Content
- SC Recalls Verdict on Retrospective Green Clearances
- What Can Local Bodies Expect from the 16th Finance Commission?
- What Changes Are Planned for the Plant Variety Act?
- DPDP Rules 2025 — Separate Section for Persons with Disabilities
- The Rare Ginkgo-Toothed Beaked Whale
- Glass vs PET: Alcobev Sector Rethinks Packaging Strategy
SC recalls verdict on retrospective green clearances
Why is it in News?
- A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has recalled its May 16, 2025 judgment that had declared retrospective/ex-post facto environmental clearances as “gross illegality”.
- Majority (CJI B.R. Gavai & Justice K. Vinod Chandran) held that allowing the earlier judgment to operate would have devastating economic consequences.
- Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dissented, warning the Court is “backtracking on sound environmental jurisprudence”.
Relevance :
- GS 3: Environment & Ecology (EIA, environmental governance, precautionary principle)
- GS 2: Judiciary & Governance (judicial review, balance between environment–economy, Article 21)
- GS 3: Infrastructure & Industry (impact on projects, regulatory compliance)
What are Environmental Clearances (ECs)?
- Statutory requirement under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 & EIA Notification 2006.
- Mandates prior environmental approval before construction, expansion, or operation of certain projects.
- Ensures:
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
- Public consultation
- Mitigation measures
- Compliance monitoring.
What are Ex Post Facto ECs?
- ECs granted after a project has already started/been completed, violating the “prior approval” principle.
- Considered legally questionable because:
- Violates the precautionary principle.
- Undermines sustainable development norms.
- Rewards non-compliance.
The May 16, 2024 Judgment (Now Recalled)
- Bench of Justice A.S. Oka & Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
- Held that:
- Ex post facto ECs are an “anathema” and “gross illegality”.
- Violates Article 21 (right to clean environment).
- Projects constructed without EC must face strict consequences.
- Would have impacted:
- Large real estate, infrastructure, industrial projects.
- Thousands of crores of investment.
The November 2025 Review Judgment (Recall Order)
Majority View (CJI Gavai + Justice Chandran)
- Allowing the May 16 ruling to stand would cause “devastating economic impact”.
- Thousands of crores of investment would be wasted; projects would become illegal overnight.
- Review allowed primarily on economic & practical grounds, not on legal reinterpretation.
- Stressed need to balance environmental protection with economic stability.
- Suggests that procedural lapses should not destroy completed projects if rectification is possible.
Minority View (Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
- Strong dissent; called the recall “pained backtracking on environmental jurisprudence”.
- Argues:
- Precautionary principle, polluter-pays, inter-generational equity are being diluted.
- Granting ex post facto ECs rewards violators and encourages non-compliance.
- The judiciary’s role is to protect environmental rule of law, not facilitate retrospective regularisation.
- Points to Delhi smog as a daily reminder of environmental degradation.
- Says the majority is overlooking “fundamentals of environmental law”.
Key Issues Raised by the Case
1. Precautionary Principle vs. Economic Considerations
- Precautionary principle requires prior approval; retrospective permission undermines it.
- Majority prioritised economic stability.
- Minority prioritised environmental sanctity.
2. Separation of Powers
- Whether courts can effectively validate retrospective permissions that dilute statutory requirements.
3. Environmental Rule of Law
- Recall signals a potential softening of strict judicial scrutiny of environmental compliance.
4. Governance Implications
- Encourages laxity by developers expecting post-facto regularisation.
- Raises concerns about regulatory capture and weak enforcement.
Implications
Short-Term
- Relief for construction/real estate/industrial sectors.
- Prevents mass demolition or halting of ongoing commercial activity.
Long-Term
- Weakens deterrence against environmental violations.
- Could reduce the effectiveness of the EIA regime.
- Raises doubts about India’s commitment to sustainable development jurisprudence.
Conclusion
- The case is a classic environment vs. economy conflict.
- Reflects movement from strong judicial environmentalism (Oka–Bhuyan approach) to pragmatic judicial balancing (Gavai–Chandran approach).
- Highlights the institutional tension between environmental rule of law and economic governance.
