Current Affairs 23 December 2025

Content

1. India, New Zealand wind up FTA talks, set to boost trade
2. Forests can’t be used for non-forestry purposes: Supreme Court
3. India tops global doping list for the third consecutive year
4. On the Right to a Healthy Environment
5. How are we protecting astronauts from deadly space debris?

---

India, New Zealand wind up FTA talks, set to boost trade

---

Why in News ?

• India and New Zealand concluded negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement on Monday.
• Negotiations completed in ~9 months (March–December 2025) — among India’s fastest FTAs.
• FTA expected to:
  • Provide tariff-free access for Indian goods to New Zealand.
  • Bring USD 20 billion investments over 15 years.
  • Double bilateral trade to USD 5 billion within 5 years.
• Formal signing targeted in first half of 2026.

Relevance

• GS II (International Relations):
  • Bilateral relations, Indo-Pacific strategy
• GS III (Economy):
  • Trade policy, FTAs, agriculture protection
  • Investment flows and services exports

India–New Zealand Economic Context

• New Zealand economy:
  • GDP (nominal): ~USD 250 bn
  • Per capita income: ~USD 49,000
  • Highly export-oriented, agriculture-heavy
• India–NZ trade (pre-FTA):
  • Bilateral trade: ~USD 2.5–2.7 bn
  • Trade balance: broadly balanced
• Indian diaspora in NZ:
  • ~300,000 persons of Indian origin
  • ~5% of NZ population → strong socio-economic bridge

Core Trade Architecture of the FTA

A. Tariff Liberalisation

• 95% of New Zealand exports to India:
  • Tariffs removed or reduced
  • Includes: timber, apples, kiwifruit, wine, wool, forestry products
• India’s export gains:
  • Tariff-free access for:
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Textiles & apparel
    • Engineering goods
    • IT & business services
    • Generic medicines

B. Sensitive Sector Protection (India’s Red Lines)

• No market access conceded in politically and livelihood-sensitive sectors:
  • Dairy products
  • Rice & wheat
  • Sugar
  • Onions
  • Spices
  • Edible oils
  • Rubber
  • Soya products
• Reflects calibrated trade liberalisation, not blanket opening.

Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal explicitly stated that farmer and dairy interests were fully protected.

Mobility & Services: A Strategic Gain for India

• Temporary employment visas for Indian professionals:
  • Quota: 5,000 annually
  • Duration: Up to 3 years
  • Coverage: Skilled occupations
• Significance:
  • Boosts India’s Mode-4 (movement of natural persons) interests.
  • Reinforces India’s strength in human capital exports.
  • Supports remittance flows and skill upgrading.

Investment Dimension: USD 20 Billion Over 15 Years

• Expected inflows into:
  • Renewable energy
  • Agri-processing & food logistics
  • Dairy technology (without product import liberalisation)
  • Education and vocational training
  • Digital services and fintech
• Strategic value:
  • Long-term, patient capital, not volatile portfolio flows.
  • Supports India’s manufacturing + services ecosystem.

Strategic & Geoeconomic Significance

A. Indo-Pacific & Oceania Pivot

• Strengthens India’s economic footprint in the Pacific–Oceania region.
• Complements India’s:
  • Act East Policy
  • Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI)
• Counters excessive trade dependence on:
  • China-centric supply chains
  • Traditional Western markets

B. Continuity in India’s Trade Diplomacy

• Part of a sequence:
  • India–EFTA TEPA (2024)
  • India–UK CETA (2025)
  • India–Oman CEPA (2025)
• Signals:
  • Shift from defensive trade posture to selective openness.
  • Emphasis on speed + safeguards.

Risks & Challenges

• Implementation risks:
  • Non-tariff barriers (SPS standards, quality norms)
  • Mutual recognition of standards
• Domestic adjustment:
  • Competition for select agri-exports (fruits, timber)
• Global uncertainty:
  • Commodity price volatility
  • Shipping & logistics disruptions

Overall Assessment

• The India–New Zealand FTA is:
  • Trade-expanding but politically prudent
  • Investment-oriented, not just tariff-centric
  • Strong on services and mobility
• Represents India’s evolving FTA template:
  • Protect core livelihoods
  • Leverage market access + talent mobility
  • Anchor long-term strategic partnerships

Conclusion

A fast, calibrated FTA that deepens India’s Pacific engagement while ring-fencing farmers and leveraging India’s core strengths — services, skills, and scale.

