Content
Simplified Two-Rate GST Structure
Khelo India Water Sports Festival at Dal Lake, Srinagar
Kerala: India’s First Fully Digitally Literate State
Organ Donation in India & NOTTO’s Advisory on Women
India’s Unregulated Cosmetology Clinics
Planting Trees in Tropics Has Most Positive Climate Impacts
Why Every Tiger Carcass Needs an Autopsy
Why Environmentalists Have Criticised Haryana Govt’s Definition of ‘Forest’
Simplified Two-Rate GST Structure:
Background: GST Basics
GST (Goods and Services Tax) introduced in July 2017 as India’s biggest tax reform.
Aim: Replace multiple indirect taxes (VAT, excise, service tax, etc.) with a “One Nation, One Tax” system.
GST currently has a multi-slab structure:
0% (essential items, food grains)
5% (mass consumption items)
12%
18% (major slab, covers bulk of goods/services)
28% (luxury & sin goods, plus additional cess on items like tobacco, aerated drinks, luxury cars).
Relevance : GS 3(Taxation), GS 2(Governance)
The Current Proposal
Centre’s idea: Simplify GST by removing 12% & 28% slabs → creating a two-rate structure (likely 5% and 18%).
GoM (Group of Ministers) on Rate Rationalisation, headed by Bihar Dy CM Samrat Choudhary, has:
Approved the Centre’s proposal.
Forwarded recommendation to the GST Council.
Next step: GST Council (headed by Union Finance Minister + state FMs) will decide.
Why Two-Rate GST? (Rationale from Basics)
Simplification: Current 5-slab system is complex, leads to disputes & classification issues.
Ease of compliance: Businesses, especially MSMEs, face confusion on rates → simplified GST eases compliance.
Transparency: Fewer slabs → less lobbying & manipulation for favorable tax rates.
International practice: Most countries with VAT/GST have 1–2 standard rates. India’s current system is an exception.
Concerns Highlighted
Revenue Loss for States:
States fear loss of income if higher slab (28%) is removed.
Kerala FM K.N. Balagopal (GoM member) warned that States must be compensated for revenue shortfall.
Luxury & sin goods:
Currently taxed at 28% + cess.
If merged into 18%, revenue may fall and demand may rise (making luxury more affordable).
Equity concern:
A flatter structure risks taxing rich and poor more equally (less progressivity).
Implications of Reform
For Consumers:
Everyday goods may see minor changes depending on reclassification.
Luxury goods may become cheaper if 28% slab is scrapped without cess adjustment.
For Businesses:
Easier invoicing, accounting, fewer classification disputes.
Encourages formalization of MSMEs.
For Government:
Simplification = better compliance, less litigation.
But must balance revenue neutrality vs consumer affordability.
Larger Economic Context
India is eyeing GST 2.0 reforms as:
Compensation cess regime (to cover State revenue losses) ended in June 2022.
GST collections now averaging ₹1.6–1.7 lakh crore/month → suggesting revenue stability.
With economy stabilizing, reform window has opened.
This is part of long-term plan: eventually move to “three-rate GST” (0% for essentials, one standard rate, one higher rate for sin goods).
Challenges Ahead
Political consensus in GST Council:
Requires support of majority of States.
Rich vs poor states have divergent priorities.
Compensation demand: States like Kerala, Punjab may insist on guaranteed compensation formula.
Inflation risk: If restructuring raises rates on mass consumption items, it could trigger inflationary pressure.
Way Forward
Create a Revenue-Neutral Rate (RNR) to ensure States do not lose income.
Retain a sin/luxury cess outside main GST slabs to discourage harmful consumption.
Use technology (AI-driven GSTN analytics) to improve tax compliance → reduce need for higher slabs.
Gradual implementation → start with merging 12% into 18%, then carefully deal with 28%.
Khelo India Water Sports Festival at Dal Lake, Srinagar
Background Context
Khelo India Programme:
Launched in 2018 to revive sports culture in India.
Focus: Grassroots sports + infrastructure + athlete development.
Now expanded into specialized verticals like Khelo India Winter Games (Gulmarg, J&K), Khelo India Para Games, and now Khelo India Water Sports Festival.
Why Water Sports?
India lags in Olympic water sports (rowing, kayaking, canoeing).
Globally, these contribute a high medal share – e.g., 16 medals in canoeing & kayaking alone at the Olympics.
Water bodies like Dal Lake, Vembanad (Kerala), and Tehri Dam (Uttarakhand) offer natural training infrastructure.
