Content
Can the Enforcement Directorate File Writ Petitions? — A Constitutional Test
Streamlining ‘Green Consent’
Aircraft Crash During Second Landing Attempt — A Basic Aviation Safety Analysis
66% of Central Government Sanitation Workers from SC/ST/OBC Groups — DoPT Report
Who Owns Innovation in Outer Space? — Law, Patents and Power
Mental Illness Catching Them Young — India’s Emerging Mental Health Crisis
Can the Enforcement Directorate File Writ Petitions? — A Constitutional Test
Why in News?
On 20 January 2026, the Supreme Court of India agreed to examine whether the Enforcement Directorate can invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32.
The Court admitted petitions filed by Kerala Government and Tamil Nadu Government, challenging a Kerala High Court ruling permitting ED to file writ petitions.
Relevance
GS Paper II – Polity & Governance
Scope and limits of Articles 32, 226, and 131; writ jurisdiction vs Centre–State dispute resolution.
Federalism and separation of powers: autonomy of States vis-à-vis Union investigative agencies.
Nature of statutory bodies vs juristic personality; locus standi in constitutional litigation.
Accountability and checks on enforcement agencies exercising coercive powers
Constitutional Background — Writ Jurisdiction in India
Articles 32 and 226
Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs primarily for enforcement of fundamental rights, while Article 226 grants High Courts wider authority to issue writs “for any other purpose”.
Nature of Writ Remedies
Writs are extraordinary, discretionary remedies, issued where no efficacious alternative remedy exists, and are traditionally used to enforce public duties or correct jurisdictional errors.
Limits on Writ Jurisdiction
Writs ordinarily do not lie against private entities, and Article 361 bars issuance of mandamus against the President or Governors for official acts.
Origin of the Controversy
Diplomatic Gold Smuggling Case
The dispute arose from a Kerala government Commission of Inquiry into allegations of conspiracy following ED investigations in the 2020 diplomatic gold smuggling case involving ₹14.82 crore seizure.
ED’s Writ Petition
The ED filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court seeking mandamus and certiorari to quash the State notification constituting the inquiry commission.
Kerala Government’s Legal Objections
Locus Standi Argument
Kerala argued that the ED is merely a department of the Union government, lacking independent juristic personality, and therefore cannot sue or be sued in its own name.
Article 131 Argument
The State contended that disputes between the Centre and States must be adjudicated exclusively by the Supreme Court under Article 131, not through writs in High Courts.
Reliance on Precedent
Kerala relied on the 2003 Supreme Court judgment in Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector, discouraging Centre–State writ litigation in High Courts.
Kerala High Court Ruling (September 2025)
ED as Statutory Authority
The High Court held that the ED is a statutory body constituted under FEMA, 1999, with officers exercising statutory powers under Sections 48 and 49 of PMLA.
Juristic Personality Not Essential
The Court termed the lack of explicit juristic personality as a “matter of form, not substance”, insufficient to deny ED access to constitutional remedies.
Kerala and Tamil Nadu’s Case
Capacity to Sue
The States argued that capacity to sue is a substantive legal requirement, and absence of legal personality renders writ petitions non-maintainable.
Abuse of Process Allegation
Tamil Nadu alleged that the High Court ruling has emboldened the ED to file writ petitions against States, upsetting constitutional federal balance.
Federalism and Separation of Powers
Centre–State Balance
Allowing ED to file writs may enable Union agencies to directly challenge State actions, bypassing Article 131’s exclusive dispute-resolution framework.
Nature of ED
Legal experts argue the ED functions as an instrumentality of the Union, not an autonomous regulator like SEBI or RBI, limiting its independent legal standing.
Jurisdictional Precedent
Scope of Mandamus
State governments arguably owe no independent public duty to ED, weakening the constitutional basis for mandamus or certiorari against States at ED’s instance.
Why This Case Matters ?
Long-Term Significance
The verdict will clarify whether Union enforcement agencies can independently invoke writ jurisdiction, or must act only through Centre–State dispute mechanisms.
The outcome will shape future Centre–State litigation, affecting investigative autonomy, cooperative federalism, and constitutional discipline in inter-governmental conflicts.
Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Origin & Legal Basis
Established in 1956 as an Enforcement Unit under the Department of Economic Affairs; later shifted to the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
Statutory backing primarily under FEMA, 1999; operational powers exercised mainly through PMLA, 2002.
Nature of the ED
The ED is not a body corporate and has no explicit juristic personality.
Functions as an instrumentality of the Union government, unlike autonomous regulators such as RBI or SEBI.
Key Legislations Administered
FEMA, 1999: Regulates foreign exchange, cross-border transactions, capital account violations.
PMLA, 2002: Investigates money laundering linked to scheduled offences under IPC and special laws.
Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018: Enables confiscation of assets of offenders evading Indian jurisdiction.
Powers of the ED
Summons and recording statements (Section 50, PMLA).
Attachment of property suspected to be proceeds of crime (Section 5, PMLA).
Search, seizure, and arrest without prior FIR under PMLA framework.
Prosecution before Special PMLA Courts.
Streamlining ‘Green Consent’
Why in News?
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change amended rules allowing industries to seek integrated environmental consent under Air, Water, and waste laws through a single application.
The reform aims to reduce approval delays, simplify compliance, and improve ease of doing business, while retaining inspection, monitoring, and cancellation powers with regulators.
Relevance
GS Paper III – Environment & Economy
Environmental regulation reforms: shift from permission-based to compliance-based governance.
Trade-off between ease of doing business and environmental safeguards.
Role of SPCBs, PCCs, third-party auditors, and regulatory capacity.
Industrial pollution control under Air Act, Water Act, Waste Rules.
Background — What is Green Consent?
Consent to Establish and Operate
Industrial units require consent under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, granted by State Pollution Control Boards.
Fragmented Approval Structure
Earlier, industries had to submit multiple applications for air, water, and waste authorisations, causing regulatory duplication, delays, and operational uncertainty, especially during renewal of Consent to Operate.
Key Features of the Amended Green Consent Regime
1.Integrated Consent Mechanism
Single Application System
Industries can now file one consolidated application covering Air Act, Water Act, and waste management authorisations, reducing procedural overlap and administrative burden.
Reduced Processing Timelines
The processing time for Red Category industries has been reduced from 120 days to 90 days, signalling faster decision-making for high-pollution sectors.
Changes in Consent Validity
Open-Ended Consent to Operate
The Consent to Operate will now remain valid until cancelled, replacing periodic renewals that often caused compliance uncertainty and disruption of industrial operations.
Safeguards Retained
Regulatory authorities retain powers to inspect, enforce compliance, and cancel consent in case of violations, ensuring continuity does not dilute environmental accountability.
Role of Regulators and Auditors
Role of SPCBs and PCCs
The reforms aim to support State Pollution Control Boards and Pollution Control Committees by reducing paperwork, enabling focus on inspections, enforcement, and outcome-based regulation.
Use of Registered Environmental Auditors
Registered Environmental Auditors, certified under the Environment Audit Rules, 2025, are now permitted to conduct site visits and verify compliance to speed up approvals.
Key Concerns and Governance Implications
Risk of Regulatory Dilution
Critics caution that indefinite consent validity and reliance on third-party auditors could weaken deterrence if inspection quality, independence, or frequency is compromised.
Federal and Institutional Balance
Effective implementation depends on capacity of SPCBs, auditor accountability frameworks, and robust digital monitoring to prevent regulatory capture or conflict of interest.
Why This Reform Matters ?
Economic and Environmental Significance
The reform aligns with India’s push for ease of doing business, predictable regulation, and industrial growth, while attempting to retain the core principles of environmental protection.
The success of green consent reforms will test India’s ability to shift from permission-based regulation to compliance-and-monitoring-based environmental governance.
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
Enacted in 1974 to prevent and control water pollution and to restore the wholesomeness of surface water and groundwater across India.
Established the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) as statutory pollution control authorities.
Mandates Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) for industries discharging sewage or trade effluents.
Prohibits discharge of pollutants into water bodies beyond prescribed standards notified by regulatory authorities.
Empowers SPCBs to inspect premises, collect samples, and monitor effluent discharge for compliance verification.
Section 25/26 requires prior consent for new outlets or altered discharge points into water bodies.
Section 33A authorises SPCBs to issue binding directions, including closure of industries or stoppage of water and electricity supply.
