Current Affairs 22 January 2026

  1. Prior Sanction for Corruption Charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  2. Citizen-Centric Healthcare Delivery and Use of Technology
  3. Accelerating Subsidence of India’s River Deltas
  4. Governor’s Address to the State Legislature
  5. Japan’s Post-Fukushima Nuclear Restart
  6. Urban Traffic Congestion in Indian Cities: Bengaluru and Pune


  • Trigger
    • Supreme Court’s split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, which mandates prior government sanction before initiating inquiry/investigation against public servants.
  • Context
    • PIL challenging Section 17A as:
      • Shielding corruption
      • Diluting investigative autonomy
    • Government’s defence: protection of honest decision-making.

Relevance

  • GS Paper II
    • Anti-corruption framework
    • Accountability vs administrative discretion
    • Role of executive in investigations
    • Rule of Law and separation of powers
  • GS Paper IV
    • Ethics in public administration
    • Accountability of public servants
    • Public office as public trust
Core Concept – Prior Sanction
  • Prior Sanction
    • A statutory requirement mandating approval from the competent authority before:
      • Prosecuting (Section 19, PCA)
      • Investigating decisions taken by public servants (Section 17A, PCA).
  • Purpose
    • Prevent vexatious, politically motivated or frivolous prosecution.
Legal Background – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
  • Enacted to consolidate laws relating to corruption among public servants.
  • Covers:
    • Bribery
    • Criminal misconduct
    • Abuse of official position
  • 2018 Amendment
    • Inserted Section 17A.
  • Provision
    • No police officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into:
      • Any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant
      • In discharge of official functions
    • Without prior approval of the competent authority.
  • Scope
    • Applies to decision-making acts, not necessarily bribe-taking in every case.
  • Exception
    • Does not apply where:
      • Person is caught red-handed accepting bribe.
Arguments Supporting Section 17A
  • Protects bona fide administrative decision-making.
  • Prevents policy paralysis and “fear psychosis”.
  • Executive has the right to regulate prosecution of its officials.
  • Comparable to Section 197 CrPC (sanction for prosecution).
Arguments Against Section 17A
  • Violates Article 14 (arbitrariness; unequal protection).
  • Undermines:
    • Rule of Law
    • Independent investigation
  • Converts sanctioning authority into a judge of its own cause.
  • Prior sanction before investigation (not just prosecution) is excessive.
  • Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
    • Struck down executive interference in corruption probes.
    • Emphasised institutional independence of CBI.
  • Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012)
    • Sanction must be granted or denied within reasonable time.
  • Current Split Verdict (2024–25)
    • One judge: Section 17A unconstitutional (violates equality, investigative autonomy).
    • Other judge: Section 17A valid; sufficient safeguards already exist.
  • Status
    • Matter referred to a larger constitutional bench.
  • Institutional Impact
    • Investigating agencies (CBI, State ACBs) face procedural delays.
  • Key Governance Concern
    • Executive control over initiation of corruption probes.
  • CentreAgency Tension
    • Dilutes operational autonomy promised post–Vineet Narain reforms.
  • Outcome
    • Shift from deterrence-based anti-corruption to permission-based enforcement.
  • Weak anti-corruption enforcement:
    • Increases cost of governance
    • Discourages investment
    • Affects ease of doing business
  • World Bank Governance Indicators
    • Corruption control directly linked to economic efficiency and growth.
  • Ethical Dilemma
    • Protection of honest officers vs accountability of corrupt officials.
  • Equity Issue
    • Citizens face barriers to justice due to:
      • Delayed investigations
      • Institutional shielding
  • Ethical Framework (GS IV)
    • Public office as a public trust
    • Accountability as core value of ethical governance.
  • SDG Link
    • SDG 16: Effective, accountable institutions.
  • PCA amended in 2018 to insert Section 17A.
  • Sanction requirement applies to decision-related acts, not trap cases.
  • India’s ranking in global corruption perception indices consistently highlights governance concerns.
  • Multiple corruption cases delayed due to sanction-related bottlenecks (Parliamentary Standing Committee observations).
Structural / Institutional Issues
  • Executive dominance over anti-corruption machinery.
  • Conflict of interest: Government decides on investigation of its own officials.
Implementation & Design Issues
  • No statutory time-limit for granting sanction under Section 17A.
  • Scope of “decision taken in official capacity” is ambiguous.
  • Prior sanction at pre-investigation stage is globally unusual.
Expert / Committee Criticism
  • Second ARC (Ethics in Governance)
    • Stressed need for independent anti-corruption institutions.
  • Legal scholars:
    • Section 17A risks becoming a protective shield, not a procedural safeguard.
  • Procedural Safeguards
    • Sanction decision should be:
      • Time-bound
      • Reasoned
  • Balanced Approach
    • Limit prior sanction to:
      • Policy decisions
      • Not routine administrative or financial acts.
  • Institutional Reform
    • Independent sanctioning authority (outside executive control).
  • Judicial Oversight
    • Allow courts to override sanction denial in exceptional cases.
  • Legislative Clarity
    • Clearly define “official decision” vs corrupt act.
Prelims Pointers 
  • Section 17A inserted by 2018 amendment to PCA.
  • Sanction under Section 17A is before investigation, not prosecution.
  • Section 19 PCA deals with sanction for prosecution, not inquiry.
  • Vineet Narain case relates to CBI independence, not PCA directly.