Relevance : Facts for Prelims
Key Highlights of the Event
Venue: Dal Lake, Srinagar — chosen for scenic value + natural conditions similar to European water sports hubs.
Participation:
409 athletes from 36 States/UTs.
202 women athletes (≈ 49.4%) → strong gender representation.
Largest contingents: Madhya Pradesh (44), Haryana (37), Odisha (34), Kerala (33).
Events:
24 Olympic events included (14 kayaking & canoeing, 10 rowing).
First open-age national championship, unlike earlier age-specific Khelo India games.
Notable figure:
Bilquis Mir (India’s first Olympic jury member in 2025, from J&K), highlighting local representation.
Significance for Sports Development
Olympic Strategy:
India’s medal tally remains low in Olympics (7 in Tokyo 2020, 6 in Rio 2016).
Sports like athletics, shooting, wrestling, badminton already have focus.
Water sports = untapped medal potential → 16 Olympic medals in canoe/kayak + 14 in rowing.
Regional Development (J&K):
Dal Lake → global branding for Kashmir.
Opportunity for J&K athletes to access professional exposure.
Sport-tourism synergy: Boost to local economy via events + tourism.
Gender Balance:
202 women athletes show deliberate push for inclusivity.
Breaking stereotypes around women in water sports.
Challenges Ahead
Infrastructure Gaps:
Limited number of standard water sports training facilities in India.
Equipment like racing shells, kayaks, coaching expertise often imported.
Talent Pipeline:
Grassroots scouting needed beyond urban/elite athletes.
Need to expand to riverine and coastal states (Kerala, Odisha, Assam, Bengal, Goa).
International Competitiveness:
Countries like Hungary, Germany, Australia dominate water sports.
India needs long-term coaching + exposure trips + scientific training.
Broader Implications
For Sports Policy:
Strengthens India’s diversification into non-traditional sports.
Part of Olympic Vision 2036 (India’s aspiration to host Olympics).
For Tourism & Diplomacy:
Showcases Dal Lake internationally as a sports + tourism venue.
Helps project J&K as stable, safe, and culturally rich.
For Local Communities:
Youth engagement → alternative to militancy and unemployment.
Skill development in allied sectors (boat making, coaching, event management).
Way Forward
Establish National Water Sports Centres at Dal Lake, Vembanad, Tehri, and Brahmaputra.
Provide continuous funding under Khelo India + CSR partnerships.
Build domestic competition circuit (annual leagues in rowing/kayaking).
Forge international tie-ups with European water sports federations.
Create special scholarships for water sports athletes (like TOPS scheme).
Kerala: India’s First Fully Digitally Literate State
What is Digital Literacy?
Definition:
The ability to use digital devices (smartphones, tablets, computers) and the internet for essential tasks.
Includes:
Operating devices, typing, using apps.
Accessing online services (banking, healthcare, education, e-governance).
Safe internet practices (cybersecurity awareness, avoiding fraud).
Difference from literacy:
Traditional literacy = ability to read & write.
Digital literacy = ability to participate effectively in the digital society & economy.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance), Facts for Prelims
Kerala’s Declaration (2025)
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan declared Kerala as India’s first fully digitally literate state.
Part of “Digi Kerala Project” → grassroots-level initiative to bridge digital divide.
Process:
Survey conducted among 1.5 crore people (83.46 lakh families).
21.88 lakh people identified as digitally illiterate.
99.98% of these trained and evaluated successfully → completion of Phase 1.
Symbolic moment: CM video-called a 104-year-old learner, showing inclusiveness.
Why Kerala? – Historical Context
Kerala already has a legacy of highest human development indicators in India.
1991: First state to achieve near-total literacy (through Kerala State Literacy Mission).
Strong base: High literacy, robust local governance (panchayats), and social mobilisation.
Digital literacy now builds upon this legacy → natural progression from literacy → functional literacy → IT literacy → digital literacy.
The Digi Kerala Project
Objective: Ensure no citizen is left behind in digital transformation.
Features:
Training delivered at panchayat/ward level.
Special focus on marginalised groups, elderly, women, and rural households.
Evaluation conducted post-training → not symbolic, but measurable.
Local bodies deeply involved (bottom-up governance).
Outcome: Created a digitally empowered population ready to access e-services.
Why Digital Literacy Matters?
Governance: Accessing welfare schemes, digital health records, ration distribution, Aadhaar-linked services.
