Content
- Supreme Court verdict on Mental Health as a Fundamental Right (Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh, July 2025)
- Rising obesity, children’s exposure to ultra-processed foods
- The conduct of social media companies amid political unrest
- As the lights stay on, birds are staying up past their bedtime
- Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Supreme Court verdict on Mental Health as a Fundamental Right (Sukdeb Saha vs State of Andhra Pradesh, July 2025)
Basics
- Event/Issue: Supreme Court recognised mental health as part of Article 21 (Right to Life), making it a constitutional guarantee, not just a statutory right.
- Context: Triggered by a student suicide case (NEET aspirant) where institutional neglect was alleged; highlights rising student suicides in India.
- Fact: India reported 13,000+ student suicides in 2022 (NCRB data) – roughly 36 every day.
Relevance :
- GS-II: Polity (Fundamental Rights, Article 21), Governance (Education & Health Institutions), Social Justice.
- GS-III: Public Health, Crime (student suicides), SDGs (3, 4, 16).
Why in News
- SC shifted investigation in the case to CBI.
- Issued binding interim orders (“Saha Guidelines”) making mental health safeguards mandatory in schools, colleges, hostels, and coaching institutes.
- Directed states/UTs to notify rules within 2 months and set up district-level monitoring committees.
Significance
- Legal milestone: Elevates mental health from a statutory right (Mental Healthcare Act 2017) to a constitutional right.
- Governance accountability: Recognises institutional neglect as structural violence.
- Public health imperative: Tackles India’s youth mental health crisis.
Overview
Polity/Legal
- Article 21 expanded: “life” = physical + mental well-being.
- Judicial precedent strengthens Directive Principles (Art. 47: public health).
- Enforces accountability of private institutions too (hostels, coaching centres).
Governance/Administrative
- Need for monitoring bodies in districts.
- “Saha Guidelines” push institutions to set up counselling systems, grievance redress, preventive protocols.
Economy
- Student suicides impose social-economic costs: lost human capital, rising health expenditure.
- Investment in mental health infra (counsellors, helplines) has long-term productivity gains.
Society
- Breaks stigma around mental health.
- Recognises students as rights holders, not passive victims.
- Empowers parents and civil society to demand accountability from institutions.
Environment/Science & Tech
- Tech-driven academic pressure (online coaching, AI-based ranking tools) adds stress.
- Guidelines may push for digital counselling/tele-mental health.
International
- Aligns with WHO’s Mental Health Action Plan (2013–2030).
- Supports SDG 3 (Good Health), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 16 (Justice & Strong Institutions).
- Few countries (e.g., Finland, Canada) explicitly integrate mental health rights into education policy — India joins this progressive group.
Challenges
- Implementation gap: poor mental health infra (only ~1 psychiatrist per 1.25 lakh people).
- Low budget: India spends <1% of health budget on mental health.
- Stigma and lack of trained counsellors in schools.
- Resistance from coaching centres/universities due to compliance costs.
- Risk of judicial overreach without legislative follow-up.
Way Forward
- Legislative backing: Enact a Mental Health in Education Act, incorporating SC’s “Saha Guidelines”.
- Institutional reform: Expand National Tele-Mental Health Programme (Tele-MANAS) for rural outreach.
- Capacity building: Train teachers as first responders (as suggested by Kothari Commission & NEP 2020).
- Funding: Increase mental health allocation to 5% of health budget (NITI Aayog recommendation).
- Best practices: Adopt UK’s “Whole School Approach” and Japan’s suicide prevention curriculum.
Conclusion
The SC’s ruling is a watershed moment in rights jurisprudence, recognising that a dignified life requires mental well-being. Its success, however, will depend on legislative follow-through, budgetary commitment, and cultural change in India’s education system.
Rising obesity, children’s exposure to ultra-processed foods
Basics
- Event/Issue: UNICEF report highlights how “unhealthy food environments” expose children/adolescents (5–19 years) to junk food, sugary drinks, and aggressive marketing.
- Context: Childhood obesity is rising globally and in South Asia, linked to non-communicable diseases (NCDs).
- Fact: 1 in 5 children (5–19 years) globally are overweight, with children aged 5–14 most affected.
Relevance :
- GS-II: Governance (Regulation of food industries, School health).
