Content

1. Prior Sanction for Corruption Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
2. Citizen-Centric Healthcare Delivery and Use of Technology
3. Accelerating Subsidence of India’s River Deltas
4. Governor’s Address to the State Legislature
5. Japan’s Post-Fukushima Nuclear Restart
6. Urban Traffic Congestion in Indian Cities: Bengaluru and Pune

---

Prior Sanction for Corruption Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

---

Why in News ?

• Trigger
  • Supreme Court’s split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, which mandates prior government sanction before initiating inquiry/investigation against public servants.
• Context
  • PIL challenging Section 17A as:
    • Shielding corruption
    • Diluting investigative autonomy
  • Government’s defence: protection of honest decision-making.

Relevance

• GS Paper II
  • Anti-corruption framework
  • Accountability vs administrative discretion
  • Role of executive in investigations
  • Rule of Law and separation of powers
• GS Paper IV
  • Ethics in public administration
  • Accountability of public servants
  • Public office as public trust

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Core Concept – Prior Sanction

• Prior Sanction
  • A statutory requirement mandating approval from the competent authority before:
    • Prosecuting (Section 19, PCA)
    • Investigating decisions taken by public servants (Section 17A, PCA).
• Purpose
  • Prevent vexatious, politically motivated or frivolous prosecution.

Legal Background – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

• Enacted to consolidate laws relating to corruption among public servants.
• Covers:
  • Bribery
  • Criminal misconduct
  • Abuse of official position
• 2018 Amendment
  • Inserted Section 17A.

Section 17A – What Does It Mandate?

• Provision
  • No police officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into:
    • Any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant
    • In discharge of official functions
  • Without prior approval of the competent authority.
• Scope
  • Applies to decision-making acts, not necessarily bribe-taking in every case.
• Exception
  • Does not apply where:
    • Person is caught red-handed accepting bribe.

Constitutional & Legal Dimensions

Arguments Supporting Section 17A

• Protects bona fide administrative decision-making.
• Prevents policy paralysis and “fear psychosis”.
• Executive has the right to regulate prosecution of its officials.
• Comparable to Section 197 CrPC (sanction for prosecution).

Arguments Against Section 17A

• Violates Article 14 (arbitrariness; unequal protection).
• Undermines:
  • Rule of Law
  • Independent investigation
• Converts sanctioning authority into a judge of its own cause.
• Prior sanction before investigation (not just prosecution) is excessive.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence

• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
  • Struck down executive interference in corruption probes.
  • Emphasised institutional independence of CBI.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012)
  • Sanction must be granted or denied within reasonable time.
• Current Split Verdict (2024–25)
  • One judge: Section 17A unconstitutional (violates equality, investigative autonomy).
  • Other judge: Section 17A valid; sufficient safeguards already exist.
• Status
  • Matter referred to a larger constitutional bench.

Governance & Administrative Dimensions

• Institutional Impact
  • Investigating agencies (CBI, State ACBs) face procedural delays.
• Key Governance Concern
  • Executive control over initiation of corruption probes.
• Centre–Agency Tension
  • Dilutes operational autonomy promised post–Vineet Narain reforms.
• Outcome
  • Shift from deterrence-based anti-corruption to permission-based enforcement.

Economic Dimensions

• Weak anti-corruption enforcement:
  • Increases cost of governance
  • Discourages investment
  • Affects ease of doing business
• World Bank Governance Indicators
  • Corruption control directly linked to economic efficiency and growth.

Social, Ethical & Equity Dimensions

• Ethical Dilemma
  • Protection of honest officers vs accountability of corrupt officials.
• Equity Issue
  • Citizens face barriers to justice due to:
    • Delayed investigations
    • Institutional shielding
• Ethical Framework (GS IV)
  • Public office as a public trust
  • Accountability as core value of ethical governance.
• SDG Link
  • SDG 16: Effective, accountable institutions.