Economy: Digital payments, online banking, e-commerce participation.
Education: Use of e-learning platforms, online resources for students.
Healthcare: Telemedicine, online appointments, health insurance.
Social inclusion: Empowering women, elderly, and rural poor.
Cyber safety: Preventing digital frauds & misinformation.
Challenges in Digital Literacy
Infrastructure gaps: Connectivity issues in remote/tribal areas.
Generational divide: Older populations find it harder to adapt.
Affordability: Devices, internet costs may still be barriers.
Quality of training: Risk of superficial training without deeper understanding.
Cybersecurity awareness: Many first-time users vulnerable to scams.
Why Kerala’s Model is Unique
Universal approach: Reached every household → not selective.
Community-driven: Local bodies & social volunteers ensured participation.
Evaluation-based: Declared only after measurable tests (not self-declaration).
Inclusivity: Elderly, women, marginalised included (example: 104-year-old trained).
Sustainability: Sets base for digital governance ecosystem.
National & Global Relevance
For India:
Model for other states → helps in achieving Digital India mission goals.
Bridges rural–urban digital divide.
Strengthens direct benefit transfers, reduces leakages.
Globally:
Kerala showcases how social development + digital push can complement each other.
Comparable to digital literacy models in Nordic countries or Estonia.
Way Forward
Phase 2: Deeper skill-building → coding, advanced digital economy skills.
Cybersecurity literacy: Must be embedded in training.
Device affordability schemes: Subsidies for low-income households.
Continuous upgrading: Tech evolves → periodic re-training needed.
Monitoring: Independent audits of digital literacy levels every 2–3 years.
Organ Donation in India & NOTTO’s Advisory on Women
What is NOTTO?
National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation (NOTTO):
Apex central body under Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
Functions: coordination, regulation, maintaining waiting lists, allocation of organs, and standardising guidelines.
Works under Transplantation of Human Organs & Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994.
Each hospital engaged in organ retrieval or transplantation must link with NOTTO.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Health)
Recent NOTTO Advisory (2024–25)
Issued a 10-point advisory to States & transplant centres.
Key gender-related measure:
Women patients and relatives of deceased donors will get priority in organ allocation.
Aim: address gender disparity in organ donations and transplants.
Other measures in advisory:
Create permanent posts for transplant coordinators in transplant/retrieval hospitals.
Develop organ retrieval facilities in all trauma centres.
Register trauma centres as retrieval centres.
Train emergency responders/ambulance staff to identify potential deceased donors (road accidents, strokes).
Why Women Were Prioritised? – The Gender Disparity
Data (2019–2023, NOTTO):
63.8% of all living organ donors = women.
69.8% of recipients = men.
Numbers:
Donations: 56,509 total → 36,038 by women.
Recipients: only 17,041 women received organs vs 39,447 men.
Pattern:
Women disproportionately act as donors (often for husbands, sons, brothers).
But when women need organs, they are less likely to receive them.
Causes of disparity:
Socio-cultural factors:
Sacrificial role of women in families → more likely to donate.
Male health seen as economic priority → men given preference for transplants.
Financial constraints: families hesitate to fund transplant for women.
Medical neglect: women’s health needs deprioritised in households.
Legal Framework Governing Organ Donation
Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), 1994
Recognised organ donation from living donors & brain-dead donors.
Penalises commercial sale/purchase of organs → imprisonment + fines.
2011 Amendment:
Included donation of tissues (corneas, skin, bones, heart valves).
Implementation:
NOTTO → national apex body.
ROTTO → Regional Organ & Tissue Transplant Organisations.
SOTTO → State Organ & Tissue Transplant Organisations.
Status of Organ Donation in India
Demand–Supply Gap:
~1.8 lakh Indians develop end-stage kidney disease annually.
Only ~12,000 kidney transplants performed per year.
Global comparison (WHO):
1.3 lakh solid organ transplants globally annually.
Meets only 10% of worldwide need.
Potential impact:
1 deceased donor → can save 8 lives through organs + enhance many more through tissues (cornea, skin, heart valves).
Challenges in India
Low awareness: Organ donation not widely discussed in families.
Cultural/religious myths: Fear about afterlife, body mutilation.
Gender bias: Women donors vs men recipients imbalance.
Weak infrastructure: Lack of retrieval centres, transplant coordinators.
Mismatch in appeals vs allocation:
Special appeals increase pledges.
But allocation is still through waiting list priority → no direct transfer to person appealed for.
