Content
- Radhakrishnan elected Vice-President of India
- Poor NARI ranking exposes women safety gaps in Delhi
- China digs in on ‘rare earth’, commands global market
- Lessons for India: how Kerala is tackling rapid urbanisation
- Governors must act as true guides and philosophers to States, says CJI Gavai
- Could our everyday artificially intelligent chatbots become conscious?
Radhakrishnan elected Vice-President of India
Why in News
- C.P. Radhakrishnan, Governor of Maharashtra and NDA nominee, was elected as the 17th Vice-President of India (2025).
- He secured 452 first-preference votes, defeating the joint Opposition candidate Justice B. Sudershan Reddy, who got 300 votes.
- 98.2% turnout of the electoral college; cross-voting noted from the Opposition camp.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Constitution, Executive, Parliament, President & Vice-President, Electoral processes, Articles 63–66, Judicial review)
Vice-President of India
- Constitutional Provision:
- Article 63: There shall be a Vice-President of India.
- Article 64: Vice-President is the ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha.
- Article 65: Acts as President in case of vacancy, resignation, removal, or absence.
- Election Process (Article 66):
- Elected by an electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament (nominated members included).
- Proportional Representation by means of Single Transferable Vote (STV); election held by secret ballot.
- Value of vote is equal for all MPs (unlike Presidential election where vote value differs).
- Eligibility (Article 66 & 84):
- Citizen of India.
- At least 35 years old.
- Qualified for election as a member of Rajya Sabha.
- Not hold any office of profit.
- Term & Removal:
- Term: 5 years, eligible for re-election.
- Can resign to the President or be removed by a resolution of Rajya Sabha (effective if agreed by Lok Sabha).
Comparative Dimension
- First Vice-President: Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (1952–1962).
- Longest-serving VP: Hamid Ansari (2007–2017).
- Precedent: Several Vice-Presidents (Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Dr. Zakir Husain, V.V. Giri, R. Venkataraman, Shankar Dayal Sharma, K.R. Narayanan) later became Presidents.
Static Knowledge
- Vice-President vs Speaker of Lok Sabha:
- VP: Ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha, elected by both Houses, does not vote except in case of tie.
- Speaker: Elected only by Lok Sabha members, has casting vote in case of tie.
- Removal Procedure Difference:
- VP can be removed only by Rajya Sabha resolution agreed by Lok Sabha.
- President can be impeached by both Houses with 2/3rd majority.
- Important Case Law:
- Mohd. Akbar vs Union of India (1969): VP’s election disputes are subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Poor NARI ranking exposes women safety gaps in Delhi
Why in News
- The National Annual Report & Index on Women’s Safety (NARI) 2025 revealed serious gaps in women’s safety in Delhi, 13 years after the 2012 Nirbhaya case.
- Delhi ranked 28th out of 31 cities on the safety index, ahead only of Kolkata, Srinagar, and Ranchi.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Fundamental Rights: Articles 14, 15, 21; Social Justice – Women safety, Nirbhaya Fund, Urban Governance, Law enforcement, Criminal Law), GS III (Social Issues – Gender equality, SDG 5, Urban development)
Basics
- NARI Index 2025: Conducted by Pvalue Analytics, ideated with the National Commission for Women (NCW).
- Survey Size: 12,770 women across 31 Indian cities.
- Indicators: Women-friendly infrastructure, harassment experiences, policing, perceptions of safety (day vs. night).
Key Findings of NARI Report (2025)
- Infrastructure gaps: 31% of Delhi women said women-friendly infrastructure was minimal/non-existent.
- Safety perception: 8% unsafe during day; 35% unsafe at night.
- Harassment:
- National avg: 7% women faced harassment in public spaces.
- Delhi: 12% (highest disparity).
- 61% of victims faced harassment more than twice → failure to deter repeat offenders.
- Unsafe spaces:
- Neighbourhood areas (34%) most unsafe.
- Transport facilities (32%).
- Deserted/unlit areas cited as key reasons for fear.