Data & Evidence

• PCA amended in 2018 to insert Section 17A.
• Sanction requirement applies to decision-related acts, not trap cases.
• India’s ranking in global corruption perception indices consistently highlights governance concerns.
• Multiple corruption cases delayed due to sanction-related bottlenecks (Parliamentary Standing Committee observations).

Challenges, Gaps & Criticisms

Structural / Institutional Issues

• Executive dominance over anti-corruption machinery.
• Conflict of interest: Government decides on investigation of its own officials.

Implementation & Design Issues

• No statutory time-limit for granting sanction under Section 17A.
• Scope of “decision taken in official capacity” is ambiguous.
• Prior sanction at pre-investigation stage is globally unusual.

Expert / Committee Criticism

• Second ARC (Ethics in Governance)
  • Stressed need for independent anti-corruption institutions.
• Legal scholars:
  • Section 17A risks becoming a protective shield, not a procedural safeguard.

Way Forward

• Procedural Safeguards
  • Sanction decision should be:
    • Time-bound
    • Reasoned
• Balanced Approach
  • Limit prior sanction to:
    • Policy decisions
    • Not routine administrative or financial acts.
• Institutional Reform
  • Independent sanctioning authority (outside executive control).
• Judicial Oversight
  • Allow courts to override sanction denial in exceptional cases.
• Legislative Clarity
  • Clearly define “official decision” vs corrupt act.

Prelims Pointers 

• Section 17A inserted by 2018 amendment to PCA.
• Sanction under Section 17A is before investigation, not prosecution.
• Section 19 PCA deals with sanction for prosecution, not inquiry.
• Vineet Narain case relates to CBI independence, not PCA directly.

---

Citizen-Centric Healthcare Delivery & Use of Technology 

---

Contextual Background

• Trigger
  • Lancet Commission (2025–26) report calling for a citizen-centric, publicly financed, and technology-enabled healthcare system in India.
• Context
  • Persistent gaps in:
    • Access
    • Quality
    • Financial protection in India’s healthcare.
  • Post-COVID recognition of:
    • Health as a public good
    • Need for system-wide reform, not scheme-based fixes.

Relevance

• GS Paper II
  • Health as a public good
  • Welfare state and social sector governance
  • Centre–State relations in healt
• GS Paper III
  • Human capital development
  • Technology in service delivery

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Core Concept – Citizen-Centric Healthcare

• Citizen-Centric Healthcare
  • A system where:
    • Citizens, not diseases or insurance packages, are at the centre.
    • Emphasis on continuity of care, not episodic treatment.
• Key Principles
  • Universality
  • Equity
  • Public financing
  • Accountability
• Lancet’s Core Assertion
  • Health systems should be publicly financed and publicly provided, with technology as an enabler—not a substitute.

Historical Evolution of Health Policy in India

• Post-Independence
  • Focus on public health infrastructure (PHCs, CHCs).
• 1990s–2000s
  • Gradual shift towards:
    • Privatisation
    • Out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE).
• Recent Phase
  • Insurance-led approach (e.g., PM-JAY).
• Emerging Shift
  • From insurance-centric → care-centric health systems.

Constitutional & Legal Dimensions

• Constitutional Basis
  • Article 21: Right to life interpreted to include right to health.
  • Article 47 (DPSP): Duty of the State to improve public health.
• Legal Reality
  • Health is a State subject (Entry 6, State List).
• Judicial Interpretation
  • Supreme Court: Access to healthcare integral to dignity.
• Constitutional Gap
  • No enforceable right to healthcare yet.
• Federal Implication
  • Need for strong Centre–State coordination without encroachment.

Governance & Administrative Dimensions

• Lancet Commission’s Diagnosis
  • Fragmented health system:
    • Preventive, promotive, curative care poorly integrated.
• Institutional Recommendations
  • Strengthen:
    • Primary healthcare as the foundation.
    • Referral-based, integrated care pathways.
• Governance Reform
  • Shift from:
    • Disease-specific vertical programmes
    • To people-centred, life-cycle-based care.
• Centre–State Issues
  • Uneven capacity
  • Fiscal asymmetry
• Accountability
  • Citizens should have voice and grievance redressal in health systems.