Why NOTTO’s Step is Significant
Corrective measure: Recognises systemic bias against women in receiving organs.
Equity in healthcare: Moves towards gender-just allocation.
Symbolic value: Sends a strong public message that women’s health is equally important.
Encouragement for donors: Families may feel more reassured that female donors (or their relatives) will also benefit if needed.
Way Forward
Policy reforms:
Enforce NOTTO’s advisory at State & hospital level.
Monitor gender-disaggregated data on donors & recipients annually.
Infrastructure strengthening:
Mandatory transplant coordinators.
Register trauma centres as organ retrieval hubs.
Awareness campaigns:
Public messaging on importance of both genders as recipients.
Bust myths and cultural taboos.
Ethical allocation:
Prioritisation should balance medical urgency, fairness, and gender parity.
Conclusion
India’s organ donation system suffers from a paradox: women donate the most but receive the least. NOTTO’s new advisory giving women priority in organ allocation is a landmark corrective step towards gender equity in healthcare. Yet, for real impact, this must be coupled with better infrastructure, legal enforcement, and sustained awareness campaigns to bridge the massive gap between demand and availability of organs in India.
India’s Unregulated Cosmetology Clinics
Basics – What are Dermatology & Cosmetology?
Dermatology:
Recognised medical specialty under NMC.
Covers diagnosis and treatment of skin, hair, and nail diseases.
Includes medical (eczema, psoriasis, infections) and cosmetic (botox, fillers, transplants, chemical peels) treatments.
Cosmetology:
Non-medical, related to grooming and beauty (makeup, hairstyling, manicures).
Has no clinical or therapeutic component.
In India, the term is misused to mislead the public, making cosmetic salons appear equivalent to medical clinics.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance , Health)
Nature of the Problem
Mushrooming of aesthetic clinics across India with little oversight.
Unqualified practitioners performing invasive procedures (hair transplant, PRP, chemical peels, fillers, botox).
Often unsafe environments: no sterilisation, no infection control, no emergency backup.
Result: Severe complications, permanent disfigurement, and even deaths.
Categories of Unqualified Practitioners
Dentists (BDS/MDS):
Do weekend/online aesthetic courses, then perform complex procedures.
AYUSH practitioners:
Not legally allowed to practise allopathy, but still administer cosmetic treatments.
Completely unqualified individuals:
With fake certifications (₹1–2 lakh) or no medical training at all.
Doctors from unrelated fields:
MBBS or specialists like ophthalmologists, general surgeons, practising dermatology without training.
Case Studies Highlighting the Dangers
Kochi case (Hair transplant gone wrong):
Patient developed necrotising fasciitis (flesh-eating bacterial infection).
Multiple grafts/surgeries, skull exposed, finances ruined, lifelong trauma.
Andhra Pradesh case (Fake PRP treatment):
Patient paid ₹3.5 lakh.
“PRP” done without drawing blood.
Given unlabelled steroid creams → led to topical steroid withdrawal.
Severe burning, scaling, long-term skin damage.
These cases show life-threatening risks + exploitation of vulnerable patients, especially women.
Scope of the Problem
Market size:
Indian wellness market = $2.5 billion (2024).
Projected to grow to $4 billion by 2033 (IMARC Group).
Drivers:
Rising middle class, beauty-conscious youth.
Social media influence & K-beauty/global trends.
Misperception: “cosmetic procedures are easy and safe.”
Dangerous practices:
Clinics not tied to secondary/tertiary hospitals → no emergency backup.
Use of unlabelled/steroid-based creams without disclosure.
Fake advertising (e.g., “Hair in 7 days”, “Skin whitening in 10 days”).
Regulatory & Institutional Failures
National Medical Commission (NMC):
Guidelines exist → only qualified medical practitioners allowed.
Enforcement weak.
Conflict of jurisdiction:
NMC vs Dental Council of India on whether dentists can do aesthetics.
Creates loopholes.
State failures:
Kerala Clinical Establishments Act not fully implemented → many clinics untracked.
Limited inspections, weak follow-up.
Lack of oversight:
No dedicated regulatory body for aesthetic centres.
Few police investigations or license cancellations → not enough to deter quacks.
Professional & Civil Society Action
IADVL (Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists, Leprologists):
Running anti-quackery campaigns.
Karnataka chapter (1,525 members) submitted memorandum to State Council for public warnings.
Created doctor WhatsApp groups to verify suspicious prescriptions.
