Content

• Cabinet Approval for Alteration of Name from “Kerala” to “Keralam”
• 40 Years of DBT & Launch of “SUJVIKA” AI-Driven Biotech Portal

Cabinet Approval for Alteration of Name from “Kerala” to “Keralam”

Relevance :

GS II – Polity & Governance

• Article 3 and Article 4: Parliament’s power to alter name of States; simple majority; President’s recommendation mandatory.
• Quasi-federal structure: Consultation with State Legislature is advisory, not binding.
• Federalism debates: Balance between State identity aspirations and Parliamentary supremacy.
• Precedents: Odisha (2011), Karnataka (1973), Tamil Nadu (1969)

Static Constitutional Background

A. Article 3 – Power of Parliament

• Article 3 of the Constitution of India empowers Parliament to form new States, alter boundaries, increase or diminish area, and alter the name of any existing State, thereby making territorial reorganisation a Union legislative competence.
• The Proviso to Article 3 mandates that any Bill affecting the name, area, or boundaries of a State must be introduced only on the recommendation of the President, ensuring executive scrutiny before legislative initiation.
• Before introduction of such a Bill in Parliament, the President must refer the proposal to the concerned State Legislature for expressing its views within a specified period, although those views are advisory in nature.

B. Article 4 – Nature of Amendment

• Laws enacted under Article 3 may amend the First Schedule and Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, which respectively list States/UTs and allocate Rajya Sabha seats, thereby enabling technical constitutional modifications without invoking Article 368.
• Importantly, Article 4 clarifies that such amendments shall not be deemed constitutional amendments under Article 368, meaning they require only a simple majority of members present and voting in Parliament.

C. Linguistic Reorganisation Background

• The reorganisation of States was institutionalised through the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, based on recommendations of the States Reorganisation Commission (1953) chaired by Fazl Ali, which prioritised linguistic homogeneity for administrative efficiency.
• Kerala was formed on 1 November 1956 (celebrated as Kerala Piravi Day) by merging Travancore-Cochin and the Malabar district of the erstwhile Madras State, reflecting the culmination of the “Aikya Kerala” linguistic movement.

Current Development 

• The Union Cabinet chaired by Narendra Modi approved the proposal to rename the State of Kerala as “Keralam,” initiating the formal constitutional process under Article 3.
• The Kerala Legislative Assembly had earlier passed a unanimous resolution on 24 June 2024, urging the Union Government to amend the First Schedule to reflect the Malayalam linguistic form “Keralam.”
• The proposal was processed by the Ministry of Home Affairs under Amit Shah, and vetted by the Department of Legal Affairs and Legislative Department, ensuring constitutional conformity.

Constitutional and Federal Implications

• The alteration of a State’s name highlights India’s quasi-federal structure with a strong Centre, where Parliament retains decisive authority, even though consultation with the State Legislature is procedurally mandatory.
• The Supreme Court in Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay (1960) upheld the wide discretion of Parliament under Article 3, clarifying that State consent is not constitutionally binding.
• The amendment will require modification of the First Schedule of the Constitution, but will not trigger Article 368 procedures, reinforcing the flexible nature of India’s territorial federalism framework.

Governance and Administrative Implications

• Renaming necessitates comprehensive updates across Central and State government records, including Gazette notifications, Aadhaar, PAN, GSTN databases, electoral rolls, and census documentation, requiring coordinated bureaucratic execution.
• International implications include updates in ISO country subdivision codes, UN cartographic records, RBI financial reporting systems, and diplomatic documentation, ensuring consistency in global administrative references.
• Past renaming exercises such as Orissa to Odisha (2011) involved significant logistical restructuring and incurred multi-crore administrative expenditure, indicating fiscal implications despite symbolic objectives.

Economic Dimension

• Kerala contributes approximately 3.8–4% of India’s Gross Domestic Product, according to recent Economic Survey estimates, and has one of the highest per capita incomes among major Indian States at around ₹2.4 lakh or above.
• The State has a substantial overseas diaspora of over 2.5 million migrants, whose remittances form a crucial component of Kerala’s economy, accounting for a significant share of State domestic income.
• The renaming is unlikely to have structural macroeconomic consequences, but may strengthen cultural branding in sectors such as tourism, ayurveda, and diaspora engagement.