Provides for criminal penalties, including imprisonment and fines, for violations and repeated non-compliance.
Applies to industrial, municipal, and local body pollution, covering rivers, streams, wells, and groundwater.
Forms the backbone of India’s command-and-control environmental regulatory framework, later supplemented by EPA, 1986.
Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981
Enacted in 1981, following India’s commitment at the Stockholm Conference, 1972, to address rising air pollution.
Aims to prevent, control, and abate air pollution and maintain ambient air quality standards nationwide.
Expands the mandate of CPCB and SPCBs to include air quality monitoring and enforcement.
Allows States to declare Air Pollution Control Areas, where stricter emission norms apply.
Requires Consent to Establish and Operate for industries emitting air pollutants.
Regulates emissions from industrial plants, fuels, and appliances, especially point sources.
Section 21 makes prior consent mandatory for operating any industrial emission source.
Section 31A empowers boards to issue directions, including closure or regulation of polluting units.
Supports national air monitoring mechanisms like the National Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP).
Works alongside the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which prescribes ambient air quality standards.
Aircraft Crash During Second Landing Attempt
Why in News?
An aircraft crashed during a second landing attempt in poor visibility, raising concerns about inadequate airstrip infrastructure, ATC limitations, weather assessment failures, and systemic aviation safety gaps at non-major airports.
Relevance
GS Paper III – Infrastructure & Disaster Management
Aviation safety standards, DGCA oversight, airport infrastructure adequacy.
Risks in regional airport expansion under connectivity schemes.
Role of AAIB and systemic accident investigation.
What is a Landing Attempt?
Normal Landing
A landing involves controlled descent using visual references or instruments, guided by Air Traffic Control (ATC), runway markings, navigational aids, and real-time meteorological information.
Missed Approach / Go-Around
If runway visibility, alignment, or descent parameters are unsafe, pilots abort landing and execute a go-around, climbing back to reassess conditions and attempt another landing.
What is Poor Visibility?
Causes of Poor Visibility
Fog, rain, haze, low cloud ceiling, and night conditions reduce pilot visibility, requiring instrument-based landing systems instead of visual judgment.
Visibility Thresholds
Each runway has a minimum visibility requirement, below which landing is prohibited unless supported by advanced systems like Instrument Landing System (ILS).
Why Second Landing Attempts Are Risky
Increased Pilot Workload
Cognitive and Physical Stress
A second landing attempt increases pilot fatigue, decision pressure, and situational stress, especially when fuel, weather, and terrain constraints tighten simultaneously.
Narrow Error Margins
Repeated approaches reduce margins for error in altitude control, descent angle, and runway alignment, particularly in mountainous or obstacle-heavy terrain.
Role of Infrastructure Deficiency
Absence of Instrument Landing System
Without ILS or precision approach aids, pilots rely on visual cues and limited guidance, which is unsafe during fog or low visibility conditions.
Rudimentary ATC Setup
Airstrips with basic ATC operated by flying schools lack advanced radar, weather monitoring, and approach guidance essential during adverse conditions.
Institutional and Regulatory Failures
Absence of Dedicated Meteorologist
Lack of an on-site meteorologist prevents accurate real-time weather forecasting, increasing risk during rapidly deteriorating visibility.
Inadequate Weather Updates
Pilots depend on timely weather advisories; outdated or incomplete data can lead to incorrect landing decisions.
Safety Preparedness Deficits
Firefighting and Emergency Response
Absence of full-scale firefighting and rescue services violates safety norms, increasing fatalities when crashes occur.
VIP Movement vs Infrastructure Mismatch
Frequent VIP flights without commensurate infrastructure upgrades reflect policy complacency and regulatory inconsistency.
Role of Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB)
Mandate of AAIB
The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau investigates crashes to determine causes, not to assign blame.
Focus Areas of Probe
AAIB examines pilot actions, ATC communication, weather data, aircraft condition, and regulatory compliance to identify systemic failures.
Aviation Safety Governance
Regional Airport Expansion Risks
Rapid expansion of regional airports under connectivity schemes risks outpacing safety infrastructure, increasing accident probability.
Civil Aviation Regulation
The incident highlights gaps in DGCA oversight, certification standards, and enforcement of minimum safety requirements.