- Demands from women:
- 51% → stronger policing.
- 17% → timely police action.
Overview
Constitutional & Legal Dimension
- Article 14: Equality before law.
- Article 15(3): State can make special provisions for women.
- Article 21: Right to life includes dignity and safety.
- Laws enacted post-2012:
- Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 – expanded definitions of sexual offences.
- Justice Verma Committee Report (2013) – recommended police reforms, faster trials, gender sensitisation.
- Nirbhaya Fund (2013) – financial support for women’s safety initiatives.
Governance & Policing Dimension
- Poor enforcement of CCTV coverage, street lighting, police patrolling.
- Low trust in police action (timeliness, sensitivity).
- Underutilisation of Nirbhaya Fund – CAG reports flag delays.
- Need for smart policing (apps, helplines, gender desks in police stations).
Social Dimension
- Patriarchal attitudes → normalisation of harassment.
- Underreporting due to stigma, fear of reprisal.
- Safety concerns reduce women’s mobility, education, and workforce participation.
Urban Planning Dimension
- Lack of gender-sensitive urban infrastructure:
- Poor street lighting.
- Isolated bus stops, unsafe last-mile connectivity.
- Inadequate public toilets for women.
- Safe Cities Mission (2018) exists but patchy implementation.
Economic Dimension
- Unsafe environments reduce women’s participation in the economy (India’s female LFPR ~37% in 2024).
- Impacts productivity, urban growth, and SDG 5 (Gender Equality).
Comparative Perspective
- Cities like Kohima, Visakhapatnam, Aizawl, Mumbai ranked better due to stronger community policing, civic culture, and infrastructure.
- Delhi, despite being the national capital, lags behind, raising credibility concerns.
Static Knowledge
- Schemes/Initiatives:
- Nirbhaya Fund (2013).
- Safe City Project under Nirbhaya Fund – being implemented in 8 metro cities.
- One Stop Centres (OSCs) – for violence survivors.
- Women Helpline (181).
- SHE Teams (Telangana model).
- Judicial Cases:
- Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – workplace harassment guidelines.
- Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) – acid attack regulations.
- Nirbhaya case (2012–2020) – strengthened criminal law framework.
Way Forward
- Urban Safety Audits: Gender-sensitive city planning (lighting, transport, toilets).
- Policing Reforms: Increase women in police force (current ~11%), fast-track women’s safety cases.
- Technology Integration: Panic apps, AI surveillance, predictive policing.
- Community Participation: Involve RWAs, NGOs, student groups in monitoring.
- Education & Sensitisation: Change in public attitudes through awareness campaigns.
- Effective Utilisation of Nirbhaya Fund with transparent monitoring.
China digs in on ‘rare earth’, commands global market
Rare Earth Elements (REEs)
- Definition: Group of 17 chemically similar metallic elements (15 lanthanides + scandium + yttrium).
- Categories:
- Light Rare Earths (LREEs): Lanthanum, cerium, praseodymium, neodymium, samarium, europium.
- Heavy Rare Earths (HREEs): Gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, holmium, erbium, thulium, ytterbium, lutetium, scandium, yttrium.
- Exclusion: Promethium (radioactive, no mineable reserves).
- Uses:
- Clean energy: EV batteries, wind turbine magnets (NdFeB).
- High-tech devices: Smartphones, hard drives, fibre optics, ceramics, phosphors.
- Defence: Aerospace, radar, precision-guided weapons, stealth technology.
Relevance: GS III (Economy – Minerals & Resources, Critical minerals, Trade & Industrial Policy; Science & Technology – Clean energy tech, EVs, high-tech devices; Security – Strategic minerals, Defence applications; International Relations – India–China trade, MSP, global supply chains)
China’s Dominance
- Reserves: Nearly 50% of world reserves (IEA).
- Production: >60% of global production in last 5 years.
- Refining: 92% of global refining capacity.
- Exports: Largest exporter (≈30% of global demand).
- Restrictions:
- 2023 – banned export of processing tech.