Economic Dimensions

• Public Health Spending
  • India spends ~2.1% of GDP on health (Economic Survey).
• Out-of-Pocket Expenditure
  • Still ~45–50% of total health expenditure.
• Lancet’s Economic Argument
  • Preventive and primary care reduce:
    • Long-term costs
    • Hospitalisation burden.
• Macroeconomic Link
  • Poor health outcomes reduce:
    • Labour productivity
    • Human capital formation.
• Global Evidence
  • Publicly funded health systems are more cost-effective and equitable.

Social, Ethical & Equity Dimensions

• Equity Concerns
  • Poor, women, elderly disproportionately affected by:
    • OOPE
    • Fragmented care.
• Ethical Lens
  • Healthcare as:
    • Right
    • Public trust
    • Moral obligation of the State.
• Dignity & Consent
  • Citizen-centric care emphasises:
    • Patient dignity
    • Informed consent
    • Continuity of care.
• SDG Link
  • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
  • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

Technology Dimensions

• Role of Technology (Lancet View)
  • AI, digital platforms, health data systems should:
    • Support clinicians
    • Improve diagnostics
    • Enable continuity of care.
• Indian Context
  • Digital Health Mission
  • Electronic Health Records (EHRs).
• Risks
  • Tech-first approach may:
    • Exclude digitally marginalised
    • Undermine doctor–patient relationship.
• Principle
  • Technology should augment, not replace, human care.

Data & Evidence

• Nearly 30 experts contributed to the Lancet Commission.
• India’s OOPE ~45–50% of total health expenditure.
• Public health spending ~2.1% of GDP.
• Primary healthcare prevents up to 70% of avoidable hospitalisations (global estimates).
• India faces a dual burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases.

Challenges, Gaps & Criticisms

Structural / Institutional Issues

• Over-reliance on private sector.
• Weak primary healthcare in many States.
• Fragmented service delivery.

Implementation & Design Issues

• Insurance schemes prioritise:
  • Hospital care over prevention.
• Human resource shortages:
  • Doctors, nurses, allied health workers.
• Poor integration of digital health platforms.

Expert / Committee Criticism

• Lancet Commission
  • Warns against:
    • Insurance-only solutions
    • Market-driven healthcare.
• Public Health Experts
  • Emphasise need to rebuild public provisioning capacity.

Way Forward

• Policy Shift
  • Move from insurance-centric to care-centric health policy.
• Financing
  • Increase public health spending to ≥3% of GDP.
• Primary Care
  • Strengthen Health and Wellness Centres as first point of contact.
• Technology
  • Use AI, digital records for:
    • Preventive care
    • Chronic disease management.
• Equity Focus
  • Design systems for:
    • Poor
    • Elderly
    • Rural and tribal populations.
• Governance
  • Institutionalise citizen feedback and accountability mechanisms.

Prelims Pointers 

• Health is a State subject, not Union.
• Right to health is judicially derived, not explicit.
• Lancet Commission favours public financing, not privatisation.
• Technology is an enabler, not a substitute.
• OOPE remains high despite insurance expansion.

---

Accelerating Subsidence of India’s River Deltas

---

Contextual Background

• Trigger
  • An international research study published in Nature (January 14, 2026) revealing systemic land subsidence across major river deltas, including six in India.
• Key Finding
  • In several Indian deltas, land subsidence exceeds the rate of sea-level rise, magnifying coastal risk.
• Motivation of Study

Global lack of high-resolution subsidence data for river deltas despite supporting ~340 million people worldwide

Relevance

• GS Paper I
  • Geomorphology: river deltas
  • Human–environment interaction
• GS Paper III
  • Climate change impacts
  • Disaster risk reduction
  • Environmental degradation

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Core Concept – Delta Subsidence

• Subsidence
  • Gradual sinking of land elevation due to:
    • Natural sediment compaction
    • Isostatic and tectonic processes.
• Human-Accelerated Subsidence
  • Excessive groundwater extraction
  • Reduced sediment supply
  • Urban load and infrastructure pressure.
• Key Insight
  • Human actions have transformed a slow geological process into an urgent environmental crisis.

