Content

1. Savings shift reshapes India’s markets
2. Narco Tests
3. Why human-rating matters as India prepares for Gaganyaan
4. DPIIT signals Copyright Act changes to address AI issues
5. Mexico imposes 50% tariffs on Indian and other Asian imports
6. 2,805 deaths while awaiting organ transplants since 2020

---

Savings shift reshapes India’s markets

---

 Why is it in news?

• NSE Market Pulse (2025) reports a major structural shift: domestic household savings (direct equity, MFs, SIPs) are now replacing Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs) as the dominant force in Indian capital markets.
• FPI ownership:
  • 16.9% of total equities
  • 24.1% in NIFTY 50
• Domestic investors now hold ~19%, the highest in over 20 years.
• This shift:
  • Improves market stability by reducing reliance on volatile global flows.
  • Brings millions of new retail investors into markets — many without adequate financial literacy.
• Raises concerns on inclusive growth, investor protection, inequality, corporate governance, and policy preparedness for Viksit Bharat 2047.

Relevance

GS3 – Economy

• Capital market deepening
• Household savings behaviour
• Financialisation
• FPI flows vs domestic flows
• IPO markets, valuation discipline
• Implications for inclusive growth

GS3 – Financial sector reforms

• Passive investing
• Investor protection norms
• SEBI regulatory design
• Corporate governance

What is happening in India’s capital markets?

Declining FPI dominance

• Historically, FPIs moved markets; their exits triggered volatility.
• Their ownership share has declined sharply, reaching a 15-month low.

Rise of domestic savings

• Mutual fund AUM hitting new highs.
• SIP inflows at record levels.
• Retail investors emerging as the new market anchor.

What enabled this shift?

• Digital investment platforms.
• Low-ticket SIPs; demat penetration.
• Low inflation (CPI: 0.3% YoY in Oct) → higher real returns.
• Strong macroeconomic stability.

Policy implications

• Lower dependence on foreign inflows →
  • RBI gets greater flexibility.
  • Less pressure to defend the rupee.
  • Can focus on domestic credit expansion and the growth–inflation balance.

But stability depends on broad participation, not a narrow investor base.

The market structure shift: why it matters

Lower volatility

• Domestic support acts as a buffer against FPI outflows.
• October NIFTY rally was driven primarily by domestic buying.

Boom in primary markets

• FY25: 71 IPOs, raising ₹1 lakh crore+.
• Investment announcements: ₹32 lakh crore, up 39% YoY.
• Private sector share: ~70% of proposed investments.

But valuations are rising faster than fundamentals in some segments.

Emerging risks: unequal participation and limited returns

Unequal access

• Higher participation in:
  • Urban regions
  • Higher-income households
  • Areas with formal financial infrastructure
• Women, rural citizens, lower-income groups remain marginal.

“Performance problem” in active funds

• Most active funds fail to beat the index after adjusting for:
  • Risk
  • Fees
• New investors unknowingly pay high charges for poor relative performance.

IPO overvaluation

Examples: Lenskart, Mamaearth, Nykaa.

• High P/E multiples → risk of losses for retail subscribers.

Decline in household equity wealth

• Q4: fall of ₹2.6 lakh crore.
• Concentrated losses among vulnerable investors undermine:
  • Trust
  • Inclusivity
  • Consumption demand (due to lower MPC)

The inequality dimension

Who benefits?

• Gains accrue mainly to:
  • Higher-income households
  • Those with better financial acumen
  • Urban and already economically secure groups

Wealth concentration reduces demand

• High-income households save more and consume less → weakens overall demand.

Inclusive growth at risk

• Markets may become stable but unequal without safeguards.

The access asymmetry problem

Today’s system emphasises:

• Disclosure over actual protection
• Participation over meaningful capacity
• Volume over equitable outcomes

Needed shifts

• From “more investors” → “safer investors”
• From expensive active schemes → low-cost passive/index funds

Current imbalance

• Active funds: 9% of market
• Passive funds: 1%

This skews outcomes against small investors.

