Content

1. Removing a Minister
2. Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition
3. Why India needs a national space law
4. What are ‘machine readable’ electoral rolls?
5. India successfully tests Agni-5 missile

---

Removing a Minister

---

Constitutional Context

• Articles Involved:
  • Article 75 – Council of Ministers at Union level.
  • Article 164 – Council of Ministers in states.
  • Article 239AA – Special provisions for Delhi (Union Territory with Assembly).
• Current framework:
  • Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President/Governor, on advice of PM/CM.
  • No explicit disqualification if a Minister faces criminal cases, unless convicted.

Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Constitution)

Proposed Amendment (Constitution (One Hundred and Thirty-Third) Amendment Bill, 2025)

• Inserts a new clause:
  • A Minister detained in custody for ≥30 consecutive days for offences punishable with imprisonment of ≥5 years will be removed from office.
  • Removal is automatic, based on detention – not conviction.
  • Minister may return once released from custody.
• Applies uniformly to Union, State, and UT Ministers.
• Aims to prevent governance being run by Ministers in prolonged custody on serious charges.

Rationale for the Amendment

• Governance Concerns:
  • Ministers in custody cannot discharge duties effectively.
  • Presence of tainted Ministers undermines public trust and constitutional morality.
• Judicial Delay Factor:
  • Trials often take years, and Ministers continue in office while under serious criminal allegations.
• Reform Need:
  • Current system allows even those with serious charges to be appointed Ministers until conviction.
  • Amendment seeks to close this gap.

Legal & Institutional Precedents

• Law Commission Reports:
  • 170th Report (1999) – Suggested disqualification if charges involve ≥5 years imprisonment.
  • 244th Report (2014) – Reiterated same recommendation, with judicial scrutiny of charges.
• Election Commission: Supported barring individuals facing serious charges.
• Supreme Court Rulings:
  • Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014): Court held there is no bar on appointing persons with criminal charges as Ministers, though PM should act as “repository of constitutional trust.”
  • Emphasised moral responsibility over legal compulsion.
  • More recent SC observations (2024–25) – Raised concerns on Ministers like Senthil Balaji (Tamil Nadu) and Manish Sisodia (Delhi) continuing in office despite custody in corruption/money laundering cases.

Issues Raised

• Constitutional Questions:
  • Does detention = disqualification, even before conviction?
  • Does it dilute the presumption of innocence?
• Judicial Review:
  • Courts may need to clarify if removal is automatic or subject to review.
  • Distinction between custody vs. conviction remains critical.
• Governance vs. Rights:
  • Balancing need for clean governance with rights of Ministers against premature punishment.

Practical Implications

• For Chief Ministers/Prime Minister:
  • Amendment reduces discretion in retaining tainted Ministers.
  • Provides clear legal basis for removal.
• For Legislatures:
  • Reinforces integrity in executive councils.
• For Politics:
  • Likely to impact states/UTs where several Ministers are in custody due to corruption or money-laundering probes.
  • Example: Senthil Balaji (TN), Manish Sisodia (Delhi), Kejriwal (Delhi).

Criticisms & Challenges

• Presumption of Innocence:
  • Critics argue removal upon detention (not conviction) undermines “innocent until proven guilty.”
• Political Misuse:
  • Risk that investigative agencies may misuse detention to politically dislodge Ministers.
• Judicial Burden:
  • Likely to increase petitions challenging detention and automatic removal.
• Ambiguity:
  • What if a Minister is repeatedly bailed and re-arrested?
  • Does temporary bail reset the 30-day period?

Way Forward

• Clear guidelines to prevent misuse of investigative powers.
• Judicial safeguards (e.g., only charges framed by higher courts in serious offences to count).
• Codifying disqualification in a manner that balances clean politics with fair trial rights.
• Possible future debate on extending disqualification criteria to MPs/MLAs at the legislative entry stage.

Broader Significance

• Strengthens constitutional morality and the principle of responsible government.
• Reinforces the separation of powers by ensuring executive integrity.
• Reflects India’s democratic maturity in addressing the criminalisation of politics.

