Current Affairs 25 November 2025

Content

1. BNSS Section 356: Trial in Absentia
2. India’s Doctor–Population Ratio Debate
3. SC Advisory Opinion on Governor’s Powers (Art. 200)
4. INS Mahe Commissioning
5. Hayli Gubbi Volcano Eruption & DGCA Advisory
6. COP30 Brazil & the Concept of Mutirão

---

BNSS Section 356

---

Why is it in news ?

• Delhi Police invoked Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for the first time.
  • Against Jitendra Mehto, accused of murder and evading arrest.
• The provision enables trial in absentia, marking a significant shift under the new criminal law framework.

Relevance

GS2 – Governance / Polity

• New criminal procedure architecture under BNSS.
• Due process concerns: rights of absconding accused vs Article 21.
• Oversight on police powers; risk of misuse in politically sensitive cases.
• Judicial scrutiny of absentee trials; alignment with global standards.
• Impact on pendency reduction and court efficiency.

GS2 – Federalism

• Harmonisation of State police functioning under new central law.
• Centre–State friction potential in high-profile cases.

What is Section 356 (BNSS)

• Enables trial of an absconding accused without their presence.
• Preconditions:
  • Accused must be declared a proclaimed offender.
  • Must have absconded or evaded arrest despite repeated summons/warrants.
• Objective: Prevent accused from stalling trials and ensure timely justice.

Key features of Section 356

• Court may:
  • Conduct trial in absence of the accused.
  • Record evidence, examine witnesses, and pass judgment.
  • Assign legal aid counsel to represent the absconding accused.
• Safeguards:
  • Public notice, proof of intentional evasion, right to re-opening of trial upon arrest.

Difference from old CrPC

• CrPC allowed declaring someone a proclaimed offender (Sections 82–83) but did not permit full trial in absentia.
• BNSS introduces a complete absentee-trial mechanism, inspired by European systems.
• Supports BNSS goals:
  • Time-bound trials,
  • ** Victim-centric justice**,
  • Reduced judicial delay.

Application in the Delhi cases

• Protest-related case:
  • Officials were obstructed; pepper spray allegedly used.
  • Accused evaded notices; police sought Section 356 to prevent delay.
• Murder case:
  • Accused absconding; Section 356 triggered to continue trial.

Legal and constitutional analysis

Merits

• Addresses chronic problem of absconding accused.
• Strengthens victim’s right to speedy justice (Article 21; Hussainara Khatoon).
• Prevents deliberate stalling of criminal proceedings.

Concerns

• Risk of misuse in politically sensitive cases.
• Could impact fair hearing if safeguards not strictly followed.
• Requires robust judicial oversight in declaring someone absconding.

Judicial position (likely)

• SC has upheld flexible modes of trial (Praful Desai, video trials).
• Will insist on procedural safeguards to uphold Article 21.

Administrative significance

• Helps police tackle habitual evaders.
• Strengthens enforcement of summons/warrants.
• Reduces pendency caused by non-appearance of accused.
• Supports the BNSS’s time-bound trial architecture.

Impact on criminal justice system

• Faster disposal of serious offences (murder, organised crime).
• Reduces backlog linked to absconding behaviour.
• Enhances accountability in politically sensitive or public-order situations.
• Moves the system toward certainty of trial, not merely certainty of arrest.

---

1 doctor per 1,000 population

---

Why it is in news ?

• Government replies in Parliament (2015 and 2024) cited a WHO benchmark of 1 doctor per 1,000 population.
• The Hindu’s investigation shows WHO has never prescribed this norm.
• WHO issued a written clarification to The Hindu confirming: it does not recommend doctor-population ratios for countries.
• Government calculations were found inconsistent:
  • Only 80% availability factor applied to allopathic doctors.
  • No availability factor applied to AYUSH practitioners.
  • Inclusion of AYUSH doctors helped the government claim it meets the supposed ratio.
• Raises questions on data transparency, policy accuracy, and misinterpretation of global health norms.

