Content
SC asks Union govt. to draw up rules on social media conduct
India, Fiji call for open Indo-Pacific region, agree to deepen defence ties
Stealth frigates Udaygiri, Himgiri to join Navy today
Like other relics, India’s fossils are at high risk of being sold abroad
About 30% of MPs and MLAs face serious criminal cases
What does the new online gaming Act outline?
Videshi in One’s Own Country: India’s Internal Diasporas
SC asks Union govt. to draw up rules on social media conduct
Basics
Free Speech (Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India): Fundamental right but not absolute.
Reasonable Restrictions (Article 19(2)): Speech can be regulated in the interest of decency, morality, public order, defamation, etc.
Case Context:
Comedians faced complaints for insensitive jokes about persons with disabilities.
Petition filed by an NGO (SMA Cure Foundation).
Question before SC: How to balance freedom of expression with dignity of vulnerable groups in a diverse society.
Relevance : GS 2(Judiciary , Constitution )
Supreme Court Observations
Commercialisation of Free Speech: Social media influencers use speech for profit; such speech can amplify harm.
Impact on Communities: Speech must respect dignity of persons with disabilities, women, children, senior citizens, and minorities.
On Humour: Recognised humour’s value, but cautioned that levity should not cross into hurtful stereotyping.
Main Concern: Insensitive jokes undermine the constitutional goal of inclusion for disabled persons.
On Guidelines:
Need clear rules with specific and proportionate consequences for violations.
Guidelines must draw a line between free speech vs. prohibited/hurtful speech.
Consequences must not be “empty formalities.”
Government’s Position (Attorney-General R. Venkataramani)
Objective: Focus on sensitisation of social media users, not censorship.
Accountability: Violators must take responsibility.
Observation: Many online blogs/podcasts “feed egos” rather than serve public good.
Legal Classification of Speech (as noted by SC)
Free Speech – protected expression.
Commercial Speech – profit-oriented, subject to regulation.
Prohibited Speech – unlawful (hate speech, obscenity, etc.).
Overlap Concern: Online comedy shows and influencer content often blend commercial and potentially prohibited speech.
Wider Issues Highlighted
Influence of Social Media: What influencers say shapes attitudes of an entire generation.
Dignity vs. Expression: Vulnerable groups risk mockery, reinforcing exclusion.
Precedent Risk: Today disability, tomorrow jokes on women/children/elders → slippery slope of insensitivity.
Directions by Court
Comedians asked to tender unconditional apology through their shows.
Centre asked to frame social media guidelines in consultation with stakeholders (National Broadcasters and Digital Association).
Case listed again in November 2024.
Comprehensive Analysis
Constitutional Balance:
Court is not curtailing free speech but seeking a balance with Article 21 (Right to Life with Dignity).
Evolving Jurisprudence:
Expands interpretation of restrictions on speech in digital age.
Treats influencers as responsible public figures, not private speakers.
Policy Implications:
Rules may cover podcasts, comedy shows, reels, stand-ups with commercial intent.
Likely to emphasise sensitisation, grievance redressal, proportionate penalties.
Global Parallels:
EU’s Digital Services Act (2022): accountability of online platforms for harmful content.
U.S.: Free speech absolute but limited by hate speech jurisprudence in practice.
India is moving towards a hybrid model: protect speech but curb offensive, discriminatory content.
Way Forward
Guideline Formation: Involve civil society, disability rights groups, digital platforms.
Sensitisation Campaigns: Make influencers ambassadors of inclusion.
Stronger Grievance Redressal: Quick complaint resolution on platforms.
Graduated Penalties: Apology → Fines → De-platforming for repeated violations.
Judicial Oversight: SC ensures rules don’t become tools for censorship.
India, Fiji call for open Indo-Pacific region, agree to deepen defence ties
Basics
Indo-Pacific Region:
Geopolitical concept spanning the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.