---

Nuclear laws and the role of Opposition

---

Background & Context

• Nuclear energy in India:
  • Currently contributes just 3% of India’s power generation.
  • Installed capacity (2024): 24 nuclear plants with 8.8 GW.
  • Targets: 22.48 GW by 2031-32, 100 GW by 2047 (aligned with clean energy & energy security goals).
• Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, 2010 (CLNDA):
  • Enacted after India’s Civil Nuclear Agreement (2005–08) with the U.S.
  • Introduced liability framework for compensation in case of nuclear accidents.
  • Unique in holding suppliers of nuclear equipment liable, in addition to the operator (Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited – NPCIL).
  • This provision discouraged foreign suppliers (U.S., France, etc.) from entering Indian market.
• Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (AEA):
  • Governs India’s nuclear sector.
  • Restricts participation to government-owned entities.
  • Private sector not allowed in nuclear energy production.

Relevance : GS 2(Governance), GS 3(Nuclear Energy)

Proposed Amendments

• CLNDA amendment:
  • Aim: Limit or remove supplier liability for nuclear accidents.
  • Would bring India’s framework closer to the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC) standards (operator-only liability).
• AEA amendment:
  • Aim: Permit private sector participation in nuclear power.
  • Long-debated issue since Raja Ramanna Committee report (1997).
  • Would open opportunities for private investment, especially in small modular reactors (SMRs).

Historical Context

• 2007–2010 debates:
  • UPA govt. faced stiff opposition (BJP & Left parties) during CLNDA drafting.
  • Background:
    • 1984 Bhopal Gas Tragedy → heightened demand for corporate accountability.
    • 2010 Fukushima disaster → reinforced global concerns about nuclear safety.
  • Opposition insisted on strong supplier liability to safeguard citizens.
  • Result: Suppliers clause inserted, but foreign suppliers withdrew → nuclear deals stalled.
• Earlier Opposition stances:
  • Patents Act amendment (1999–2005): Opposition initially blocked, later supported.
  • Insurance FDI & Land Boundary Agreement: Initially stalled, later supported.
  • Pattern: Opposition sometimes shifts stance when in power or national interest demands.

Current Political Dynamics

• Government’s Position (NDA):
  • Keen to amend CLNDA & AEA to:
    • Attract foreign suppliers (U.S., France, Russia).
    • Encourage private domestic players.
    • Accelerate nuclear capacity expansion to meet clean energy goals.
• Opposition’s Concerns (Congress & others):
  • Dilution of supplier accountability → increased domestic risk in case of accidents.
  • Favors international corporations over citizens.
  • Seen as appeasing U.S. & France (major reactor suppliers).
  • Citing Bhopal legacy, questions government’s ability to enforce accountability.

Key Issues for Debate

• Accountability vs. Investment:
  • Strong supplier liability = safety but deters investment.
  • Operator-only liability = global norm, but raises questions of justice for victims.
• Energy Security & Climate Goals:
  • Nuclear is crucial for India’s net-zero by 2070 roadmap.
  • Can provide stable, non-fossil baseload energy.
  • Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) emerging as game-changers – cheaper, safer, scalable.
• Waste Disposal & Safety:
  • Long-term nuclear waste management remains unresolved globally.
  • India must ensure transparent policy before major expansion.
• Judicial & Compensation Mechanisms:
  • Adequacy of compensation frameworks in case of accidents.
  • Avoiding repeats of Bhopal Gas Tragedy inadequacies.

International Angle

• U.S. & France:
  • Major nuclear technology suppliers, have pressed India for liability relaxation.
  • Without change, India’s nuclear deals (e.g., Jaitapur project with France’s EDF) remain stalled.
• Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC):
  • India acceded in 2016.
  • Requires liability on operators, not suppliers – current CLNDA seen as inconsistent.

Strategic Significance

• Nuclear energy expansion ties into:
  • Energy independence (reduce import dependence on coal & oil).
  • Geopolitics (India-U.S. nuclear partnership is cornerstone of strategic ties).
  • Climate commitments (non-fossil energy mix to rise to 50% by 2030).

Way Forward

• Need for balanced framework:
  • Protect citizens’ rights in case of nuclear accidents.
  • Ensure suppliers have some responsibility (e.g., defective equipment).
  • Align with international norms to attract investment.
• Role of Opposition:
  • Must engage in constructive debate, not blanket opposition.
  • Should push for safeguards (insurance pools, higher operator liability, safety regulators).
• Parliamentary Debate:
  • Should cover nuclear waste disposal, safety protocols, transparency in agreements, and citizens’ compensation.

Conclusion

• The issue is not just legal or political—it is about India’s energy future, climate obligations, and strategic autonomy.
• Opposition faces a choice: either repeat past obstruction or help shape a responsible, investor-friendly yet citizen-safe nuclear policy.