Corporate governance concerns

• Promoter holding in NIFTY 50 at a 23-year low (40%).
• Must ensure:
  • Genuine capital raising — not promoter exit-driven dilution
  • Strong disclosure and transparency norms
  • Protection of domestic savers’ long-term value

What India must do next — policy directions

Strengthen investor protection

• Suitability norms
• Anti–mis-selling regulations
• Risk-adjusted performance disclosure

Expand passive investment

• Reduce expense ratios
• Promote index funds through NPS, EPFO, PMJDY-linked products

Deepen financial literacy

Target groups:

• Rural households
• Women
• Youth
• First-time investors

Improve corporate governance

• Stricter disclosure
• Monitor promoter selling
• Address IPO pricing excesses

Use data-driven policy

• Gender-disaggregated data
• Location-specific investment trends
• Income-linked participation gaps

F. Maintain market integrity

• Monitor bubbles
• Regulate overvalued IPOs
• Encourage long-term investing culture

---

Narco Tests

---

Why is it in news?

• The Supreme Court has set aside a Patna High Court order (Amlesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2025) that permitted a forced narco test.
• The Court reaffirmed that any involuntary narco-analysis test is unconstitutional, violating:
  • Article 20(3) – protection against self-incrimination
  • Article 21 – right to life, privacy and autonomy
• SC held the High Court order to be contrary to Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010), the landmark judgment regulating narco, polygraph and brain-mapping tests.

Relevance

GS2 – Constitution & Polity

• Article 20(3), Article 21, Right to Privacy
• Selvi 2010 guidelines
• Limits of police power
• Due process and fair procedure

GS3 – Internal Security / Criminal Justice

• Investigative tools vs constitutional safeguards
• Ethical boundaries in criminal investigations

What is a narco test?

• A narco test involves administering barbiturates such as Sodium Pentothal to induce a sedated, trance-like state.
• Purpose: to reduce inhibitions, weaken reasoning ability, and encourage disclosure of suppressed or concealed information.
• It is part of “scientific investigative techniques”, similar to:
  • Polygraph (lie detector)
  • Brain mapping (BEAP test)

Key point: It is a non-invasive but intrusive psychological intervention that manipulates the mental state of an individual.

Why are narco tests constitutionally problematic?

Article 20(3) – Right against self-incrimination

• No person accused of an offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
• Narco tests can extract involuntary verbal responses, violating mental privacy and autonomy.
• SC: Without free, voluntary and informed consent, the test is unconstitutional.

Article 21 – Right to life, personal liberty and privacy

• Includes bodily integrity, mental autonomy, and right to privacy (Puttaswamy 2017).
• Forcibly altering a person’s mental state is a grave intrusion into liberty and human dignity.
• Any state action affecting personal liberty must follow just, fair and reasonable procedure (Maneka Gandhi, 1978).

The “Golden Triangle”: Art 14–19–21

• Violation of privacy and consent = violation of life and liberty, which affects equality and freedom as well.
• Narco tests without consent fall outside constitutionally permissible limits.

Democratic criminal justice principles

• Indian justice system must balance:
  • Victim’s right to justice
  • Accused’s right to liberty
• Forced narco tests tilt the balance towards coercive state power, undermining due process.

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): The governing framework

Selvi is the controlling precedent; the Court held:

No compulsory administration

• Narco-analysis, polygraph, brain-mapping cannot be conducted without informed consent.

Consent must be:

• Free, voluntary, informed
• Recorded before a judicial magistrate
• Accompanied by legal and medical safeguards

Test results are not standalone evidence

• They may only give investigative leads.
• Any information extracted must be independently corroborated.

Protects mental privacy

• “The mind is the ultimate repository of personal freedom.”
• The state cannot forcibly access it.

The recent judgment reaffirms that Selvi binds all courts.

Evidentiary value: What have courts held?

Manoj Kumar Saini v. State of MP (2023)

• Narco results cannot confirm guilt.
• They are at best investigative clues.

Vinobhai v. State of Kerala (2025)

• Information from narco must be corroborated by other evidence.
• The test does not have probative evidentiary value on its own.

Supreme Court’s position

• Test permissible only when voluntarily undertaken.
• Cannot substitute proper investigation.
• Results cannot be treated as confessions or admissions.
• No “indefeasible right” to demand such tests — even voluntary requests fall under judicial scrutiny.

Can an accused volunteer for a narco test?

Yes — but with strict conditions:

• Voluntary request allowed only at defence evidence stage, under Section 253 of BNSS.
• Magistrate must ensure:
  • Free and informed consent
  • Understanding of implications
  • Medical and legal safeguards

Even voluntary tests do not guarantee admissible evidence unless corroborated.

