Content

1. Ladakh Groups Submit Draft Proposal to MHA on Statehood & 6th Schedule Status
2. Social Audit for SIR 2.0
3. Trajectory of Anti-Rape Laws in India
4. Batukeshwar Dutt
5. National Gopal Ratna Awards (NGRA) 2024–25
6. Digital Labour Chowk, LCFCs & New Cess Portal
7. UNESCO’s Global Ethics Framework on Neurotechnology

---

Ladakh Groups Submit Draft Proposal to MHA on Statehood & 6th Schedule Status

---

Why in News?

• Leh Apex Body (LAB) and allied groups submitted a 29-page draft proposal to the MHA demanding:
  • Statehood for Ladakh
  • Sixth Schedule status
  • General amnesty for those arrested after September 24 violence
  • Release of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, detained under the NSA.
• Negotiations between Ladakhi groups and MHA stalled in September after Wangchuk’s hunger strike.

Relevance :

• GS2: Polity & Governance
  • Centre–State relations, Union Territories without legislature
  • Sixth Schedule, Tribal rights, Constitutional safeguards
  • Democratic deficit, decentralisation, federalism
• GS3: Internal Security
  • Governance in border regions (LAC with China)
  • NSA use, civil society movements, environmental activism
• GS1 (Society)
  • Tribal identity, cultural preservation in Himalayan regions

Governance Structure of Ladakh

• Became a Union Territory (UT) without legislature after J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019.
• Administration controlled by:
  • Lieutenant Governor (LG)
  • Two Autonomous Hill Development Councils:
    • Leh Hill Council
    • Kargil Hill Council
• No elected Assembly — demand for democratic deficit & resource control.

What is the Sixth Schedule?

• Constitutional provision for tribal-majority areas ensuring:
  • Autonomous District Councils with legislative, judicial and financial powers.
  • Special protections over land, culture, natural resources.
• Applicable currently in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram.

Why Ladakh Wants Sixth Schedule Status?

• Tribal population ≈ 90% (Scheduled Tribes).
• Fears over:
  • Unregulated industrialisation
  • Loss of land, culture, ecology
  • External demographic pressures
• Sixth Schedule seen as stronger protection than current Hill Councils.

Key Demands in the 29-Page Draft Proposal

• Full Statehood to ensure democratic governance.
• Sixth Schedule inclusion for constitutional protection of land & resources.
• General Amnesty for those arrested after September 24 clash in Leh.
• Immediate Release of Sonam Wangchuk detained under NSA.
• Resumption of stalled talks with clear timelines.
• Enhanced powers for local bodies, environmental protection, and tribal safeguards.

Why the Issue Matters?

• Involves Centre-State relations, tribal rights, UT governance.
• Part of India’s border governance strategy with China.
• Reflects challenges in post-2019 reorganisation of J&K.
• Integrates themes of environmental activism, federalism, security law use (NSA).

Challenges & Concern Areas

• Centre’s hesitation to grant 6th Schedule → precedent concerns for other UTs/states.
• Security implications due to location near LAC.
• Divergence between Leh (favors unionism) and Kargil (historically pro-statehood) narrowing, but still present.
• Rising youth discontent, seen in September 24 clashes.

Potential Outcomes Going Forward

• MHA may:
  • Offer enhanced powers under Ladakh Hill Councils Act instead of Sixth Schedule.
  • Consider partial concessions (cultural & land safeguards) without full autonomy.
  • Set timelines for institutional mechanisms like Tribes Advisory Council.
• If negotiations stall:
  • More civil society mobilisations expected.
  • International attention due to climate activism angle.

---

Social Audit for SIR 2.0

---

Why in News?

• ECI initiated Special Intensive Revision (SIR) 2.0 across 12 States/UTs to reverify voter eligibility.
• The article warned that the Bihar experience shows potential mass disenfranchisement, particularly of women, Muslims, and migrants, threatening the integrity of electoral democracy.

Relevance :

• GS2: Polity & Governance
  • Electoral reforms, electoral roll accuracy
  • ECI’s constitutional mandate, independence & accountability
  • Social audits (constitutional backing: Local Bodies, transparency)

What is Special Intensive Revision (SIR)?