---

Why India needs a national space law

---

Global Legal Framework for Outer Space

• Outer Space Treaty (OST), 1967:
  • Forms the cornerstone of international space law.
  • Ratified by 114+ countries, including India.
  • Key stipulations:
    • Outer space is the “province of all mankind” → no national appropriation (no sovereignty, no ownership claims).
    • Peaceful uses only → bans placement of nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction in orbit.
    • States bear international responsibility for all space activities, whether by government or private entities.
    • States are liable for damage caused by space objects (to other states or international property).
    • Encourages international cooperation and sharing of benefits from space exploration.
• Other companion treaties:
  • Rescue Agreement (1968).
  • Liability Convention (1972).
  • Registration Convention (1976).
  • Moon Agreement (1979 – not widely adopted).

Relevance : GS 2(Governance , International Relations)

Are These Treaties Self-Executing?

• Not self-executing:
  • International treaties only provide principles.
  • They need domestic legislation to become enforceable within countries.
  • Example: OST says states are responsible for private space activities → but how private firms are licensed, regulated, and insured must be defined by national law.
• UNOOSA’s stance:
  • National legislations “give effect” to OST principles, ensuring space activities remain safe, sustainable, and responsible.

Importance of National Space Legislation

• Legal certainty: Provides clear rules for licensing, approvals, liability, insurance, and dispute resolution.
• Encourages investment: Foreign investors and domestic startups require predictable regulatory environments.
• Dual-use dilemma: Space technologies often have military as well as civilian uses → needs robust oversight.
• FDI attraction: Clear rules on foreign investment in space manufacturing (e.g., 100% FDI in satellite components) crucial for growth.
• Liability & insurance: Internationally, states are liable → but domestically, operators/startups must carry insurance to cover accidents.
• Innovation protection: Secure Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) prevents brain drain and builds investor confidence.
• Debris management & sustainability: National laws can enforce debris mitigation, accident investigations, and data-sharing frameworks.
• Independent regulator: Avoids conflicts of interest, builds credibility.

India’s Approach to Space Legislation

• Status: India has signed/ratified OST and related treaties but lacks a comprehensive national space law.
• Current framework:
  • Space activities governed mainly through policy guidelines (e.g., Space Policy 2023).
  • IN-SPACe (Indian National Space Promotion and Authorization Centre) set up as nodal body to regulate private sector participation, but lacks statutory backing.
  • Licensing, approvals, and FDI rules remain fragmented across ministries.
• Incremental strategy:
  • India has gradually opened space to private participation (satellite launches, component manufacturing).
  • Still in the process of drafting national space legislation to provide full legal clarity.
• Priorities identified (Gp. Capt. T.H. Anand Rao, Indian Space Association):
  • Grant statutory authority to IN-SPACe.
  • Create a single-window licensing system (clear timelines, fees, reasons for approval/rejection).
  • Define liability & accident investigation mechanisms.
  • Strengthen FDI and IPR rules to support startups.
  • Establish an independent appellate body for disputes.

Why Affordable Insurance Frameworks for Space Startups Are Crucial

• International liability: Under OST & Liability Convention, India as a state is liable for damages caused by its space objects.
• Domestic burden-sharing: Without insurance, taxpayers may have to bear damages from private sector accidents.
• High-value assets: Satellites and payloads worth hundreds of millions → startups cannot sustain losses without affordable insurance.
• Third-party coverage: Mandatory insurance ensures compensation for damage caused to foreign entities or global commons.
• Encourages private sector participation: Affordable insurance lowers entry barriers for startups and SMEs in the space ecosystem.
• Prevents flight of talent/companies: If India lacks protection frameworks, startups may migrate to jurisdictions with better IPR and insurance regimes.

Way Forward for India

• Enact a comprehensive National Space Law aligned with OST principles.
• Grant statutory authority to IN-SPACe as a regulator.
• Develop affordable insurance pools (possibly public-private) to support startups.
• Ensure IPR protection and transparent FDI rules.
• Enforce space debris mitigation & sustainability laws.
• Create an independent appellate body for space-related disputes.

Broader Significance

• India is transitioning from a state-driven space programme (ISRO monopoly) to a mixed ecosystem with private players.
• Without robust space legislation:
  • International commitments cannot be effectively enforced.
  • Investor confidence will remain low.
  • Space startups may shift abroad, slowing India’s ambitions.
• A strong law would secure India’s position as a global space power and support its ambitions for 100+ startups, lunar missions, Gaganyaan, and a space station by 2047.