State medical councils (e.g., Telangana):
Started inspections.
Action under NMC Act Sections 34 & 54 (impersonation + unlawful practice).
Limitations:
Quacks now use prescriptions in others’ names → harder to catch.
Enforcement patchy and reactive.
Consequences
Medical:
Severe infections (necrotising fasciitis), blindness (from wrong filler use), permanent scars.
Steroid withdrawal syndrome, skin barrier collapse.
Psychological:
Trauma, body image issues, loss of confidence.
Economic:
Patients pay exorbitant fees (sometimes 10x the rate of qualified dermatologists).
Families pushed into debt after botched procedures.
Public trust erosion:
Confusion between genuine dermatologists and self-styled “cosmetologists.”
Solutions & Way Forward
Regulatory reforms:
Stricter licensing of clinics.
Mandatory tie-ups with tertiary hospitals for emergencies.
Periodic inspections and audits.
Dedicated law:
Separate legal framework for aesthetic medicine & cosmetology clinics.
Penalties for impersonation, fake advertising, and malpractice.
Professional accountability:
Stronger role of State medical councils & NMC.
Fast-track complaints system.
Awareness & consumer protection:
Patients must verify doctors’ qualifications.
Ads must mandatorily disclose practitioner’s registration number.
Public awareness campaigns (“If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is”).
Curbing quackery:
Ban short-term cosmetic “certifications.”
Crackdown on fake institutes selling medical-sounding diplomas.
Planting Trees in Tropics Has Most Positive Climate Impacts
Background
Climate change mitigation relies heavily on carbon sequestration through trees.
All trees help absorb CO₂, but where they are planted determines their effectiveness.
The new study (npj Climate Action, University of California) finds tropical regions most effective for climate benefits.
Relevance: GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
Key Findings
Higher carbon uptake: Tropics = year-round growth → higher photosynthesis & biomass.
Evapotranspiration effect: Trees cool the atmosphere by releasing water vapour.
Like sweating in humans – reduces local/regional temperatures.
Solar radiation absorption: Trees reduce amount of sunlight hitting Earth’s surface → cooling effect.
Fire resistance: Tropical savannas & trees more resistant to fire than grasses.
Comparative impact: Planting in tropics > planting in temperate regions for climate benefits.
Significance for India
India lies in the tropical belt → high potential for nature-based climate solutions.
Supports India’s NDC commitments (Paris Agreement).
Contributes to afforestation goals under schemes like National Afforestation Programme and Green India Mission.
Direct link to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
Challenges / Limitations
Monoculture plantations may reduce biodiversity despite carbon gains.
Land conflicts: afforestation vs agriculture/habitation.
Maintenance: Without community participation, plantations often fail.
Ecological mismatch: Planting non-native species can harm local ecosystems.
Way Forward / Policy Suggestions
Prioritise tropical afforestation & agroforestry.
Focus on native species for biodiversity + resilience.
Link with carbon markets / climate finance to fund large-scale plantation.
Community-based forest management to ensure protection and maintenance.
Why Every Tiger Carcass Needs an Autopsy
Background
India has ~3,167 tigers (All India Tiger Estimation 2022) – >70% of global population.
Tiger deaths are closely monitored under Project Tiger (1973) and NTCA (National Tiger Conservation Authority).
Each carcass is critical evidence for conservation, anti-poaching, and disease monitoring.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology) , GS 2(Governance)
Why Autopsy (Postmortem) is Necessary
Forensic evidence: Determines cause of death (natural, poaching, poisoning, infighting).
Legal accountability: Tiger = Schedule I species under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 → highest protection.
Early warning system: Identifies outbreaks (canine distemper, epidemics).
Territorial insights: Infighting among tigers is common – carcasses reveal patterns.
Procedure after Discovery
Field staff must immediately report carcass to divisional forest officer, range officer, and NTCA.
Scene secured, photographs & videos taken, evidence collected (teeth marks, wounds, location, GPS).
Postmortem conducted by vet in presence of officials, local NGOs, NTCA.
Samples of tissue, organs, viscera collected for lab tests.
If postmortem not possible onsite, carcass preserved → later detailed exam.
Carcass disposal: Cremated in presence of officials; bones burnt to prevent misuse (illegal trade).
Challenges
Delayed reporting → carcass decomposes, weakens evidence.
Capacity gaps: Not enough trained wildlife vets, forensic labs.
Possible cover-ups: Local staff sometimes collude to hide negligence/poaching.
