Content:
- Stitch in time
- India’s ‘new normal’ deconstructed
- Scheme-based workers, the struggle for an identity
Stitch in time
Background & Context
- Issue at hand: The Supreme Court struck down two Environment Ministry notifications that allowed industrial units to bypass prior environmental clearance, a key feature of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.
- What the notifications did:
- 2017: Gave a 6-month one-time window for violators to apply for clearance.
- 2021: Allowed continued operations of violators (with fines) under a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).
- Both were executive orders, not backed by amendments to the Environment Protection Act.
Relevance : GS 3(Environmental Governance)
Practice Question : The Supreme Court’s recent verdict on environmental clearance underscores the tension between executive discretion and legal sanctity in environmental governance. Critically examine the implications of this verdict on future environmental policymaking in India. (250 words)
SC Judgment Highlights
- Reaffirmed “prior clearance” as a sacrosanct legal principle.
- Recognised the illegality of these notifications.
- Exempted units that had already regularised themselves under these notifications from penalties.
- Aimed to prevent future misuse of executive discretion in environmental matters.
Centre’s Justification
- Historical Precedent: Similar regularisation was attempted by the UPA government in 2012–13.
- Economic Argument: Shutting down operational plants may harm the economy, jobs, and ironically, even increase pollution.
- Penalty-based Logic: Fines would act as a deterrent for violations.
Criticism of the Centre’s Approach
- Undermining EIA: Allowed backdoor entry for violators, weakening deterrence.
- Lack of Parliamentary Oversight: Skipped legislative process; used executive shortcuts.
- Ineffective deterrence: Fines may not prevent future violations; industries may treat them as a cost of doing business.
- Weak enforcement: Regional pollution control boards failed to monitor and act against violators.
Implications & Way Forward
- Positive precedence: The verdict discourages future dilution of environmental safeguards in the name of ease of doing business.
- Need for enforcement: Legal clarity must be matched with strong ground-level monitoring and compliance.
- Institutional accountability: Strengthening State Pollution Control Boards and empowering local communities is vital.
- Balancing Act: Future policy must harmonize economic development with sustainable environmental governance.
India’s ‘new normal’ deconstructed
Context and Trigger
- On April 22, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam killed Indian soldiers.
- PM’s address on April 24 (in English) was a global signal of India’s new strategic posture.
- India launched Operation Sindoor on May 6-7 in retaliation — striking 9 terrorist targets in Pakistan (including POJK and Punjab).
Relevance : GS 2(International Relations) , GS 3(Internal Security)
Practice Question : India’s evolving counter-terror strategy marks a significant departure from its earlier doctrine of strategic restraint. Discuss how this ‘new normal’ reflects a shift in India’s internal security and foreign policy approach. (250 words)
Nature and Scope of Retaliation
- Targets included UN-proscribed entities: LeT, JeM, Hizbul Mujahideen.
- Strikes were:
- Measured, focused, non-escalatory.
- Avoided Pakistani military establishments initially.
- Follow-up actions:
- Precision strikes on Pakistani air defence systems.
- India responded strongly to artillery, drone, and missile escalations.
- May 10: India struck 11 Pakistani military bases, prompting Pakistan to seek a ceasefire.
Shift from Traditional Doctrine
- Old strategy: halt dialogue, suspend contacts, seek global support, exercise restraint due to nuclear escalation fears.
- Global apathy toward India’s concerns enabled Pakistan’s proxy war model.
- India was hesitant to call Pakistan’s nuclear bluff — until now.
Evolution of India’s Counter-Terror Strategy
- 2016 Uri attack → surgical strikes in POJK.
- 2019 Pulwama attack → Balakot airstrike.
- 2024 Pahalgam attack → Operation Sindoor.
- This trajectory marks the evolution of the ‘new normal’ in India’s defence posture.
Key Elements of the ‘New Normal’
- Zero Tolerance: No terror attack will go unpunished.
- No Safe Havens: Any place in Pakistan can be targeted — no area is sacrosanct.
- Nuclear Bluff Called: India’s strikes showed nuclear deterrence won’t prevent retaliation.