• A documentation-heavy re-verification of existing voters.
• Requires fresh submission of documents proving:
  • Identity
  • Address (ordinary residence)
  • Age eligibility
• Intended purpose: clean rolls, remove duplicates, update migrant data.
• Problem: No specific Rules, procedural clarity, or transparent oversight mechanism under existing electoral law.

Legal Framework: Electoral Roll Revision

• Governed by Representation of the People Act, 1950.
• Section 19: Person must be “ordinarily resident” to be enrolled.
• Section 20: Defines “ordinaryresidence”, but outdated; does not recognise:
  • Long-term migrants
  • Short-term/seasonal workers
  • Circular migrants
• SIR’s reliance on strict documentation → risks excluding these groups.

Bihar Case Study: What Went Wrong?

Evidence of Disenfranchisement

• Sharp drop in adult–elector ratio.
• Large-scale deletions of women and Muslim voters.
• Duplicate names, bogus entries, inconsistent deletions.
• People unable to produce documents → lost voting rights.

Why It Became Controversial ?

• Exercise resembled a citizenship screening regime, not voter roll maintenance.
• Heavy burden placed on citizens rather than ECI/BLOs.
• Led to fear of stealth NRC-like filtration through electoral rolls.

Institutional Issues Raised

Election Commission of India (ECI)

• Allegations of:
  • Lack of transparency
  • Defensive posture in court filings
  • Avoiding scrutiny
  • Prioritising institutional authority over inclusive roll preparation
• Perception of declining impartiality and institutional credibility.

Supreme Court

• Monitored the exercise but:
  • Avoided ruling on legality of SIR powers.
  • Allowed SIR to continue despite procedural deficiencies.
  • Mitigated small inequities but did not address structural flaws.
• Risk of legitimising an unconstitutional framework with discriminatory outcomes.

Vulnerability of Internal Migrants

• India has 450+ million internal migrants (Census projection-based estimates).
• Tamil Nadu flagged as a major concern due to high migrant worker population.
• Strict interpretation of “ordinary residence” → mass exclusions.
• SIR does not differentiate between types of migrants, leading to:
  • Loss of franchise
  • Distorted voter representation
  • Urban–industrial disenfranchisement

Democratic Implications

• Universal adult franchise depends on:
  • Automatic, accurate enrollment
  • No arbitrary deletions
  • No documentation barriers
• SIR introduces burdens that shift responsibility from the State to citizens.
• High non-participation already exists: 30–40% do not vote; forcing reapplications worsens exclusion.

Need for Mandatory Social Audit

Concept

• Community-based verification of public records.
• Ensures transparency, accountability, and participation.

Constitutional & Institutional Backing

• Articles 243A & 243J empower community monitoring.
• CAG formally endorses social audits as essential for mass programmes.

Advantages for Electoral Roll Verification

• Ground-level correction by:
  • Gram sabhas
  • Ward sabhas
  • Booth-level committees
• Ensures:
  • Minimal manipulation
  • Maximum inclusion
  • Real-time correction of errors

Historical Precedent (2003 Experiment)

• Conducted under CEC J.M. Lyngdoh.
• Decentralised social audits in 5 poll-bound States.
• In Rajasthan alone:
  • 7 lakh corrections made after public audit.
• Demonstrated best practice for inclusive and transparent roll revision.

Article’s Recommendation

• ECI must:
  • Frame clear Rules for SIR.
  • Make social audit mandatory.
  • Consult civil society, political parties, and rights groups.
  • Ensure that SIR 2.0 does not replicate Bihar’s exclusions.

---

Trajectory of Anti-Rape Laws in India

---

Why in News?

• Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai publicly condemned the 1979 Supreme Court acquittal in the Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura rape case), calling it an “institutional embarrassment.”
• CJI’s remarks highlight India’s evolving anti-rape legal framework, reforms in consent definitions, custodial rape protections, and contemporary changes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.
• Article traces the entire legal trajectory from 1972 to 2023, linking reforms to public outrage and judicial criticism.