---

What are ‘machine readable’ electoral rolls?

---

Basics – What are Electoral Rolls?

• Definition: Electoral rolls = authoritative list of all eligible voters in India.
• Purpose: Ensures only eligible citizens can vote; prevents disenfranchisement or duplication.
• Dynamic nature: Continuously updated → additions (new voters), deletions (deaths, relocations), corrections (errors, address changes).
• Scale: As of Jan 2024 → ~99 crore entries (world’s largest democratic database).

Relevance : GS 2(Elections , Reforms)

How are Electoral Rolls Currently Shared?

• Prepared by: District-level officials under EC’s authority.
• Data backbone: ERONET (Electoral Roll Management System).
• Public access:
  • Provided as image-PDF files on websites or as physical printouts.
  • Voter photos included in internal versions, but not in PDFs available online.
• Limitations: Image-PDFs are not machine-readable → cannot be searched or indexed directly by computers.

Why Political Parties/Activists Want Machine-Readable Rolls

• Machine-readable = text-PDF / searchable format.
• Advantages:
  • Enables computer-based indexing/search.
  • Makes spotting duplicate entries, ghost voters, irregularities much easier.
  • Reduces human resource dependency and speeds up audit.
• Evidence:
  • In Mahadevapura, Bengaluru → Congress manually found ~11,965 duplicate entries.
  • Activists (e.g., P.G. Bhat) used machine-readable rolls pre-2018 to highlight irregularities.

Why the EC Stopped Providing Machine-Readable Rolls (2018–2019)

• Policy shift: One year before 2019 elections, EC ordered States to stop uploading machine-readable rolls.
• Official rationale (O.P. Rawat, then CEC):
  • Prevent foreign entities from accessing detailed voter data (full names + addresses).
  • Data security concerns in a digital age (risk of profiling, surveillance, manipulation).
• Supreme Court stance (Kamal Nath vs EC, 2018):
  • Refused to compel EC to provide text-searchable electoral rolls.
  • Court held: Petitioners can convert PDFs themselves into searchable format if they wish.
  • Despite EC’s own manual recommending “draft roll shall be put on websites in text mode”.

Technical & Practical Barriers to Analysis

• OCR (Optical Character Recognition):
  • Can convert image-PDFs into searchable text.
  • Decades-old tech, but not perfect → prone to errors, esp. with Indian languages/scripts.
• Challenges:
  • Voter rolls for each Assembly Constituency split into hundreds of PDFs.
  • Estimated 6+ crore pages nationwide.
  • Resource intensive → Cost of OCR for all rolls ≈ $40,000 per revision cycle (Google AI pricing estimate).
  • Logistical hurdles for parties with limited tech capacity.

The Transparency vs. Privacy Dilemma

• Transparency benefits:
  • Easier detection of fraud (duplicate, bogus entries).
  • Builds trust in electoral process.
  • Empowers citizens, researchers, and watchdogs.
• Risks if made fully public:
  • Exposure of sensitive personal data (name, gender, address, age).
  • Possibility of misuse by foreign actors, data brokers, or political micro-targeting.
  • Potential voter harassment or profiling.
• Expert opinion:
  • Srinivas Kodali (activist): Since political parties already have OCR capability, better to make rolls public in machine-readable format to level the playing field and ensure transparency.

The Core Reasons EC Avoids Machine-Readable Rolls

• Data protection: Preventing misuse of sensitive personal info.
• Cybersecurity risks: Fear of foreign/state-sponsored actors exploiting voter databases.
• Legal backing: Supreme Court allowed EC discretion in the matter.
• Operational caution: Large-scale digitisation could trigger political/activist pushback if privacy breaches occur.

Implications of Current Practice

• For political parties:
  • Must invest in manual scrutiny or costly OCR processes.
  • Larger/national parties can afford it → smaller ones disadvantaged.
• For voters:
  • Errors/duplicates harder to spot and correct.
  • Risk of disenfranchisement if issues go unnoticed.
• For democracy:
  • Reduced transparency → possible erosion of trust in electoral rolls.
  • Opens space for allegations of “vote theft” and irregularities.

Way Forward

• Balanced solution:
  • Provide machine-readable rolls with data redaction (partial masking of sensitive info like house number).
  • Tiered access: full rolls to recognized political parties under data-protection obligations, limited access to public.
  • Strengthen data protection laws for electoral databases.
• Technology use:
  • Deploy secure EC-backed OCR and deduplication systems internally.
  • Allow public verification via safe, anonymised platforms.
• Legal clarity: Amend rules to explicitly define what format voter rolls must be published in, balancing privacy with transparency.