Ethical foundations: Why consent matters

Autonomy and natural justice

• Informed consent flows from individual autonomy — a core moral principle.
• Immanuel Kant: an act is ethical only when performed with consent.
• Forced narco tests undermine:
  • Human dignity
  • Mental freedom
  • Bodily and psychological integrity

Forced truth extraction violates human rights norms

• International legal philosophy rejects coercive interrogation.
• UN principles also discourage techniques manipulating consciousness.

Does banning involuntary narco tests weaken investigations?

No. SC emphasises:

• Investigative efficiency cannot override constitutional rights.
• Narco tests:
  • Are not reliable
  • Are prone to suggestion, hallucination, false narratives
  • Cannot replace evidence-based investigation
• The police must rely on:
  • Forensics
  • Material evidence
  • Witness statements
  • Digital trails

Narco-analysis remains a supplementary, not primary, tool.

---

Why human-rating matters as India prepares for Gaganyaan

---

Why is it in news?

• As India prepares for its first human spaceflight under Gaganyaan, the process of human-rating the LVM-3 rocket has become central to mission readiness.
• ISRO is upgrading LVM-3 to HLVM-3, incorporating redundancy, fault tolerance, crew safety systems, and extensive qualification tests.
• The article explains what human-rating means, why it is complex, and how global agencies certify their launch systems.
• This marks India’s entry into the league of nations capable of launching humans into space, requiring the highest safety standards.

Relevance

GS3 – Science & Technology

• Human spaceflight, launch vehicle engineering
• Risk management, redundancy design
• Cryogenic propulsion, escape systems

GS3 – Indigenisation & Strategic Tech

• Atmanirbhar Bharat in space
• Indigenous capability for human spaceflight
• Technology sovereignty

What is human-rating?

Human-rating is the engineering, testing, and certification process that ensures a launch vehicle and spacecraft are safe enough to carry humans.

Key features

• Establishes an acceptable level of risk.
  • NASA threshold: 0.2% probability of catastrophic loss of crew during ascent/descent (1 in 500).
• Ensures the system can tolerate failures and still protect astronauts.

Core requirements

• Redundant systems (triple/quadruple redundant flight computers).
• Crew Escape System (CES): must work instantly at any point during ascent.
• Fault tolerance: vehicle must survive and recover from single-point failures.
• Environmental control and life support system (ECLSS).
• Extensive qualification and documentation far beyond that required for cargo rockets.

Human-rating is not just hardware modification; it is a systems-level safety philosophy.

Why is human-rating so challenging?

Extreme launch environment

• Rocket must accelerate to 28,000 km/h in 8–10 minutes.
• Experiences:
  • High vibration
  • Severe acoustic loads
  • Maximum dynamic pressure (Max-Q)
  • Rapid staging events

Zero tolerance for failure

• Cargo missions can fail without loss of life; human missions cannot.
• Airplanes have backup landing options and glide capability; rockets do not.

Reliability standards

• Best orbital launch vehicles: 98–99.5% success rate.
• Commercial aviation: 1 fatal accident per 10–20 million flights — far safer.

Added mass & complexity

• Redundant systems and escape mechanisms:
  • Increase mass → reduce payload capability
  • Introduce potential new failure modes
  • Increase development cost and documentation burden

High cost

• Human-rating can multiply overall mission cost by 1.5–3×.

Human-rating therefore demands a shift from “mission success” to “crew survival at all costs.”

Which global launch vehicles are human-rated?

Operational today

• Russia’s Soyuz-2
• China’s Long March 2F
• SpaceX Falcon 9 + Crew Dragon

Near-operational / undergoing certification

• ULA Atlas V with Boeing Starliner
  • Completed crewed test flight (2024), awaits formal certification.
• NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS)
  • Human-rated, flew uncrewed Artemis I; first crewed flight upcoming.

Reliability records

• Soyuz: ~150 crewed missions since 1967; two early fatal missions; 100% crew survival since 1971.
• Space Shuttle: 135 missions, 133 successes (98.5%); two catastrophic failures.
• Crew Dragon (Falcon 9): 20 crewed orbital flights → 100% success.

Why aren’t all launch vehicles human-rated?

High cost of certification

• Requires:
  • Structural strengthening
  • Redundancies
  • Software certification
  • Safety assurance processes
  • Abort systems

Reduced performance

• More mass → lower payload to orbit.