What can local bodies expect from the 16th FC?
Why is it in News?
- On November 17, the 16th Finance Commission submitted its report to the President of India.
- Key expectations:
- Vertical devolution (share of Union taxes to States) and
- Horizontal distribution formula across States (Article 280).
- Important focus: recommendations for panchayat & municipal finances (Art. 280(3)(bb) & (c)).
Relevance
- GS 2: Polity & Governance (73rd/74th Amendments, fiscal decentralisation, local government)
- GS 3: Economy (fiscal federalism, vertical–horizontal devolution, public finance)
- GS 2: Centre–State Relations (role of Union FC vs SFCs)
Constitutional Framework for Finance Commissions
Union Finance Commission (UFC) – Article 280
- Constituted every 5 years.
- Mandate includes:
- Vertical & horizontal tax devolution.
- Measures to strengthen State finances.
- Augment the Consolidated Fund of States for panchayats & municipalities.
State Finance Commissions (SFCs) – 73rd & 74th Amendments
- Each State must set up an SFC every 5 years.
- Recommends:
- Local share in State taxes.
- Assignment of revenue handles.
- Conditional/unconditional grants.
- Devolution of functions & functionaries.
Local Governments: Functional & Fiscal Architecture
Functions
- Assigned through the 11th Schedule (29 subjects) for panchayats & 12th Schedule (18 subjects) for municipalities.
- However:
- These lists are illustrative, not mandatory.
- States decide actual functional assignments → wide inter-State variation.
Revenue Powers
- Local bodies collect:
- Property tax
- Advertisement tax
- Market fee, tolls, user charges, etc.
- But large mismatch exists between:
- Revenue capacity
- Expenditure responsibilities (water, sanitation, public health, rural roads, asset maintenance).
Impact
- States often assign functions without funds & staff →
- Operational inefficiency
- Dependence on higher-level transfers
- Weak service delivery
- Fiscal deficits at local levels.
Role & Challenges of SFCs
- Over 100 SFC reports submitted across States.
- Major issues:
- Delays in constitution & report submission.
- Poor record of acceptance by State legislatures.
- Recommendations often ignored or partially implemented.
- Result: local bodies must rely heavily on Union FC transfers, not States.
What Previous Union Finance Commissions Did
Key Pattern
- Six UFCs have issued local government recommendations so far.
- Persistent issues:
- Could not quantify actual resource needs of 2.7 lakh panchayats & 5,000 municipalities.
- Relied on ad hoc lump-sum grants.
13th FC (Turned Point)
- Introduced formula-based transfers:
- Grant as a percentage of the divisible pool.
- Rationale:
- Inflation neutrality
- Buoyancy with Union tax revenues
- Consulted legal experts; pushed for predictable growth-linked transfers.
14th & 15th FCs (Reversal of 13th FC Approach)
- Returned to lump-sum grants.
- Introduced conditionalities:
- “Basic” (unconditional)
- “Performance-based” (conditional)
- Problem:
- Each FC changed reform conditions, creating discontinuity.
- 13th FC: 6 conditions (mostly unmet by States).
- 14th FC: new and unrelated set of conditions.
- 15th FC: different conditions again.
Core Issues in Local Government Fiscal Federalism
1. Vertical–Horizontal Imbalance
- Local governments do not have predictable, adequate revenue streams.
- Functional responsibilities grow but revenue handles remain restricted.
2. Assignment Problem
- No dedicated constitutional list for:
- Local functions
- Local revenue sources
- States exercise wide discretion → fiscal asymmetry.
3. Overdependence on Union FC
- Weak SFC implementation forces panchayats/municipalities to rely on central transfers.
4. Conditionality Instability
- Reform-linked grants change every 5 years →
- No continuity
- No long-term incentive alignment.
What Is Expected from the 16th Finance Commission?
- Move beyond ad hoc or lump-sum grants.
- Assess actual resource requirements of 2.7 lakh panchayats & 5,000 municipalities.
- Provide stable, formula-driven, buoyancy-linked transfers.
- Standardise performance conditions instead of frequent redesign.