---

Forests can’t be used for non-forestry purposes: Supreme Court

---

Why in News ?

• The Supreme Court of India ruled that forest land cannot be diverted for non-forestry purposes (including agriculture) without prior statutory approvals.
• The ruling came while cancelling cultivation permissions granted by district authorities in Gujarat to a cooperative farming society over 134 acres of forest land.

Relevance

GS II (Polity & Governance)

• Federalism
• Rule of law
• Judicial review of executive action

GS III (Environment)

• Forest conservation
• Environmental legislation
• Sustainable development

Legal Background: The Forest (Conservation) Framework

• Core law: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• Section 2 of the Act:
  • Prohibits:
    • De-reservation of forests
    • Use of forest land for non-forest purposes
  • Unless prior approval of the Central Government is obtained.
• “Non-forest purpose” explicitly includes:
  • Agriculture
  • Mining
  • Industry
  • Infrastructure
  • Commercial plantations (other than permitted forestry activities)

What the Supreme Court Held ?

• Mandatory Central approval is a jurisdictional requirement, not a procedural formality.
• District collectors / state authorities:
  • Have no independent power to permit non-forest use.
  • Cannot bypass or dilute Section 2 safeguards.
• Cultivation on forest land, even if:
  • Cooperative-led
  • Livelihood-oriented
  • Administratively sanctioned
    → remains illegal without central clearance.

Key Constitutional & Jurisprudential Principles Reinforced

A. Environmental Rule of Law

• Statutory environmental protections override executive discretion.
• Administrative convenience ≠ legal authority.

B. Doctrine of Public Trust

• Forests are held by the State in trust for present and future generations.
• Cannot be alienated or repurposed casually.

C. Sustainable Development

• Economic activity allowed only within ecological limits.
• Agriculture ≠ environmentally benign by default if it degrades forests.

Federal Dimension: Centre–State Balance

• Forests fall under Concurrent List (42nd Constitutional Amendment).
• Central oversight under the Forest (Conservation) Act ensures:
  • Uniform national ecological standards.
  • Prevention of competitive forest diversion by states.
• Judgment reaffirms central supremacy in forest diversion approvals.

Administrative Lapses Highlighted

• District authorities:
  • Granted cultivation rights without legal competence.
  • Ignored statutory clearance procedures.
• Reflects systemic issues:
  • Weak legal literacy at district level.
  • Pressure to regularise encroachments post-facto.
  • Tension between short-term livelihoods and long-term ecology.

Implications of the Judgment

A. Governance Implications

• Strengthens enforcement of forest laws.
• Curtails discretionary misuse of land records and revenue powers.
• Signals zero tolerance for “administrative regularisation” of illegality.

B. Environmental Implications

• Protects forest cover from:
  • Gradual agricultural creep.
  • Fragmentation and biodiversity loss.
• Reinforces India’s climate commitments (carbon sinks).

C. Livelihood & Social Implications

• Raises concerns for:
  • Communities dependent on forest land.
• However:
  • Livelihood solutions must flow through legal routes:
    • Forest Rights Act, 2006
    • Agro-forestry policies
    • Rehabilitation & alternative land allocation

Interface with Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006

• Judgment does not dilute FRA rights.
• Distinction:
  • Recognised forest rights (individual/community) → legally protected.
  • Administrative cultivation permissions without FRA process → invalid.
• Reinforces need for:
  • Proper Gram Sabha-led FRA recognition, not executive shortcuts.

Critical Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Upholds ecological constitutionalism.
  • Prevents piecemeal erosion of forest law.
• Concerns:
  • Requires parallel strengthening of:
    • FRA implementation
    • Livelihood alternatives
    • Administrative capacity at local levels

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has drawn a hard legal line: forests are ecological assets governed by statute, not revenue land open to administrative discretion—even for agriculture.