Different mission priorities

• Cargo rockets maximise:
  • Cost-efficiency
  • Payload capacity
• Human-rating would make them uneconomical.

Added complexity

• Each additional system is a potential failure point.

Hence, only nations with sustained human spaceflight programmes invest in human-rating.

Human-rating for Gaganyaan: ISRO’s upgrades to LVM-3

LVM-3 → HLVM-3 (Human-rated LVM-3)

Modifications and upgrades

• Crew Escape System (CES) for rapid abort during ascent.
• Enhanced redundancy in avionics and flight computers.
• Strengthened engines: Vikas (liquid), C25 cryogenic stage, S200 solid boosters.
• Greater subsystem reliability through qualification tests.
• Fault tolerance built into critical components.
• Improved quality assurance & documentation, aligned with global standards.

Why LVM-3 was chosen

• Track record of seven consecutive successful orbital flights (including Chandrayaan-3).
• Fully indigenous propulsion architecture → strategic autonomy under Atmanirbhar Bharat.
• Highest payload capability in ISRO’s fleet.

Who certifies human-rating? Global frameworks

NASA

• Sets human-rating standards for:
  • SLS
  • SpaceX Crew Dragon
  • Boeing Starliner
• FAA licenses launch operations but does not certify crew safety.

China

• Certification by China Manned Space Agency (CMSA).

Russia

• Roscosmos certifies Soyuz rockets and spacecraft.

India (ISRO)

• Human-rating certification conducted internally through:
  • Human Space Flight Centre (HSFC)
  • Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC)
  • Committee of national aerospace experts
• Final safety approval is issued only after:
  • Flight tests
  • Uncrewed demonstrations
  • Abort test success

How successful are human-rated rockets historically?

Soyuz

• ~150 crewed missions
• Two early fatalities (1967, 1971)
• 100% crew safety since 1971
• Crew escape system saved astronauts in 1975, 1983, 2018

Space Shuttle

• 133 successes / 135 missions (98.5%)
• Two catastrophic losses (1986, 2003)

Falcon 9 + Crew Dragon

• 20/20 crewed missions successful
• Most reliable active human-rated system

Long March 2F + Shenzhou

• 16 crewed missions; mostly successful
• One 2025 incident: Shenzhou-20 damaged by space debris (crew evacuated safely)

---

DPIIT signals Copyright Act changes to address AI issues

---

Why is it in news?

• The Union Government has indicated that major amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 will be introduced within three years to address challenges arising from AI training and Generative AI (GenAI).
• The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) released a working paper proposing:
  • A blanket licensing framework for AI data scraping.
  • Creation of a Copyright Royalties Collective for AI Training (CRCAT) to collect and distribute royalties to content owners.
• This comes amid global legal disputes between AI firms (OpenAI, Google, Meta) and publishers alleging unauthorized use of copyrighted content for AI model training.
• Indian industry body Nasscom dissented, warning that the proposal may impose an unworkable burden of proof on AI developers.

Relevance

GS2 – Governance & Policy

• Regulatory challenges of emerging technologies
• Balancing innovation with rights protection
• Role of state in digital economy governance

GS3 – Economy, Technology & IPR

• Copyright law
• Digital economy
• AI governance
• Tech policy reforms

Why Is Copyright Relevant to AI?

How AI training works

• Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Gemini, LLaMA etare trained on:
  • News articles
  • Books
  • Websites
  • Social media
  • Public datasets
• This training copies, stores, and analyses massive amounts of text → raises copyright issues.

The conflict

• Publishers claim:
  • AI companies profit from their content without permission or payment.
• AI companies claim:
  • Training use is “fair use” (in some jurisdictions).
  • Output is transformative, not reproducing the original text.

This legal ambiguity is what India seeks to resolve.

What DPIIT Proposes ?

Blanket Licensing Framework

• AI developers can legally crawl/scrape publicly available content.
• But they must pay royalties when the model is commercialised.
• Payments made via CRCAT, a central copyright society.

Role of CRCAT

• Collect royalties from AI firms.
• Distribute them to content owners:
  • News publishers
  • Digital platforms
  • Website owners
  • Other copyright holders

Opt-out debate

• Big Tech firms argue publishers should be able to opt out of AI training.
• DPIIT’s blanket licensing is effectively opt-out–resistant.

