Daily UPSC Mains Analysis
The Hindu
News Analysis for UPSC Civil Services
Friday, February 20, 2026 — Bengaluru Edition
LEGACY IAS
Bengaluru • Excellence in Civil Services Coaching
Today’s Analysis
- SIR in 22 States & U.T.s Expected from April — Election Commission GS-II
- Supreme Court Flags ‘Appeasement’ in Poll-Time Freebies GS-II
- RTI vs. DPDP Act — Privacy & Transparency Tug-of-War GS-II
- Iran–U.S. Tensions Escalate: Military Posture & Diplomacy GS-II IR
- Epstein Files: Governance, Accountability & Ethics GS-IV
- AI Impact Summit — India’s AI Vision & Global Cooperation GS-III
- Manipur — New Government, Buffer Zones & Peace Building GS-II
- DGCA Proposes Stricter Rules on Unruly Passengers GS-II
- SC to Hear 250+ Petitions Challenging CAA from May 5 GS-II
- China’s Robotics Ambitions — Rise of Unitree GS-III
ARTICLE 01
Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of Electoral Rolls in 22 States & U.T.s Expected from April
A. Issue in Brief
- The Election Commission (EC) has informed State poll authorities that the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of voter lists in 22 remaining States/U.T.s is expected to begin from April 2026.
- The challenge: SIR overlaps with Population Census 2027 (house listing from April 1), as both exercises rely on the same pool of government school teachers as Booth Level Officers (BLOs) and enumerators.
B. Static Background
- Article 324 — Superintendence, direction & control of elections vested in EC.
- Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 — Governs voter list preparation and revision.
- Representation of the People Act, 1950 — Provides for the preparation of electoral rolls.
- Last SIR was conducted in 2002–2004; current exercise involves mapping existing voters with that roll.
- Bihar was the first State to complete SIR (2025), just before its Assembly election.
- Census: Conducted under the Census Act, 1948; the upcoming one is the first since 2011.
C. Key Dimensions
| Aspect | SIR (Electoral Rolls) | Census 2027 |
|---|---|---|
| Authority | Election Commission of India | Registrar General & Census Commissioner |
| Field Staff | Booth Level Officers (BLOs) — mostly govt. school teachers | 30 lakh enumerators — mostly govt. school teachers |
| Start Date | Expected April 2026 | House listing from April 1, 2026 |
| Purpose | Clean, accurate voter rolls; remove duplicates/dead entries | Population data for policy planning |
| Challenge | Shared administrative resources require staggered deployment | |
D. Critical Analysis
- Resource Overlap: Both exercises competing for the same pool of teachers may compromise quality of both or delay either.
- Data Integrity: SIR is critical to eliminating bogus voters, duplicates, and deceased entries — a core demand of electoral reform advocates.
- Federal Coordination: EC in talks with Registrar General of India for staggered usage; highlights need for better Centre–State administrative coordination.
- Assam Exception: Incomplete NRC process created legal hurdles, necessitating a special revision instead of SIR — showing how citizenship and voter-list issues are intertwined.
- Election Preparedness: Clean rolls are essential ahead of multiple State elections and the 2029 General Election cycle.
E. Way Forward
- Adopt technology-driven solutions — Aadhaar-linked voter ID, facial recognition de-duplication (as recommended by various reform committees).
- Use staggered scheduling in districts to avoid personnel overlap between Census and SIR.
- Strengthen BLO capacity: Recruit and train additional BLOs beyond schoolteachers to reduce dependency.
- Move toward continuous electoral roll updating using digital platforms, reducing need for periodic intensive revisions.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- SIR is ordered by the Election Commission under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960.
- Last SIR was conducted in 2002–2004.
- Census is conducted under the Census Act, 1948; last census was in 2011.
- Article 324 empowers EC for superintendence of all elections.