Relevance

GS2 – Health / Governance

• HRH planning under National Health Policy.
• Data integrity and parliamentary accountability.
• Rural–urban health workforce maldistribution.
• Overreliance on “composite workforce” metric.

GS3 – Economy

• Impact on health expenditure planning.
• Workforce shortages affecting productivity, demographic dividend.

What is the claimed “WHO ratio”?

• Popularly cited norm: 1 doctor per 1,000 population.
• Policymakers, medical bodies, and public discourse often present it as WHO-prescribed.
• Reality:
  • No WHO document prescribes this ratio.
  • No global standard exists for doctor-only ratios.
• The figure spread through academic citations, policy reports, and government statements without primary source evidence.

What does WHO actually prescribe?

• WHO clarified that it does not issue country-level doctor ratios because health workforce needs depend on:
  • National disease burdens,
  • Health labour markets,
  • Infrastructure,
  • Demography and epidemiology.
• WHO uses composite workforce benchmarks, not doctor-only ratios.

WHO benchmarks:

1. 2006 global threshold:
   1. 2.25 doctors, nurses, midwives per 1,000 population
   1. Minimum required for essential maternal and child health services.
2. Revised SDG Composite Index (current):
   1. 4.45 doctors + nurses + midwives per 1,000 population
   1. Needed to achieve 80% coverage on 12 SDG-linked health indicators.

How did the 1:1,000 myth originate?

• Public health expert Dr. Kumbhar traced the earliest official Indian reference to:
  • Medical Council of India (MCI) “Vision 2015” report (2011).
• That report—based on expert consultations—recommended 1:1,000 as a target, not a WHO norm*.
• Later, the figure was cited in:
  • Parliamentary answers
  • Academic articles
  • Policy discussions
  • Media narratives
• Over time, it became politicised, especially in debates over:
  • Need for more medical colleges
  • Inclusion of AYUSH doctors in workforce counts
  • Shortages exaggerated to justify rapid medical infrastructure expansion

Government’s use of the ratio (2015–2024)

• Government replies cited the 1:1,000 ratio while measuring India’s doctor availability.
• Issues in calculation:
  • Allopathic doctors: only 80% counted, as per availability
  • AYUSH doctors: 100% counted, no availability adjustment
  • Inclusion of AYUSH boosted India’s numbers closer to the “benchmark”

Result:

• Produced inconsistent doctor-population ratios (shown in multiple Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha responses).
• Demonstrates selective application of workforce metrics.

What do global datasets show?

Based on WHO’s National Health Workforce Accounts (NHWA):

a) Doctors per 1,000 population (Chart 2)

• India: 0.7 per 1,000
• Rank: 118 out of 181 countries

b) Composite health workers (doctors + nurses + midwives) per 1,000 (Chart 3)

• India: 3.06 per 1,000
• Rank: 122 out of 181 countries
• Below WHO’s SDG threshold: 4.45

Real issue: maldistribution, not raw numbers

• Urban–rural divide is the core problem:
  • Large concentration of doctors in metros and Tier-1 cities.
  • Severe shortages in rural PHCs, CHCs, tribal areas.
• State variation is high:
  • Some states exceed global benchmarks; others are far below.
• Raw national ratios hide structural gaps in:
  • Quality of care
  • Skilled nursing supply
  • Midwifery cadres
  • Rural incentives
  • Regulatory standards

Policy implications

• Misstating WHO norms risks:
  • Misaligned workforce planning
  • Policy errors in medical education expansion
  • Overreliance on numeric targets
• Shift needed toward:
  • Local workforce forecasting
  • State-specific staffing models
  • Strengthening nurses and midwives
  • Incentivising rural practice
  • Accurate measurement and availability-adjusted counts

Conclusion

• India’s debate on doctor shortages is driven by a mythical benchmark, not evidence.
• WHO’s actual focus is on composite health workforce sufficiency, not doctor-specific norms.