Relevance :

• GS2: Polity & Social Justice
  • Evolution of criminal law, custodial violence, women’s safety laws
  • BNS 2023 changes (gender neutrality, consent definition)
  • Judicial interpretations shaping reforms (Mathura, Nirbhaya)
• GS1: Society (Women Issues)
  • Gender norms, patriarchal biases in law enforcement

Understanding the Mathura Rape Case (Tukaram Case, 1972–79)

• Survivor: Tribal girl, 14–16 years, sexually assaulted inside a police station by two policemen.
• Trial Court (1974): Disbelieved survivor, labeled her “habituated”; held no rape proven.
• Bombay High Court (1976): Convicted policemen, recognized power imbalance and coercion.
• Supreme Court (1979): Acquitted the accused, arguing:
  • No injuries → “peaceful intercourse”
  • Survivor “did not resist”
• Reflected a patriarchal, colonial-era understanding of consent.

Turning Point: The 1979 Open Letter

• Written by: Upendra Baxi, Lotika Sarkar, Vasudha Dhagamwar, Raghunath Kelkar.
• Key arguments:
  • Submission ≠ Consent
  • Absence of resistance ≠ consent
  • Court ignored:
    • Power of police
    • Survivor’s age
    • Illegality of calling minor girls to police station at night
    • Socio-economic vulnerability
• Sparked national protests → beginning of India’s modern women’s rights movement.

Immediate Legal Reforms Triggered

Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1983

• Custodial rape created as a separate aggravated offence.
• Burden of proof shifted to the accused in custodial rape cases after intercourse is proved.
• Strengthened:
  • Dowry Act penalties
  • Family Courts
• First major statutory shift recognising coercive environments.

Evolution Through Major Cases & Movements

Nandini Satpathy Case (1978)

• Justice Krishna Iyer:
  • Women cannot be summoned to police stations.
  • Must be questioned at residence.
• Highlighted custodial vulnerabilities even before Mathura verdict.

Bhanwari Devi Case & Vishaka Guidelines (1992–1997)

• Bhanwari Devi gangraped for stopping child marriage.
• Vishaka Guidelines (1997) laid foundational framework for workplace sexual harassment law.
• Recognised State obligation to ensure safe working spaces for women.

Nirbhaya Case & Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013

• Rape-and-murder of a 22-year-old physiotherapy intern (Dec 2012).
• Massive protests → Justice J.S. Verma Committee → sweeping reforms:
  • Definition of rape expanded beyond penetration.
  • Police non-registration of FIR punishable.
  • Hospitals mandated free treatment to survivors.
  • Silence or “feeble no” ≠ consent.
  • Age of consent raised to 18.
  • Death penalty for extreme cases & repeat offenders.

Unnao and Kathua Cases (2017–18) & Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2018

• Unnao: MLA Kuldeep Sengar convicted for rape of a minor.
• Kathua: Minor girl gangraped and murdered.
• Reforms:
  • Death penalty for rape of girls below 12 years.
  • Minimum 20-year sentence for rape of girls below 16.
  • Fast-tracked:
    • Investigation: 2 months
    • Trial: 2 months
    • Appeals: 6 months

Latest Phase: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023

• Major overhaul replacing IPC.
• Key changes:
  • Sexual offences made gender-neutral for victims and perpetrators.
  • Gangrape of a woman below 18: death or life imprisonment.
  • New offence: sexual intercourse under false pretences/false promise of marriage.
  • Expanded definition of:
    • Sexual harassment
    • Non-consensual sexual acts not covered earlier
• Reflects modern understanding of consent and coercion.

Themes Underlying India’s Legal Evolution

• Recognition of power asymmetry (custodial, caste, economic, institutional).
• Increasing acknowledgment that:
  • Consent must be affirmative, voluntary.
  • Lack of resistance is not consent.
• Greater victim-sensitive procedures:
  • FIR rights
  • Medical care
  • Shifting burden in custodial cases
  • Faster trials in minors’ cases
• Progressive move away from:
  • Stereotypes about “chastity,” “habituality,” “conduct”
  • Injury-based understanding of rape

Challenges That Continue

• Low conviction rates (~27–33% nationally).
• Police bias, investigative lapses, hostile environments.
• Victim intimidation, delays in evidence collection.
• Need for:
  • Better forensics
  • Survivor support systems
  • Gender-sensitisation of police and judiciary

---

Batukeshwar Dutt

---

Why in News?