  • Trigger
    • Lancet Commission (2025–26) report calling for a citizen-centric, publicly financed, and technology-enabled healthcare system in India.
  • Context
    • Persistent gaps in:
      • Access
      • Quality
      • Financial protection in India’s healthcare.
    • Post-COVID recognition of:
      • Health as a public good
      • Need for system-wide reform, not scheme-based fixes.

Relevance

  • GS Paper II
    • Health as a public good
    • Welfare state and social sector governance
    • CentreState relations in healt
  • GS Paper III
    • Human capital development
    • Technology in service delivery
Core Concept – Citizen-Centric Healthcare
  • Citizen-Centric Healthcare
    • A system where:
      • Citizens, not diseases or insurance packages, are at the centre.
      • Emphasis on continuity of care, not episodic treatment.
  • Key Principles
    • Universality
    • Equity
    • Public financing
    • Accountability
  • Lancets Core Assertion
    • Health systems should be publicly financed and publicly provided, with technology as an enabler—not a substitute.
  • Post-Independence
    • Focus on public health infrastructure (PHCs, CHCs).
  • 1990s2000s
    • Gradual shift towards:
      • Privatisation
      • Out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE).
  • Recent Phase
    • Insurance-led approach (e.g., PM-JAY).
  • Emerging Shift
    • From insurance-centriccare-centric health systems.
  • Constitutional Basis
    • Article 21: Right to life interpreted to include right to health.
    • Article 47 (DPSP): Duty of the State to improve public health.
  • Legal Reality
    • Health is a State subject (Entry 6, State List).
  • Judicial Interpretation
    • Supreme Court: Access to healthcare integral to dignity.
  • Constitutional Gap
    • No enforceable right to healthcare yet.
  • Federal Implication
    • Need for strong Centre–State coordination without encroachment.
  • Lancet Commissions Diagnosis
    • Fragmented health system:
      • Preventive, promotive, curative care poorly integrated.
  • Institutional Recommendations
    • Strengthen:
      • Primary healthcare as the foundation.
      • Referral-based, integrated care pathways.
  • Governance Reform
    • Shift from:
      • Disease-specific vertical programmes
      • To people-centred, life-cycle-based care.
  • CentreState Issues
    • Uneven capacity
    • Fiscal asymmetry
  • Accountability
    • Citizens should have voice and grievance redressal in health systems.
  • Public Health Spending
    • India spends ~2.1% of GDP on health (Economic Survey).
  • Out-of-Pocket Expenditure
    • Still ~45–50% of total health expenditure.
  • Lancets Economic Argument
    • Preventive and primary care reduce:
      • Long-term costs
      • Hospitalisation burden.
  • Macroeconomic Link
    • Poor health outcomes reduce:
      • Labour productivity
      • Human capital formation.
  • Global Evidence
    • Publicly funded health systems are more cost-effective and equitable.
  • Equity Concerns
    • Poor, women, elderly disproportionately affected by:
      • OOPE
      • Fragmented care.
  • Ethical Lens
    • Healthcare as:
      • Right
      • Public trust
      • Moral obligation of the State.
  • Dignity & Consent
    • Citizen-centric care emphasises:
      • Patient dignity
      • Informed consent
      • Continuity of care.
  • SDG Link
    • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
    • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.
  • Role of Technology (Lancet View)
    • AI, digital platforms, health data systems should:
      • Support clinicians
      • Improve diagnostics
      • Enable continuity of care.
  • Indian Context
    • Digital Health Mission
    • Electronic Health Records (EHRs).
  • Risks
    • Tech-first approach may:
      • Exclude digitally marginalised
      • Undermine doctor–patient relationship.
  • Principle
    • Technology should augment, not replace, human care.
  • Nearly 30 experts contributed to the Lancet Commission.
  • India’s OOPE ~45–50% of total health expenditure.
  • Public health spending ~2.1% of GDP.
  • Primary healthcare prevents up to 70% of avoidable hospitalisations (global estimates).
  • India faces a dual burden of communicable and non-communicable diseases.
Structural / Institutional Issues
  • Over-reliance on private sector.
  • Weak primary healthcare in many States.
  • Fragmented service delivery.
Implementation & Design Issues
  • Insurance schemes prioritise:
    • Hospital care over prevention.
  • Human resource shortages:
    • Doctors, nurses, allied health workers.
  • Poor integration of digital health platforms.
Expert / Committee Criticism
  • Lancet Commission
    • Warns against:
      • Insurance-only solutions
      • Market-driven healthcare.
  • Public Health Experts
    • Emphasise need to rebuild public provisioning capacity.
  • Policy Shift
    • Move from insurance-centric to care-centric health policy.
  • Financing
    • Increase public health spending to 3% of GDP.
  • Primary Care
    • Strengthen Health and Wellness Centres as first point of contact.
  • Technology
    • Use AI, digital records for:
      • Preventive care
      • Chronic disease management.
  • Equity Focus
    • Design systems for:
      • Poor
      • Elderly
      • Rural and tribal populations.
  • Governance
    • Institutionalise citizen feedback and accountability mechanisms.
Prelims Pointers 
  • Health is a State subject, not Union.
  • Right to health is judicially derived, not explicit.
  • Lancet Commission favours public financing, not privatisation.
  • Technology is an enabler, not a substitute.
  • OOPE remains high despite insurance expansion.