---

What does the SC’s advisory opinion imply?  

---

 Why it is in news ?

• Supreme Court delivered its opinion on a Presidential Reference under Article 143, triggered by the April 2025 two-judge Bench decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs Governor of Tamil Nadu.
• The April 2025 judgment had:
  • Imposed a three-month timeline for Governors/President to act on Bills.
  • Declared decisions on Bills justiciable even before enactment.
  • Invoked Article 142 to grant deemed assent to certain Tamil Nadu Bills.
• The Union government sought clarity on 14 issues, particularly the scope of Article 200/201, justiciability, and limits of Article 142 powers.
• The Constitution Bench has largely negated the 2025 two-judge ruling.

Relevance

GS2 – Polity / Federalism

• Limits of Governor’s discretion in bill assent.
• Clarification of timelines → smoother State legislative process.
• Strengthening constitutional conventions.
• Judicial review boundaries in pre-enactment stages.

GS2 – Governance

• Reducing executive delays; improving accountability in lawmaking.

Articles 200 and 201

Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bills:

• Assent
• Withhold assent
• Return Bill (except Money Bills)
• Reserve for President

Article 201 – President’s options on reserved Bills:

• Assent
• Withhold assent
• Return (except Money Bills)

Neither Article prescribes time limits.

What was the Presidential reference? (14 questions)

• Can courts create time limits when Constitution is silent?
• Are Governor’s/President’s actions on pending Bills justiciable?
• Does Governor act with discretion or on aid and advice in Article 200 matters?
• Can Supreme Court under Article 142 grant deemed assent?
• Can courts review actions before a Bill becomes law?
• Do delays amount to constitutional impropriety reviewable by courts?

Supreme Court’s current opinion (Constitution Bench)

a) Governor’s options and discretion

• Governor has three constitutional options under Article 200.
• Governor enjoys discretion in exercising these options.
• This discretion is not bound by the Council of Ministers’ aid and advice.
• Court interprets Shamsher Singh (1974) and Nabam Rebia (2016) narrowly: Article 200 is a discretionary field.

b) Justiciability

• Actions under Articles 200 and 201 are not justiciable before enactment.
• Courts cannot question the content or choice of assent/withholding.

c) Limited judicial intervention

• Courts may only issue a limited mandamus asking the Governor to “decide”, in rare cases of prolonged, unexplained inaction.
• Courts cannot direct the outcome.

d) Timelines

• Courts cannot prescribe timelines where Constitution prescribes none.
• Punchhi Commission’s six-month suggestion is non-binding.
• April 2025 ruling granting three-month limit is overruled.

e) Article 142

• Article 142 cannot substitute constitutional powers of Governor/President.
• Deemed assent is unconstitutional.

f) Reservation of Bills

• Reservation to President is a discretionary power, consistent with Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission principles.

 What issues arise from the opinion?

a) Potential derailment of State legislative intent

• Treating Article 200 decisions as discretionary allows Governors to delay/withhold assent.
• Weakens the parliamentary executive model in States.

b) Weakens judicial oversight

• Earlier State of Tamil Nadu (2025) ruling enabled accountability; current ruling reduces review space.
• Before-enactment stages become largely immune from judicial scrutiny.

c) Federalism concerns

• Empowers an unelected Governor (appointed by Centre) vis-à-vis elected State governments.
• Increases possibility of politicised obstruction of State policies.

d) Inconsistency with purposive interpretation tradition

• Court itself created time limits (e.g., K.M. Singh, 2020 — 3 months for Speakers).
• Refusal here marks a shift away from purposive constitutionalism.

e) Sidestepping Commission recommendations

• Sarkaria: Reservation for President should be rare, not routine.
• Punchhi: Decision on Bills ideally within six months.
• Current opinion chooses restraint, not reform.