Future Paper

The next DPIIT working paper will examine:

• Whether AI-generated works are copyrightable.
• Who should be treated as the author:
  • AI system?
  • Human prompting the system?
  • AI developer?

Why Are Amendments Needed?

Current law does not address AI training

• Copyright Act, 1957 predates AI.
• Key gaps:
  • Does training = copying?
  • Is scraping allowed without permission?
  • Who owns AI-generated content?

Global litigation pressures

• ANI (India), New York Times (U.S.), and others have sued AI firms for unlicensed usage and “regurgitation”.

India wants legal clarity

• Protect content creators.
• Enable AI innovation.
• Create certainty for investors and startups.

Objections from Tech Companies

Big Tech firms and Nasscom raise several concerns:

Burden of proof reversed

• Normally:
  • Content owner must prove infringement.
• DPIIT model implies:
  • AI developer must prove they did not use someone’s content.
• For probabilistic models, proving non-use is technically impossible.

Running cost increases

• Royalty payments may raise entry barriers for startups.

Blanket licensing may trigger global disputes

• Because different jurisdictions treat training data differently.

Unpredictable liabilities

• If outputs resemble copyrighted text, developers may face legal exposure.

Legal and Ethical Dimensions

Fair Use vs. Copyright Infringement

• India does not have U.S.-style broad “fair use”.
• Indian law relies on “fair dealing”, which is narrower.

Transparency & accountability

• AI models trained on copyrighted text must disclose:
  • Whether they used copyrighted material.
  • Nature of data sources.

Moral rights

• Indian copyright protects:
  • Attribution
  • Integrity of work
    AI-generated transformations may impact these rights.

Creator livelihood protection

• Especially for:
  • News publishers
  • Photographers
  • Writers
  • Digital platforms

Global Context

EU Artificial Intelligence Act

• Requires:
  • Training data disclosure
  • Copyright-compliant datasets

UK & Japan

• More liberal; allow text and data mining.

U.S.

• Ongoing lawsuits; no clear legislative framework yet.

India

• Seeking middle path:
  • Enable AI innovation
  • Protect content owners
  • Create licensing infrastructure

Key Challenges 

Identifying data sources

• AI developers often lack logs at granular level.

Valuation of royalties

• How to price data contribution?
• How to assess relative importance?

Preventing monopolies

• Blanket licensing might entrench only big players.

Enforcement

• Hard to track whether developers used Indian content.

Grey area: Publicly available vs. Public domain

• Availability ≠ copyright-free.

Way Forward  

Layered licensing regime

• Allow:
  • Free use for research and academic training
  • Royalty-based use for commercial LLMs

Clear opt-out mechanisms

• Allow publishers to block crawlers.

Mandatory transparency disclosures

• Training data sources
• Model architecture
• Safety evaluations

Royalty calculation standards

• Views per article
• Weight of content
• Model size & commercial use

Strengthen India’s copyright society infrastructure

• Efficient distribution
• Dispute resolution
• Audit mechanisms

F. Protect Indian startups

• Tiered royalty slabs
• Exemptions for early-stage models

---

Mexico imposes 50% tariffs on Indian and other Asian imports

---

 Why is it in news?

• The Mexican Senate has approved 50% import tariffs on cars and hundreds of items from India, China, and other Asian economies that do not have trade agreements with Mexico.
• This follows the U.S. imposing steep tariffs on Chinese and certain Indian goods, which has redirected trade flows toward Mexico — causing concerns in Mexican policy circles.
• India’s exports to Mexico—especially vehicles, auto components, machinery, chemicals, and nuclear reactors—face significant disruption.
• The tariffs come into force in January 2026, threatening India’s growing auto-export market and complicating its supply chains dependent on North America.

Relevance

GS2 – International Relations

• Trade disputes
• Diplomacy in economic policy
• Impact of U.S.-Mexico-China interactions on India

GS3 – Economy

• Export competitiveness
• Tariff impact on industries
• Protectionism and global trade dynamics
• Supply chain relocation

What exactly has Mexico done?

Tariff Decision

• Mexico has imposed:
  • 50% tariff on passenger cars
  • Tariffs on hundreds of other items from countries without trade agreements with Mexico.
• Affects India, China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others.

