Content
Auto, Pharma Sectors Cheer GST Slabs; Airlines Say Wings Clipped
Should Commercial Speech on Digital Platforms Be Regulated?
India–China: The Making of a Border
India’s Birth Rate Down: First Dip in TFR in 2 Years
How the Antibiotic Culture in India Imperils Mental Health
Logs in Himachal Floodwaters: Supreme Court Response
New Foreigners Act, 2025
PVTGs and Enumeration Issues
Auto, pharma sectors cheer GST slabs; airlines say wings clipped
Basics
GST (Goods and Services Tax): Indirect tax introduced in 2017, subsuming multiple central & state taxes.
GST Council: Apex decision-making body under Article 279A, chaired by Union Finance Minister.
Inverted Duty Structure: Situation where tax on inputs > tax on final product, discouraging domestic value addition.
Recent Decision (Sept 2025): GST Council revised rates across multiple sectors → auto, insurance, appliances, pharma, renewable energy, but also imposed higher rates in textiles, airlines, and services.
Relevance: GS III (Economy – Taxation, GST reforms, federal fiscal relations, sectoral impacts on industry and labour).
Key Changes
Positive for Industry:
Auto sector: Rate rationalisation + removal of GST Compensation Cess on certain vehicles.
Pharma & Fertilisers: Corrected inverted duty structure → reduces input cost burden.
Renewable energy: Adjustments encouraging investment in green projects.
Consumer appliances: Lower duties on select items → boost demand.
Negative for Some Sectors:
Textiles & Garments: GST on labour charges raised 12% → 18% → affects small units, handlooms, embroidery, wedding wear.
Cloth Manufacturers Association of India: Warned higher costs will hurt migrant workers and common consumers (woollens, handlooms, traditional clothing).
Airlines: Criticised higher GST on non-economy class tickets.
Service providers/SMEs: Fear higher compliance costs.
Stock Market Reaction: Initial optimism but ended flat, Sensex barely up → reflects mixed industry sentiment.
Implications
Economic Impact
Rationalisation reduces litigation & compliance disputes.
Correction of inverted duty structure supports Make in India and boosts domestic value chains.
But labour-intensive textile sector hit → job losses possible for migrant/daily-wage workers.
Social Impact
Higher tax on garments affects low-income consumers → affordability issue.
Migrant workers in textile hubs (Surat, Tiruppur, Panipat) likely to face wage squeeze.
Political Angle
Rate hikes on essential clothing → politically sensitive before elections, esp. in states with large textile workforce.
Industries lobbying for rollback may pressure govt.
Governance Angle
Shows federal cooperation in GST Council but also trade-offs → boosting revenue vs protecting vulnerable industries.
Addresses long-pending duty inversion, improving tax efficiency.
Sectoral Winners & Losers
Winners: Auto, pharma, renewable energy, fertilizers.
Losers: Textiles, airlines, MSME service providers.
Should commercial speech on digital platforms be regulated?
Basics
Commercial Speech: Expression with an economic motive (advertisements, influencer content, monetized performances). Recognised under Article 19(1)(a) (Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL, 1995).
Regulatory Context:
IT Act, 2000 & BNS, 2023 provide mechanisms for prosecution and content removal.
SC’s 25 Aug 2024 Order: Urged govt. to draft guidelines for social media content, triggered by derogatory remarks by comedians against persons with disabilities.
Constitutional Framework:
Free speech subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) (security, public order, decency, morality, etc.).
Individual dignity is not an explicit ground under Art. 19(2), but SC upheld criminal defamation (2016) recognising dignity as linked to reputation.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Fundamental Rights: Free Speech & Reasonable Restrictions; IT laws; Judiciary–Executive balance).
Arguments Against New Regulation
Existing Laws Already Cover It: FIRs filed under BNS & IT Act show enforceability. Section 69A already provides takedown powers.
Risk of Overreach: Using “dignity” as an independent ground risks expansive censorship.
Chilling Effect: Comedians, satirists, journalists may self-censor, harming democratic debate.
Judicial Precedent: SC has protected unpalatable speech (e.g., quashing FIR against Imran Pratapgadhi’s poem, 2024).
Commercial Nature ≠ Justification for Regulation: Profit-driven speech still falls under free expression (Sakal Papers v. Union, 1962).
Arguments for Some Regulation
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Content mocking disabilities or minorities affects dignity and participation in public life.
Social Responsibility: Commercialisation of free speech (influencer marketing, stand-up comedy, monetised social media) increases its reach and impact.
Judicial Role of “Complete Justice”: SC has inherent jurisdiction to balance free expression with social harm.