Broader constitutional implications

• Reasserts textual fidelity over purposive interpretation.
• Alters balance between:
  • State legislature (majoritarian mandate)
  • Governor (constitutional head)
  • President (central executive)
• Signals a conservative approach to judicial intervention in federal disputes.

Way forward

• Need for statutory or constitutional clarification on time limits.
• Governors must follow constitutional morality, not political expediency.
• Inter-governmental forums (e.g., Inter-State Council) should evolve operational protocols.
• Strengthen conventions:
  • Timely assent
  • Minimal reservation of Bills
  • Transparent communication between Raj Bhavan and State governments
• Preserve balance between executive stability and federal autonomy.

---

INS Mahe

---

Why is it in News?

• India’s first Mahe-class Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Shallow Watercraft, INS Mahe, commissioned at Naval Dockyard, Mumbai.
• Commissioned by Army Chief General Upendra Dwivedi — first-ever time an Indian Army Chief presided over a naval warship commissioning.
• Represents a major step in naval indigenisation, with 80%+ indigenous components.
• Enhances coastal ASW capability, crucial amid rising Chinese undersea presence in the IOR.

Relevance

GS2 – Governance / Security

• Defence indigenisation push under Aatmanirbhar Bharat.
• Strengthening coastal & ASW capabilities.

GS3 – Internal and External Security

• Countering Chinese submarine presence in IOR.
• Enhancing littoral surveillance and deterrence posture.
• Boost to shipbuilding ecosystem.

What is a Mahe-class ASW Shallow Watercraft?

• A small, agile anti-submarine warfare vessel designed for coastal and near-shore operations.
• Optimised for detecting and neutralising mini-submarines, midget subs, diver-delivery vehicles, and shallow-water intrusions.
• Designed and built by Cochin Shipyard Limited.
• Part of the 8-vessel ASW Shallow Watercraft Project.

Key Features

• Indigenous Content: Over 80% locally sourced systems and components.
• Stealth profile: Low acoustic signature.
• Motto: Silent Hunters — reflects stealth ASW capability.
• Advanced systems:
  • Integrated combat suite
  • Modern Sonar, radars, electronic warfare systems
  • Precision ASW weapons
• Long endurance for persistent coastal patrols.
• Interoperable with larger naval platforms, submarines, and aircraft.

Operational Role: Why is it Important?

• Forms the first line of coastal defence against undersea threats.
• Crucial for littoral ASW operations where larger ships cannot manoeuvre effectively.
• Enhances surveillance over choke points, harbour approaches, EEZ areas, and critical maritime infrastructure.
• Addresses increasing Chinese submarine activity and grey-zone operations in the IOR.
• Strengthens the coastal security grid post-26/11.

Strategic Significance

• Strengthens India’s Near-Sea Dominance Doctrine.
• Supports Sea Control + Sea Denial missions in shallow waters.
• Enhances India’s ability to monitor sub-surface intrusions by state and non-state actors.
• Contributes to deterrence posture in Eastern Arabian Sea / Bay of Bengal.

Indigenisation Significance

• Demonstrates India’s increasing ability to design, integrate, and deploy complex combatant vessels.
• Part of the larger Aatmanirbhar Bharat in defence shipbuilding.
• Reduces dependency on foreign sonar, sensors, and propulsion systems.
• Boosts competence of shipyards like CSL, essential for future larger combatant projects.

Tri-Service/Jointness Significance

• Commissioning done by Army Chief → symbolism of jointness, integration, and Theatre Command readiness.
• Highlights the shift toward:
  • Multi-domain operations
  • Unified maritime-land-air integration
  • Future tri-service maritime theatre command

Technical-Operational Capabilities (Condensed)

• ASW Sensors: Hull-mounted sonar, variable depth sonar.
• ASW Weapons: Lightweight torpedoes, ASW rockets.
• Navigation & Communication: Integrated bridge system, modern communication suite.
• Endurance: Long-duration coastal operations.
• Other: High-speed manoeuvrability in shallow waters.

