Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 18 December 2025

Content

1. On quality control orders, a welcome regulatory reset
2. The marital rape exception in criminal law is a colonial relic. It needs to go

---

On quality control orders, a welcome regulatory reset

---

Why is this in News?

• December 2025: Government of India withdrew Quality Control Orders (QCOs) on several products.
• Marks a policy shift from rigid mandatory certification to risk-based, sector-sensitive regulation.
• Comes amid:
  • Slowing manufacturing growth.
  • Export competitiveness concerns.
  • Industry feedback on regulatory overload.
• Editorial views the move as a course correction in India’s industrial regulation strategy.

Relevance :

GS III – Economy & Industry

• Manufacturing competitiveness.
• Regulatory burden vs productivity.
• MSME viability.
• Export competitiveness and GVC integration.

GS II – Governance

• Regulatory design.
• State capacity.
• Evidence-based policymaking.
• Balancing public interest and economic growth.

Practice Question :

•  Regulation that raises costs without improving safety undermines the very manufacturing strategy it seeks to build.In the context of India’s Quality Control Orders (QCOs), critically examine this statement.(250 Words)

What are Quality Control Orders (QCOs)?

• Issued under: Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Act.
• Purpose:
  • Mandate compliance with Indian Standards (IS).
  • Protect consumers from substandard / unsafe goods.
• Mechanism:
  • Mandatory BIS certification.
  • Ban on manufacture, sale, import of non-compliant goods.
• Coverage expanded rapidly since ~2018 across:
  • Steel, chemicals, polymers, electricals, consumer goods, etc.

Original Rationale Behind QCO Expansion

• Consumer safety: Prevent unsafe products.
• Import quality control: Especially low-quality imports.
• Industrial upgrading: Push firms towards better standards.
• Atmanirbhar Bharat narrative: Strengthen domestic manufacturing.

What Went Wrong?

1. One-size-fits-all regulation

• Same strict certification applied to:
  • High-risk goods (e.g., pressure vessels).
  • Low-risk goods (e.g., household items).
• Ignored risk differentiation.

2. Manufacturing competitiveness suffered

• Compliance burden:
  • Costly certification.
  • Testing delays.
  • Frequent changes in standards.
• MSMEs hit hardest:
  • Limited capital.
  • In-house compliance capacity absent.
• Result: Exit, informalisation, or scale-down.

3. Export & global value chain impact

• Global buyers depend on:
  • ISO / IEC / international certifications.
• Indian QCOs:
  • Often not internationally harmonised.
  • Made Indian firms less attractive in global supply chains.
• Countries like Vietnam, China, Bangladesh gained advantage.

4. Import substitution illusion

• QCOs assumed domestic capacity exists.
• Reality:
  • Many products not produced competitively in India.
  • Led to supply shortages or cost inflation.
• Protection without productivity → inefficiency trap.

Why the Withdrawal is Significant ?

1. Shift to risk-based regulation

• Focus regulation where:
  • Consumer safety risks are real and high.
• Low-risk products:
  • Move towards self-certification, voluntary standards.

2. Learning from global best practices

• EU, US, Japan, Korea:
  • Rely more on:
    • Supplier declarations.
    • Market surveillance.
    • Post-market penalties.
• India aligning with modern regulatory philosophy.

3. Improves ease of doing business

• Reduces:
  • Compliance cost.
  • Inspection raj.
  • Approval delays.
• Frees up state capacity for enforcement instead of paperwork.

What Replaces QCOs? 

Market-led compliance tools

• Voluntary BIS standards.
• Self-certification.
• Third-party conformity assessment.
• Risk-based inspections.
• Post-market surveillance instead of ex-ante approvals.

Does This Mean Lower Standards?

No. Key distinction:

• Quality ≠ Mandatory certification
• Quality can be ensured via:
  • Transparency.
  • Liability.
  • Competition.
  • Consumer choice.
• Regulatory focus should be on:
  • Outcome (safety), not process (paper compliance).

Way Forward

1. Risk-based classification

• High-risk goods → Mandatory standards.
• Low-risk goods → Voluntary/self-regulation.

2. Global harmonisation

• Align BIS standards with:
  • ISO.
  • IEC.
  • Codex.
• Reduce technical barriers to trade.

3. Strong post-market enforcement

• Random sampling.
• Heavy penalties for violations.
• Product recalls.

4. MSME-friendly compliance

• Phased implementation.
• Subsidised testing.
• Shared certification infrastructure.

5. Regulatory impact assessments (RIA)

• Mandatory cost–benefit analysis before issuing QCOs.
• Sunset clauses for review.