Central to global trade, maritime security, and strategic competition (notably India–China–US dynamics).
Fiji’s Position:
An island nation in the South Pacific.
Strategically located within the “Blue Pacific Continent,” often seen as a gateway to Pacific island states.
India–Fiji Relations:
Historical ties through Indian diaspora in Fiji (approx. 40% of Fiji’s population).
Enhanced defence ties since 2017 Defence Cooperation MoU.
Member of the Forum for India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC).
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations)
Key Announcements during Rabuka’s Visit (2024)
Defence Cooperation:
Training & equipment support for Fiji’s maritime security.
Capacity building for Fijian armed forces.
Cooperation on UN peacekeeping, military medicine, and White Shipping Information Exchange.
Planned Indian naval ship port call to Fiji for enhanced interoperability.
Two ambulances gifted to Fiji’s military; Defence Wing to open at India’s High Commission in Suva.
Strategic Statements:
Both countries reaffirmed support for a “free, open, inclusive, secure, and prosperous Indo-Pacific”.
India sees Fiji as a hub in its Pacific outreach.
Implicit balancing of China’s growing influence in Pacific islands (notably naval base concerns).
Other MoUs Signed:
Super-specialty hospital in Fiji.
Migration & mobility agreement.
Cybersecurity cooperation, including a new training cell in Fiji.
Strengthening counter-terrorism cooperation.
Strategic Significance
For India:
Expands India’s strategic footprint in the Pacific islands.
Strengthens FIPIC and Act East + Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI).
Counters China’s attempts to gain military bases and leverage over Pacific states.
Enhances India’s image as a development partner and security provider.
For Fiji:
Gains military, maritime, and cyber capacity-building support.
Protects its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and maritime resources.
Diversifies security partnerships beyond China.
Benefits from Indian aid in health, mobility, and counter-terrorism cooperation.
For Indo-Pacific:
Strengthens the principle of open seas, freedom of navigation, and rules-based order.
Reinforces coalition-building among like-minded states (India, Fiji, Japan, Australia, US).
Highlights role of smaller island nations as pivotal players in regional security.
Underlying Geopolitics
Fiji’s PM Sitiveni Rabuka has earlier opposed China’s naval base plans in the Pacific islands.
Joint India–Fiji statement subtly signals alignment with Quad principles.
India balances soft power (diaspora, hospital, training) with hard power (naval visits, defence cooperation).
Fiji leverages partnerships to avoid strategic overdependence on China.
Stealth frigates Udaygiri, Himgiri to join Navy today
Basics
What are frigates?
Medium-sized warships, versatile for escort, patrol, anti-submarine, and surface warfare roles.
Crucial for maintaining maritime security and projecting naval power.
Project 17A:
Follow-on of the Project 17 (Shivalik-class) stealth frigates.
Envisages 7 stealth frigates, designed by the Warship Design Bureau (WDB).
Key focus: stealth features, modular construction, advanced sensors and weapons, and high indigenous content.
Shipbuilders involved:
Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd. (MDL), Mumbai – builder of Udaygiri.
Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers (GRSE), Kolkata – builder of Himgiri.
Relevance : GS 3(Defence , Internal Security)
Key Highlights of Commissioning
First-ever simultaneous commissioning of two frontline warships built at different shipyards.
Udaygiri is the 100th vessel designed by WDB, marking 50 years of indigenous design capability.
Udaygiri was delivered faster due to modular construction techniques.
Names Udaygiri and Himgiri revive the legacy of earlier Indian Navy warships.
Both join the Eastern Fleet, enhancing presence in the Indian Ocean.
Technical Features
Stealth Capabilities: Reduced radar, infrared, acoustic, and magnetic signatures.
Propulsion: Combined Diesel or Gas (CODOG) system.
Combat Systems: Advanced weaponry and modern sensor suite for anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare.
Automation: Integrated Platform Management System for efficient operations.