• A recent article revisits the life, legacy, and neglect of Batukeshwar Dutt, co-revolutionary of Bhagat Singh, on the occasion of renewed debates around revolutionary memorialisation.
• Highlights the 1929 Central Assembly bombing, Dutt’s sacrifices, and the lack of adequate national recognition despite his central role.

Relevance :

• GS1: Modern Indian History
  • Revolutionary nationalism, HSRA, Central Assembly Bombing
  • Freedom fighters’ contributions beyond textbook icons
• GS1: Heritage & Personalities
  • Historical neglect, issues of memorialisation

Basic Facts 

• Event: Central Assembly Bombing, April 8, 1929 (Delhi).
• Actors: Bhagat Singh & Batukeshwar Dutt (HSRA members).
• Objective: Protest against the Public Safety Bill & Trade Disputes Bill; aimed to “make the deaf hear”.
• Nature of Bombs: Harmless, non-lethal; intended for symbolic protest.
• Slogans: Inquilab Zindabad; Samrajyavad ka Nash Ho.
• Pamphlet: “To Make the Deaf Hear”.
• Outcome: Both arrested; life sentence for Dutt, death sentence later in Lahore Conspiracy Case for Bhagat Singh.

Batukeshwar Dutt: Life & Background

• Born: 18 November 1910, Burdwan (Bengal).
• Joined HSRA as a young revolutionary; close associate of Bhagat Singh.
• Convicted in the Delhi Assembly Bomb Case (June 12, 1929); sentenced to transportation for life.

Jail Years & Hunger Strikes

• Imprisoned in Multan, Jhelum, Trichinopoly, Salem, Andamans.
• Undertook multiple hunger strikes demanding political prisoner rights.
• Twice fasted over a month, highlighting prison brutality.
• Was in Salem Jail when Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev were executed (March 23, 1931).

Post-Release Struggles

• Released in 1938; re-arrested in Quit India Movement (1942); jailed again for 4 years.
• Married Anjali; lived in Patna.
• Bihar govt allotted him a coal depot — economically unviable.
• President Rajendra Prasad urged support; resulted only in a token 6-month nomination to Bihar Legislative Council.

Health Decline & Death

• Suffered from bone cancer (mid-1960s).
• Admitted to AIIMS Delhi; eight months of suffering.
• Plans to send him abroad dropped after assessment that Indian care was comparable.
• Died: 20 July 1965.
• Cremated at Hussainiwala, Punjab — beside Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Sukhdev.

Neglect vs Recognition

• Massive state funeral attended by President, PM, ministers, large public turnout.
• Yet no portrait of Bhagat Singh or Dutt in Parliament; contrast with Savarkar’s portrait being prominently placed.
• 2014 protests by MPs for inclusion of Bhagat Singh’s portrait; ignored.
• Dutt largely absent from school textbooks, memorials, public memory.

Chaman Lal Azad’s Documentation

• Journalist and revolutionary; cared for Dutt during his final months.
• Wrote Urdu series compiled as Bhagat Singh aur Dutt ki Amar Kahani (1966).
• Contains:
  • Bhagat Singh’s letters, statements, postcards.
  • Gandhi’s letter to Dutt.
  • Rare photographs with Nehru, Indira Gandhi.
  • Dutt’s recollections of fellow revolutionaries (Hari Kishan Talwar, Ehsan Ilahi, etc.).
• Hindi translation commissioned but unpublished due to copyright issues.

Revolutionary Network & Personal Bonds

• Close ties with Bhagat Singh’s family; Mata Vidyawati stayed with him in final days.
• She even sold a poetic manuscript to raise money for his treatment.
• Comrades like Shiv Verma, Kiran Das, and others remained with him.
• Leaders like Gulzari Lal Nanda, Y. B. Chavan, Jagjivan Ram visited, though recognition came mostly posthumously.