  • Trigger
    • An international research study published in Nature (January 14, 2026) revealing systemic land subsidence across major river deltas, including six in India.
  • Key Finding
    • In several Indian deltas, land subsidence exceeds the rate of sea-level rise, magnifying coastal risk.
  • Motivation of Study

Global lack of high-resolution subsidence data for river deltas despite supporting ~340 million people worldwide

Relevance

  • GS Paper I
    • Geomorphology: river deltas
    • Humanenvironment interaction
  • GS Paper III
    • Climate change impacts
    • Disaster risk reduction
    • Environmental degradation
Core Concept – Delta Subsidence
  • Subsidence
    • Gradual sinking of land elevation due to:
      • Natural sediment compaction
      • Isostatic and tectonic processes.
  • Human-Accelerated Subsidence
    • Excessive groundwater extraction
    • Reduced sediment supply
    • Urban load and infrastructure pressure.
  • Key Insight
    • Human actions have transformed a slow geological process into an urgent environmental crisis.
Scientific & Technical Basis of the Study
  • Data Source
    • ESA Sentinel-1 satellite (2014–2023).
  • Methodology
    • Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR).
    • Spatial resolution: 75 metres.
  • Analytical Tool
    • Random Forest Machine Learning model.
  • Stressors Analysed
    • Groundwater storage (NASA–German GRACE satellites).
    • Sediment flux.
    • Urban expansion.
Deltas Identified
  • Six Indian Deltas Studied
    • Ganges–Brahmaputra
    • Brahmani
    • Mahanadi
    • Godavari
    • Cauvery
    • Kabani.
Magnitude & Pattern of Subsidence
  • Extent
    • 90% of Ganges–Brahmaputra, Brahmani, Mahanadi deltas affected.