Indigenisation: ~75% indigenous content, including Indian-made weapons and sensors, supported by MSMEs.
Strategic Significance
Blue-Water Navy Expansion: Capable of sustained operations in distant waters, bolstering India’s regional and global maritime role.
Aatmanirbhar Bharat: Strengthens India’s indigenous defence manufacturing ecosystem.
Inter-Yard Collaboration: Demonstrates coordination between MDL and GRSE, a milestone in India’s shipbuilding sector.
Force Multiplier: Enhances India’s ability to safeguard Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) and counter maritime threats in the Indian Ocean.
Symbolic Continuity: Heritage revival through warship names reflects India’s naval traditions.
Like other relics, India’s fossils are at high risk of being sold abroad
What are Fossils?
Definition: Preserved remains, impressions, or traces of ancient life forms (plants, animals, microorganisms).
Age criteria: Must be at least 10,000 years old to be considered a fossil.
Types: Body fossils (bones, shells), trace fossils (footprints, burrows), plant fossils.
Scientific importance:
Reconstruct Earth’s history.
Help study evolution, paleo-climate, geology.
Provide evidence of extinct species.
Relevance : GS 1(Heritage) , GS 2(Governance) , GS 3(Science)
Fossil Richness in India
Geological context:
India split from Gondwanaland (~150 million years ago).
Isolated for ~90 million years → unique biodiversity.
Collision with Asia (~50–60 million years ago) → emergence of new species (ancestral horses, whales).
Important fossil records:
Dinosaurs (Jabalpur, Balasinor, Kutch).
Earliest plant fossils.
Human ancestors’ skulls.
Whale ancestor Indohyus (M.P.).
Recently discovered Vasuki indicus (giant snake, ~47 million years old, ~15m length).
Global Context & Commercialisation
Fossil trade abroad:
Ammonites sold in Paris shops.
Dinosaur fossils sold in auctions.
July 2024: Sotheby’s sold a Stegosaurus fossil for $44.6 million (record).
Private collectors:
71 important T. rex fossils in private hands vs. 61 in public institutions (U.S. data, 2024).
Celebrities (Nicolas Cage, Leonardo DiCaprio) and billionaires actively purchase fossils.
Heritage risk: Fossils becoming luxury commodities rather than scientific specimens.
India’s Situation
Challenges:
No dedicated national fossil repository (a draft plan exists but stalled).
No clear legal framework to regulate extraction, trade, or preservation.
Risk of theft, vandalism, or sale in black markets.
Examples:
Buddhist relics (1898, UP) nearly auctioned abroad in 2025 → Govt intervention stopped sale.
Fossils like dinosaur eggs stolen from Mandav museum (M.P.).
Private collections (e.g., Ranga Rao–Obergfell Trust) contain unsorted and unstudied fossils, some kept in homes and gardens.
Custodianship & Individual Efforts
Palaeontologists:
Sunil Bajpai (IIT-Roorkee) → discovered Vasuki indicus.
Ashok Sahni → veteran palaeontologist highlighting theft issues.
Amateurs & enthusiasts:
Vishal Verma (schoolteacher, M.P.) rescues fossils from riverbeds and hills.
Deposited some finds in govt museums but faced theft and poor protection.
Issue: Individual efforts cannot substitute institutional frameworks.
Risks of Fossil Loss
Scientific loss:
Once fossils are destroyed or sold abroad, they are lost to science.
Weakens India’s contribution to global evolutionary studies.
Cultural loss: Fossils are part of natural heritage, akin to monuments.
Economic loss:
Fossils could enrich geotourism and museums.
Their illegal trade denies India potential cultural economy benefits.
Policy & Legal Gaps
India:
Archaeological Survey of India protects monuments but fossils are largely outside its ambit.
No comprehensive legislation for fossil protection (unlike antiquities, monuments, or wildlife).
Abroad:
U.S., China, and Europe → stricter fossil export laws + public repositories.
