. Relevance GS II (Polity & Governance) Article 21 expansion Directive Principles vs Fundamental Rights Judicial activism GS III (Environment) Air pollution Environmental governance Climate change law The Problem Context: Air Pollution as a Rights Issue A. Delhi–NCR Air Quality Reality Winter AQI frequently enters “Severe” (401–500) or “Severe+” category. PM2.5 concentrations often exceed: WHO guideline: 5 µg/m³ (annual) Delhi winter peaks: 150–300 µg/m³ (30–60× WHO limit). Health impacts: Stroke, ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, COPD. Children disproportionately affected due to lung development. B. Major Sources of Pollution Fossil fuel combustion (power plants, vehicles) Transport emissions (diesel dominance) Construction & demolition dust Waste burning Industrial emissions Agricultural residue burning  Particulate Matter (PM) is the single most lethal pollutant. Understanding Particulate Matter (Scientific Basis) Type Size Health Impact PM10 ≤10 microns Enters respiratory tract PM2.5 ≤2.5 microns Penetrates lungs, bloodstream DPM (Diesel PM) <1 micron Neuro, cardiac, pulmonary damage   Diesel particulate matter (DPM) forms a sub-category of PM2.5. High toxicity even at low exposure levels. No safe threshold scientifically established. Regulatory Response: GRAP & CAQM Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) amended the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP). Key changes: Mandatory school closures under GRAP Phases 3 & 4. Removal of state discretion. Staggered working hours for public offices under Phase 3. Significance: Recognises pollution as a public health emergency, not a seasonal inconvenience. Constitutional Evolution of Environmental Rights A. Original Constitution No explicit environmental provisions. Environmental protection inferred from: Natural justice Welfare state philosophy Directive Principles B. Judicial Expansion via Article 21 (Right to Life) Landmark Cases Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India Expanded “life” to mean life with dignity, not mere animal existence. Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. First recognition of healthy environment as part of Article 21. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987) Explicitly held that pollution-free environment is part of the right to life. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar Read Articles 48A + 51A(g) with Article 21. State has a constitutional obligation to protect air and water. Explicit Environmental Provisions in the Constitution A. Directive Principles Article 48A: State shall protect and improve the environment. Emphasises compatibility of agriculture and ecology. B. Fundamental Duties Article 51A(g): Duty of citizens to protect the natural environment.  Limitation: Neither is directly enforceable in courts like Fundamental Rights. Judiciary as Environmental Regulator (Post-1980s) Liberalisation & privatisation increased ecological stress. Courts intervened using: Public Interest Litigations (PILs) under Articles 32 & 226. Judiciary became: Environmental rule-maker Environmental enforcer Environmental adjudicator Environment Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(a) defines environment broadly: Air, water, land Inter-relationship with humans, flora, fauna, microorganisms. Reinforces: Right to live free from disease and infection as part of dignity. Disaster Jurisprudence & Environmental Liability A. Absolute Liability Introduced in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak). Key features: No exceptions Liability regardless of fault or negligence Stronger than strict liability. B. Core Environmental Principles Precautionary Principle Explained in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India. Lack of scientific certainty cannot delay preventive action. Part of Indian law. Polluter Pays Principle Polluters must: Bear cost of remediation Compensate for environmental harm Shifts burden from state to violators. Public Trust Doctrine Explained in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath. State acts as trustee of natural resources. Cannot transfer or exploit for private gain. Constitutional Anchors Article 39(b): Community ownership of material resources. Article 39(c): Prevent concentration of means of production. Reinforced in Radhey Shyam Sahu v. State of U.P.. Climate Change as a Fundamental Rights Issue M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India: Recognised: Right against adverse effects of climate change Linked to Article 21 (life) and Article 14 (equality)  Expands environmental rights into climate justice. The Core Gap: Why Judicial Recognition Is Not Enough Judicially evolved rights: Cannot be directly claimed unless tied to Part III. State compliance remains: Episodic Reactive Crisis-driven Environmental governance becomes court-centric, not institution-centric. The Case for Explicit Constitutional Right Why Needed Makes: Clean air & water justiciable by default State & citizens equally accountable Reduces over-dependence on PILs. Aligns India with: UN Human Rights Council recognition of clean environment as a human right (2021). Conclusion India’s environmental protection framework rests on judicial creativity rather than constitutional clarity; making the right to a clean and healthy environment explicit is now essential for enforceability, accountability, and ecological survival. How are we protecting astronauts from deadly space debris?   