Ideas & Ideological Contributions

• Shared Bhagat Singh’s vision of socialism, secularism, and class equality.
• Emphasised Singh’s intellectual depth — always reading, studying, debating ideology.
• Dutt criticised early films on Bhagat Singh for distortions; approved only Manoj Kumar’s “Shaheed” (1965).

Key Takeaways

• Dutt’s journey reveals systemic neglect of revolutionaries post-independence.
• Highlights tensions between ideological preferences in official memorialisation.
• Shows how state narratives often sideline figures who challenge mainstream political icons.
• His life symbolises the unrewarded sacrifices of many lesser-known freedom fighters.
• Demonstrates the importance of archival preservation — many primary sources remain inaccessible.

---

National Gopal Ratna Awards (NGRA) 2024–25

---

Why in News?

• Union Animal Husbandry Ministry announced winners of the National Gopal Ratna Awards (NGRA).
• Aravind Yashavant Patil (Kolhapur, Maharashtra) won the top award for Best Dairy Farmer – Indigenous Cattle/Buffalo Breeds.
• A total of 2,081 applications were received for the 2024–25 cycle.
• Awards will be presented on November 26.

Relevance :

• GS3: Agriculture & Allied Sectors
  • Dairy sector, livestock economy, indigenous breeds
  • Breed improvement, fodder, veterinary infrastructure
• GS3: Economics (Rural Economy)
  • Dairy cooperatives, SHGs, FPOs, rural livelihoods

Basics 

• Ministry: Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying.
• Launched under: National Programme for Bovine Breeding & Dairy Development (NPBBDD).
• Purpose: Promote indigenous bovine breeds, scientific dairy practices, and farmer-led breed conservation.
• Categories typically include:
  • Best Dairy Farmer (Indigenous breeds)
  • Best Artificial Insemination Technician
  • Best Dairy Cooperative/SHG/Producer Company
  • Best Dairy Entrepreneur

Objectives of NGRA

• Encourage farmers to rear indigenous cattle and buffaloes.
• Promote breed improvement, genetic purity, and productivity enhancement.
• Reward best practices in animal management, feeding, disease control, clean milk production.
• Strengthen local germplasm conservation and sustainable dairy economy.
• Highlight role of dairy sector in rural livelihoods and nutritional security.

Significance for Dairy Sector

• India is the world’s largest milk producer (~230+ million tonnes annually).
• Indigenous breeds (Gir, Sahiwal, Tharparkar, Red Sindhi, Murrah, Jaffarabadi etc.) are critical for:
  • Higher disease resilience
  • Lower maintenance cost
  • Adaptation to climatic stress (heat stress + drought)
  • Better A2 milk demand
• Awards push formalisation, quality improvement, and skill development among dairy workers.

Recent Trends & Data

• Increasing shift toward indigenous breed improvement programmes, including:
  • Rashtriya Gokul Mission
  • National Kamdhenu Breeding Centres
  • IVF & Embryo Transfer initiatives
• NGRA complements government’s push for breed conservation + commercial viability.
• Rising pan-India applications (2,081 this year) shows growing interest in scientific dairy farming.

Governance & Implementation Angle

• Supports Atmanirbhar Bharat via livestock-based rural economy.
• Strengthens cooperatives, SHGs, and Farmer Producer Organisations.
• Encourages private sector and youth participation in dairy entrepreneurship.
• Recognises role of women dairy farmers, often the backbone of rural dairy work.

Environmental & Sustainability Linkages

• Indigenous breeds help reduce climate vulnerability of rural dairy systems.
• Lower input requirements → lower carbon footprint vs exotic breeds.
• Promote pastoral, mixed-farming systems and biodiversity conservation.

Issues & Criticisms

• Indigenous breeds often face:
  • Lower productivity vs crossbreeds
  • Inadequate veterinary infrastructure
  • Fragmented breed conservation efforts
  • Artificial insemination skill gaps
• Awards must be backed by financial support, extension services, fodder development, and market linkages.

---

Digital Labour Chowk, LCFCs & New Cess Portal

---

Why in News?