- April 2025 – curbed export of 7 REEs (esp. for NdFeB magnets).
- 2025 interim measures – quotas + govt approval for trade.
- Research Strength: 30% of global REE research papers (vs. U.S. & Japan ≤10%, India ≈6%).
- Funding: $14 billion annually (2022–24) in mineral exploration (highest in decade).
India’s Position
- Imports: 75%+ of rare earth imports from China (since 2021).
- Reserves: Significant monazite sands (Odisha, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu).
- Production: Limited; India contributes <2% of global REE output due to policy restrictions.
- Institutions:
- Indian Rare Earths Limited (IREL): PSU under DAE for mining/processing.
- Atomic Minerals Directorate (AMD): Exploration of monazite and other RE-bearing minerals.
- Challenges:
- Monazite contains thorium → falls under Atomic Energy Act, limiting private sector participation.
- Processing & refining bottlenecks → India exports raw ores but imports refined products.
Overview
Strategic & Security Dimension
- Rare earths are “critical minerals” → essential for Atmanirbhar Bharat in defence & clean energy.
- Over-dependence on China creates strategic vulnerability (supply disruptions, price manipulation).
- U.S.–China tensions show weaponisation of REEs as a geopolitical tool.
Economic Dimension
- Global clean energy transition (EVs, wind) → REE demand projected to triple by 2040 (IEA).
- India’s electronics & EV targets (30% EV penetration by 2030) → rising REE demand.
- Import dependence threatens current account stability.
Technological Dimension
- Refining & separation of REEs is highly complex, polluting, and capital-intensive.
- China’s dominance lies not just in reserves, but mastery of refining tech.
- India lags in R&D, recycling, and processing capacity.
Environmental Dimension
- REE mining/refining causes radioactive & chemical waste → ecological concerns.
- Need for green processing methods, circular economy (REE recycling from e-waste).
Political & Global Dimension
- Rare earths are now at the heart of critical mineral diplomacy.
- U.S., Japan, EU, Australia diversifying supply chains via alliances (e.g., Minerals Security Partnership – MSP).
- India is part of MSP (2023) → chance to collaborate on exploration, refining, and supply chain resilience.
Social Dimension
- Local communities near REE-rich coasts (Kerala, Odisha) face livelihood & displacement issues from mining.
- Balancing resource exploitation with social/environmental safeguards is key.
Ethical Dimension
- Resource nationalism vs. equitable access debate.
- Data parallels with “resource curse” → risk of exploitation without inclusive growth.
Way Forward for India
- Policy Reforms: Amend Atomic Energy Act to allow private/foreign participation in non-nuclear REEs.
- Exploration: Accelerate surveys under NMET (National Mineral Exploration Trust).
- Processing Tech: Invest in refining & separation technologies (AIIMS + CSIR collaborations).
- Recycling: Promote urban mining of e-waste (rare earth recovery).
- Strategic Stockpiling: Build reserves for critical sectors (defence, EVs, power).
- Global Partnerships: Deepen cooperation via MSP, Quad, and bilateral deals with Australia, U.S., Japan.
Static Knowledge
- IEA Definition: REEs = 17 metals, critical for clean energy transition.
- India’s Monazite Reserves: ~12 million tonnes, mostly in beach sands.
- Institutions: IREL, AMD, BARC’s rare earth metallurgy division.
- Global Context: REEs included in U.S. “Critical Minerals List” & EU “Strategic Raw Materials Act (2023)”.
Lessons for India: how Kerala is tackling rapid urbanisation
Kerala Urban Policy Commission (KUPC)
- Set up: December 2023 by Kerala Cabinet.
- Report submitted: March 30, 2025 (2,359 pages).
- Nature: First State-level Urban Commission in India.
- Mandate: To prepare a 25-year urban roadmap tailored to Kerala’s unique “rurban” context (villages merging into towns, high climate risks).
- Why needed:
- Kerala urbanisation > national average; projected 80% urban by 2050.
- Frequent climate disasters: 2018–19 floods, recurring landslides, coastal erosion.