Social and Cultural Significance

• “Keralam” represents the authentic Malayalam linguistic expression of the State’s name, aligning constitutional nomenclature with regional linguistic identity and correcting colonial-era anglicised forms.
• The demand reflects the historical “Aikya Kerala” movement that sought unification of Malayalam-speaking regions, reinforcing linguistic federalism as a foundational principle of Indian State formation.
• Similar precedents include Orissa to Odisha (2011), Mysore to Karnataka (1973), and Madras to Tamil Nadu (1969), all executed through Article 3 procedures without constitutional amendment under Article 368.

Political and Federal Considerations

• Since the proposal concerns only nomenclature and not territorial alteration, it is relatively less contentious compared to boundary disputes or bifurcation demands that typically generate inter-state political friction.
• However, the episode rekindles debates regarding whether States should possess stronger consent mechanisms under Article 3, especially in matters affecting identity and territorial integrity.

Challenges and Criticisms

• Administrative transition costs, including updating official records, signage, and digital systems, may impose short-term fiscal burdens that critics argue could be better allocated toward developmental priorities.
• There may be temporary confusion in legal documents, contracts, and inter-state correspondence during the transition period, necessitating careful regulatory guidance and phased implementation.

Way Forward

• The transition should be executed through a digitally integrated, time-bound implementation plan to minimize costs and ensure uniformity across Union and State databases.
• A single consolidated Gazette notification mechanism and public awareness campaign can ensure clarity among citizens, institutions, and international stakeholders during the transition phase.
• The process must reinforce cooperative federalism by respecting State aspirations while preserving constitutional supremacy of Parliament under Article 3.

Practice Question

• “Article 3 reflects India’s flexible federalism while reinforcing parliamentary supremacy.” Examine in the context of the proposed renaming of Kerala to ‘Keralam’.(250 Words)

40 Years of DBT & Launch of “SUJVIKA” AI-Driven Biotech Portal

Why is it in News? 

• On 24 February 2026, marking the 40th Foundation Day (1986–2026) of the Department of Biotechnology, the Union Government launched “SUJVIKA” — an AI-driven Biotech Product Trade Intelligence Portal, signalling a strategic shift toward data-driven bioindustrial policy.
• The announcement assumes importance because India’s bioeconomy has expanded to USD 165.7 billion (2024) and the government has articulated a target of achieving a USD 1 trillion bioeconomy by 2047, positioning biotechnology as a core growth engine.
• The event also highlighted implementation of the BioE3 Policy (Biotechnology for Economy, Environment and Employment) and the launch of a ₹2,000 crore RDI national call under the ₹1 lakh crore innovation initiative, strengthening industrial-scale biotech capabilities.

Relevance

GS III – Science & Technology

• Role of Department of Biotechnology (est. 1986).
• SUJVIKA: AI-driven biotech trade intelligence platform.
• GenomeIndia (10,000 genomes, 99 populations).
• Indigenous gene therapy success (Hemophilia A trial).

Institutional & Static Background

A. Department of Biotechnology (DBT)

• The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) was established in 1986 under the Ministry of Science & Technology, mandated to promote research, infrastructure development, innovation ecosystems, and biotechnology-led economic transformation.
• DBT operates through implementing agencies such as BIRAC (Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council) and BRIC (Biotechnology Research and Innovation Council), bridging laboratory research with industrial application and startup incubation.
• Over four decades, DBT has transitioned from primarily grant-based scientific funding to a comprehensive innovation ecosystem builder integrating policy, entrepreneurship, and translational biotechnology.