---

India tops global doping list for the third consecutive year 

---

Why in News ?

• World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) released its 2024 Anti-Doping Testing Figures Report.
• India recorded the highest number of doping offenders globally for the third consecutive year.
• Contextually sensitive as India:
  • Is preparing to host the 2030 Commonwealth Games
  • Aspires to host the 2036 Olympic Games

Relevance

GS II (Governance)

• Institutional accountability
• Global regulatory compliance

GS III (Sports )

• Integrity in sports
• Public policy and youth development

 What is Doping?

• Doping: Use of prohibited substances or methods to artificially enhance athletic performance.
• Governed globally by:
  • World Anti-Doping Code
  • Prohibited List (updated annually)
• Violations include:
  • Presence of banned substances
  • Refusal to submit samples
  • Tampering
  • Trafficking or administration

India’s Doping Numbers: Key Data (2024)

A. Absolute Numbers

• Samples tested: 7,113
• Positive cases: 260
• Global rank: 1st (highest absolute violations)

B. Positivity Rate

• India: 3.6%
• Global comparison:
  • Norway: 1.75%
  • USA: 1.15%
  • No other country crossed 1.75%

➡ India’s positivity rate is more than double the next highest country.

Global Comparison: Why India Stands Out ?

A. Absolute Violations (2024)

• India: 260
• France: 91
• Italy: 85
• USA: 76
• Russia: 76
• Germany: 54
• China: 43

➡ India exceeds the second-highest country by nearly 3 times.

B. Testing Volume vs Violations

• China:
  • Tests conducted: >24,000
  • Violations: 43
• India:
  • Tests conducted: 7,113
  • Violations: 260

➡ Despite 3× fewer tests, India reports 6× more violations than China.

Inference:
India’s problem is not under-testing alone, but high prevalence of doping.

Sport-wise Distribution in India (2024)

Sport	Positive Cases
Athletics	76
Weightlifting	43
Wrestling	29
Boxing	17
Powerlifting	17
Kabaddi	10

Pattern

• Endurance & strength-based sports dominate
• Long-standing trend across multiple years
• Indicates:
  • Performance pressure
  • Inadequate medical supervision
  • Normalisation of substance use at lower levels

Elite & Grassroots Signals

A. Elite Level

• Reetika Hooda:
  • Under-23 world champion
  • Paris Olympics quarter-finalist
  • Tested positive; provisionally suspended (July 2025)
• Signals that doping is not confined to fringe athletes.

B. Grassroots Level

• University Games 2025:
  • Athletes reportedly withdrew from events after anti-doping officials arrived.
• Suggests:
  • Fear of testing
  • Low deterrence credibility
  • Poor awareness of banned substances

Institutional Response: India’s Defence

A. National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA)

• National Anti-Doping Agency argues:
  • Higher numbers reflect better detection, not higher drug use.
  • Claims strengthened testing, intelligence, and enforcement.

B. Critical Assessment

• Argument partially valid, but:
  • Countries with higher testing volumes show lower positivity
  • Indicates a structural doping culture, not merely detection bias

International Pressure

A. International Olympic Committee (IOC)

• International Olympic Committee:
  • Expressed concern over widespread doping in India
  • Urged authorities to “set their house in order”

B. Indian Olympic Association (IOA)

• Indian Olympic Association:
  • Constituted a new anti-doping panel (August 2025)

Legal & Policy Response

National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill, 2025

• Recently passed by Parliament.
• Aligns Indian law with WADA compliance requirements.
• Key provisions:
  • Explicit prohibition of doping
  • Institutionalised testing & enforcement
  • Clear adjudication and appeal mechanisms
• Objective:
  • Restore international credibility
  • Prevent sanctions or compliance downgrades

Structural Causes Behind India’s Doping Crisis

• Early specialisation & medal pressure
• Low sports science penetration
• Poor supplement regulation
• Coaches as informal medical advisors
• Weak athlete education, especially at state & university levels
• Reward-heavy incentive structures without ethical safeguards