India’s Draft Plan:
Proposal for a National Fossil Repository (still not implemented).
Way Forward
Legal framework:
Enact a National Fossil Protection Act to regulate excavation, storage, and trade.
Classify fossils as national heritage objects, akin to antiquities.
Institutional measures:
Establish a National Fossil Repository & Museum Network.
Fast-track cataloguing of existing private collections (e.g., Ranga Rao collection).
Capacity building:
Strengthen training in palaeontology at universities.
Fund fossil excavation and preservation projects.
Public participation:
Encourage citizen science (schoolteachers, local communities) with safeguards.
Awareness campaigns on fossil importance.
Security measures:
Prevent thefts via digital cataloguing, museum security, legal export bans.
About 30% of MPs and MLAs face serious criminal cases
What are “Serious Criminal Charges”?
Definition:
Offences punishable with 5 years or more imprisonment, OR
Non-bailable offences.
Examples: Murder, rape, kidnapping, corruption, extortion, rioting, etc.
Declared in self-sworn affidavits filed by candidates to the Election Commission (mandatory since Supreme Court ruling in ADR vs Union of India, 2002).
Relevance : GS 2(Democracy , Constitution ,Polity)
National Trends
Lok Sabha (2009–2024):
2009 → 14% MPs with serious criminal cases.
2024 → 31% MPs with serious criminal cases (more than doubled).
State Assemblies (2024):
29% MLAs face serious criminal charges (~1,200 MLAs).
Indicates a rising criminalisation of politics.
State-Wise Analysis
MPs (2024):
Telangana → Highest share (71%).
Bihar → 48%.
Uttar Pradesh → Highest absolute number (34 MPs).
MLAs (2024):
Andhra Pradesh → Highest share (56%).
Telangana → 50%.
Uttar Pradesh → Highest absolute number (154 MLAs, 38% of total).
Why does this happen?
Electoral factors:
Candidates with muscle and money power have higher winnability.
Voters sometimes prefer such candidates for “protection” or local influence.
Legal loopholes:
Conviction (not charges) leads to disqualification (Representation of People Act, 1951).
Cases drag for years; candidates contest despite multiple charges.
Party incentives:
Parties prioritise “winnability” over criminal record.
Criminals often fund their own campaigns.
Weak enforcement:
Poor police/judicial capacity → cases pending for decades.
Consequences
Democratic credibility: Declining public faith in institutions.
Governance impact: Policy-making influenced by vested interests.
Rule of law weakened: Lawmakers themselves accused of serious offences.
Institutional capture: Politicians influence police, bureaucracy, and judiciary to delay/derail cases.
Social fabric: Criminalisation linked with rise in violence, caste/communal politics.
Judicial & Institutional Responses
Supreme Court directives:
2013 Lily Thomas case: Convicted legislators disqualified immediately.
2014 SC: Ordered EC to collect affidavits on criminal, financial, educational background.
2020 SC: Ordered parties to publish reasons for giving tickets to candidates with criminal cases (not just winnability).
Election Commission efforts:
Voter awareness campaigns (NOTA, background disclosures).
But limited powers to reject nominations.
Parliamentary inaction:
No comprehensive law passed to debar charge-sheeted candidates (Law Commission 244th Report, 2014 had recommended this).
Way Forward
Legal reforms:
Amend RPA, 1951 to bar candidates with serious charges (framed by court, not just FIRs).
Fast-track courts for speedy disposal of cases against politicians.
Electoral reforms:
State funding of elections to reduce dependence on money-criminal nexus.
Stricter scrutiny of party candidate selection.
Judicial reforms:
De-clog criminal justice system → quick trial and conviction/acquittal.
Political will:
Parties must self-regulate by denying tickets to tainted candidates.
Public pressure:
Civil society + media vigilance.
Voter awareness campaigns against criminal candidates.
What does the new online gaming Act outline?
What is Online Gaming?