Bottom Line

• EC’s refusal stems from privacy and national security concerns, backed by SC’s cautious stance.
• But lack of machine-readable rolls hampers transparency and makes fraud detection harder.
• The challenge is to balance transparency and data privacy, possibly via controlled digital access rather than blanket public release.

---

India successfully tests Agni-5 missile

---

Basics – What is Agni-5?

• Type: Long-range nuclear-capable ballistic missile.
• Classification: Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM).
• Range: ~5,000–5,500 km (can reach almost entire Asia, parts of Europe, Africa).
• Developer: DRDO (Defence Research & Development Organisation).
• User: Strategic Forces Command (SFC), which handles India’s nuclear arsenal.
• Role: Key pillar of India’s nuclear deterrence strategy under the doctrine of credible minimum deterrence.

Relevance : GS 3(Internal Security , Defence)

Key Features of Agni-5

• Propulsion: 3-stage, solid-fuel missile → higher mobility, faster launch readiness.
• Accuracy: Equipped with advanced navigation & guidance systems, including ring-laser gyroscope & micro-navigation system.
• Mobility: Road- and rail-mobile launch capability → increases survivability.
• Warhead capacity: Can carry nuclear warheads (~1.5 tonnes).
• MIRV Technology:
  • Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) allows a single missile to carry multiple warheads.
  • Each warhead can hit different targets, overwhelming enemy defenses.
  • First validated in March 2024 trial.

The August 20, 2025 Test (Chandipur, Odisha)

• Nature of test: User trial by Strategic Forces Command (SFC), not just developmental.
• Purpose:
  • Validate operational readiness of Agni-5 system.
  • Confirm reliability of all technical parameters in real-world conditions.
  • Strengthen India’s long-term strategic deterrence posture.
• Outcome: Declared “successful” → all mission objectives met.

Historical Development

• Agni series: India’s indigenous missile programme → ranges from short-range (Agni-1) to ICBM (Agni-5).
• Timeline:
  • 2012: First test of Agni-5.
  • Multiple developmental & user trials since.
  • 2024: First test of Agni-5 MIRV variant.
  • 2025 (current): Operational validation test by SFC.

Strategic Importance

• Deterrence against China:
  • 5,000 km range covers Beijing, Shanghai, and other Chinese strategic assets.
  • Strengthens India’s second-strike capability under No First Use (NFU) doctrine.
• Credible minimum deterrence: Enhances survivability of India’s nuclear arsenal.
• MIRV capability: Counters anti-ballistic missile (ABM) shields by ensuring multiple warheads hit targets simultaneously.
• Geopolitical message: Demonstrates India’s growing technological maturity in strategic weapons → boosts global stature.

Operational Context

• Strategic Forces Command (SFC): Conducted the test → indicates induction into active arsenal.
• Comparison with others:
  • China: DF-41 ICBM (range 12,000–15,000 km, MIRV capable).
  • Pakistan: No ICBM capability; longest-range = Shaheen-III (~2,750 km).
  • India: With Agni-5 MIRV, joins small club (US, Russia, China, France) with MIRV-capable ICBMs.

Implications for India’s Security & Foreign Policy

• Strategic Stability: Enhances deterrence, reduces adversaries’ temptation for pre-emptive strike.
• China focus: Directly balances China’s long-range missile arsenal.
• Pakistan: Already within Agni-2/Agni-3 range; Agni-5 aimed primarily at China.
• Global diplomacy:
  • Positions India as a responsible nuclear power with credible deterrence.
  • Enhances leverage in global arms control discussions (e.g., MTCR, NSG).

Challenges Ahead

• MIRV integration: Needs extensive testing under different conditions.
• Counter-systems: China deploying advanced ABM systems → India needs penetration aids, decoys, maneuverable warheads.
• Arms race concern: Agni-5 MIRV could trigger regional acceleration of nuclear and missile development.
• Command & control: Must ensure highest standards of safety, security, and political oversight.

Bottom Line

• Agni-5’s August 2025 test marks operational consolidation of India’s ICBM programme.
• Demonstrates MIRV maturity and strategic readiness.
• Reinforces India’s China-centric deterrence posture and secures India’s place among the world’s advanced nuclear powers.