Safeguards Against Hate Speech: Commercial platforms amplify hate speech faster; some oversight is needed to prevent real harm.
Key Constitutional & Legal Precedents
Sakal Papers v. Union (1962): Struck down govt. attempt to regulate newspaper page limit; reinforced commercial speech as part of free expression.
Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL (1995): Affirmed advertisements as part of free speech under Art. 19(1)(a).
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016): Upheld criminal defamation, linking dignity with reputation.
Recent SC orders:
Protected “disturbing or offensive” speech (2024).
Questioned excessive executive censorship via IT Act Sec. 69A.
Risks of Over-Regulation
Censorship Creep: Govts may regulate under “social value” standards, suppressing dissent.
Opaque Mechanisms: Existing takedown regime already lacks transparency and notice to content creators.
Institutional Overreach: SC asking executive to draft regulations may reinforce state censorship with judicial backing.
Way Forward – Safeguards Needed
Strong Review Mechanisms: Independent tribunals or oversight bodies for content removal.
Clear Definitions: Avoid vague terms like “dignity” or “offensive content”.
Stakeholder Consultation: Must include creators, civil society, and vulnerable groups—not just state or industry bodies.
Transparency: Public disclosure of takedown/blocking orders; notice to affected parties.
Balance Approach: Protect vulnerable groups from targeted ridicule while preserving space for satire, dissent, and artistic freedom.
India-China: the making of a border
Basics of the Border Issue
Colonial Legacy: Border derived from British (India) and Manchu (China) empires, drawn imprecisely in Himalayan, uninhabited terrain.
Post-Independence Indian Position: India assumed British-era maps were final; avoided negotiations. China viewed border as undefined.
Key Disputed Areas:
Western Sector: Aksai Chin (strategically important for China’s Xinjiang–Tibet highway).
Eastern Sector: Arunachal Pradesh (esp. Tawang), based on McMahon Line (1914 Simla Agreement with Tibet).
Relevance: GS I (History – Colonial Legacies) + GS II (IR – India-China Relations, Border Disputes) + GS III (Security – Border Management).
Beginning of Conflict
China built Aksai Chin highway (1950s) → India discovered only later.
1959 Proposal: China suggested Line of Actual Control (LAC) + mutual pullback (20 km).
1960 Zhou Enlai Proposal: Swap deal (Aksai Chin to China, Arunachal to India). India rejected.
1962 War: Triggered by Indian forward moves in Aksai Chin; China retained Aksai Chin but withdrew in east north of McMahon Line.
Post-War Developments (1962–1979)
1967: Nathu La & Cho La clashes in Sikkim → Indian Army showed stronger resolve.
1975: Sikkim merged with India → Chinese protests.
1975: Formation of China Study Group (CSG) → institutionalized patrolling, mapping with satellite imagery.
1979: FM Vajpayee visited Beijing → first high-level political contact post-war; partial normalisation attempt.
1980s Escalation & Diplomacy
1980 Deng Proposal: China willing to accept McMahon Line if India recognised Aksai Chin status quo. India refused.
1981–85 Talks: Resumed but deadlocked; India wanted sector-by-sector talks, China insisted on package deal.
1983–86 Crisis:
China demanded Tawang, shifting stance (linked to Tibet policy).
1986: Wangdung standoff → India launched Operation Falcon, strong forward deployment. Showed India’s improved military preparedness.
1988 Rajiv Gandhi Visit: Turning point in ties. Both sides agreed on “mutual understanding & mutual accommodation” (MUMA). Normalisation of ties + creation of Joint Working Group (JWG) on border issue.
Implications
Strategic Factors:
China needed Aksai Chin for Tibet–Xinjiang connectivity.
India viewed Arunachal (esp. Tawang) as non-negotiable due to cultural, historical, and security reasons.
Diplomatic Approaches:
China repeatedly offered “package deals”; India preferred incremental, sectoral talks.
India’s stance shaped by 1962 trauma → reluctance to accept territorial concessions.
Military Evolution:
1962: Indian Army unprepared → humiliation.
Post-1967 & 1986: India demonstrated stronger capability & resolve.
Geopolitical Context:
1960s–70s: China wary of Soviet Union, sought neutralising India.
1980s: China recalibrated post-Afghanistan war, wary of Indo-US proximity, opened to India.
Outcome by late 1980s:
Border dispute unresolved.
Shift from confrontation to “peaceful coexistence + negotiation”.
Framework for future CBMs (Confidence Building Measures) laid.