Definition: Any game played on an electronic/digital device, operated via internet-based software.
Three Segments (as per the Act):
E-sports → Competitive skill-based games, recognised under National Sports Governance Act, 2025 (e.g., Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto).
Social Gaming → Recreational/educational games with no financial stakes. Govt can promote these under Section 4.
Real Money Games (RMGs) → Games played with payment/fee, with expectation of monetary reward or convertible stakes (tokens, coins, credits).
Examples: Rummy, Poker, Fantasy Cricket, Ludo variants.
Relevance : GS 1(Society) , GS 2(Social Issues ,Governance)
Why was the Bill introduced?
User protection: Govt data → Indians losing ~₹15,000 crore annually on RMGs.
WHO findings: RMGs linked to compulsive behaviour, psychological distress, financial hardship, family disruption.
Social harms: 32 suicide cases (Karnataka, 31 months) linked to gaming addiction.
Financial crimes & frauds:
₹2,000 crore tax evasion (Financial Intelligence Report, 2022).
₹30,000 crore GST evasion (Govt reports).
ED case → Chinese app FIEWIN defrauded Indians of ₹400 crore.
Parliamentary Panel (2023) → Gaming portals linked to terror funding.
Opaque business models: Manipulative algorithms, use of bots, offshore operations bypassing domestic laws.
Key Provisions of the Act
Ban on RMGs & their advertisements.
Penalties:
Offering RMGs / fund transactions → Up to 3 years’ imprisonment, fine up to ₹1 crore, or both.
Unlawful advertisements → Up to 2 years’ imprisonment, fine up to ₹50 lakh, or both.
Offences under BNSS, 2023 → Cognisable & non-bailable.
CERT-IN role: Empowered to block/disable apps; Interpol may be roped in for offshore violators.
No penal action against players (only operators targeted).
Budget allocation: From Consolidated Fund of India for promoting social gaming.
Regulatory Authority: Central Govt to set up a body for recognition, categorisation, and registration of online games.
Regulation vs Federal Structure
Constitutional context:
Entry 34 & 62, State List (Seventh Schedule) → States have jurisdiction over betting and gambling regulation/taxation.
Past state-level actions:
Telangana (2017) → Ban on all online gaming.
Andhra Pradesh (2020) → Ban on online gambling.
Tamil Nadu (2022) → Ban on Poker, Rummy.
Centre’s intervention: Uniform regulation across India, citing financial fraud, money laundering, and digital security.
Economic & Industry Concerns
Industry estimate: Ban may affect 2 lakh jobs across 400+ companies.
GST issues:
2023 → 28% GST imposed on full deposit/entry fee (not just platform commission).
Gaming firms → Claim retrospective taxation unfair, as their platforms are “skill-based”.
Supreme Court stay (2024–25) → On notices issued for GST dues; verdict pending.
Judicial Standpoints
Skill vs chance debate:
SC earlier → Games like Rummy and Fantasy Sports involve substantial skill, not gambling.
Current Act → Treats all RMGs alike (no distinction skill/chance).
Possible constitutional challenge:
Critics argue blanket ban may violate Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Trade & Occupation).
SC may examine proportionality, state vs centre jurisdiction, and whether “games of skill” deserve exemption.
Broader Implications
Social:
May reduce gambling addiction, debt traps, and associated suicides.
But risks pushing users to illegal or offshore apps via VPNs.
Economic:
Potential job losses, slowdown in India’s gaming/start-up ecosystem.
Reduced tax revenues if companies relocate abroad.
Federalism:
Could trigger state-centre tussles over jurisdiction.
Governance & Digital Regulation:
Strengthens role of CERT-IN.
Adds to India’s growing digital regulatory framework (IT Rules, DPDP Act, etc.).
Way Forward
Balanced regulation: Instead of blanket bans, consider age limits, spending caps, parental controls.