Weak monitoring in buffer zones outside protected areas.
Significance for Conservation
Maintains transparency in tiger conservation.
Strengthens India’s global image as a leader in big cat conservation.
Prevents illegal wildlife trade (bones, skins highly valued in black markets).
Ensures accountability of forest staff.
Way Forward
Strengthen NTCA protocols – faster reporting, digital monitoring.
Build wildlife forensic labs at regional levels.
Train forest staff in wildlife crime scene management.
Enhance community vigilance near reserves.
Integrate technology: drones, camera traps for better carcass detection.
Why Environmentalists Have Criticised Haryana Govt’s Definition of ‘Forest’
Why definition of ‘forest’ matters
India’s governance of forests rests on Constitutional, legal, and judicial frameworks:
Article 48A (Directive Principles): State shall protect & improve the environment and safeguard forests & wildlife.
Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty): Every citizen must protect environment & wildlife.
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA): Restricts diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without Central approval.
Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Environment Protection Act, 1986: Strengthen conservation.
Key Issue: India never had a single, universal, statutory definition of “forest”.
Forests could mean Reserved Forests, Protected Forests, or Unclassified Forests (as per Indian Forest Act, 1927).
But large areas (scrubland, grasslands, community forests) remained outside formal records.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology)
Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgments
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996 onwards)
SC ruled that “forest” must be understood not just by official records but by dictionary meaning.
Any land that fits dictionary meaning of forest—irrespective of ownership (private or govt)—is to be treated as forest and covered under FCA, 1980.
Led to a pan-India freeze on diversion of forest land unless approved by Centre.
Empowered judiciary to monitor deforestation through Centrally Empowered Committee (CEC).
Impact of Godavarman:
Vast tracts of ecologically important land brought under “forest” protection.
States required to prepare “identification reports” and submit forest maps.
Haryana Government’s 2025 Notification
New Definition issued by Haryana’s Environment & Forests Department:
“A patch of land shall be deemed a forest if it has a minimum area of 1 hectare, is a minimum area contiguous with government-notified forests, and has a canopy density of 0.4 (40%) or more.”
Exclusions:
Lands smaller than 1 hectare.
Open forests (with <40% canopy cover).
Scrublands, wetlands, and fragmented green patches.
State’s Argument:
Brings clarity, avoids confusion in development projects.
Provides objective parameters (area + canopy density) for classification.
Criticism from Environmentalists & Experts
Contradicts Supreme Court orders:
Godavarman explicitly avoided rigid thresholds (area or canopy density).
Haryana’s rule narrows the scope, defying SC’s broader interpretation.
May amount to prima facie contempt of court.
Ecological Concerns:
Biodiversity Loss: Excludes scrublands, grasslands, wetlands, which are home to endangered species (e.g., sarus crane, leopard, nilgai, reptiles).
Habitat Fragmentation: Many smaller forest patches serve as wildlife corridors connecting larger forests (critical in Aravallis). Exclusion threatens connectivity.
Climate Vulnerability: Haryana already has one of the lowest forest covers in India (~3.6%). Further reduction will harm carbon sequestration, rainfall regulation, and groundwater recharge.
High threshold problem:
1 hectare + 40% canopy rule sets the bar too high, leaving many ecologically important but degraded areas unprotected.
This is contrary to India’s National Forest Policy, 1988, which emphasises restoring degraded forests.
Political-Economic Angle:
Critics argue move favours real estate developers, mining, and infrastructure projects, especially in ecologically fragile Aravalli Hills.
Dilution could open up land for commercial exploitation under the guise of “not forest”.
Reactions
Retired IFS officers: Warned that this violates SC rulings and international commitments (CBD, UNFCCC).
NGOs & Environmentalists: Filed objections; likely to challenge notification in Supreme Court & NGT.
National Green Tribunal (NGT) in past has repeatedly struck down similar state-level dilutions (e.g., Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka cases).
Wider Implications
Legal Precedent Risk: If Haryana’s move stands, other states may follow, weakening Godavarman framework built over 3 decades.
Impact on International Climate Commitments:
India’s NDC (Paris Agreement): Create additional carbon sinks of 2.5–3 billion tonnes CO₂ eq. by 2030 via afforestation.
Narrowing forest definition undermines this target.
Federal Tension:
Forests are in Concurrent List (7th Schedule).
State decisions must comply with Centre’s FCA 1980 & SC rulings. Haryana’s unilateral move could trigger Centre–State legal conflict.