‘India’s birth rate down, first dip in TFR in 2 years’
Basics
Crude Birth Rate (CBR): No. of live births per 1,000 population/year.
Declined from 19.1 (2022) → 18.4 (2023).
Total Fertility Rate (TFR): Avg. no. of children a woman is expected to bear during her reproductive span.
Declined from 2.0 (2021 & 2022) → 1.9 (2023).
First dip in 2 years.
Replacement-level fertility: 2.1 (needed for population stabilization).
Highest CBR (2023): Bihar (25.8).
Lowest CBR (2023): Tamil Nadu (12).
Highest TFR: Bihar (2.8).
Lowest TFR: Delhi (1.2).
States with TFR above replacement level: Northern India – Bihar (2.8), UP (2.6), MP (2.4), Rajasthan (2.3), Chhattisgarh (2.2).
States/UTs with lowest TFRs: Delhi (1.2), West Bengal (1.3), Tamil Nadu (1.3), Maharashtra (1.4).
Elderly proportion (2023): 9.7% of population (↑ 0.7% in one year).
Highest elderly share: Kerala (15%).
Lowest: Assam, Jharkhand (7.6%), Delhi (7.7%).
Relevance: GS I (Society – Demographic Trends, Population Issues) + GS II (Governance – Health, Education, Social Policy).
Demographic Trends
India’s fertility is steadily declining → convergence towards below-replacement fertility in majority of states (18 States/UTs).
North-South divide:
North/Central India still above replacement (Bihar, UP, MP, Rajasthan).
South & urbanised states far below replacement (TN, WB, Delhi, Maharashtra).
Indicates demographic heterogeneity – “two Indias” in population dynamics.
Implications of Falling TFR
Population Stabilisation: India nearing replacement level fertility; long-term population expected to peak around mid-2060s.
Ageing Society: Elderly share rising (9.7% in 2023; Kerala already at 15%).
Labour Force Impact: Declining fertility may affect working-age population growth after 2040, impacting economic growth potential.
Gender Dimension: Falling fertility often linked with female education, urbanisation, workforce participation, and healthcare access.
Policy & Governance Aspects
Civil Registration System (CRS) & SRS: Key demographic data sources; delays (4-year lag in CRS, MCCD) weaken timely policymaking.
Healthcare Planning: Rising elderly population requires stronger geriatric care, social security, and pensions.
Regional Planning: High fertility states (Bihar, UP, MP) will continue to add to India’s population momentum → implications for resource allocation, jobs, and migration.
Population Policies: Need state-specific approaches rather than “one-size-fits-all.”
Socio-Economic Drivers of Fertility Decline
Education & Awareness: Female literacy rise → lower fertility.
Urbanisation: Higher in low-TFR states (Delhi, TN, WB).
Access to Family Planning: More widespread in southern/western states.
Economic Aspiration: Shift from “quantity to quality” of children (health, education).
Delayed Marriage & Fertility Choices: Seen in urban India.
Challenges & Opportunities
Opportunities:
Fertility decline supports sustainable development.
Lower dependency ratio in short term (demographic dividend).
Challenges:
Demographic imbalance between north (population boom) and south (population stagnation/decline).
Ageing burden → healthcare, pensions, social support.
Skewed sex ratio and declining fertility may exacerbate social issues.
How the antibiotic culture in India imperils mental health
Basics
Context: Rising mental health awareness in India, but antibiotic misuse poses hidden risks via gut-brain axis disruption.
Gut-brain axis: Bidirectional communication between gastrointestinal tract and brain, influencing mood, cognition, and stress.
Antibiotics’ role: Overuse disturbs gut microbiota → contributes to anxiety, depression, cognitive decline.
India’s antibiotic crisis:
2,67,000 deaths due to AMR (2021); projected 1.2 million by 2030 (IHME).
~50% antibiotics consumed in India are unapproved formulations (Lancet 2022).
Institutions involved: NIMHANS, AIIMS exploring gut dysbiosis–psychiatric disorder links.
Relevance: GS II (Health – Public Health & Policy) + GS III (Science & Tech – Antibiotic Resistance, Gut-Brain Axis Research).
Health & Science Dimensions
Gut microbiota produces serotonin, dopamine, and SCFAs (short-chain fatty acids) → regulate mood, sleep, stress.
Antibiotic misuse → gut dysbiosis → inflammation (IL-6, TNF-α), neurochemical imbalance, cognitive decline.
Psychobiotics (probiotics + prebiotics) emerging as adjunct therapy for depression and anxiety.
Probiotic-rich Indian foods (curd, idli, dosa, pickles) naturally support microbial diversity.