Scientific & Technical Basis of the Study

• Data Source
  • ESA Sentinel-1 satellite (2014–2023).
• Methodology
  • Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR).
  • Spatial resolution: 75 metres.
• Analytical Tool
  • Random Forest Machine Learning model.
• Stressors Analysed
  • Groundwater storage (NASA–German GRACE satellites).
  • Sediment flux.
  • Urban expansion.

Key Findings – Indian River Deltas

Deltas Identified

• Six Indian Deltas Studied
  • Ganges–Brahmaputra
  • Brahmani
  • Mahanadi
  • Godavari
  • Cauvery
  • Kabani.

Magnitude & Pattern of Subsidence

• Extent
  • 90% of Ganges–Brahmaputra, Brahmani, Mahanadi deltas affected.
     
• Rate
  • Average subsidence exceeds regional sea-level rise in:
    • Ganges
    • Brahmani
    • Mahanadi
    • Godavari
    • Kabani.
• Critical Threshold
  • 77% of Brahmani and 69% of Mahanadi sinking at >5 mm/year.
• Urban Hotspot
  • Kolkata:
    • Subsidence accelerated by:
      • Urban load
      • Resource over-extraction.

Environmental & Climate Dimensions

• Climate Interaction
  • Subsidence + sea-level rise = compound coastal hazard.
• Impacts
  • Increased coastal and river flooding.
  • Permanent land loss.
  • Saltwater intrusion contaminating:
    • Freshwater aquifers
    • Agricultural soils.
• Ecosystem Stress
  • Wetland degradation.
  • Mangrove vulnerability.
• Climate Risk Framing
  • Ganges–Brahmaputra delta shifted from:
    • “Latent threat” (20th century)
    • To “Unprepared diver” (21st century).

Economic Dimensions

• Livelihood Impact
  • Agriculture and fisheries affected by salinisation.
• Infrastructure Risk
  • Damage to:
    • Ports
    • Transport networks
    • Urban assets.
• Migration Pressure
  • Environmental degradation → distress migration.
• Macro Risk
  • Coastal economic hubs face long-term viability threats.

Social, Ethical & Equity Dimensions

• Vulnerable Populations
  • Delta regions house:
    • High population density
    • Poor adaptive capacity.
• Equity Concern
  • Those contributing least to climate change bear disproportionate costs.
• Resource Conflict
  • Freshwater scarcity may intensify:
    • Inter-sectoral
    • Inter-regional conflicts.
• SDG Link
  • SDG 13 (Climate Action)
  • SDG 14 (Life below Water)
  • SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities).

Governance & Administrative Dimensions

• Institutional Capacity Gap
  • Risk increasing faster than governance response.
• Policy Blind Spot
  • Coastal planning often ignores vertical land movement.
• Centre–State Coordination
  • Fragmented responsibility for:
    • Water extraction
    • Urban planning
    • Coastal regulation.
• Regulatory Gaps
  • Weak enforcement of groundwater regulation.
  • Inadequate sediment management in river basins.

Data & Evidence

• 40 global deltas studied; 6 in India.
• Spatial resolution: 75 m (high-resolution).
• >340 million people depend on global deltas.
• >90% area affected in three major Indian deltas.
• Subsidence rates exceed sea-level rise in most Indian deltas studied.
• Study period: 2014–2023.
• Published in Nature, January 14, 2026.