- State Accountability: No distinction between state and non-state actors.
- Pakistani flags on terrorist coffins.
- Military presence at funerals of terrorists.
- India Won’t Share Evidence Anymore:
- Burden of proof not on India.
- Action will be taken based on credible intel alone.
Defence and Tech Transformation
- Use of:
- ISR tech (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance).
- Drones and loitering munitions.
- Precision weaponry (minimising collateral damage).
- Successful use of ‘Made in India’ weapons in Operation Sindoor.
- Need for enhanced civil-military-industrial cooperation.
India’s Strategic Autonomy
- India’s anti-terror campaign is self-reliant.
- Support from global players may fluctuate, but India will act regardless of external backing.
Geopolitical Message
- India’s cooperation (e.g., water sharing, trade, dialogue) is now conditional:
- Pakistan must abjure terrorism.
- Return of POJK is on the table.
- Terrorism and diplomacy/trade cannot coexist.
Conclusion
- India is now assertive, uninhibited, and ready to act unilaterally.
- The global community must now reckon with a decisive and strategic India.
- India’s role in a multipolar world is being redefined by its new security doctrine.
Scheme-based workers, the struggle for an identity
Context and Background
- The government employs millions under various schemes such as:
- ICDS (1975): Anganwadi Workers (AWWs), Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs)
- National Rural Health Mission (NHRM): ASHAs
- Mid-Day Meal Scheme: MDMWs
- Combined, around 60 million workers are employed under these schemes.
- These workers perform crucial socio-economic functions — child care, maternal health, nutrition, public health outreach, and improving school outcomes.
Relevance : GS 2(Schemes , Social Issues ,Governance)
Practice Question : Scheme-based workers are essential to India’s welfare architecture but remain outside the ambit of formal labour recognition. Analyse the challenges they face and suggest measures to ensure economic and legal justice. (250 words)
Core Issues Faced by Scheme-Based Workers (SBWs)
- Lack of recognition as formal “workers” under labour laws.
- No minimum wages or assured wage structures.
- No social security (pension, health insurance, provident fund).
- Treated as “volunteers” or “honorary workers”, not employees.
Forms of Struggle and Resistance
- SBWs have adopted three main strategies:
- Strikes: State-specific protests (e.g., Kerala’s 13-day strike in 2025).
- Legal action: Key judicial interventions have shaped their rights.
- Social dialogue: Participation through forums like the Indian Labour Conference (ILC).
- Trade unions (AITUC, BMS, CITU) play a major role in mobilising and representing SBWs.
- Strikes are frequent due to lack of wage negotiation timelines.
- Some state responses are repressive (e.g., Maharashtra’s Essential Services Maintenance Act, 2017).
Judicial Developments
- 2006: Ameerbi case – Supreme Court refused “worker” status to Anganwadis.
- 2022: Maniben Maganbhai case – Court extended gratuity rights under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
- 2024: Gujarat HC case – Directed that AWWs and AWHs be paid minimum wages and suggested regularisation as Class III/IV employees.
Tripartite Recommendations
- At the 45th Indian Labour Conference (ILC):
- Unanimous recommendation to treat SBWs as “workers”.
- Called for minimum wages, pension, health insurance, PF.
- Central government has not acted on these recommendations.
Government’s Stance and Evasion
- Cites cost implications and population growth as barriers.
- In 2016, Labour Minister called for long-term policy formulation, avoiding fixed timelines.
- Central government has adopted a delaying and denial strategy.
- There are also moves toward privatisation (e.g., of ICDS), which SBW unions strongly oppose.
The Broader Struggle
- SBWs seek:
- Recognition as workers, not volunteers.
- Wages, not honorariums.
- Labour rights, not applause or charity.
- Parallels drawn with gig workers’ struggle for identity and entitlements.
- This is an existential battle for inclusion in the formal labour market.
Conclusion
- The demand for “worker” status is legitimate, rooted in the nature and extent of their public service.
- Delays in policy recognition have resulted in prolonged injustice.
- The struggle continues — not for symbolic appreciation but for economic and legal dignity.