- Strengthen local bodies as institutions of:
- Economic development
- Social justice
Comprehensive Significance
- Strengthens decentralised governance, core to the 73rd & 74th Amendments.
- Potentially creates India’s first consistent, long-term local fiscal framework.
- Aligns local governance with national goals:
- Drinking water
- Sanitation
- Public health
- Rural/urban infrastructure.
What changes are planned for the plant variety Act?
Why is it in News?
- Union Agriculture Minister announced that the Centre will amend the PPV&FRA Act, 2001.
- A committee headed by R.S. Paroda (appointed by the PPVFR Authority) has begun stakeholder consultations.
- Aim: update the 20-year-old Act in light of technological changes, trade dynamics, and evolving farmers’ needs.
Relevance
- GS 3: Agriculture (seed systems, breeders’ rights, farmers’ rights)
- GS 3: IPR in Agriculture (PPV&FRA, UPOV pressures, TRIPS compliance)
- GS 2: Governance (regulatory institutions, stakeholder concerns)
What Is the PPV&FRA Act, 2001?
- India’s sui generis law under TRIPS to protect plant varieties and recognise farmers’ rights.
- Ensures:
- Breeders’ rights
- Farmers’ rights to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm seeds (but not branded varieties)
- Benefit sharing
- Protection of traditional varieties
- Establishes the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPVFRA).
Why Amend the Act Now?
- Two decades of scientific & technological change:
- Tissue culture
- Synthetic seeds
- Hybrids and genotype combinations
- New trade realities, IPR pressures, and global norms.
- Need to address deficiencies, ambiguities, and implementation gaps.
What the Paroda Committee Is Examining ?
Definitions & Scope
- Redefining “variety” to include “combination of genotypes” (align with Seeds Bill 2019).
- Expanding the definition of “seed” to include:
- Seedlings
- Tubers, bulbs, rhizomes
- Roots, tissue culture plantlets
- Synthetic seeds
- Vegetatively propagated materials
- Defining “institution” under “breeder” to include public & private entities.
DUS Test (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability)
- Considering inclusion of trait-based criteria in DUS guidelines.
- Review of procedural integrity due to allegations of improper DUS testing in some cases (e.g., njavara paddy variety).
Abusive Acts
- Proposal to legally define and criminalise “abusiveacts” such as:
- Producing/selling varieties with identical denominations
- Marketing/importing/exporting deceptive varieties
- Aim: prevent fraud, confusion, and misappropriation.
Concerns Raised by Farmer Groups
1. Protection of Community-Developed Seeds
- Demand for mandatory registration of all community-developed seeds.
- Warning: varieties passing DUS tests should not be registered under an individual or private company, to prevent monopolisation.
2. Fear of Misuse of DUS Process
- Allegations of improper DUS evaluation (e.g., njavara).
- Concern: weak oversight may enable private appropriation of farmers’ varieties.
3. Small Peasantry & IPR Fit
- Many small farmers see seeds as shared biocultural commons, not IPR objects.
- Fear: amendments may tilt law towards exclusive economic rights, incompatible with farmer traditions.
4. Global IPR Pressure
- Civil society warns about attempts to align Indian law closer to UPOV norms.
- Risk: erosion of India’s farmer-friendly sui generis architecture.
5. Incomplete Compensation Mechanisms
- Although the original Act provides for compensation when IP-protected seeds fail,
- Rules do not detail criteria or enforcement, leaving farmers unprotected.
Comprehensive Overview
A. Legal & Policy Significance
- PPV&FRA is globally applauded for balancing breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights.
- Amendments risk shifting equilibrium towards industry interests if not carefully designed.
- Defining “abusive acts” is critical for seed market integrity.
B. Technological Imperatives
- Modern breeding technologies require updated definitions to avoid grey zones.
- Inclusion of tissue culture and synthetic seeds expands the law’s coverage.
C. Farmers’ Rights Concerns
- Community stewardship is central to India’s seed culture.
- Registration of community varieties under private names can create biopiracy risks.
D. Governance & Regulatory Gaps
- DUS testing lacks transparency; uniformity needed across centres.
- Lack of clear compensation mechanisms reduces accountability of seed companies.