Implications for India

A. Sporting Credibility

• Threatens India’s image as a clean sporting nation
• Risk to hosting ambitions (CWG 2030, Olympics 2036)

B. Athletes

• Career-ending bans
• Loss of sponsorships
• Psychological stress and stigma

C. Governance

• Potential WADA non-compliance scrutiny
• Increased international monitoring

Way Forward 

• Mandatory anti-doping education from junior level
• Coach certification linked to doping compliance
• Regulation of supplements & gym culture
• Independent testing at state & university events
• Shift from medal-centric to athlete-welfare-centric model

Conclusion

India’s doping crisis is not a detection anomaly but a systemic integrity failure—posing a direct challenge to its sporting credibility and global ambitions unless structural reform follows legal tightening.

---

On the Right to a Healthy Environment 

---

Why in News ?

• Recurring winter smog in Delhi–NCR with severe AQI levels has revived debate on whether the right to a clean and healthy environment should be explicitly constitutionalised.
• Existing protection relies largely on judicial interpretation of Article 21, not an express fundamental right.
• Raises questions of state responsibility, enforceability, and environmental federalism.

Relevance

GS II (Polity & Governance)

• Article 21 expansion
• Directive Principles vs Fundamental Rights
• Judicial activism

GS III (Environment)

• Air pollution
• Environmental governance
• Climate change law

The Problem Context: Air Pollution as a Rights Issue

A. Delhi–NCR Air Quality Reality

• Winter AQI frequently enters “Severe” (401–500) or “Severe+” category.
• PM2.5 concentrations often exceed:
  • WHO guideline: 5 µg/m³ (annual)
  • Delhi winter peaks: 150–300 µg/m³ (30–60× WHO limit).
• Health impacts:
  • Stroke, ischemic heart disease, lung cancer, COPD.
  • Children disproportionately affected due to lung development.

B. Major Sources of Pollution

• Fossil fuel combustion (power plants, vehicles)
• Transport emissions (diesel dominance)
• Construction & demolition dust
• Waste burning
• Industrial emissions
• Agricultural residue burning

➡ Particulate Matter (PM) is the single most lethal pollutant.

Understanding Particulate Matter (Scientific Basis)

Type	Size	Health Impact
PM10	≤10 microns	Enters respiratory tract
PM2.5	≤2.5 microns	Penetrates lungs, bloodstream
DPM (Diesel PM)	<1 micron	Neuro, cardiac, pulmonary damage

•  
• Diesel particulate matter (DPM) forms a sub-category of PM2.5.
• High toxicity even at low exposure levels.
• No safe threshold scientifically established.

Regulatory Response: GRAP & CAQM

• Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) amended the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP).
• Key changes:
  • Mandatory school closures under GRAP Phases 3 & 4.
  • Removal of state discretion.
  • Staggered working hours for public offices under Phase 3.
• Significance:
  • Recognises pollution as a public health emergency, not a seasonal inconvenience.

Constitutional Evolution of Environmental Rights

A. Original Constitution

• No explicit environmental provisions.
• Environmental protection inferred from:
  • Natural justice
  • Welfare state philosophy
  • Directive Principles

B. Judicial Expansion via Article 21 (Right to Life)

Landmark Cases

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
  • Expanded “life” to mean life with dignity, not mere animal existence.
• Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P.
  • First recognition of healthy environment as part of Article 21.
• M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)
  • Explicitly held that pollution-free environment is part of the right to life.
• Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar
  • Read Articles 48A + 51A(g) with Article 21.
  • State has a constitutional obligation to protect air and water.

Explicit Environmental Provisions in the Constitution

A. Directive Principles

• Article 48A:
  • State shall protect and improve the environment.
  • Emphasises compatibility of agriculture and ecology.

B. Fundamental Duties

• Article 51A(g):
  • Duty of citizens to protect the natural environment.

➡ Limitation:
Neither is directly enforceable in courts like Fundamental Rights.