Broader Maritime Security Context

• Rising submarine traffic in the region demands persistent ASW presence.
• China’s submarine docking in Sri Lanka / Pakistan increases littoral surveillance needs.
• Coastal vulnerability after Mumbai 26/11 → need for layered security.
• Supports SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) doctrine.

---

Hayli Gubbi volcano

---

Why is it in News?

• Hayli Gubbi volcano in Ethiopia’s Afar region erupted after ~10,000 years of dormancy, sending massive ash plumes up to 14 km into the atmosphere.
• Ash travelled across Red Sea → Yemen → Oman → India, entering through Rajasthan and drifiting toward Delhi, UP, Bihar, Northeast.
• DGCA issued urgent advisories directing all Indian airlines to avoid ash-affected flight routes and altitudes.
• Multiple flight diversions and cancellations (e.g., Indigo Kannur–Abu Dhabi flight diverted to Ahmedabad).
• Raises major concerns about aviation safety, atmospheric circulation patterns, and volcanic hazards in South Asia.

Relevance

GS3 – Disaster Management

• Aviation hazard management; ICAO compliance.
• Early warning & ash cloud monitoring systems.

GS1 – Geography

• East African Rift dynamics; Afar triple junction.
• Atmospheric transport of aerosols affecting distant regions.

Where is the Hayli Gubbi Volcano?

• Located in Afar Depression, northern Ethiopia.
• Part of the East African Rift System (EARS), one of the world’s most active tectonic zones.
• A rift volcano associated with continental plate divergence (African Plate splitting into Nubia and Somalia plates).
• Dormant for ~10,000 years → now active.

Type of Volcano & Eruption Characteristics

• Rift-zone basaltic volcano (common to Afar).
• Eruption produced:
  • High-altitude ash plume (up to 14 km) reaching the tropopause.
  • Volcanic ash and fine pyroclasts carried by upper-level winds.
• No major lava flow reported; eruption dominated by explosive ash generation.

Path of Ash Transport (Atmospheric Science)

• Strong westerlies and subtropical jet stream transported ash eastwards.
• Sequence: Ethiopia → Red Sea → Yemen → Oman → Arabian Sea → India.
• Entered India via western Rajasthan, then moving northeast.
• Expected spread: Delhi (near midnight), UP, Bihar, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh.

Why Volcanic Ash is Dangerous for Aviation ?

• Extremely abrasive fine particles of glassy volcanic silica.
• At engine temperatures, ash melts → forms glass-like coating → sticks to turbine blades → engine stall/failure.
• Can cause:
  • Compressor surges / flameouts
  • Erosion of fan blades
  • Pitot tube blockage → instrument failure
  • Windshield abrasion → visibility loss
  • Damage to avionics & filters
• Worst-case: multi-engine failure (e.g., 1982 BA Flight 9, 1989 KLM Alaska incident).

DGCA Advisory — Key Directives

• Avoid flights through ash-contaminated airspace/altitudes.
• Mandatory reporting of:
  • Engine performance changes
  • Smoke/odour in cabin
• Airports:
  • Inspect runways for ash deposits
  • Restrict/suspend operations if contamination detected
• India’s first large-scale volcanic ash intrusion in years → precautionary measures intensified.

Impact on India

• Flight disruptions: diversions, cancellations, re-routing.
• Visibility reduction possible in some sectors.
• Surface-level impact limited, as ash concentrations dilute with distance.
• Health impact low but sensitive groups may feel irritation if ash reaches ground level.
• Meteorology impact:
  • Potential scattering of sunlight, minor cooling effect locally
  • Monitoring by IMD, satellite agencies

Geological Significance

• Shows the tectonic dynamism of the Afar Triple Junction where Africa is splitting.
• Could indicate increased rifting activity in East Africa.
• Afar Depression is one of the only places where mid-ocean ridge volcanism occurs on land.