Federal and Administrative Accountability
Centre–State Coordination
Aviation safety requires coordination between civil aviation authorities, state governments, and local administrations, especially for emergency preparedness.
66% sanitation workers in Central govt. from SC, ST, OBC groups: DoPT report
Why in News?
The Department of Personnel and Training released its 2024–25 Annual Report, revealing caste-wise representation in Union government services, including disproportionate SC, ST, and OBC presence in sanitation roles.
Relevance
GS Paper II – Social Justice
Effectiveness and limitations of reservation policy in achieving substantive equality.
Under-representation in higher services vs concentration in hazardous work.
State’s role as a model employer.
GS Paper I – Society
Persistence of caste-based occupational segregation.
Social mobility, dignity of labour, and structural inequality.
Background — Reservation Framework in Union Government Jobs
Reservation Norms
DoPT rules mandate 15% reservation for SCs, 7.5% for STs, 27% for OBCs, and 10% for EWS in direct recruitment across Union government posts.
Classification of Posts
Union government jobs are classified into Group A, B, and C, reflecting hierarchy, responsibility levels, and socio-economic access to higher administrative positions.
Key Findings from the 2024–25 Data
Safai Karmacharis
Over 66% of Group C safai karmacharis in Union government employment belong to SC, ST, and OBC communities, indicating persistence of caste-linked occupational segregation.
Social Implications
The data reflects historical patterns where marginalised communities remain concentrated in low-status, hazardous, and manual sanitation roles, despite constitutional commitments to equality.
Representation in Higher Services
Group A Services
SCs hold 14.2%, STs 6.54%, and OBCs 19.14% of Group A posts, falling short of prescribed reservation levels, especially for OBCs.
Group B Services
In Group B posts, representation stands at 16.2% SC, 7.63% ST, and 21.95% OBC, showing partial compliance but persistent under-representation of OBCs.
Group C (Non-Sanitation) Posts
Broader Workforce Trends
Excluding safai karmacharis, Group C posts show 16.75% SC, 8.94% ST, and 27.29% OBC representation, broadly aligning with reservation benchmarks.
Aggregate Trends and Data Gaps
Union Government Workforce
Across 32.52 lakh employees in 80 Ministries and Departments, SC representation is 16.84%, ST 8.7%, and OBC 26.32%, as of January 1, 2024.
Absence of EWS Data
Transparency Concerns
The report provides no data on EWS representation, raising questions about monitoring effectiveness of the newest reservation category.
Reporting Inconsistencies
Data Discontinuity
This is the first comprehensive caste-representation disclosure since 2018–19, with interim reports covering only 19–20 lakh employees due to delayed submissions by Ministries.
Trend Analysis — 2018–19 vs 2024–25
SC and ST Trends
SC representation declined from 17.49% to 16.84%, while ST representation marginally increased from 8.47% to 8.94%, indicating stagnation in social mobility.
OBC Expansion
OBC representation rose sharply from 21.57% to 26.32%, marking the largest gain among reserved categories across Groups A, B, and C.
Analytical Deductions from the DoPT Reservation Data
Occupational Segregation Persists Despite Reservation
Disproportionate SC/ST/OBC concentration in safai karmachari roles shows reservation has enabled entry but not occupational mobility, reflecting deep-rooted caste–job linkages within state employment.
Representation Declines with Hierarchical Elevation
Under-representation of SCs and OBCs in Group A and B services, despite near-compliance in Group C, indicates structural barriers in promotion, selection, and career progression, not merely recruitment shortfalls.
Reservation Outcomes Are Uneven Across Social Groups
Sharp rise in OBC representation alongside stagnation or decline for SCs suggests asymmetric benefits, raising concerns about differential access to education, coaching, and institutional support within reserved categories.
Sanitation Work Remains Socially Entrenched
The overwhelming presence of marginalised communities in hazardous sanitation roles highlights the failure of the State as a model employer to break caste-based labour stratification.
Data Deficits Undermine Policy Accountability
Absence of EWS data and irregular reporting weaken evidence-based evaluation of affirmative action, limiting Parliament’s and society’s ability to assess whether constitutional equality goals are being met.
Who Owns Innovation in Outer Space? — Law, Patents and Power
Why in News?
