Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 09 July 2025

Content :

1. Quick Fix
2. The ECI does not have unfettered powers
3. Address Misgivings

 Quick Fix

Policy Context & Institutional Architecture

• Union Cabinet Approval: Cleared a ₹1-lakh crore Research Development and Innovation (RDI) scheme aimed at boosting private sector investment in basic research.
• Fund Structure:
  • To be housed under Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF).
  • ANRF to act as a single-window funding platform for universities and research institutions.
  • Oversight: Ministry of Science & Technology.
  • Funding Model: ~70% expected from private sources, rest from the government.
• Target Shift:
  • Currently, 70% of India’s R&D funding comes from the public sector.
  • Policy goal: Reverse the ratio in favor of private-led R&D growth.

Relevance : GS 3(Research and Development)

Practice Question :Government funding alone cannot transform India into an innovation-driven economy without structural reforms in the research and industrial ecosystem.Evaluate the prospects and limitations of the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) in revitalizing India’s R&D landscape.(250 Words)

Design Features & Eligibility Criteria

• Eligibility Constraint:
  • Only projects with a minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL-4) are eligible.
  • TRL Scale (NASA-origin, 1970s):
    • TRL-1: Basic theoretical research
    • TRL-4: Validated in lab
    • TRL-9: Proven in real-world environment
  • Implication: Early-stage research (TRL-1 to 3) excluded, despite high innovation potential.

Core Concerns & Structural Weaknesses

• Conservatism in Risk-Taking:
  • Excluding early-stage R&D discourages blue-sky science and radical innovation.
  • Over-focus on “market-ready” technologies mimics venture capital logic—but without its risk appetite.

• Ignoring Global R&D Models:
  • In many advanced economies, military-industrial complexes have historically incubated frontier technologies (e.g., Internet, GPS).
  • India lacks a similar public R&D anchor for high-risk, high-reward science.

• Brain Drain Continues:
  • India continues to lose top-tier scientists to developed countries due to:
    • Low domestic investment in early research
    • Lack of institutional autonomy
    • Poor career incentives

• Manufacturing Ecosystem Gaps:
  • India’s low-tech manufacturing base cannot effectively absorb or scale scientific innovation.
  • Translating lab innovation into industrial output remains a weak link.

R&D Investment Snapshot (India vs Global)

Expert Takeaways

• Funding ≠ Innovation:
  • Capital infusion is necessary but insufficient for long-term R&D success.
• Systemic Fixes Required:
  • Build robust linkages between academia–industry–government.
  • Reform procurement, IP regimes, and academic autonomy.
• Need for Risk-Backed Public Science:
  • India must fund bold, early-stage research without insisting on immediate market viability.
• Manufacturing Synergy:
  • Strengthen advanced manufacturing to translate research into products.

Conclusion

• The editorial argues that India’s RDI scheme is well-intentioned but structurally flawed due to:
  • Arbitrary entry barriers (TRL-4)
  • Overdependence on private sector readiness
  • Weak ecosystem to absorb innovation

• Call to Action:
  • Blend funding with institutional reform, risk appetite, and ecosystem development to unleash India’s full innovation potential.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.

The ECI does not have unfettered powers

Context & Trigger

• ECI Order (June 24, 2025): Directed a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of Assembly elections in November 2025.
• Opposition Allegation: Accused the ECI of attempting to disenfranchise thousands of voters, particularly by targeting their citizenship status.
• ECI’s Stand: Denied allegations; justified revision as within its powers.

Relevance : GS 2(Elections -Reforms)

Practice Question : In a democracy, the legitimacy of electoral processes rests on transparency, legality, and inclusiveness.Discuss this in light of the recent electoral roll revision ordered by the Election Commission of India in Bihar.(250 Words)

Legal Framework for Electoral Roll Revision

A. Constitutional Basis

• Article 326:
  • Elections to Lok Sabha and State Assemblies are based onadult suffrage.
  • Voting rights are limited to Indian citizens aged 18 or above.

• Article 324:
  • Vests superintendence and control of elections with the ECI.
  • Described by the Supreme Court as a “reservoir of power”, but not unlimited.

B. Statutory Provisions – RPA, 1950 & 1951

• Section 19 (RPA, 1950): Conditions for registration – citizen, 18+, ordinarily resident.
• Section 21 (RPA, 1950): ECI may order:
  • Annual revision (default)
  • Revision before elections
  • Special revision with reasons – limited to a constituency or part.
• Section 14: Defines qualifying date as January 1 each year (except in special revisions).
• Section 11A (RPA, 1951): Lists voting disqualifications for criminal offenses.

Key Legal Inconsistencies Highlighted

• Qualifying Date Mismatch:
  • ECI Order cites 01/07/2025 as the qualifying date.
  • Law (Section 14) only recognizes 01/01/2025 for general revisions.
  • Conclusion: The new date has no statutory basis under existing law.