Judiciary as Environmental Regulator (Post-1980s)

• Liberalisation & privatisation increased ecological stress.
• Courts intervened using:
  • Public Interest Litigations (PILs) under Articles 32 & 226.
• Judiciary became:
  • Environmental rule-maker
  • Environmental enforcer
  • Environmental adjudicator

Environment Protection Act, 1986

• Section 2(a) defines environment broadly:
  • Air, water, land
  • Inter-relationship with humans, flora, fauna, microorganisms.
• Reinforces:
  • Right to live free from disease and infection as part of dignity.

Disaster Jurisprudence & Environmental Liability

A. Absolute Liability

• Introduced in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak).
• Key features:
  • No exceptions
  • Liability regardless of fault or negligence
• Stronger than strict liability.

B. Core Environmental Principles

Precautionary Principle

• Explained in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India.
• Lack of scientific certainty cannot delay preventive action.
• Part of Indian law.

Polluter Pays Principle

• Polluters must:
  • Bear cost of remediation
  • Compensate for environmental harm
• Shifts burden from state to violators.

Public Trust Doctrine

• Explained in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath.
• State acts as trustee of natural resources.
• Cannot transfer or exploit for private gain.

Constitutional Anchors

• Article 39(b): Community ownership of material resources.
• Article 39(c): Prevent concentration of means of production.
• Reinforced in Radhey Shyam Sahu v. State of U.P..

Climate Change as a Fundamental Rights Issue

• M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India:
  • Recognised:
    • Right against adverse effects of climate change
    • Linked to Article 21 (life) and Article 14 (equality)

➡ Expands environmental rights into climate justice.

The Core Gap: Why Judicial Recognition Is Not Enough

• Judicially evolved rights:
  • Cannot be directly claimed unless tied to Part III.
• State compliance remains:
  • Episodic
  • Reactive
  • Crisis-driven
• Environmental governance becomes court-centric, not institution-centric.

The Case for Explicit Constitutional Right

Why Needed

• Makes:
  • Clean air & water justiciable by default
  • State & citizens equally accountable
• Reduces over-dependence on PILs.
• Aligns India with:
  • UN Human Rights Council recognition of clean environment as a human right (2021).

Conclusion

India’s environmental protection framework rests on judicial creativity rather than constitutional clarity; making the right to a clean and healthy environment explicit is now essential for enforceability, accountability, and ecological survival.

---

How are we protecting astronauts from deadly space debris? 

---

 Why in News ?

• A space debris impact cracked the window of China’s crewed spacecraft Shenzhou-20, rendering its return capsule unusable for crew travel.
• Incident highlights the growing threat of Micrometeoroids and Orbital Debris (MMOD) to human spaceflight.
• Occurs amid:
  • Rapid satellite proliferation
  • Anti-satellite (ASAT) tests
  • Expansion of crewed missions (including India’s Gaganyaan)

Relevance

GS III – Science & Technology

• Space technology
• Human spaceflight safety
• Emerging global commons governance

GS II – International Relations

• Global space governance
• UN frameworks and limitations

What is MMOD?

A. Micrometeoroids

• Origin:
  • ~80–90% from asteroid belt collisions (between Mars & Jupiter)
  • Remainder from comets
• Size:
  • Few micrometres to ~2 mm
  • Each weighs less than a dried grape
• Velocity:
  • ~11 to 72 km/s (much faster than bullets)
• Nature:
  • Natural
  • Ubiquitous in space
  • Practically untrackable

B. Orbital Debris (Space Junk)

• Definition: Human-made objects in Earth orbit with no functional purpose
• Sources:
  • Exploded rocket stages
  • Defunct satellites
  • Accidental collisions
  • Intentional ASAT weapon tests
• Average velocity:
  • ~10 km/s
• Key risk:
  • Even a 1 cm object at orbital speed can disable a spacecraft

Scale of the Problem: Global Data

Orbital Debris in Low Earth Orbit (LEO: 200–2,000 km)

• ~34,000 objects >10 cm (trackable)
• ~128 million objects >1 mm
• Hundreds of millions of fragments <1 mm
• Billions of impacts annually on satellites and space stations