- GS-III: Public Health, NCDs, Nutrition, SDGs (2, 3, 12).
Why in News
- UNICEF’s report (Sept 2025) shows schools, chain outlets, and advertisements as key drivers of unhealthy diets among children.
- Only 18% of 202 countries have mandatory nutrition standards for school meals; only 19% levy taxes on unhealthy/sugary foods.
Significance
- Health: Rising childhood obesity → higher risk of diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases.
- Economic: NCD burden strains public health expenditure (India spends ~1.8% of GDP on health).
- Governance: Need for stronger regulation of food industries, advertising, and school nutrition.
Overview
Polity/Legal
- Weak legal protections globally; India has FSSAI Eat Right School initiative, but no binding ban on unhealthy foods in schools.
- Advertising regulations remain fragmented.
Governance/Administrative
- Enforcement gap in school canteen guidelines.
- Need stronger inter-ministerial coordination (Health, Education, Food Processing, Consumer Affairs).
Economy
- Processed food industry growing rapidly in South Asia.
- Short-term corporate profits vs long-term public health costs (treatment of obesity-related diseases).
Society
- Children influenced by peer choices, celebrity endorsements, and social media marketing.
- Nutrition inequities: simultaneous undernutrition and obesity (“double burden of malnutrition”).
Environment/Science & Tech
- Urban food environments dominated by chain outlets and processed food supply chains.
- Tech-driven marketing algorithms target children more aggressively.
International
- Mexico, UK have sugar taxes and strict marketing restrictions with positive outcomes.
- India part of WHO’s Global NCD Action Plan, but domestic implementation remains weak.
Challenges
- Aggressive marketing by food corporations.
- Lack of mandatory national nutrition standards for schools in most countries.
- Weak taxation framework for unhealthy foods in India.
- Conflict between economic interests of food industry and public health goals.
- Low awareness among parents/teachers on nutrition literacy.
Way Forward
- Legal reforms: Enforce FSSAI guidelines → ban sale of junk food in/near schools.
- Fiscal tools: Introduce/strengthen sugar-sweetened beverage tax (recommended by WHO).
- Awareness: Scale up Eat Right India/Eat Right School campaigns, integrate into curriculum.
- Global best practices: Replicate Mexico’s sugar tax, UK’s advertising ban.
- SDGs: Align with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 3 (Good Health), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption).
- NITI Aayog’s National Nutrition Strategy (2017) can be updated to integrate “obesity control” alongside undernutrition.
Conclusion
The UNICEF report underlines that childhood obesity is no longer a rich-country issue; it is a South Asian governance and public health challenge. A balanced approach — combining regulation, taxation, awareness, and healthier school environments — is essential to secure children’s right to healthy nutrition.
The conduct of social media companies amid political unrest
Basics
- Event/Issue: Nepal recently witnessed violent protests after the K.P. Sharma Oli government banned access to 26 social media platforms, sparking unrest and eventually the government’s ouster.
- Context: This reflects a recurring global trend where governments impose sweeping digital shutdowns in times of political instability, and social media (SM) companies respond passively.
- Fact: As per UN Human Rights Council (2016), internet shutdowns are violations of international law, yet over 700 documented shutdowns occurred worldwide between 2016–2023 (Access Now data).
Relevance :
- GS-II: Polity (Rights, Freedom of Speech), Governance (Internet Shutdowns), International Relations (Global norms).
- GS-III: Science & Tech, Internal Security, Cyber Governance.
Why in News
- The insurrection in Nepal escalated after the ban on social media platforms triggered widespread violence and civic unrest.
- The conduct of SM companies — issuing generic statements but avoiding active resistance — is under scrutiny.
Significance
- Democratic rights: Raises concerns over freedom of expression and access to information.
- Geopolitics: South Asia’s fragile democracies are vulnerable to digital authoritarianism.
Overview
Polity/Legal
- Internet access increasingly seen as a basic right (UNHRC, 2016).
- Nepal incident highlights absence of enforceable global norms to protect digital rights.
- India too has seen frequent internet shutdowns (e.g., J&K, farmers’ protests).
Governance/Administrative
- Shutdowns weaken state capacity by creating information vacuums and mistrust.
- Social media companies avoid confrontation with host states, prioritising market access.
- Santa Clara Principles call for transparency in content moderation but remain under-implemented.