Conclusion

A credible manufacturing strategy requires smart regulation—protecting consumers through risk-based oversight while allowing firms the flexibility needed to compete in global markets.

---

The marital rape exception in criminal law is a colonial relic. It needs to go

---

Why is this in News?

• Renewed public and legal debate in 2025 on the Marital Rape Exception (MRE) in Indian criminal law.
• Triggered by:
  • Ongoing constitutional scrutiny of Exception 2 to Section 375 IPC / Section 63 BNS.
  • Growing divergence between criminal law and constitutional morality.
  • International pressure and comparative legal reforms.
• Editorial argues India must complete its constitutional transformation by removing MRE.

Relevance

GS II – Polity & Constitution

• Fundamental rights jurisprudence.
• Equality vs patriarchal exceptions.
• Constitutional morality.

GS I – Society & Women

• Gender-based violence.
• Patriarchy in institutions.
• Social reform through law.

Practice Question

• Explain how the marital rape exception violates Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.(250 Words)

What is the Marital Rape Exception?

• Legal provision:
  • Exception to rape law stating that sexual intercourse by a man with his wife (above a certain age) is not rape.
• Origin:
  • Colonial-era IPC, 1860.
  • Based on doctrine of implied marital consent.
• Current status:
  • Retained in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) with minimal change.
• Effect:
  • A married woman has less bodily autonomy than an unmarried woman.

Constitutional Framework Involved

Key Fundamental Rights

• Article 14: Equality before law.
• Article 15: Non-discrimination on grounds of sex.
• Article 21: Right to life, dignity, bodily autonomy, privacy.
• Article 19: Decisional autonomy.

Judicial Evolution

• Puttaswamy (2017): Right to privacy includes bodily autonomy.
• Navtej Johar (2018): Constitutional morality over social morality.
• Joseph Shine (2018): Marriage not a license for sexual control.
• Anuj Garg (2008): Protectionist laws violate equality.

Core Argument of the Editorial

1. Marriage cannot extinguish consent

• Consent is:
  • Specific
  • Revocable
  • Contextual
• Marriage ≠ perpetual consent.
• Treating marriage as consent violates modern consent jurisprudence.

2. Marital rape violates bodily autonomy

• Forced sex is:
  • Physical violence.
  • Psychological trauma.
  • Violation of dignity.
• Article 21 protects:
  • Control over one’s body.
  • Sexual self-determination.
• MRE creates a constitutional blind spot.

3. Discriminatory classification

• Married women denied protection available to:
  • Unmarried women.
  • Widowed / separated women.
• Fails reasonable classification test under Article 14.
• Nexus between marital status and rape protection is arbitrary.

4. Colonial logic incompatible with Constitution

• IPC assumed wife as:
  • Husband’s property.
  • Subordinate legal subject.
• Constitution rejects:
  • Patriarchy.
  • Coverture.
• Retaining MRE = colonial continuity in post-colonial law.

International Law & Comparative Perspective

International Obligations

• CEDAW:
  • Requires criminalisation of marital rape.
• ICCPR:
  • Protects bodily integrity and dignity.

Global Trend

• Most democracies have:
  • Explicitly criminalised marital rape.
• India increasingly isolated among constitutional democracies.

Counter-Arguments & Editorial’s Rebuttal

Argument 1: Risk of misuse

• Rebuttal:
  • Misuse cannot justify denial of fundamental rights.
  • Same argument rejected in Section 498A, domestic violence laws.

Argument 2: Threat to institution of marriage

• Rebuttal:
  • Marriage based on consent and dignity, not coercion.
  • Violence weakens, not protects, marriage.

Argument 3: Existing remedies under DV Act

• Rebuttal:
  • Civil remedies ≠ criminal accountability.
  • Rape is a crime against bodily integrity, not merely domestic dispute.

Way Forward

1. Legislative Action

• Remove marital rape exception explicitly.
• Define consent uniformly, irrespective of marital status.

2. Safeguards without dilution

• Procedural safeguards:
  • Preliminary inquiry.
  • Judicial oversight.
• Not substantive denial of offence.

3. Harmonise criminal and civil law

• Align rape law with:
  • Domestic Violence Act.
  • Constitutional jurisprudence.

4. Social sensitisation

• Training police, judiciary.
• Public discourse on consent within marriage.

Conclusion

A Constitution that guarantees dignity, equality and autonomy cannot permit a legal exception that sanctifies sexual violence within marriage. Decriminalising marital rape is not an attack on marriage, but a reaffirmation of constitutional morality.

---