Why Mexico Can Do This

• Mexico’s trade architecture is dominated by:
  • USMCA (U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement)
  • Few FTAs with Asian nations
• Countries without FTAs receive non-preferential MFN tariffs, which Mexico is now sharply increasing.

India’s Export Exposure

Top Indian exports to Mexico (Apr–Sep 2025):

• Vehicles & parts – $985.75 million
• Electric machinery – $316.06 million
• Nuclear reactors & parts – $284.61 million
• Organic chemicals – $163.55 million

Total India–Mexico trade is ~$15 bn annually.

Why has Mexico imposed these tariffs? 

Protecting Domestic Industry

• Mexico seeks to shield:
  • Local automobile industry
  • Electronics and machinery producers

Given rising Asian imports, Mexican industry groups lobbied strongly for protection.

Response to Rising Asian Shipments

• In 2024–25, exports from India and China surged, partly due to:
  • Diversion of supply after U.S. tariffs on China/India
  • Indian automakers scaling shipments (compact cars, parts) via Mexico to the Americas

Revenue Generation

• Mexico aims to raise ₹37.6 billion additional revenue over three years through tariffs.

Anti-circumvention of U.S. Tariffs

• U.S. fears “tariff-jumping”:
  Chinese/Asian goods entering U.S. via Mexico.
• Mexico is tightening controls to:
  • Preserve USMCA
  • Avoid retaliation from the U.S.

Political & Electoral Pressure

• Strong lobbying by:
  • Mexican auto workers’ unions
  • Local manufacturers
  • Populist political constituencies

 Economic impact on India

Major Impact on Auto Exports

• India exports close to $1 billion worth of small cars and auto components to Mexico annually.
• Cars designed for Mexico may now become commercially unviable.
• 50% tariff sharply reduces price competitiveness.

Potential Loss of Market Share

• Indian exporters may lose to:
  • U.S. manufacturers
  • European OEMs
  • Mexico-based assemblers
  • Korean and Japanese firms with FTAs

Disruption to Supply Chain Linkages

• Several Indian component suppliers feed into:
  • Mexican assembly lines
  • North American EV ecosystem
• Tariffs could disrupt these supply chains.

Industry Reaction

• SIAM (Society of Indian Automobile Manufacturers) has flagged:
  • Threat to India’s competitive position
  • Need for urgent diplomatic outreach

Possible Decline in 2026 Exports

• Projections indicate a 10–15% fall in India’s Mexico-bound auto exports if tariffs remain.

Wider geopolitical context

U.S.–China–India Trade Rivalry

• U.S. has imposed tariffs on:
  • EVs
  • Batteries
  • Autos
  • Steel/aluminium
• Asian firms redirecting exports to Mexico are now being blocked.

Mexico’s Alignment with U.S. Interests

• To avoid violating USMCA, Mexico must prevent:
  • Transshipment
  • Duty evasion
  • Over-reliance on Asian imports

Latin American Protectionism Rising

• Other Latin American countries may consider similar measures.

Implications for India’s policy and industry

Need for Trade Negotiations

• India requires:
  • A bilateral trade dialogue
  • Market access guarantees
  • Sector-specific tariff relief

Reorientation Toward Other Markets

• Indian automakers may divert supply to:
  • Southeast Asia
  • Africa
  • Middle East
  • Latin America (non-Mexico)

Opportunities to Localise in Mexico

• Indian firms may consider:
  • Setting up local assembly
  • Joint ventures
  • CKD/SKD pathways to bypass tariffs

Strengthening India’s Domestic Competitiveness

• Tariffs highlight need for:
  • Higher R&D spending
  • EV competitiveness
  • Stronger supply-chain integration

What happens next?

Monitoring U.S.–Mexico–India Triangle

• Further U.S. tariffs could trigger more countries to adopt protectionist measures.

India’s Diplomatic Strategy

• Inter-ministerial discussions (MEA, Commerce) underway.
• India may seek:
  • Transitional relief
  • Carve-outs for EVs or small cars
  • Lower tariffs on intermediate goods

Industry-level Adjustments

• Carmakers may revise:
  • Product lines
  • Pricing
  • Export allocations

---

2,805 deaths while awaiting organ transplants since 2020

---

Why is it in News?