Economy
- Shutdowns impose severe economic costs: Nigeria (2021) lost ~$26 million/day during Twitter ban.
- Disrupts SMEs and informal businesses dependent on digital platforms.
- Nepal, with limited digital infrastructure, faces amplified economic and social disruption.
Society
- Widening digital divide: tech-savvy users find VPNs, but poorer citizens lose access entirely.
- Information blackouts fuel misinformation, insecurity, and mob violence.
- Curtails civic activism, especially during crises (e.g., Myanmar 2021 coup).
Environment/Science & Tech
- Not directly environmental, but linked to technological architectures (centralised vs decentralised).
- Decentralisation (Tor, Mastodon, Signal proxies) could strengthen resilience against shutdowns.
International
- Big Social firms adopt different stances in Global South vs Global North — softer in India, Nigeria, Iran; tougher in U.S., EU.
- Reflects surveillance capitalism model — revenue-driven compliance over civic duty.
- Regional blocs (e.g., AU, SAARC) could negotiate standards for digital resilience.
Challenges
- Lack of binding international legal framework on digital rights enforcement.
- Platforms’ reluctance to deploy decentralised/circumvention tools (fear of government retaliation, revenue loss).
- Authoritarian misuse of shutdowns under guise of “national security”.
- Inequitable impact on vulnerable populations.
- Weak collective bargaining by Global South governments.
Way Forward
- Legal & Policy: Codify “right to internet access” in domestic constitutions/laws (like Kerala HC 2019 ruling).
- Transparency norms: Mandate real-time disclosure of shutdown orders (Santa Clara Principles).
- Tech solutions: Develop in-app VPNs, proxy modes, federated networks; stress-test platforms like financial regulators.
- Regional cooperation: SAARC/AU frameworks to demand minimum digital safeguards.
- Civil society: Strengthen digital rights advocacy and user literacy on circumvention tools.
- Global alignment: Integrate with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions) and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, Infrastructure).
Conclusion
The Nepal case highlights the double vulnerability of fragile democracies — to state overreach and corporate passivity. Going forward, transparency, decentralisation, and enforceable global norms are essential to safeguard digital rights as core civic rights.
As the lights stay on, birds are staying up past their bedtime
Basics
- Event/Issue: A global study (covering 583 bird species, 60 million vocalisations) found that artificial light at night extends birds’ daily activity by up to an hour.
- Background: Light pollution disrupts circadian rhythms, migration, feeding, and breeding cycles of animals.
- Fact: In brightly lit areas, birds remain active ~50 minutes longer after sundown compared to darker areas.
Relevance:
- GS-III: Environment (Pollution, Biodiversity Conservation, Urban Ecology).
- GS-II: Polity (Right to clean environment under Article 21).
Why in News
- Published research led by Southern Illinois University and Oklahoma State University shows how artificial light alters bird behaviour globally.
- Data was analysed using BirdWeather and AI tool BirdNET, creating the largest global acoustic database on bird activity.
Significance
- Ecological: Impacts bird migration, breeding success, and food chain balance.
- Policy relevance: Highlights emerging dimension of pollution beyond air, water, noise.
Overview
Polity/Legal
- No specific legislation on light pollution in India; falls indirectly under Environment Protection Act (1986) and local municipal bye-laws.
- SC in several judgments (e.g., noise pollution) recognised right to a clean environment under Article 21—possible extension to light pollution.
Governance/Administrative
- Urban planning and smart cities must integrate “dark-sky compliant” lighting.
- Municipal bodies regulate streetlights, advertising hoardings, and glass facades but lack ecological guidelines.
Economy
- Excessive lighting increases energy consumption and costs.
- Light pollution affects tourism (e.g., dark-sky tourism in Ladakh, Madhya Pradesh).
Society
- Human health impact: disrupted circadian rhythm, sleep disorders, lifestyle diseases.
- Cultural impact: diminishing night sky visibility reduces connection with natural heritage.
Environment/Science & Tech
- Disturbs wildlife: birds, insects (fireflies), bats, turtles.
- Alters ecological processes like pollination and predator-prey dynamics.
- Satellite mapping of light pollution can guide mitigation.
International
- International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) sets global standards.
- Countries like France and South Korea regulate outdoor lighting.