- Mismatch between national urban frameworks and Kerala’s sub-national realities.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – State governance, 73rd & 74th Amendments, Urban Local Bodies, Municipal governance), GS III (Infrastructure – Urbanisation, Disaster management, Climate-resilient planning, Municipal finance, SDG 11)
Key Recommendations of KUPC
- Climate & Risk-Aware Planning
- Mandatory hazard zoning: floods, landslides, coastal inundation.
- Integration of LIDAR, satellite, tide gauges, real-time data.
- Digital Data Revolution
- A Data Observatory at Kerala Institute of Local Administration (KILA).
- Dashboards with community-generated indicators.
- Crowd-sourced inputs: fishermen’s experiences, bazaar vendors’ mobility issues.
- Finance Empowerment
- Municipal Bonds: Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Kozhikode to issue; pooled bonds for smaller towns.
- Green Fees: Levies on eco-sensitive projects.
- Climate Insurance: Parametric model for quick disaster payouts.
- Governance Recalibration
- City Cabinets led by mayors, replacing bureaucratic inertia.
- Specialist municipal cells (climate, waste, mobility, law).
- Jnanashree Programme: Recruit youth technocrats for urban governance.
- Place-Based Economic Revival
- Thrissur-Kochi → FinTech hub.
- Thiruvananthapuram-Kollam → Knowledge corridor.
- Kozhikode → City of literature.
- Palakkad & Kasaragod → Smart-industrial zones.
- Commons, Culture, and Care
- Revive wetlands, waterways, heritage zones.
- City health councils for migrants, students, gig workers.
Overview
Constitutional & Governance Dimension
- Falls under State List (urban development, local government – 7th Schedule).
- Strengthens 73rd & 74th Constitutional Amendments: empowerment of municipalities.
- Brings in decentralised planning + climate governance.
Administrative Dimension
- Moves from reactive disaster management → proactive resilience planning.
- Enhances municipal autonomy with financial tools.
- Reduces dependence on centrally driven schemes (e.g., Smart Cities Mission).
Climate & Environmental Dimension
- Urban planning integrates hazard mapping and resilience.
- Green levies + insurance → internalising climate risk.
- Unique: embeds resilience as a core pillar, not an add-on.
Economic & Financial Dimension
- Municipal bonds + pooled financing → fiscal autonomy for local bodies.
- Encourages private & community investment in climate-safe infrastructure.
- Supports Atmanirbhar Bharat Urban Finance Agenda.
Technological & Data Dimension
- Urban Data Observatory: first state-driven “living intelligence engine”.
- Integrates satellite, GIS, LIDAR, crowd-sourced citizen data.
- Facilitates evidence-based policymaking.
Social Dimension
- Protects vulnerable groups: migrants, gig workers, women.
- Blends lived experience with formal planning (e.g., fisherfolk voices in hazard maps).
- Recognises Kerala’s rurban identity → continuity of village–town–city.
Political & Ethical Dimension
- Democratizes urban governance by empowering mayors, youth technocrats.
- Upholds principles of participatory planning.
- Ensures inclusivity, reducing elite capture of urban development.
Value Addition
- 74th Amendment Act, 1992 → Constitutional status to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs).
- NITI Aayog’s SDG Index → Kerala ranks high in SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities & Communities).
- Urban Finance Tools in India:
- Municipal bonds (Pune, Ahmedabad were pioneers).
- Pooled finance model → Tamil Nadu Urban Development Fund (TNUDF).
- Climate-Urban Nexus:
- IPCC AR6 stresses urban vulnerability in coastal & hilly states like Kerala.
- India’s National Urban Policy Framework (2018) had climate mentions, but not as central as KUPC.
Why KUPC is Unique & Lessons for Other States
- First state-level urban commission → tailored to sub-national context.
- Integrates data, finance, governance, and identity into one framework.
- Template for others: combine technical + social knowledge, empower local bodies, mandate resilience in planning.