Clear distinction: Between skill-based games (Fantasy Sports, Rummy) vs chance-based gambling.
Consumer awareness: Education campaigns on risks of addiction & fraud.
Transparency mandates: Algorithms, fairness audits, disclosure of odds.
Tax clarity: Rational GST framework to avoid litigation.
International cooperation: Tackle offshore firms via treaties and cyber-security collaboration.
Videshi in One’s Own Country: India’s Internal Diasporas
What is Diaspora?
Conventional definition: Diaspora refers to people migrating and settling outside their homeland (international migration).
Internal diaspora: People who migrate within the same country across linguistic, cultural, or regional boundaries.
Example: A Tamilian worker in Surat, a Punjabi trader in Bengaluru.
They may sometimes feel like “videshi” (foreigner) due to cultural and linguistic differences, despite being in India.
Relevance : GS 1(Society)
Size & Scale of India’s Internal Diaspora
Overseas diaspora:
High-Level Committee Report on Indian Diaspora (2001) → 20 million Indians abroad.
Today → over 30 million overseas Indians.
Internal diaspora:
Much larger — estimated at 100+ million people (10%+ of India’s population).
Linguistic groups with highest internal diasporas (2010 data, Census & academic estimates):
Punjabi: 4.3 million
Malayalam: 4.6 million
Tamil: 7.9 million
Telugu: 6.9 million
Gujarati: 4.9 million
Hindi (incl. Bhojpuri, Marwari): 39.1 million
Marathi: 5.5 million
Kannada: 2.9 million
Bengali: 3.6 million
Most dispersed: Punjabi, Malayalam, Tamil.
Least dispersed: Marathi, Kannada, Bengali.
Drivers of Internal Diaspora
Economic migration: Movement for jobs, construction, industries, IT hubs.
Business & trade: Gujarati, Marwari, Sindhi, Telugu traders established across regions.
Education & urbanisation: Movement towards metro cities and educational hubs.
Historical patterns:
“Old” diasporas → e.g., Gujarati traders in Tamil Nadu (centuries-old).
“New” diasporas → e.g., IT professionals in Bengaluru/Hyderabad since 1990s.
Socio-Cultural Dynamics
Language & identity: Migrants may face difficulties in communication and integration.
Community associations: Migrants preserve culture through organisations (e.g., Gujarati Samaj, Telugu Sangham).
Festivals & religion: Adaptation of regional festivals (Durga Puja in Mumbai, Onam in Delhi).
Generational differences:
1st generation → Strong attachment to native culture, limited assimilation.
2nd generation → Greater integration, bilingual/multicultural identity.
Issues & Challenges
Cultural alienation: Some migrants feel treated as “outsiders”.
Language barriers: Can affect access to services, education, employment.
Urban tensions: High inflows into cities → housing shortages, social frictions.
Balancing identities: Preserving cultural roots vs. integrating into local society.
Comparative Lens
Similarities with international diaspora:
Preservation of culture.
Creation of associations.
Challenges in assimilation.
Differences:
Internal diaspora less studied than NRI/PIOs.
Internal migration does not involve legal/visa restrictions.
Global parallel: Telugu diaspora in the U.S. resembles internal Telugu migration (e.g., Andhra → Karnataka).
Implications for India
Democracy & diversity: Internal diasporas highlight India’s pluralism and cultural coexistence.
Federalism: Necessitates accommodative policies for inter-state migrants.
Urbanisation: Migrant inflows reshape demographics of metros (Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru).
National identity: Internal migration fosters both regional pride and pan-Indian identity.
Way Forward
Policy recognition: Acknowledge and study internal diasporas alongside international diaspora.
Inclusive governance: Ensure equitable access to housing, healthcare, education, and language support.
Inter-state cooperation: Create mechanisms for better management of migrant populations.
Cultural sensitisation: Encourage mutual respect between locals and migrants.
Research & academia: Expand diaspora studies to include internal migration for informed policymaking.