Rapid expansion of space stations, lunar bases, and Mars missions has revived debate on ownership of inventions in space, especially patents, jurisdiction, and control over commercially valuable space-based innovations.
Relevance
GS Paper II – International Relations
Gaps in global governance of outer space; treaty interpretation.
North–South divide in access to space technology and innovation.
GS Paper III – Science & Technology
Commercialisation of space, IP rights, and innovation incentives.
Limits of territorial patent law in non-sovereign domains.
Background — Why Space Innovation Raises Legal Questions ?
Extreme Operating Conditions
Space innovation occurs in microgravity, radiation, vacuum, and isolation, making inventions uniquely dependent on public-funded research, multinational collaboration, and shared infrastructure rather than individual private effort.
Commercialisation of Space
Space activity has shifted from exploration to commercial exploitation, including mining, manufacturing, and habitation, creating demand for enforceable intellectual property rights beyond Earth.
The Central Question
As human activity expands beyond Earth, a fundamental legal dilemma emerges: who owns inventions created in space, and which authority can grant or enforce patent rights.
How Patents Work on Earth ?
Principle of Territoriality
Patent rights are territorial, enforceable only within the jurisdiction of the state that grants them, and depend on sovereign authority over territory.
Role of National Jurisdictions
Domestic courts enforce patents, and violations are resolved within national legal systems, anchored in geographically defined sovereignty.
Breakdown of Territorial Logic in Space
Outer space lacks territorial sovereignty, making traditional patent enforcement models legally inapplicable beyond Earth’s atmosphere.
Outer Space Treaty, 1967
Non-Appropriation Principle
The Outer Space Treaty (OST) prohibits national appropriation of outer space, including the Moon and celestial bodies, by sovereignty, occupation, or any other means.
Jurisdiction Without Sovereignty
States retain jurisdiction over objects they register, such as spacecraft or stations, but not over space itself.
Registration Convention
The Registration Convention, 1975 requires states to register space objects, granting jurisdiction and control over the object, not the surrounding space environment.
Patents and Jurisdiction in Space
Object-Based Jurisdiction
Patents can apply to inventions made on board registered space objects, such as modules of the International Space Station, under the registering state’s national law.
Limits of Enforcement
Patent protection does not extend to activities occurring outside registered objects, such as lunar surfaces, orbital manufacturing zones, or interplanetary space.
Example — International Space Station (ISS)
ISS agreements allow each partner state to apply its patent law to modules it registers, creating a fragmented, compartmentalised legal regime.
Permanent Habitation and Resource Use
Lunar Bases and Mining
Permanently inhabited lunar bases and resource extraction blur the line between use and appropriation, complicating patent rights over life-support systems, construction techniques, and mining technologies.
Sustainability vs Monopoly
Granting exclusive patent rights risks monopolising critical survival technologies, undermining equitable access and long-term sustainability of space exploration.
Artemis Accords and New Interpretations
The Artemis Accords promote “safety zones” around operations, raising concerns about de facto control without formal sovereignty claims.
Tension in International Law
Incentivising Innovation
Strong patent protections encourage private investment and technological breakthroughs essential for space survival, logistics, and long-duration missions.
Preventing Space Enclosure
Excessive IP control risks turning outer space into a privatised, exclusionary domain, violating the OST’s vision of space as the common heritage of humankind.
Governance and Global Equity Implications
North–South Divide
Advanced spacefaring nations may dominate patent regimes, marginalising developing countries and reinforcing technological inequality in access to space resources.
Need for New Legal Architecture
Existing treaties were designed for exploration, not habitation, making reform necessary to balance innovation, equity, sustainability, and peaceful use.
Why This Debate Matters ?
Strategic and Economic Stakes
Space innovation underpins future energy, materials, defence, and communications systems, making patent governance a core issue of geopolitics and economic power.
Decisions taken now will shape whether outer space becomes a shared scientific frontier or a fragmented commercial battleground.
Mental Illness Catching Them Young
Why in News?
Experts report that around 60% of mental health patients in India are under 35 years, highlighting a growing youth mental health crisis linked to job uncertainty, digital overexposure, and social isolation.
Relevance
GS Paper I – Society
Youth distress, family change, urbanisation, digitalisation, and social isolation.