E. International Context
- Many countries are experimenting with open-source seed systems to keep local varieties outside restrictive IPR regimes.
- India may need hybrid models to protect diversity while encouraging innovation.
Way Forward
- Transparent, participatory amendments with strong farmer representation.
- Strengthen DUS protocols and grievance mechanisms.
- Ensure open-source / commons-based protection for traditional varieties.
- Clearly define compensation criteria for seed failure.
- Maintain India’s sui generis character, resisting pressure to mimic UPOV.
DPDP Rules 2025 — Separate Section for Persons with Disabilities
Why in News ?
- Disability rights groups objected to the draft DPDP Rules that clubbed persons with disabilities (PwDs) with children for guardian-based consent.
- Ministry of Electronics & IT revised the final Rules (2025), creating a separate section for PwDs, removing them from child-specific restrictions.
Relevance :
- GS 2: Governance (data protection, rights-based policymaking, digital consent)
- GS 2: Vulnerable Sections (PwD rights, RPWD Act 2016, UNCRPD)
- GS 2: Social Justice (disability autonomy, preventing structural discrimination)
Basics
- DPDP Act, 2023: Governs digital personal data processing based on consent and purpose limitation.
- Draft Rules: Initially treated PwDs and children similarly regarding online consent.
- Issue: PwDs are a diverse group; many can independently manage digital interactions.
What Has Changed ?
- PwDs no longer fall under child-specific restrictions such as:
- Mandatory parental consent for online activities.
- Restrictions on behavioural monitoring or targeted advertising.
- Separate consent framework created specifically for PwDs.
Why the Change Matters ?
- Recognises autonomy and adult legal status of PwDs.
- Avoids structural discrimination caused by equating disability with legal incapacity.
- Aligns with the RPWD Act, 2016 and UNCRPD principles.
Key Issues Still Unresolved
- No Illustrations Provided:
Unlike the children’s section, the PwD section lacks examples for:- Situations requiring guardian consent.
- Situations where independent consent is valid.
- How platforms should assess capacity in digital environments.
- Ambiguity in Guardianship Law:
The rules do not clarify whether:- NT Act, 1999 (based on “decision-making incapacity”), or
- RPWD Act, 2016 (supports autonomy)
should guide guardianship decisions.
- Incomplete Operational Guidance:
No clarity on:- Verification of guardianship status.
- Dispute resolution if a platform doubts the guardian’s legitimacy.
- Treatment of persons with psychosocial disabilities with fluctuating capacity.
Concerns from Activists and Civil Society
- Treating PwDs as a vulnerable group without safeguards risks paternalism.
- Lack of illustrations leaves service providers uncertain, leading to over-cautious blocking of PwDs’ access.
- Many small and marginalised PwD communities may not understand techno-legal implications.
- Fear that outdated NT Act provisions may be used to override autonomy.
Positive Outcomes of the Revision
- Restores rights to personalised services such as:
- Assistive technologies relying on behavioural patterns.
- Targeted content for screen-reader or accessibility purposes.
- Eliminates unnecessary parental/guardian gatekeeping for adult PwDs.
- Indicates a consultative, responsive government policy process.
Way Forward
- Provide detailed guidelines/illustrations for:
- Consent for different disability categories.
- Supported decision-making mechanisms.
- Online guardian verification.
- Amend the DPDP Act wording itself, which still groups children and PwDs together.
- Harmonise guardianship standards:
- Prioritise RPWD Act (2016) over NT Act (1999) to comply with UNCRPD.
The Rare Ginkgo-Toothed Beaked Whale
Why in news?
- Scientists recorded the first-ever sighting in the wild of the ginkgo-toothed beaked whale (Mesoplodon ginkgodens) off Baja California, Mexico.
- Findings published in Marine Mammal Science.
- Species previously known almost entirely from rare stranding records.
Relevance :
- GS 3: Environment & Biodiversity (marine species, deep-sea ecology, conservation challenges)
- GS 3: Science & Tech – Ecology Research (species discovery, behavioural ecology)
Basics
- Species: Mesoplodon ginkgodens.