Governors must act as true guides and philosophers to States, says CJI Gavai
Why in News
- The Supreme Court’s five-judge Presidential Reference Bench, headed by CJI B.R. Gavai, is hearing whether timelines can be imposed on Governors and the President for deciding on Bills under Articles 200 & 201.
- Kerala and other opposition-ruled States highlighted the indefinite delay of assent to Bills by Governors, calling it unconstitutional and adversarial.
- Court observed that Governors must act as “true guides and philosophers” to State governments, ensuring a collaborative federal relationship.
Relevance: GS II (Polity – Centre–State relations, Federalism, Role of Governors, Articles 163, 200–201, Presidential Reference under Article 143, Judicial review, Constitutional morality, Sarkaria & Punchhi Commission recommendations)
Basics
- Articles 200 & 201:
- Article 200: Governor may assent, withhold assent, or reserve the Bill for President’s consideration.
- Article 201: President may assent, withhold assent, or return the Bill.
- No explicit timeline prescribed in the Constitution.
- Presidential Reference (Art. 143): Allows President to seek SC’s advisory opinion on questions of law or constitutional interpretation.
- Governor’s Role in Legislature:
- Nominal head of the State.
- Part of State Legislature (like President at the Centre).
- Expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 163).
- Governor’s Discretion: Limited to certain situations (e.g., hung assembly, reserving Bills for President, recommending President’s Rule).
Overview
Constitutional Dimension
- Right to legislate is with the elected legislature, not the Governor.
- Unreasonable delay violates Article 14 (fairness) and undermines parliamentary democracy.
- Indefinite pendency → undermines basic structure: federalism, democracy.
- SC in Shamsher Singh (1974): Governor must act on aid & advice except in exceptional circumstances.
Judicial Dimension
- April 2024 SC ruling: Fixed a 3-month timeline for Governors/President on Bills.
- Debate: Should SC read timelines into Articles 200 & 201 (like substantive due process into Article 21)?
- Risk: Court-imposed timelines could trigger fresh litigation (as in medical admission cases).
Federal Dimension
- Conflicts mostly in opposition-ruled States (Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Telangana, West Bengal).
- Seen as Governors acting as agents of the Union, undermining cooperative federalism.
- Creates perception of dyarchy (dual authority in States).
Administrative Dimension
- Indefinite delay in assent disrupts governance and welfare measures.
- Kerala cited 8 Bills pending with Governor for 7–23 months.
- Lack of timelines leads to policy paralysis and undermines public trust.
Political Dimension
- Disputes reflect the Centre–State political tussle.
- In BJP-ruled States, Bills get assented faster; opposition-ruled States face hurdles.
- Raises concerns about neutrality of Governors.
Ethical & Democratic Dimension
- Democracy demands legislative supremacy of elected representatives over unelected authorities.
- Delays harm citizens’ welfare → ethical question of accountability.
- Governor should be a constitutional statesman, not a political actor.
Comparative Perspective
- UK: Royal Assent is a formality; refusal not practiced since early 18th century.
- Canada & Australia: Governors-General largely act as rubber stamps on advice of ministers.
- India: Retains vestiges of colonial discretionary powers → need for reform.
Value Addition
- Constituent Assembly Debates: Dr. Ambedkar clarified Governor is not an independent authority, but bound by advice of ministers.
- Sarkaria Commission (1988) & Punchhi Commission (2010): Recommended limiting Governor’s discretion, ensuring neutrality, and specifying timelines.
- ARC Reports: Suggested reforms in appointment, tenure, and role of Governors to prevent misuse.
- Judgments:
- Shamsher Singh (1974) – Governor is a constitutional head, bound by aid & advice.
- Nabam Rebia (2016) – Governor cannot act as an “all-pervading super-constitutional authority”.
Way Forward
- Specify timelines: Clear constitutional/legislative mandate (e.g., 3 months).
- Governor reforms: Neutral appointments, fixed tenure, adherence to constitutional morality.
- Judicial clarity: Balanced approach → prevent misuse without judicial overreach.