  • Rate
    • Average subsidence exceeds regional sea-level rise in:
      • Ganges
      • Brahmani
      • Mahanadi
      • Godavari
      • Kabani.
  • Critical Threshold
    • 77% of Brahmani and 69% of Mahanadi sinking at >5 mm/year.
  • Urban Hotspot
    • Kolkata:
      • Subsidence accelerated by:
        • Urban load
        • Resource over-extraction.
  • Climate Interaction
    • Subsidence + sea-level rise = compound coastal hazard.
  • Impacts
    • Increased coastal and river flooding.
    • Permanent land loss.
    • Saltwater intrusion contaminating:
      • Freshwater aquifers
      • Agricultural soils.
  • Ecosystem Stress
    • Wetland degradation.
    • Mangrove vulnerability.
  • Climate Risk Framing
    • Ganges–Brahmaputra delta shifted from:
      • Latent threat(20th century)
      • To Unprepared diver(21st century).
  • Livelihood Impact
    • Agriculture and fisheries affected by salinisation.
  • Infrastructure Risk
    • Damage to:
      • Ports
      • Transport networks
      • Urban assets.
  • Migration Pressure
    • Environmental degradation → distress migration.
  • Macro Risk
    • Coastal economic hubs face long-term viability threats.
  • Vulnerable Populations
    • Delta regions house:
      • High population density
      • Poor adaptive capacity.
  • Equity Concern
    • Those contributing least to climate change bear disproportionate costs.
  • Resource Conflict
    • Freshwater scarcity may intensify:
      • Inter-sectoral
      • Inter-regional conflicts.
  • SDG Link
    • SDG 13 (Climate Action)
    • SDG 14 (Life below Water)
    • SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities).
  • Institutional Capacity Gap
    • Risk increasing faster than governance response.
  • Policy Blind Spot
    • Coastal planning often ignores vertical land movement.
  • CentreState Coordination
    • Fragmented responsibility for:
      • Water extraction
      • Urban planning
      • Coastal regulation.
  • Regulatory Gaps
    • Weak enforcement of groundwater regulation.
    • Inadequate sediment management in river basins.
  • 40 global deltas studied; 6 in India.
  • Spatial resolution: 75 m (high-resolution).
  • >340 million people depend on global deltas.
  • >90% area affected in three major Indian deltas.
  • Subsidence rates exceed sea-level rise in most Indian deltas studied.
  • Study period: 2014–2023.
  • Published in Nature, January 14, 2026.
Structural / Data Limitations
  • GRACE groundwater data less accurate for small deltas.
  • Sediment flux data not fully updated.
  • 40 deltas not fully globally representative.
Policy & Implementation Gaps
  • Absence of:
    • Delta-specific adaptation plans.
    • Integrated river basin–delta governance.
  • Urban expansion unchecked in vulnerable zones.
Way Forward
  • Integrated Delta Management
    • Basin-to-delta planning integrating sediment flow.
  • Groundwater Regulation
    • Enforce sustainable extraction limits.
  • Urban Planning
    • Restrict high-load infrastructure in subsiding zones.
  • Nature-Based Solutions
    • Mangrove restoration as natural buffers.
  • Technology Use
    • Institutionalise satellite-based subsidence monitoring.
  • Governance Capacity
    • Shift deltas from “unprepared divers” to climate-resilient systems.
  • Policy Alignment
    • Mainstream subsidence into:
      • Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ)
      • Disaster management planning.
Prelims Pointers
  • Subsidence ≠ sea-level rise; both compound risk.
  • Sentinel-1 is operated by ESA, not NASA.
  • GRACE measures groundwater storage, not surface water.
  • Urbanisation can accelerate subsidence even without tectonic activity.
  • Delta sinking can exceed sea-level rise → higher flood risk.
  • Subsidence is partly natural, but now human-amplified.


  • Trigger
    • Karnataka GovernorState Government face-off over deletion of portions of the Governors address to the State Legislature, particularly references critical of the Union government (e.g., MNREGA fund delays).
  • Context
    • Similar confrontations recently witnessed in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, indicating a patterned CentreStateGovernor tension.