• Scope of Revision:
  • Section 21(3) permits special revisions only for a constituency or part, not entire states.
  • Applying SIR to the whole of Bihar arguably exceeds legal mandate.

• “Special Intensive Revision”:
  • No legal recognition of this term in the RPA or accompanying Rules.

Judicial & Doctrinal Interpretations

• Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC (1978):
  • The ECI must act within existing law where it exists.
  • May invoke Article 324 powers only where law is silent, and only to ensure free and fair elections.

• Natural Justice & Voter Rights:
  • The Supreme Court affirms ECI’s obligation to follow due process and fairness.
  • Electoral Registration Officers cannot reject applications solely due to absence of “foolproof” citizenship documents.
  • Rule 8 of Registration of Electors Rules: Citizens must submit information only “to the best of their ability”.

Administrative & Political Concerns

• Timing: Ordered mere months before elections, despite 2024 roll revisions, raising questions on intent.
• Petitions in SC: Multiple pleas filed challenging the ECI’s order; legal uncertainty persists.
• Transparency: The opaque nature of the SIR process has drawn criticism from civil society and legal experts.

Data & Precedents

Conclusion & Recommendations

• Legality in Doubt: SIR lacks statutory support due to incorrect qualifying date and state-wide scope.
• Constitutional Principle: Electoral fairness and voter inclusion are basic structure doctrines.
• Need for Caution:
  • ECI must avoid any perception of bias.
  • Greater transparency, clear legal justifications, and judicial oversight are essential.
• Possible Course Correction:
  • Restrict scope to specific districts if justified by evidence.
  • Publicly clarify criteria and safeguards for deletions to maintain public trust.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.

Address Misgivings

Strategic Context

• Geostrategic Importance: Great Nicobar is critical for India’s maritime security in the Indo-Pacific, especially amid rising Chinese activity in the Bay of Bengal and Strait of Malacca.
• Government’s Vision: Part of a broader five-year plan to develop the Andaman & Nicobar Islands as a forward maritime outpost and logistics hub for India’s security interests.

Relevance : GS 3(Environment and Ecology ,Infrastructure)

Practice Question : While infrastructure development in ecologically sensitive zones may serve strategic interests, it must also uphold environmental safeguards and tribal rights. Critically examine this statement in the context of the Great Nicobar Island project.(250 Words)

Infrastructure Plan: Scope & Components

• Mega Infrastructure Project on Great Nicobar Island includes:
  • International Container Transshipment Terminal (ICTT)
  • Greenfield international airport
  • New township
  • Gas and solar-based power plants
• Objective: Strategic deterrence and economic development of the island chain.

Environmental & Social Concerns

• Ecological Sensitivity:
  • The region harbors coral reefs, marine ecosystems, leatherback turtles, and the Nicobar megapode—many of which are endangered.

• Impact on Indigenous Communities:
  • Potential adverse effects on the Shompen tribe, an isolated, vulnerable indigenous group.
  • Civil society groups warn of disruption to forest-based livelihoods and displacement.

Legal & Institutional Oversight

• NGT Intervention (2023):
  • Directed the Ministry of Environment to form a High-Powered Committee (HPC) to re-evaluate environmental clearances.

• HPC Report Findings:
  • Found that clearances were issued based on “statutory provisions,” but the report remains classified.

• Transparency Issues:
  • Lack of public disclosure violates the RTI Act’s provisions on environmental clearances.
  • Civil society flagged secrecy as a barrier to accountability and tribal rights.

Secrecy & Due Process: Concerns Raised

• Government’s Non-disclosure:
  • Ministry submitted the HPC report to NGT but kept its contents sealed.
• Legal Challenges:
  • Rajya Sabha questioned environmental procedures and raised concerns via the NGT and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST).
  • Environmental clearances challenged for non-compliance with due process and lack of public participation.

Institutional Positions

• MoEFCC’s Stance: Has not clarified whether any action will be taken based on the HPC report.
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs: Reported to be reviewing project impacts on tribal communities.
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation: Claims no Wildlife Conservation Plan (WCP) has been approved.
• Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology: Still drafting a report on the island’s biodiversity impact.

Timeline Snapshot

Key Contradictions & Dilemmas

• Strategic imperative vs ecological caution: The project is vital for India’s regional dominance but conflicts with environmental protection norms.
• Speed vs transparency: Expedient implementation undermines due process and public scrutiny.
• National security vs local rights: Indigenous and wildlife concerns need balancing with defense and trade ambitions.

Takeaways & Way Forward

• Transparent Environmental Governance:
  • Public disclosure of impact assessments and HPC reports is essential.
• Stakeholder Engagement:
  • Tribal voices and local communities must be included early in planning.
• Balanced Development:
  • Consider phasing or redesigning components of the project to reduce ecological footprint.
• Independent Evaluation:
  • Scientific institutions should independently assess ecological impacts before approvals.

Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed here are based on the original article published in THE HINDU and do not reflect the official stance of Legacy IAS Academy. This content is provided solely for Academic purposes.