- India not yet part of international “dark-sky reserves” movement beyond local initiatives.
Challenges
- Lack of legal recognition of light pollution as an environmental threat.
- Urban bias in data (most studies from Global North).
- Balancing safety/security needs with ecological concerns.
- Low public awareness compared to air or water pollution.
- Weak inter-agency coordination (urban development, power, environment).
Way Forward
- Legal framework: Include light pollution under Environment Protection Rules; mandate impact assessments.
- Dark-sky policies: Adopt IDA’s best practices—shielded streetlamps, reduced intensity, smart timers.
- Technology: Use motion-sensor LEDs, adaptive lighting, GIS mapping of hotspots.
- Awareness campaigns: Public outreach like Earth Hour; integrate into school curricula.
- Research & Data: Expand monitoring in Global South (India’s rich bird diversity).
- Global SDG link: Contributes to SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
Conclusion
Light pollution is a reversible environmental threat, unlike climate change or deforestation. With low-cost interventions and community participation, India and the world can restore the natural balance of night for both humans and wildlife.
Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025
Basics
- Waqf: Permanent dedication of movable/immovable property by a Muslim for religious, pious, or charitable purposes under Islamic law. Property becomes inalienable and is managed by Waqf boards.
- Waqf Act, 1995: Governs administration, registration, and supervision of Waqf properties in India.
- Amendment 2025: Brought major changes—definition of Waqf, inclusion of non-Muslims in Waqf boards, powers of collectors, and new tribunal rules.
- Fact: India has over 8 lakh registered Waqf properties, making it one of the largest owners of land after defence and railways.
Relevance :
- GS-II: Polity (Minority Rights, Secularism, Judicial Review), Governance (Boards, Collectors, Tribunals).
Why in News
- The Supreme Court (Sept 15, 2025) passed an interim order staying certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act, 2025, pending constitutional validity hearings.
- Key stayed provisions:
- Changes in composition of Waqf boards (inclusion of non-Muslims).
- Collector’s enhanced powers in property verification.
- Tribunal provisions allowing non-Muslim majority.
Significance
- Polity: Tests constitutional validity of minority rights vs state regulatory powers.
- Governance: Impacts functioning of Waqf boards and local administration.
- Society: Sensitive issue, may trigger minority apprehensions over property rights.
- Economy: Large land holdings linked to real estate, urban planning, and infrastructure development.
Overview
Polity/Legal
- Raises questions on constitutional validity of altering minority-controlled boards.
- Judicial review of Parliament’s power to restructure religious charitable institutions.
- Tension between secular governance and minority autonomy.
Governance/Administrative
- Collectors given quasi-judicial authority over Waqf property disputes may blur executive-judicial roles.
- Non-Muslim inclusion in boards could improve transparency but also risk legitimacy among stakeholders.
- Tribunal framework may reduce litigation backlog but requires neutrality.
Economy
- Unlocking underutilised Waqf lands could aid housing, education, and infrastructure projects.
- Risk of alienation/dispossession of properties could lead to prolonged disputes, slowing urban development.
Society
- Sensitive minority issue; perceived encroachment on autonomy could fuel distrust.
- On the other hand, improved oversight may reduce corruption and misuse.
International
- India’s handling of minority endowments may be scrutinised globally, especially by OIC nations.
- Comparative models: UK’s Charity Commission regulates faith-based trusts with state oversight but community representation.
Challenges
- Balancing minority rights with state accountability.
- Preventing politicisation of sensitive religious property laws.
- Ensuring transparency without alienating communities.
- Managing massive litigation backlog on Waqf land disputes.
- Avoiding perception of majoritarian control over minority institutions.
Way Forward
- Committee-based approach: Similar to Sachar Committee, set up expert group for inclusive reforms.
- Digitisation of records: Use GIS mapping of Waqf lands for transparency (NITI Aayog Digital India push).
- Independent regulatory body: Modeled on UK Charity Commission for oversight without political interference.
- ADR/tribunals: Strengthen mediation mechanisms to resolve disputes outside regular courts.
- Stakeholder consultation: Ensure Muslim community participation in reform process for trust-building.
Conclusion
The SC’s interim order balances status quo with constitutional scrutiny. Going forward, reforms must combine transparency, accountability, and minority autonomy, ensuring governance does not erode community trust.