Distribution

• Orbital debris:
  • Concentrated in a “shell” in LEO
• Micrometeoroids:
  • Exist everywhere
  • Slightly denser near Earth due to gravity

Why Space Debris Is So Dangerous

Kinetic Energy Reality

• Kinetic energy ∝ velocity²
• At 10–70 km/s, even microscopic particles:
  • Penetrate metal
  • Shatter windows
  • Disable avionics
  • Cause cabin depressurisation

Directional Risk

• Highest risk on the forward-facing surface of spacecraft
• Relative velocity peaks in direction of travel

The Kessler Syndrome: A Systemic Threat

• Proposed by NASA scientist Donald Kessler
• Theory:
  • Beyond a debris density threshold,
  • Collisions trigger a cascading chain reaction
  • Eventually makes LEO unusable for spaceflight
• Risk amplified by:
  • Mega-constellations
  • ASAT tests
  • Lack of binding global regulation

How Space Agencies Assess MMOD Risk?

A. MMOD Flux Modelling

• MMOD flux = expected number of debris hits of a given size over mission duration
• Uses:
  • Tracking catalogues
  • Statistical debris environment models
• Inputs include:
  • Orbit altitude & inclination
  • Mission duration
  • Spacecraft orientation

B. Vulnerability Analysis

• Specialised software calculates:
  • Probability of:
    • Loss of mission
    • Failure of critical components
• If risk exceeds safety thresholds:
  • Physical shielding becomes mandatory

How Are Spacecraft Physically Protected?

A. Whipple Shield (Primary Defence)

• Widely used across human and robotic missions
• Design:
  • Outer “bumper”
  • Inner “rear wall”
  • Stand-off gap between them
• Working principle:
  • Incoming debris shatters on bumper
  • Fragment cloud disperses energy
  • Rear wall absorbs reduced impact
• Analogy:
  • Sea waves breaking on tetrapods

B. Operational Avoidance (For Large Debris)

• Objects >10 cm are tracked
• Space agencies maintain collision catalogues
• If collision probability rises:
  • Debris Avoidance Manoeuvre (DAM) executed
  • Small thruster burns adjust orbit
• Used routinely for:
  • International Space Station
  • Crewed capsules
  • High-value satellites

How Is India Protecting Gaganyaan Crew?

Mission-Specific Context

• Standalone mission:
  • No space station docking
  • No external rescue capability
• Short duration:
  • <7 days
  • Low probability of collision with catalogued debris
• Residual risk:
  • Small, untrackable MMOD still significant

Protection Strategy

• Based on international human-rating standards
• Uses:
  • Passive shielding (Whipple shields)
• Validation through:
  • High-velocity impact testing
  • Numerical simulations

Testing Infrastructure

• ISRO uses specialised facilities
• DRDO Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL):
  • Gas gun facility
  • Fires 7 mm projectiles at up to 5 km/s
  • Validates shield survivability under near-orbital conditions

Global Governance of Space Debris

Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC)

• Members:
  • NASA
  • ESA
  • ISRO
  • JAXA
• Role:
  • Develops technical standards
  • Best practices for debris mitigation

United Nations Framework

• UNCOPUOS adopts debris mitigation guidelines
• Nature:
  • Soft law
  • Voluntary
  • No binding enforcement mechanism

The Structural Gap

• Rapid expansion of:
  • Human spaceflight
  • Commercial satellites
• Weaknesses:
  • No binding global debris removal obligations
  • No liability for long-term orbital pollution
  • ASAT tests still legally permissible

The Road Ahead: What Must Be Done

• Enforce zero-debris-by-design missions
• Mandatory post-mission disposal
• Active debris removal technologies
• Binding international treaties on:
  • ASAT testing
  • Orbital congestion
• Treat Earth orbit as a global commons, not a free-for-all

Conclusion

Human spaceflight is now as much an engineering challenge as a governance one; without collective action on space debris, Earth’s orbit risks becoming the most dangerous highway humanity has ever built.

---