Mental Health Impact
Gut disruption linked to anxiety, depression, and neurodegenerative disorders.
Dysbiosis-induced inflammation alters neurotransmitter metabolism and neuroplasticity.
Psychiatric care must integrate gastrointestinal and nutritional assessments.
Drivers of Antibiotic Misuse in India
Cultural: Preference for “quick fixes” over lifestyle changes.
Systemic: Over-the-counter sales, weak enforcement of prescription laws.
Economic: Doctors over-prescribe to satisfy patients; pharmacies act as dispensaries.
Rural-urban gap: Easy availability in rural/semi-urban areas without medical oversight.
Governance & Policy Challenges
Weak enforcement of CDSCO prescription rules.
Inadequate awareness campaigns on antibiotic misuse.
Need for stronger AMR surveillance networks (INSAR expansion with mental health metrics).
Public health campaigns (NHM, Ayushman Bharat) yet to integrate gut-brain literacy.
Solutions & Way Forward
Regulatory: Strict prescription-only antibiotic sales, penalties for violations.
Public Health: Awareness drives on gut health, microbiome, and mental well-being.
Medical Education: Antibiotic stewardship integrated into medical curriculum.
Research & Data: Invest in Indian microbiome research; link AMR + mental health surveillance.
Integrated Care: Combine psychiatry, gastroenterology, nutrition, and public health.
Traditional Knowledge: Promote fermented foods as natural probiotics.
Logs in Himachal floodwaters, SC response
Basics
Context: Supreme Court (SC) took suo motu note of videos showing timber logs washed away in Himachal floods.
Prima facie concern: Possible case of illegal felling of trees in Himalayan states.
Bench: Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice BR Gavai.
Parties involved: Centre, NDMA, MoEFCC, Jal Shakti Ministry, NHAI, States (HP, Uttarakhand, Punjab, J&K).
Deadline: 2 weeks to respond.
Relevance: GS I (Geography – Himalayan Ecology) + GS II (Polity – Judicial Intervention, Environmental Governance) + GS III (Disaster Management).
Key Issues Highlighted
Flood-linked destruction: Logs floating downstream → linked to landslides, deforestation.
Ecological damage: Loss of forest cover → destabilises slopes, worsens floods.
Illegal logging nexus: Timber mafia suspected behind large-scale tree felling.
Infrastructure vulnerability:
Example: 14 tunnels between Chandigarh–Manali face landslide risks.
“Near-death trap” situation during blockages; 300 people stranded on one occasion.
Development vs Ecology: CJI observed – “Development has to be there, but must balance with ecology.”
Petitioner’s Concerns
Call for national-level plan: Mechanism for disaster prevention & eco-protection in Himalayan states.
Eco-fragility: Frequent cloudbursts, flash floods, landslides intensifying due to unchecked deforestation, road cutting, dam projects.
Pristine ecology threat: Himalayan biodiversity and rivers at stake.
SC Observations
Unprecedented landslides and floods in HP, Uttarakhand, Punjab.
Videos show timber logs in floodwaters → indicates systemic illegal felling.
Urged immediate response from officials to prevent future ecological collapse.
Overview
Environmental Angle:
Deforestation weakens slope stability → landslides and flash floods.
Floating logs = dual disaster (physical obstruction + ecological loss).
Fragile Himalayan ecosystem cannot sustain large-scale construction + deforestation.
Governance & Policy Issues:
Weak enforcement of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 & Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Poor coordination between state forest departments and NHAI during road expansion.
Need for stricter timber tracking, community monitoring, and green clearances.
Disaster Management Angle:
NDMA and states lack real-time flood and landslide monitoring.
Rescue challenges in tunnels/remote highways highlight poor contingency planning.
Ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) largely missing.
Socio-economic Angle:
Local livelihoods disrupted (farmers, transporters, small traders).
Increased vulnerability of downstream communities (Punjab flood plains).
Hidden costs of “development-at-all-costs” approach.
Way Forward:
Independent probe into illegal logging in Himalayas.
Strict forest clearance norms for infrastructure.
Eco-sensitive zone expansion + carrying capacity studies.
Investment in early warning systems, slope stabilisation, tunnel safety.
Promotion of community-led forest monitoring & afforestation.
New Foreigners Act, 2025
Basics
Law: Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025 (in force from Sept 1, 2025).
Objective: Overhaul India’s framework on entry, stay, movement, and exit of foreigners.
Consolidation: Merges 4 earlier Acts –
Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920
Registration of Foreigners Act, 1939
Foreigners Act, 1946
Immigration (Carrier’s Liability) Act, 2000
Need for change: Old laws = fragmented, colonial, ambiguous, poor enforcement.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Migration, National Security, Citizenship & Foreigners Laws, Centre–State Powers).