Relevance

  • GS Paper II
    • Role of Governor
    • Constitutional conventions
    • CentreState relations
    • Federalism
  • GS Paper IV
    • Constitutional morality
    • Neutrality of constitutional offices
Governor’s Address – Constitutional Concept
  • Governors Address
    • A constitutional formality where the Governor addresses the Legislature at:
      • First session after general elections
      • First session of each year.
  • Nature
    • Not personal views of the Governor.
    • Reflects the policies and programmes of the elected State government.
 Relevant Constitutional Provisions
  • Article 176
    • Governor shall address the Legislative Assembly/Council.
  • Article 163
    • Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited discretionary areas.
  • Article 168
    • Defines the State Legislature.
  • Article 175(2)
    • Governor may send messages to the House(s), again on aid and advice.
Supreme Court Interpretation
  • Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
    • Governor is a constitutional head, not an independent authority.
  • Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016)
    • Governor cannot act contrary to or without ministerial advice except where Constitution explicitly allows.
  • Key Principle
    • Governor has no veto over content of the address.
  • Core Issue
    • Whether a Governor can:
      • Refuse to read the address.
      • Unilaterally delete or modify portions approved by the Cabinet.
  • Constitutional Position
    • Governor cannot alter substance of the address.
    • At best, may:
      • Suggest changes
      • Seek clarifications.
  • Federal Concern
    • Governor acting as:
      • Neutral constitutional umpire vs
      • De facto agent of the Union.
  • Trend
    • Increasing politicisation of gubernatorial office undermines cooperative federalism.
  • Democratic Principle
    • Governor’s address represents the mandate of the electorate, not Raj Bhavan’s discretion.
  • Ethical Issue
    • Unelected authority diluting or blocking:
      • Legislative debate
      • Executive accountability.
  • Institutional Morality
    • Respect for:
      • Popular sovereignty
      • Cabinet responsibility.
Structural Issues
  • Ambiguity in conventions vs codified rules.
  • No explicit constitutional remedy for:
    • Refusal to read address
    • Selective omission.
Institutional Criticism
  • Punchhi Commission
    • Warned against misuse of Governor’s office for partisan ends.
  • Sarkaria Commission
    • Governor should be a bridge, not a barrier, between Centre and State.
  • Codify Conventions
    • Parliamentary/legislative rules clarifying:
      • Mandatory reading of Cabinet-approved address.
  • Judicial Clarification
    • Clear ruling on consequences of Governor’s refusal.
  • Governors Conduct
    • Adherence to:
      • Constitutional morality
      • Political neutrality.
  • Structural Reform
    • Implement commission recommendations on:
      • Appointment
      • Tenure security
      • Removal norms for Governors.
  • Federal Ethos
    • Reinforce cooperative, not confrontational, federalism.
Prelims Pointers
  • Governor’s address is under Article 176, not Article 174.
  • Content belongs to Council of Ministers, not Governor.
  • Governor has no discretionary power over address content.
  • Refusal to read address ≠ constitutional veto.
  • SC judgments consistently uphold aid and advice principle.


  • Trigger
    • Japan restarted the KashiwazakiKariwa nuclear power plant, the world’s largest nuclear power facility, marking the first restart since the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
  • Source
    • International news reports (January 2026).
  • Context
    • Restart occurred despite:
      • Strong public opposition
      • Persistent concerns over earthquake and tsunami risks.

Relevance

  • GS Paper III
    • Nuclear energy
    • Energy security
    • Disaster management
Nuclear Power in Japan – Core Context
  • Japan is a seismically active country with high exposure to:
    • Earthquakes
    • Tsunamis.
  • Fukushima Daiichi Disaster (2011)
    • Triggered by a tsunami following a major earthquake.
    • Led to:
      • Shutdown of all nuclear reactors
      • Long-term evacuation
      • Loss of public confidence in nuclear energy.
Energy Security Dimension
  • Japan is:
    • Resource-poor
    • Highly dependent on imported fossil fuels.
  • Nuclear restart aimed at:
    • Reducing energy import bill
    • Ensuring stable baseload power
    • Supporting industrial competitiveness.
Climate & Emissions Dimension
  • Nuclear energy viewed as:
    • Low-carbon baseload energy
    • Essential for Japan’s net-zero commitments.
  • Restart aligns with:
    • Decarbonisation goals
    • Reduced reliance on coal and LNG.
  • Location Risk
    • Kashiwazaki–Kariwa located near:
      • Seismically active coastal zones.
  • Concerns Raised
    • Risk of:
      • Nuclear accident
      • Radiation leakage
      • Long-term ecological damage.
  • Public Opposition
    • Protests by residents and activists citing:
      • Fukushima precedent
      • Inadequate disaster preparedness.
  • Government Response
    • Assurance of:
      • Enhanced safety checks
      • Strict regulatory oversight.
  • Regulatory Changes Post-Fukushima
    • Establishment of stricter nuclear safety norms.
    • Enhanced role of independent nuclear regulators.
  • Trust Deficit
    • Restart despite opposition highlights:
      • Gap between expert assessment and public perception.
  • Key Governance Question
    • Can technological safeguards substitute for public consent?
  • Cost Considerations
    • Nuclear restarts reduce:
      • High LNG and oil import costs.
  • Industrial Impact
    • Stable electricity crucial for:
      • Manufacturing
      • High-tech industries.
  • Risk Cost
    • Potential nuclear accident would impose:
      • Massive economic
      • Social
      • Environmental costs.
  • Kashiwazaki–Kariwa is the worlds largest nuclear power plant.
  • Restart is the first major nuclear reactivation in Japan since 2011.
  • Fukushima disaster caused:
    • Mass evacuations
    • Long-term radiation concerns.
  • Japan imports a major share of its energy requirements.
Structural Issues
  • Nuclear plants in high-risk seismic zones.
  • Long-term waste disposal unresolved.
Governance Gaps
  • Limited public participation in decision-making.
  • Over-reliance on expert-driven risk assessment.
Ethical Criticism
  • Normalisation of nuclear risk post-Fukushima.
  • Potential erosion of precautionary principle.
  • Risk-Based Decision Making
    • Nuclear expansion must integrate:
      • Disaster risk assessments
      • Climate resilience.
  • Public Engagement
    • Transparency and consent crucial.
  • Technological Safeguards
    • Continuous upgrades, independent audits.
  • Diversified Energy Mix
    • Balance nuclear with renewables.
  • Indian Context
    • Lessons for:
      • Coastal nuclear plants (Kudankulam)
      • Disaster preparedness and evacuation planning.
Prelims Pointers 
  • Fukushima disaster occurred in 2011, not 2004.
  • Kashiwazaki–Kariwa ≠ Fukushima Daiichi.
  • Nuclear power is low-carbon, but not risk-free.
  • Energy security ≠ energy safety.
  • Seismic risk is a critical factor in nuclear siting.