- Strengthen cooperative federalism: Build trust between Centre and States.
Could our everyday artificially intelligent chatbots become conscious?
Why in News?
- Rapid proliferation of chatbots across customer service, healthcare, education, and entertainment has raised debates about whether advanced AI systems can achieve consciousness.
- Ethical dilemmas (trust, emotional attachment, liability, and job displacement) are emerging.
- The 2022 Google LaMDA controversy (Blake Lemoine claiming AI sentience) highlighted the sensitivity of the issue.
Relevance: GS III (Science & Technology – AI/ML, Emerging technologies, Neuromorphic computing, AI ethics), GS IV (Ethics – Responsible AI, Ethical dilemmas, Governance frameworks), GS II (Governance – AI regulation, NITI Aayog initiatives, UNESCO AI ethics framework)
Basics
- Chatbots: Software applications using AI/ML (esp. Large Language Models – LLMs) to simulate human-like conversations.
- Consciousness:
- Phenomenal consciousness – subjective “what it feels like” experiences (pain, joy, awareness).
- Access consciousness – ability to access and use information for reasoning/action.
- The ELIZA Effect (1966): People tend to anthropomorphize chatbots, attributing emotions/intent to algorithmic outputs.
- Core Debate: Chatbots simulate intelligent conversation but do not experience it.
Overview
Philosophical & Cognitive Dimension
- For consciousness: If human consciousness emerges from physical brain processes, theoretically, advanced computational models could mimic it.
- Against consciousness:
- No subjective experience (qualia).
- No intentionality (no goals beyond programmed tasks).
- No self-awareness (they simulate “I” but do not experience it).
- Lack of embodiment (no sensorimotor engagement with the world).
- Chinese Room Argument (John Searle, 1980) – machines manipulate symbols but don’t understand meaning → strong case against machine consciousness.
Technological Dimension
- Current chatbots (GPT, LaMDA, etc.) rely on statistical pattern recognition → not true comprehension.
- They generate probabilistic word predictions, not conscious thought.
- Limitation: lack of memory, emotions, beliefs, or continuity of self.
Ethical Dimension
- Over-trust in chatbots (esp. in healthcare, legal advice) may cause harm.
- Emotional attachment risks psychological manipulation.
- Accountability issues: Who is liable if a chatbot provides harmful/bias-laden output?
- Asimov’s Laws of Robotics – attempt to govern ethical AI behaviour.
Social Dimension
- Increased anthropomorphism → risk of users mistaking chatbots for sentient beings.
- May deepen loneliness or cause dependency in vulnerable groups.
- Psychological concerns: emotional manipulation, echo chambers.
Legal & Governance Dimension
- No legal framework yet on “machine personhood.”
- Question: If AI ever becomes conscious (hypothetically), what rights would it have?
- Current AI governance debates (EU AI Act, UNESCO’s AI Ethics Framework, India’s NITI Aayog AI for All).
Economic Dimension
- Job displacement concerns in customer service, education, content creation.
- Simultaneously, chatbots improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand access.
- Dual challenge: protecting workers + harnessing productivity.
Security Dimension
- Deepfakes, misinformation, and malicious chatbot deployment are growing threats.
- Consciousness is not the issue here → misuse is.
- UPSC GS III (Internal Security) – disinformation and AI misuse.
The Case Against AI Consciousness
- Current chatbots are input-output machines → sophisticated but mechanistic.
- No scientific proof of AI consciousness.
- Most experts caution against anthropomorphizing.
Future Possibilities
- Some argue advanced neuromorphic computing or quantum AI might mimic neural substrates → raising new debates.
- But consciousness may require more than computation → possibly biological substrates.
- If achieved, raises dilemmas on AI rights, ethical treatment, and redefining “personhood.”
Conclusion
- Chatbots are not conscious beings; they are advanced statistical systems.
- The debate reflects technological optimism, philosophical inquiry, and ethical caution.
- For UPSC:
- Focus on governance frameworks.
- Ethical deployment of AI.
- Distinction between simulation and consciousness.