• The Construction Workers’ Federation of India (CWFI) criticised the Union Labour Ministry’s new digital initiatives:
  • Digital Labour Chowk Portal & App
  • Labour Felicitation Centres (LCFCs)
  • Online Building and Construction Workers (BOCW) Cess Collection Portal
• CWFI alleges these measures aim to “de-unionise” workers, bypass unions, and strengthen employer control.
• Claims that these initiatives divert attention from the government’s failure to register workers and disburse accumulated welfare funds under the BOCW Act.

Relevance :

• GS2: Governance
  • Labour welfare laws, tripartism, de-unionisation debate
  • Digital governance, welfare delivery reform
• GS3: Economy
  • Informal sector, migrant labour, construction sector shape
  • Cess utilisation & transparency

Basics

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996

• Mandates:
  • Registration of construction workers.
  • Safety, welfare, social security benefits.
  • Funded through 1% cess on construction cost collected from employers.

Key Institutions

• Central/State BOCW Welfare Boards → responsible for worker registration, fund management, benefit distribution.
• Cess Collection Portal (new) → digitises employer payments, compliance, and transparency.
• Digital Labour Chowk → digital job-matching platform for construction labour.

What the New Digital Initiatives Do

• Digital Labour Chowk Portal & App
  • Online marketplace connecting workers & contractors.
  • Digitises hiring, attendance, wage flow, and worker profiles.
  • Intended to reduce middlemen and informal negotiation.
• Labour Felicitation Centres (LCFCs)
  • Physical centres for onboarding workers, grievance redress, digital literacy.
• Online BOCW Cess Collection Portal
  • Streamlines cess payment.
  • Reduces leakages and manual delays.

CWFI’s Key Objections

• No consultation with trade unions → violates tripartite approach (state–employer–worker).
• De-unionisation: Digital hiring bypasses unions → weakens collective bargaining power.
• Surveillance concerns: Portals emphasise worker tracking and data collection.
• Top-down design: Insufficient worker involvement in shaping the system.
• Diversion from core failures:
  • Millions of workers still unregistered.
  • Thousands of crores of cess funds lie unspent (due to bureaucratic delays).
  • Benefits remain inaccessible to migrant and unorganised workers.

CWFI’s Specific Critiques

1. “Digital gates while the vault stays locked”

• Government focuses on tech platforms but not on actual welfare delivery.
• Portal efficiency irrelevant if benefits remain undistributed.

2. Fundamental flaws

• App and portal require digital literacy, documentation, and smartphones → excluding a majority of migrant BOCW workers.
• Job-matching platforms may promote casualisation rather than secure employment.
• Digital systems may formalise employer control over hiring without strengthening worker rights.

3. Anti-worker implications

• Weakens unions → reduces bargaining over wages, safety gear, work hours.
• Employers gain real-time access to labour pools → pushes wages downward.
• Increased vulnerability for interstate migrant workers.

4. Lack of transparency about welfare funds

• Unspent cess funds in many states (estimates often run into thousands of crores).
• Digital makeover may obscure rather than solve the welfare delivery problem.

Government’s Expected Rationale 

• Digitisation increases efficiency, transparency, and portability of benefits.
• Helps track migrant workers across states.
• Reduces leakages in cess collection.
• Supports ease of doing business by simplifying compliance.
• Aims to build a national labour database ahead of full implementation of Labour Codes.

Issues & Challenges

• Deep digital divide → exclusion risk.
• Migrant construction labour is highly mobile; portal registration alone does not ensure welfare access.
• Centralised platforms risk data misuse without strong privacy safeguards.
• Undermining unions creates long-term asymmetry of power between labour and contractors.
• Labour Codes (still pending/partially rolled out) already weakened traditional protections — unions view new portals as part of this trend.

Broader Structural Context

• Construction workforce: ~5 crore workers, highly informal, migrant-heavy.
• One of India’s most dangerous sectors → high accident rate, low safety compliance.
• Historically under-registered: welfare boards often have less than 30–40% coverage.
• Cess utilisation varies widely; some states have used barely 20–30% of collected funds.

Key Takeaways

• CWFI sees the digital initiatives as centralised, surveillance-oriented, and designed to weaken worker collective strength.
• Major concern: digitisation without welfare delivery → cosmetic reform over substantive rights.
• Highlights India’s persistent challenge: bringing informal, migrant, construction workers under real welfare protection.