Suicide trends and demographic vulnerability (15–29 age group).
GS Paper II – Governance & Social Sector
Mental healthcare delivery, treatment gap (75–80%), and public health capacity.
Role of schools, primary healthcare, and community-based care.
India’s Youth-Dominant Demography
Demographic Context
India has one of the world’s largest youth populations, making mental health challenges among young adults a public health, economic, and social stability concern.
Shift in Disease Burden
Mental disorders are increasingly replacing communicable diseases as a major contributor to disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) among working-age populations.
Key Findings — What the Data Shows ?
Age of Onset
Nearly half of mental illnesses begin before age 25, and a significant proportion before 18 years, indicating the need for early detection and intervention.
Youth Vulnerability
Adolescents and young adults face heightened vulnerability due to identity formation stress, academic pressure, employment insecurity, and social comparison.
Dominant Mental Health Conditions
Common Disorders
Depression, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, and behavioural disorders dominate mental health diagnoses among individuals below 35 years.
Gender and Social Patterns
Young men show higher rates of substance abuse and suicide, while young women report higher depression and anxiety, reflecting social and gendered stressors.
Drivers of the Youth Mental Health Crisis
Job Uncertainty
Rising unemployment, informal work, and career instability create chronic stress, eroding psychological resilience among young adults.
Academic Pressure
High-stakes examinations and competitive education systems contribute to performance anxiety and fear of failure.
Digital and Social Factors
Constant Digital Exposure
Excessive screen time, social media comparison, and information overload increase risks of anxiety, sleep disorders, and reduced attention spans.
Loneliness and Social Isolation
Urbanisation and nuclear families weaken traditional support systems, intensifying feelings of isolation despite virtual connectivity.
Burden on Health Systems
Treatment Gap
India faces a 75–80% treatment gap in mental healthcare due to shortage of professionals, stigma, and limited access to affordable services.
Workforce Productivity
Untreated mental illness reduces labour productivity, employability, and economic growth, especially in a young workforce.
Social Stability and Safety
Suicide Risk
Suicide remains among the leading causes of death in the 15–29 age group, underscoring the gravity of youth mental health distress.
Intergenerational Impact
Early-onset mental illness affects education, family stability, and long-term wellbeing, creating cumulative social costs.
Preventive and Early Intervention Strategies
Early Screening
Integrating mental health screening in schools, colleges, and primary healthcare can enable early diagnosis and timely support.
Community-Based Care
Decentralised, community-led mental health services can reduce stigma and improve access, especially in rural and underserved areas.
Systemic Reforms
Human Resource Expansion
India must scale up psychiatrists, psychologists, psychiatric social workers, and counsellors to meet growing demand.
Digital Mental Health
Tele-mental health platforms can bridge access gaps if combined with ethical safeguards, quality control, and privacy protections.
Developmental and Ethical Significance
Youth mental health is foundational to demographic dividend realisation, social cohesion, and sustainable development.
Addressing mental illness early reflects the state’s commitment to human dignity, preventive healthcare, and inclusive growth.
NCRB Suicide Data
Total Suicides (Latest)
India recorded 171,418 suicides in 2023, a 0.3% increase from 2022 (170,924).
Trend Over Time
Suicides rose 27% over the past decade, from ~135,000 in 2013 to ~171,000 in 2023.
Methods
Nearly 60% of suicides involve hanging, the most common method.
State Variations
Suicide rates vary greatly; for 2023:
Kerala’s rate ~30.6 per 1 lakh population
Telangana ~27.7; Chhattisgarh ~26.0
Andaman & Nicobar Islands among highest in UTs (~49.6).
Urban Suicide Hotspots
Among cities in 2023, Delhi (3,131) reported the highest suicides, followed by Bengaluru (2,370) and Mumbai (1,415).
Gender Disparity
Nationally, more men than women die by suicide; city-level ratios show nearly 3:1 (male:female) in urban centres.
Farm Sector Suicides
In 2023, 10,786 farmers & agricultural labourers died by suicide, constituting ~6.3% of total suicides; Maharashtra accounted for 38% of these.
Student Suicides
Student suicides have sharply increased over the past decade, rising by ~65% from 2013 to 2023.