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