Why in News ? A space debris impact cracked the window of China’s crewed spacecraft Shenzhou-20, rendering its return capsule unusable for crew travel. Incident highlights the growing threat of Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris (MMOD) to human spaceflight. Occurs amid: Rapid satellite proliferation Anti-satellite (ASAT) tests Expansion of crewed missions (including India’s Gaganyaan) Relevance GS III – Science & Technology Space technology Human spaceflight safety Emerging global commons governance GS II – International Relations Global space governance UN frameworks and limitations What is MMOD? A. Micrometeoroids Origin: ~80–90% from asteroid belt collisions (between Mars & Jupiter) Remainder from comets Size: Few micrometres to ~2 mm Each weighs less than a dried grape Velocity: ~11 to 72 km/s (much faster than bullets) Nature: Natural Ubiquitous in space Practically untrackable B. Orbital Debris (Space Junk) Definition: Human-made objects in Earth orbit with no functional purpose Sources: Exploded rocket stages Defunct satellites Accidental collisions Intentional ASAT weapon tests Average velocity: ~10 km/s Key risk: Even a 1 cm object at orbital speed can disable a spacecraft Scale of the Problem: Global Data Orbital Debris in Low Earth Orbit (LEO: 200–2,000 km) ~34,000 objects >10 cm (trackable) ~128 million objects >1 mm Hundreds of millions of fragments <1 mm Billions of impacts annually on satellites and space stations Distribution Orbital debris: Concentrated in a “shell” in LEO Micrometeoroids: Exist everywhere Slightly denser near Earth due to gravity Why Space Debris Is So Dangerous Kinetic Energy Reality Kinetic energy ∝ velocity² At 10–70 km/s, even microscopic particles: Penetrate metal Shatter windows Disable avionics Cause cabin depressurisation Directional Risk Highest risk on the forward-facing surface of spacecraft Relative velocity peaks in direction of travel The Kessler Syndrome: A Systemic Threat Proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler Theory: Beyond a debris density threshold, Collisions trigger a cascading chain reaction Eventually makes LEO unusable for spaceflight Risk amplified by: Mega-constellations ASAT tests Lack of binding global regulation How Space Agencies Assess MMOD Risk? A. MMOD Flux Modelling MMOD flux = expected number of debris hits of a given size over mission duration Uses: Tracking catalogues Statistical debris environment models Inputs include: Orbit altitude & inclination Mission duration Spacecraft orientation B. Vulnerability Analysis Specialised software calculates: Probability of: Loss of mission Failure of critical components If risk exceeds safety thresholds: Physical shielding becomes mandatory How Are Spacecraft Physically Protected? A. Whipple Shield (Primary Defence) Widely used across human and robotic missions Design: Outer “bumper” Inner “rear wall” Stand-off gap between them Working principle: Incoming debris shatters on bumper Fragment cloud disperses energy Rear wall absorbs reduced impact Analogy: Sea waves breaking on tetrapods B. Operational Avoidance (For Large Debris) Objects >10 cm are tracked Space agencies maintain collision catalogues If collision probability rises: Debris Avoidance Manoeuvre (DAM) executed Small thruster burns adjust orbit Used routinely for: International Space Station Crewed capsules High-value satellites How Is India Protecting Gaganyaan Crew? Mission-Specific Context Standalone mission: No space station docking No external rescue capability Short duration: <7 days Low probability of collision with catalogued debris Residual risk: Small, untrackable MMOD still significant Protection Strategy Based on international human-rating standards Uses: Passive shielding (Whipple shields) Validation through: High-velocity impact testing Numerical simulations Testing Infrastructure ISRO uses specialised facilities DRDO Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL): Gas gun facility Fires 7 mm projectiles at up to 5 km/s Validates shield survivability under near-orbital conditions Global Governance of Space Debris Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Members: NASA ESA ISRO JAXA Role: Develops technical standards Best practices for debris mitigation United Nations Framework UNCOPUOS adopts debris mitigation guidelines Nature: Soft law Voluntary No binding enforcement mechanism The Structural Gap Rapid expansion of: Human spaceflight Commercial satellites Weaknesses: No binding global debris removal obligations No liability for long-term orbital pollution ASAT tests still legally permissible The Road Ahead: What Must Be Done Enforce zero-debris-by-design missions Mandatory post-mission disposal Active debris removal technologies Binding international treaties on: ASAT testing Orbital congestion Treat Earth orbit as a global commons, not a free-for-all Conclusion Human spaceflight is now as much an engineering challenge as a governance one; without collective action on space debris, Earth’s orbit risks becoming the most dangerous highway humanity has ever built.