Challenges, Gaps & Limitations

Structural / Data Limitations

• GRACE groundwater data less accurate for small deltas.
• Sediment flux data not fully updated.
• 40 deltas not fully globally representative.

Policy & Implementation Gaps

• Absence of:
  • Delta-specific adaptation plans.
  • Integrated river basin–delta governance.
• Urban expansion unchecked in vulnerable zones.

Way Forward

• Integrated Delta Management
  • Basin-to-delta planning integrating sediment flow.
• Groundwater Regulation
  • Enforce sustainable extraction limits.
• Urban Planning
  • Restrict high-load infrastructure in subsiding zones.
• Nature-Based Solutions
  • Mangrove restoration as natural buffers.
• Technology Use
  • Institutionalise satellite-based subsidence monitoring.
• Governance Capacity
  • Shift deltas from “unprepared divers” to climate-resilient systems.
• Policy Alignment
  • Mainstream subsidence into:
    • Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
    • Disaster management planning.

Prelims Pointers

• Subsidence ≠ sea-level rise; both compound risk.
• Sentinel-1 is operated by ESA, not NASA.
• GRACE measures groundwater storage, not surface water.
• Urbanisation can accelerate subsidence even without tectonic activity.
• Delta sinking can exceed sea-level rise → higher flood risk.
• Subsidence is partly natural, but now human-amplified.

---

Governor’s Address to the State Legislature

---

Contextual Background

• Trigger
  • Karnataka Governor–State Government face-off over deletion of portions of the Governor’s address to the State Legislature, particularly references critical of the Union government (e.g., MNREGA fund delays).
• Context
  • Similar confrontations recently witnessed in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, indicating a patterned Centre–State–Governor tension.

Relevance

• GS Paper II
  • Role of Governor
  • Constitutional conventions
  • Centre–State relations
  • Federalism
• GS Paper IV
  • Constitutional morality
  • Neutrality of constitutional offices

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Governor’s Address – Constitutional Concept

• Governor’s Address
  • A constitutional formality where the Governor addresses the Legislature at:
    • First session after general elections
    • First session of each year.
• Nature
  • Not personal views of the Governor.
  • Reflects the policies and programmes of the elected State government.

Constitutional & Legal Dimensions

 Relevant Constitutional Provisions

• Article 176
  • Governor shall address the Legislative Assembly/Council.
• Article 163
  • Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited discretionary areas.
• Article 168
  • Defines the State Legislature.
• Article 175(2)
  • Governor may send messages to the House(s), again on aid and advice.

Supreme Court Interpretation

• Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
  • Governor is a constitutional head, not an independent authority.
• Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
  • Governor cannot act contrary to or without ministerial advice except where Constitution explicitly allows.
• Key Principle
  • Governor has no veto over content of the address.

Governance & Federal Dimensions

• Core Issue
  • Whether a Governor can:
    • Refuse to read the address.
    • Unilaterally delete or modify portions approved by the Cabinet.
• Constitutional Position
  • Governor cannot alter substance of the address.
  • At best, may:
    • Suggest changes
    • Seek clarifications.
• Federal Concern
  • Governor acting as:
    • Neutral constitutional umpire vs
    • De facto agent of the Union.
• Trend
  • Increasing politicisation of gubernatorial office undermines cooperative federalism.

Democratic & Ethical Dimensions

• Democratic Principle
  • Governor’s address represents the mandate of the electorate, not Raj Bhavan’s discretion.
• Ethical Issue
  • Unelected authority diluting or blocking:
    • Legislative debate
    • Executive accountability.
• Institutional Morality
  • Respect for:
    • Popular sovereignty
    • Cabinet responsibility.

Challenges, Gaps & Criticisms

Structural Issues

• Ambiguity in conventions vs codified rules.
• No explicit constitutional remedy for:
  • Refusal to read address
  • Selective omission.

Institutional Criticism

• Punchhi Commission
  • Warned against misuse of Governor’s office for partisan ends.
• Sarkaria Commission
  • Governor should be a bridge, not a barrier, between Centre and State.