Why Volcano Ash Can Travel to India ?

• High-altitude eruption reaching jet stream level (approx. 12–16 km).
• Jet streams can carry ash thousands of kilometres rapidly.
• Dry conditions over the Arabian region prevent washout, allowing long-distance travel.

---

COP30 & Mutirão 

---

Why is it in News?

• COP30 concluded in Belém, Brazil, and its entire Action Agenda was built around the concept of mutirão.
• First time a global climate summit formally adopted a Brazilian–Indigenous governance philosophy as its operational principle.
• Brazil highlighted mutirão to showcase participatory climate action and centre the role of Indigenous knowledge in rainforest protection, especially the Amazon.

Relevance

GS3 – Environment

• Community-driven climate governance model.
• Integration of indigenous knowledge into global climate action.
• Amazon conservation as global climate stabiliser.

GS2 – Governance / International Relations

• Multi-stakeholder participation shaping global negotiations.
• Climate justice, inclusivity, and consensus-building diplomacy.

What is Mutirão?

• A Brazilian term meaning collective effort, joint mobilisation, community work.
• Originates from Tupi-Guarani, an Indigenous language family of the Amazon.
• Core idea:
  • Problems are solved together, not individually.
  • Decisions emerge from consensus, not hierarchy.
  • Action is continuous, not event-based.

Why is the Concept Symbolically Powerful?

• Indigenous-led → strengthens climate justice narrative.
• Brazil’s Amazon location makes mutirão a culturally rooted climate framework.
• COP30 intended to shift focus from top-down negotiations to ground-level participation.

What Did COP30 Mean by a “Mutirão Approach”?

Brazil framed mutirão as a governance method, not a slogan.

Key elements:

• Before COP:
  • Mobilising Indigenous groups, scientific communities, youth, cities, and private firms.
• During COP:
  • Decision-making through broad consultations, shared responsibilities.
• After COP:
  • Implementation monitored through community-led networks rather than state-only mechanisms.

Essentially, mutirão = climate action as a continuous, participatory, community-driven process.

Indigenous Angle — Why It Matters

• Worldwide, 5,000+ Indigenous groups steward 80% of global biodiversity (IPBES).
• Amazon Indigenous communities:
  • Manage vast forest areas
  • Prevent deforestation far more effectively than state agencies
• COP30 placed Indigenous guardianship at the centre of global climate solutions, not the margins.

Relevance of Belém, Brazil

• Gateway to the Amazon → epicentre of global rainforest protection.
• COP30 in Belém symbolised:
  • Country’s commitment to reduce Amazon deforestation
  • Return of Brazil as climate leader after years of rollback
  • Visibility for Amazonian Indigenous struggles

What COP30 Wanted to Achieve Through Mutirão ?

Governance Shift

• From elite-led climate diplomacy → mass-participatory model.
• Encourage shared ownership of mitigation & adaptation.

Climate Action Benefits

• Strengthen local monitoring, especially against illegal mining, logging, land invasion.
• Promote community-based carbon sinks, regenerative agriculture, riverine conservation.
• Ensure just transition for Amazonian and forest-dependent livelihoods.

How Mutirão Addresses Climate Summit Weaknesses ?

Past COP Problems

• Repeated failures due to:
  • State-centric negotiations
  • Poor implementation
  • Exclusion of local communities
  • North–South trust deficit
  • Slow mobilisation of climate finance

Mutirão Response

• Broadens participation → reduces exclusion.
• Anchors action in social consensus → better implementation.
• Recognises Indigenous authority → increases legitimacy.
• Builds South American leadership in climate diplomacy.

Global Implications

• Could inspire similar community-led climate governance models.
• Increases pressure on high emitters to include marginalised groups.
• Helps remove false dichotomy between scientific and Indigenous ecological knowledge.
• Positions Brazil as a bridge leader between Global North and South.

---