---

UNESCO’S global Ethics Framework on Neurotechnology

---

Why in News?

• UNESCO issued the first-ever global normative framework on neurotechnology ethics on November 5, 2025, which came into force on November 12.
• Aims to balance innovation with human rights, prevent misuse of brain data, and protect freedom of thought in the emerging neurotech era.
• Parallelly, a new study on transgenerational behavioural inheritance in C. elegans (published in eLife, Nov 11) highlighted ethical concerns around neurodata interpretation and biological determinism — relevant to the framework’s “future generations” principle.

Relevance :

• GS2: International Relations
  • Global ethics norms, UNESCO role
  • Neurorights emerging in global governance
• GS3: Science & Technology
  • Neurotech, BCIs, AI–brain interfaces
  • Data protection, mental autonomy, future risks
• GS4: Ethics
  • Mental integrity, autonomy, human dignity
  • Ethical limits on technology, consent, manipulation

What is Neurotechnology?

• Devices, procedures, and systems that access, assess, or act on neural systems.
• Examples:
  • AI-assisted neuroimaging
  • Brain–computer interfaces (BCIs)
  • Neural implants (e.g., Neuralink)
  • Cognitive enhancement tools
• Global Investment:
  • Public funding > $6 billion (2023 UNESCO study).
  • Private funding > $7.3 billion (end-2020).

Why a Framework Was Needed ?

• Neurotechnology can decode neurodata → enabling:
  • Tracking emotional states
  • Predicting preferences
  • Decoding intentions
  • Influencing decision-making
• Risks identified:
  • Political persuasion via brain-signal profiling
  • Insurance discrimination using neural markers
  • Workplace screening using stress tolerance or hidden traits
  • Covert manipulation of behaviour through stimuli
• Absence of global norms despite rapid commercialisation.

Key Drivers Before UNESCO Framework

• 2019 OECD Standards: Responsible innovation, tech transfer, IP pools, and licensing norms.
• 2022 UNESCO Bioethics Committee Report: Called for a comprehensive governance structure.
• Growing “neurorights” movement:
  • Chile: first to protect “mental integrity” constitutionally.
  • California (2024): law protecting brain data.

What UNESCO’s Framework Contains 

Three-Pillar Structure

1. Definition of neurotechnology & neurodata
2. Values, principles, sector-specific (health, education) guidance
3. Special protections for vulnerable groups (children, elderly, disabled)

Core Ethical Principles 

Protection Principles

• Mental autonomy & freedom of thought
• Mental integrity
• Privacy and protection of neural data
• Prohibition of manipulation, deception, political or commercial influence
• Non-discrimination & inclusivity
• No harm & proportionality

Innovation Principles

• Beneficence
• Accountability & transparency
• Trustworthiness
• Epistemic justice
• Protection of future generations
• Sustainable development alignment

Explicit Prohibitions

• Using neural signals for political microtargeting
• Brain-data-driven insurance premium decisions
• Employer/HR neuro-screening mandates
• Manipulative neurostimulation to influence choices
• Covert extraction of neural data through devices or interfaces

Framework on Innovation & IP

• Encourages responsible research and innovation (RRI):
  • Anticipate social impacts
  • Engage public & stakeholders
  • Build “ethics-by-design”
• Promotes open science:
  • Open datasets, shared tools
  • Verifiability, reuse, collaborative development
• Tension highlighted:
  • Open science vs intellectual property rights
  • Need to avoid commodification of the human brain
  • Calls for balanced licensing & equitable technology transfer

Implementation Expectations

• States to integrate principles into:
  • Health regulations
  • Education systems
  • Data protection laws
  • Labour and employment policies
• Companies to adopt:
  • Internal ethics boards
  • Transparent neurodata policies
  • Safety audits
  • Voluntary compliance codes

Key Takeaways 

• UNESCO’s framework is the first global ethical code for neurotechnology — landmark event.
• Protects freedom of thought, mental autonomy, integrity of neural data, and human dignity.
• Explicitly prohibits manipulative uses of brain data in politics, employment, insurance, and advertising.
• Encourages open science, responsible innovation, and balanced IP rights.