Key Provisions & Analysis
Documentation Rules:
All foreigners must carry valid passport/visa; penalties for non-compliance.
Defined immigration posts for legal entry/exit.
Defined Registration & Monitoring:
Mandatory registration with Foreigners Regional Registration Officers (FRROs).
Hotels, transport, religious institutions, employers → must report foreign clients/workers.
Special Permits:
Required for restricted/prohibited areas (esp. border/tribal zones).
Enforcement & Penalties:
Powers of entry, search, arrest with due procedure.
Fines from ₹10,000 to ₹5 lakh.
Offences: overstaying, fake documents, illegal entry, visa misuse.
Delegation & Centralisation:
Central government retains core powers; can delegate to states.
Emergency provisions for quick directions.
Exemptions & Categories:
Special rules for Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Bhutanese/Nepalese citizens, minorities from Pakistan–Afghanistan–Bangladesh.
Limited protection for bona fide mistakes.
Different fine slabs (e.g., Tibetan/Bhutanese migrants, Rohingya, Buddhist monks).
New in the statute:
Digital records: compulsory reporting by hotels, universities, hospitals.
Diplomatic clauses: rules for warships, foreign military, diplomats.
Exemption categories: tighter listing for humanitarian cases, minorities, Tibetans, Sri Lankans.
Likely Impact
Positive:
Single law → clarity & consistency.
Stronger enforcement & digital monitoring.
Better national security management.
Concerns:
Risk of over-centralisation.
Compliance burden on institutions (hotels, universities).
Possible misuse against vulnerable groups (e.g., refugees).
PVTGs (Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups) and Enumeration Issues
Basics
PVTGs: Sub-category within Scheduled Tribes (STs), identified as the most vulnerable.
Origin of Concept: Based on the Dhebar Commission (1960–61) which noted disparities among tribal groups → recommended identification of “Primitive Tribal Groups” (renamed as PVTGs in 2006).
Criteria for Identification:
Declining/stagnant population
Low literacy
Pre-agricultural level of technology (hunting, gathering, shifting cultivation)
Economic backwardness
Geographical and social isolation
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Migration, National Security, Citizenship & Foreigners Laws, Centre–State Powers).
Overview
Historical Context
1975: Govt identified 52 tribal groups as PVTGs.
1993: 23 more added → total 75 PVTGs.
Spread across 18 States + 1 UT (A&N Islands).
Enumeration Issues
So far, PVTGs never separately enumerated in Census (treated under STs).
Govt now wants separate data on PVTGs for targeted schemes like Pradhan Mantri Janjati Adivasi Nyaya Maha Abhiyan (PM-JANMAN).
Challenge: Lists of STs (and PVTGs) are state-specific, not uniform nationally.
Past Efforts
Census 2011: Some PVTGs (Baigas in MP, Abujh Marias in Chhattisgarh, Kamars) enumerated separately, but not uniform.
2013: Abujh Marias + Hill Korbas in Chhattisgarh included in ST list by Parliament law.
2016 Lok Sabha Reply: 75 PVTGs officially recognized (40 listed as “single-entry” groups under Article 342).
Current Situation
As per 2011 Census, 13 PVTGs were listed under single-entry STs.
Examples: Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese (Andaman), Kutia Kondh, Birhor, Korwa, Sahariya etc.
Population estimates (2011–13 survey):
Total: 27.45 lakh PVTGs across India.
Highest population: Madhya Pradesh (6.57 lakh).
Lowest: Andaman & Nicobar tribes (few hundred) – e.g., Sentinelese (population ~50).
Policy Significance
PM-JANMAN Scheme (2023): Rolled out to improve housing, health, education, livelihood support, and basic amenities in 200+ districts.
Enumeration critical for:
Addressing health gaps (maternal/child mortality, malnutrition, endemic diseases).
Education & livelihoods (preserve skills, provide access).
Infrastructure planning (housing, roads, connectivity).
Monitoring inclusion in welfare schemes.
Challenges
Identification Criteria outdated (still uses Dhebar Commission benchmarks).
Social exclusion & isolation → remote forests, islands.
Data Gaps → many still not fully counted, esp. uncontacted tribes like Sentinelese.
State-specific lists complicate uniform national policy.
Larger Significance
Ensuring inclusive development without eroding tribal autonomy & culture.
Supports SDGs: poverty reduction, health, education, inequality.
Strengthens tribal justice framework under Constitution (Art. 46, 275, 342).