Way Forward

• Codify Conventions
  • Parliamentary/legislative rules clarifying:
    • Mandatory reading of Cabinet-approved address.
• Judicial Clarification
  • Clear ruling on consequences of Governor’s refusal.
• Governor’s Conduct
  • Adherence to:
    • Constitutional morality
    • Political neutrality.
• Structural Reform
  • Implement commission recommendations on:
    • Appointment
    • Tenure security
    • Removal norms for Governors.
• Federal Ethos
  • Reinforce cooperative, not confrontational, federalism.

Prelims Pointers

• Governor’s address is under Article 176, not Article 174.
• Content belongs to Council of Ministers, not Governor.
• Governor has no discretionary power over address content.
• Refusal to read address ≠ constitutional veto.
• SC judgments consistently uphold aid and advice principle.

---

Japan Restarts Nuclear Power Plant Post-Fukushima

---

Contextual Background

• Trigger
  • Japan restarted the Kashiwazaki–Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world’s largest nuclear power facility, marking the first restart since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
• Source
  • International news reports (January 2026).
• Context
  • Restart occurred despite:
    • Strong public opposition
    • Persistent concerns over earthquake and tsunami risks.

Relevance

• GS Paper III
  • Nuclear energy
  • Energy security
  • Disaster management

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Nuclear Power in Japan – Core Context

• Japan is a seismically active country with high exposure to:
  • Earthquakes
  • Tsunamis.
• Fukushima Daiichi Disaster (2011)
  • Triggered by a tsunami following a major earthquake.
  • Led to:
    • Shutdown of all nuclear reactors
    • Long-term evacuation
    • Loss of public confidence in nuclear energy.

Rationale Behind Restart

Energy Security Dimension

• Japan is:
  • Resource-poor
  • Highly dependent on imported fossil fuels.
• Nuclear restart aimed at:
  • Reducing energy import bill
  • Ensuring stable baseload power
  • Supporting industrial competitiveness.

Climate & Emissions Dimension

• Nuclear energy viewed as:
  • Low-carbon baseload energy
  • Essential for Japan’s net-zero commitments.
• Restart aligns with:
  • Decarbonisation goals
  • Reduced reliance on coal and LNG.

Safety, Environmental & Disaster Dimensions

• Location Risk
  • Kashiwazaki–Kariwa located near:
    • Seismically active coastal zones.
• Concerns Raised
  • Risk of:
    • Nuclear accident
    • Radiation leakage
    • Long-term ecological damage.
• Public Opposition
  • Protests by residents and activists citing:
    • Fukushima precedent
    • Inadequate disaster preparedness.
• Government Response
  • Assurance of:
    • Enhanced safety checks
    • Strict regulatory oversight.

Governance & Regulatory Dimensions

• Regulatory Changes Post-Fukushima
  • Establishment of stricter nuclear safety norms.
  • Enhanced role of independent nuclear regulators.
• Trust Deficit
  • Restart despite opposition highlights:
    • Gap between expert assessment and public perception.
• Key Governance Question
  • Can technological safeguards substitute for public consent?

Economic Dimensions

• Cost Considerations
  • Nuclear restarts reduce:
    • High LNG and oil import costs.
• Industrial Impact
  • Stable electricity crucial for:
    • Manufacturing
    • High-tech industries.
• Risk Cost
  • Potential nuclear accident would impose:
    • Massive economic
    • Social
    • Environmental costs.

Data & Evidence  

• Kashiwazaki–Kariwa is the world’s largest nuclear power plant.
• Restart is the first major nuclear reactivation in Japan since 2011.
• Fukushima disaster caused:
  • Mass evacuations
  • Long-term radiation concerns.
• Japan imports a major share of its energy requirements.

Challenges, Gaps & Criticisms

Structural Issues

• Nuclear plants in high-risk seismic zones.
• Long-term waste disposal unresolved.