SUJVIKA Portal – Strategic Significance

• Launched by Jitendra Singh, SUJVIKA is an AI-enabled Trade Statistics Digital Intelligence Platform developed in collaboration with Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises, providing structured biotechnology import analytics.
• The portal presents authenticated import data on biochemical products, industrial enzymes, and biotech intermediates, enabling identification of high-value import dependencies and facilitating prioritised indigenisation strategies.
• By linking trade intelligence with R&D planning, SUJVIKA strengthens evidence-based policymaking and supports public–private partnerships in high-performance biomanufacturing.

Economic Dimension – India’s Bioeconomy Growth

• India’s bioeconomy has grown 16-fold in a decade, from approximately USD 10 billion in 2014 to USD 165.7 billion in 2024, reflecting expansion in vaccines, diagnostics, agri-biotech, and industrial biotechnology.
• The number of biotech startups has risen from fewer than 100 in 2014 to over 11,000, indicating deepening innovation capacity and improved access to incubation and funding mechanisms.
• The government’s vision aims at a USD 1 trillion bioeconomy by 2047, aligning biotechnology growth with long-term industrial transformation under the Viksit Bharat framework.

Governance & Policy Architecture

A. BioE3 Policy

• The BioE3 Policy seeks to integrate biotechnology with economic growth, environmental sustainability, and employment generation, promoting advanced biomanufacturing clusters and indigenous value chains.
• Implementation through DBT, BIRAC, and BRIC focuses on strengthening scale-up infrastructure, technology transfer mechanisms, and domestic manufacturing of critical biotech inputs.

B. Research Financing & Infrastructure

• A ₹2,000 crore national call under the ₹1 lakh crore Research, Development and Innovation initiative aims to accelerate commercialization and scale-up of biotech enterprises.
• The National Biofoundry Network includes 6 biofoundries and 21 advanced bio-enabler facilities, enabling rapid prototyping and reducing time-to-market for biotech innovations.

Science & Technology Convergence

• Integration of Artificial Intelligence with biotechnology enhances research precision in gene sequencing, diagnostics, and drug discovery, reducing timelines and improving predictive analytics capabilities.
• The GenomeIndia Project has generated whole genome sequencing data of 10,000 individuals from 99 diverse populations, strengthening indigenous genomic databases and personalised medicine prospects.
• India’s first human gene therapy trial for Severe Hemophilia A, supported by DBT and BIRAC, demonstrated sustained Factor VIII production, showcasing translational research capability.

Social & Strategic Importance

• India is among the leading global vaccine manufacturers, reinforcing biotechnology’s strategic role in public health security and global pharmaceutical supply chains.
• Expansion of 95 bio-incubators across 21 States and UTs, supporting over 1,800 incubatees, enhances regional innovation ecosystems and high-skilled employment generation.
• Biotechnology’s role extends to frontier domains such as space biotechnology and space medicine, through collaboration between DBT and ISRO, strengthening India’s scientific leadership.

Challenges & Gaps

• Persistent import dependency in high-end enzymes, reagents, and specialised biotech equipment poses supply-chain vulnerabilities and underscores the need for domestic production incentives.
• Regulatory fragmentation across biosafety, drug approval, and environmental clearances may delay commercialization, requiring harmonised single-window regulatory reforms.
• Deep-tech biotechnology faces capital constraints due to long gestation cycles and high risk, limiting private venture participation compared to digital technology startups.

Way Forward

• Institutionalise SUJVIKA analytics into industrial policy frameworks to directly link trade deficit identification with targeted R&D grants and PLI-type incentives for biotech manufacturing.
• Strengthen regulatory coherence among DBT, CDSCO, and environmental authorities to ensure biosafety while reducing approval delays for startups and research institutions.
• Expand incubation and biofoundry infrastructure to emerging innovation clusters beyond metropolitan centres, promoting inclusive and geographically balanced bioeconomic growth.
• Enhance global collaboration in genomic research, bio-manufacturing standards, and ethical governance to position India as a leading biotechnology hub by 2047.

Practice Question

• India’s bioeconomy is emerging as a critical pillar of Viksit Bharat 2047. Examine the role of DBT and SUJVIKA in strengthening indigenous biomanufacturing.(250 Words)