- Family: Ziphiidae (beaked whales).
- Group significance: Beaked whales are the second-most diverse group of cetaceans after dolphins.
- Habitat: Deep ocean; extremely elusive; surface only briefly.
Key features of ginkgo-toothed beaked whale
- Name origin: Teeth shaped like ginkgo leaves.
- Size: Up to 17.3 ft (both sexes).
- Body characteristics:
- Robust build.
- Less heavily scarred than other beaked whales → suggests less male–male aggression or tooth-related external impacts.
- Rarity: Extremely difficult to observe alive; known mostly from sparse stranding data.
Behavioural & ecological significance
- Deepest-diving mammals:
- Dive thousands of metres.
- Stay underwater for very long durations.
- Surface only briefly.
- Shy species → avoid boats, difficult to study.
- Importance for deep-sea ecosystem studies:
- Indicators of deep-ocean health.
- Crucial for understanding cetacean evolution and diving physiology.
Scientific importance of the sighting
- First high-quality field documentation of the species.
- Enhances understanding of:
- Distribution.
- Behaviour.
- Morphological variation.
- Conservation needs.
- Helps fill major data gaps in Mesoplodon genus biology.
Threats & conservation context
- Vulnerabilities:
- Bycatch.
- Marine noise pollution (sonar).
- Prospective deep-sea mining.
- Climate-linked habitat shifts.
- Conservation challenge: Extremely limited population data due to cryptic behaviour.
Glass vs PET: Alcobev Sector Rethinks Packaging Strategy
Why in news ?
- Alcobev industry shifting toward PET and aseptic packaging due to glass price volatility, furnace shutdowns, and supply disruptions.
- Supreme Court objected to pocket-sized liquor packs, calling them deceptive and dangerous.
Relevance
- GS 3: Economy (industrial supply chains, cost pressures, market shifts)
- GS 3: Environment (recyclability, waste management, circular economy)
- GS 3: Science & Tech (packaging materials, rPET technology)
Packaging types
- Glass:
- Premium image, inert, recyclable.
- High cost, breakage risk, volatile supply.
- PET:
- Lower cost, lightweight, easier logistics.
- Environmental concerns; weaker premium perception.
- Aseptic / multilayered board packs:
- Used in low-end segments; harder to counterfeit.
- Under Supreme Court scrutiny for safety/deception concerns.
- rPET:
- Recycled PET; costlier than virgin PET currently.
- Improves supply stability; strengthens circular economy.
Market context
- Mass-market in Karnataka uses ~80% multilayered board due to dominance of low-end segments.
- UP and Karnataka widely use aseptic packs; Kerala, AP, Maharashtra, Telangana use PET.
- Some states lack excise provisions for formats like rPET.
Economic drivers
- Glass pricing volatility:
- Furnace shutdowns → cross-regional sourcing → higher freight (e.g., United Spirits).
- Capacity > demand (e.g., Radico Khaitan) but utilisation remains uneven.
- Prices stable now but historically unpredictable → margin risks.
- Cost pressures:
- Rising packaging costs push companies toward alternatives.
- PET lowers logistics cost and breakage losses.
- rPET offers long-term stability but not yet margin-improving.
Industry adjustments
- Long-term vendor contracts and alternative sourcing to manage inflationary pressures.
- Migration to PET for low-end brands to preserve wafer-thin margins.
- Premium and mid-segment brands retain glass for brand positioning and consumer preference.
Regulatory angle
- Supreme Court concern: Pocket-sized liquor packs resemble juice boxes → misleading and unsafe.
- Anti-counterfeit considerations: Multilayered packs reduce revenue leakages.
- State-level divergence on PET acceptance due to environmental considerations.
Environmental perspectives
- Glass: Infinitely recyclable but suffers from poor collection and reprocessing in India.
- PET/rPET: Lower transport emissions; potential circularity; pollution risks persist.
- rPET expected to become cost-competitive as ecosystem scales.
Structural vs cyclical changes
- Packaging shift considered structural, not tied to temporary glass price volatility.
- Drivers: Supply stability, logistics optimisation, anti-counterfeit needs, and predictable long-term costs.