Governance Gaps

• Limited public participation in decision-making.
• Over-reliance on expert-driven risk assessment.

Ethical Criticism

• Normalisation of nuclear risk post-Fukushima.
• Potential erosion of precautionary principle.

Way Forward

• Risk-Based Decision Making
  • Nuclear expansion must integrate:
    • Disaster risk assessments
    • Climate resilience.
• Public Engagement
  • Transparency and consent crucial.
• Technological Safeguards
  • Continuous upgrades, independent audits.
• Diversified Energy Mix
  • Balance nuclear with renewables.
• Indian Context
  • Lessons for:
    • Coastal nuclear plants (Kudankulam)
    • Disaster preparedness and evacuation planning.

Prelims Pointers 

• Fukushima disaster occurred in 2011, not 2004.
• Kashiwazaki–Kariwa ≠ Fukushima Daiichi.
• Nuclear power is low-carbon, but not risk-free.
• Energy security ≠ energy safety.
• Seismic risk is a critical factor in nuclear siting.

---

Urban Traffic Congestion in Indian Cities – Bengaluru & Pune in Global Rankings

---

Contextual Background

• Trigger
  • TomTom Traffic Index 2025 ranked Bengaluru as the 2nd most congested city globally and Pune as 5th.
• Context
  • Raises concerns amid State narratives projecting Bengaluru as a “future-ready/global tech city”.

Relevance

• GS Paper I
  • Urbanisation and migration
• GS Paper II
  • Urban governance
  • Municipal capacity
• GS Paper III
  • Infrastructure
  • Sustainable transport
  • Productivity losses

Conceptual & Static Foundation

Core Concept – Urban Traffic Congestion

• Traffic Congestion
  • A condition where travel demand exceeds road network capacity, leading to:
    • Reduced speeds
    • Longer travel times
    • Higher fuel consumption and emissions.
• Measurement (TomTom Methodology)
  • Average speeds during peak hours
  • Time lost due to congestion
  • Extra travel time compared to free-flow conditions.

Key Findings (2025 Index Highlights)

• Bengaluru
  • Average peak-hour speed: ~13.9 kmph.
  • Congestion level: ~74.4% (year-on-year increase).
  • Time to travel 10 km: ~36 minutes.
  • Annual time lost during rush hours: ~168 hours.
• Pune
  • Ranked 5th globally for congestion.
• Comparative
  • Mumbai ranked 18th; performs better on average speed than Bengaluru.

Governance & Administrative Dimensions

• Urban Planning Deficits
  • Road-centric expansion without proportional public transport growth.
  • Fragmented land-use and transport planning.
• Institutional Issues
  • Weak coordination among:
    • Municipal corporations
    • Traffic police
    • Urban development authorities.
• Policy Mismatch
  • Global branding vs ground-level service delivery.

Data & Evidence

• Bengaluru: 2nd most congested city globally (2025).
• Pune: 5th globally.
• Average peak speed in Bengaluru: ~13.9 kmph.
• Annual time lost in congestion (Bengaluru): ~168 hours.
• Congestion level increased year-on-year.

Way Forward 

• Public Transport First
  • Accelerate metro, suburban rail, and bus rapid transit.
• Integrated Urban Planning
  • Transit-oriented development (TOD).
• Demand Management
  • Congestion pricing in core zones.
  • Staggered office timings, remote work incentives.
• Technology
  • Intelligent traffic management systems (AI-enabled signals).
• Institutional Reform
  • Unified metropolitan transport authorities.
• Sustainability
  • Promote non-motorised transport (walking, cycling).

Prelims Pointers 

• TomTom Traffic Index is a global, not Indian, report.
• Congestion ranking ≠ population size ranking.
• High GDP cities can still have poor mobility outcomes.
• Average speed during peak hours is a key congestion metric.
• Flyovers alone do not solve congestion structurally.