  • Trigger
    • TomTom Traffic Index 2025 ranked Bengaluru as the 2nd most congested city globally and Pune as 5th.
  • Context
    • Raises concerns amid State narratives projecting Bengaluru as a “future-ready/global tech city”.

Relevance

  • GS Paper I
    • Urbanisation and migration
  • GS Paper II
    • Urban governance
    • Municipal capacity
  • GS Paper III
    • Infrastructure
    • Sustainable transport
    • Productivity losses
Core Concept – Urban Traffic Congestion
  • Traffic Congestion
    • A condition where travel demand exceeds road network capacity, leading to:
      • Reduced speeds
      • Longer travel times
      • Higher fuel consumption and emissions.
  • Measurement (TomTom Methodology)
    • Average speeds during peak hours
    • Time lost due to congestion
    • Extra travel time compared to free-flow conditions.
  • Bengaluru
    • Average peak-hour speed: ~13.9 kmph.
    • Congestion level: ~74.4% (year-on-year increase).
    • Time to travel 10 km: ~36 minutes.
    • Annual time lost during rush hours: ~168 hours.
  • Pune
    • Ranked 5th globally for congestion.
  • Comparative
    • Mumbai ranked 18th; performs better on average speed than Bengaluru.
  • Urban Planning Deficits
    • Road-centric expansion without proportional public transport growth.
    • Fragmented land-use and transport planning.
  • Institutional Issues
    • Weak coordination among:
      • Municipal corporations
      • Traffic police
      • Urban development authorities.
  • Policy Mismatch
    • Global branding vs ground-level service delivery.
  • Bengaluru: 2nd most congested city globally (2025).
  • Pune: 5th globally.
  • Average peak speed in Bengaluru: ~13.9 kmph.
  • Annual time lost in congestion (Bengaluru): ~168 hours.
  • Congestion level increased year-on-year.
  • Public Transport First
    • Accelerate metro, suburban rail, and bus rapid transit.
  • Integrated Urban Planning
    • Transit-oriented development (TOD).
  • Demand Management
    • Congestion pricing in core zones.
    • Staggered office timings, remote work incentives.
  • Technology
    • Intelligent traffic management systems (AI-enabled signals).
  • Institutional Reform
    • Unified metropolitan transport authorities.
  • Sustainability
    • Promote non-motorised transport (walking, cycling).
Prelims Pointers 
  • TomTom Traffic Index is a global, not Indian, report.
  • Congestion ranking ≠ population size ranking.
  • High GDP cities can still have poor mobility outcomes.
  • Average speed during peak hours is a key congestion metric.
  • Flyovers alone do not solve congestion structurally.

January 2026
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
Categories