• The Union Health Ministry informed Parliament (Dec 2025) that 2,805 patients died while waiting for an organ transplant since 2020.
• Data provided by NOTTO (National Organ and Tissue Transplant Organisation) highlight severe organ shortages and long waiting periods.
• The government has introduced new digital reforms, including:
  • Removal of mandatory domicile or registration-state restrictions.
  • A new uniform national criterion for cadaveric organ allocation.
  • Emphasis on centralised, equitable, need-based distribution.

The figures expose the mismatch between demand and availability, and underline the urgent need to strengthen India’s cadaveric organ donation ecosystem.

Relevance

GS2 – Health & Governance

• Public health delivery
• Organ donation policy
• Ethical governance
• Digital systems and national registries

GS3 – Science & Technology

• Medical logistics
• Transplant technologies
• Biomedicine and health infrastructure

What is Organ Transplantation in India?

Types of Donation

1. Living donor transplants
   1. Kidney, part-liver, bone marrow
2. Deceased (cadaveric) donor transplants
   1. Heart, lungs, pancreas, full liver, corneas

Governing Framework

• Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA), 1994
• National network:
  • NOTTO (National level)
  • ROTTO (Regional)
  • SOTTO (State)

India’s Organ Gap

• Demand far exceeds supply:
  • Kidney: need ~2 lakh/year; transplants ~25,000
  • Liver: need ~50,000; transplants ~3,200
  • Heart: need ~30,000; transplants <250

What the New Parliamentary Data Shows ?

Deaths While Awaiting Transplants (2020–2025)

• Total deaths: 2,805
• Highest:
  • Delhi – 1,425
  • Maharashtra – 297
  • Tamil Nadu – 233

Patients Currently on Waitlist

• 82,285 patients awaiting organ transplants (as of Dec 2025).

State-wise waiting load

• Maharashtra: 20,553
• Gujarat: 18,992
• Tamil Nadu: 16,966
• Delhi: 8,883
• Karnataka: 7,405

These numbers demonstrate high geographic concentration of demand.

Which Organs Are Most in Demand?

Kidney

• Largest waiting list: ~65,090 patients nationwide.

Liver

• 18,724 waiting.

Heart

• 1,659 waiting.

Lung

• Smaller numbers, but mortality is high due to scarcity.

Why Do So Many Patients Die Waiting?

Low cadaveric donation rate

• India’s deceased donation rate: <0.7 per million population
• Spain: ~46 pmp
• U.S.: ~38 pmp

Limited ICU infrastructure

• Organ retrieval requires:
  • Ventilator support
  • Trained ICU staff
• Shortages restrict the pool of potential donors.

Logistical constraints

• Organ viability windows:
  • Heart: 4 hours
  • Liver: 8–12 hours
  • Kidney: up to 24 hours

Lack of:

• Green corridors
• Air ambulance infrastructure
• State-level coordination

→ leads to lost organs.

Restrictive allocation rules (earlier)

• Hospitals often preferred in-state patients.
• Lack of unified national queue led to inequitable access.

Low public awareness

• Cultural hesitancy, myths, lack of donor pledges.

F. Cost Barriers

• Transplants expensive:
  • Kidney: ₹5–8 lakh
  • Liver: ₹20–30 lakh

Low insurance penetration compounds challenges.

Recent Reforms Introduced by NOTTO / Union Govt.

Removal of domicile restrictions

• Organs no longer restricted to:
  • State of registration
  • State of retrieval
    → Enables national pooling → boosts fairness.

Uniform waiting-list criteria

• Priority now based on:
  • Urgency
  • Waiting time
  • Medical compatibility
  • Severity

National-level digital registry

• Single national system covering:
  • Listing
  • Allocation
  • Matching
  • Transport logistics

Promoting organ retrieval centres

• Increasing number of authorised hospitals.

Linking Ayushman Bharat with transplant packages

• Reducing out-of-pocket burden for poorer families.

Key Ethical and Policy Considerations

Equity in Access

• Need to prevent:
  • Hospital-level biases
  • Regional monopolies
  • “First come–first served” overriding urgency

Transparency

• Algorithms for matching must be publicly auditable.

Incentive alignment

• Non-monetary incentives for families:
  • Honouring donors
  • Fast-track benefits

Ethical prohibition

• No room for:
  • Commercial sale of organs
  • Coercion
  • Exploitation of the poor

Strengthen Cadaveric Donation Movement

• Spain, U.S. models show success through:
  • Mandatory referral
  • Trained transplant coordinators
  • National awareness drives