- BLOs were introduced after EC reforms to ensure door-to-door voter enumeration.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“The simultaneous conduct of the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls and the Population Census poses significant administrative challenges. Discuss the implications for electoral integrity and suggest measures to address the resource overlap.”
ARTICLE 02
Supreme Court Flags ‘Appeasement’ in Poll-Time Freebies
A. Issue in Brief
- The Supreme Court (CJI Surya Kant bench) chastised State governments for distributing freebies indiscriminately without distinguishing between the haves and have-nots.
- The court questioned if States are following an “appeasement” policy ahead of elections without caring for the public exchequer.
- Context: Hearing a petition by Tamil Nadu Power Distribution Corporation challenging Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2024.
B. Static Background
- Subramaniam Balaji vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) — SC referred the freebies issue to a larger bench; called for ECI guidelines.
- Article 38 (DPSP) — State to secure a social order for promotion of welfare.
- Article 282 — Financial autonomy of States in expenditure.
- FRBM Act, 2003 — Fiscal responsibility framework limiting government borrowing.
- RBI Study (2022) — Warned that unfunded populist promises threaten fiscal sustainability.
C. Key Dimensions
🧠 Freebies Debate — Multi-Dimensional View
FREEBIES vs. WELFARE
🟢 Pro-Welfare Arguments
- Addresses poverty & inequality
- Free education, health = human capital
- DPSP mandate (Art. 38, 39, 41)
- Targeted schemes reduce deprivation
🔴 Anti-Freebie Concerns
- Fiscal stress on deficit-ridden States
- Crowds out capital expenditure
- Benefits affluent disproportionately
- Electoral motivation over policy rationale
⚖️ Constitutional Tension
- Art. 282 — State fiscal autonomy
- Judicial overreach vs. fiscal discipline
- Separation of powers concern
📉 Fiscal Impact
- Tamil Nadu: ₹50,000 Cr revenue gap (electricity)
- States running on deficit still distributing
- Tariff shock if Rule 23 implemented
D. Critical Analysis
- Distinction is key: Free education for poor children = welfare; free goods for the affluent = populism. SC rightly asks — “Why do freebies come to [the affluent’s] pockets first?”
- Targeting deficit: India lacks robust means-testing mechanisms; schemes often have universal coverage to avoid exclusion errors.
- Judicial role: While SC flagged the issue, directing fiscal policy raises separation of powers concerns. Courts can nudge, but policy choices belong to elected governments.
- Global comparison: OECD nations use conditional cash transfers (like Brazil’s Bolsa Família) with income-verification, unlike blanket giveaways.
- Political economy: No party — ruling or opposition — is willing to bell the cat on freebies due to electoral incentives.
E. Way Forward
- Implement ECI guidelines on election promises with mandatory fiscal impact disclosures (as recommended by the Subramaniam Balaji case).
- Strengthen means-testing using Jan Dhan–Aadhaar–Mobile (JAM) trinity for targeted delivery.
- States to publish “Freebie Fiscal Reports” showing cost, coverage, and crowding-out impact.
- Empower State Finance Commissions and CAG to audit welfare vs. populist spending.
- Adopt sunset clauses on all new welfare schemes for periodic review.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- FRBM Act, 2003 mandates fiscal deficit targets for Centre and States.
- Rule 23, Electricity (Amendment) Act, 2024 — relates to tariff rationalization.
- CJI Surya Kant headed the bench in this case.
- Article 282 — Financial autonomy of Centre/States in grants.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Distinguish between welfare measures and populist freebies. Critically evaluate the role of the judiciary in checking fiscal irresponsibility by elected governments.”
ARTICLE 03
RTI vs. DPDP Act — The Privacy–Transparency Dilemma
A. Issue in Brief
- The Supreme Court referred petitions challenging the amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act, 2023 to a Constitution Bench.
- The amendment removes the “public interest override” from Section 8(1)(j), creating a blanket ban on disclosure of any personal information — undermining RTI’s transparency mandate.
B. Static Background
- RTI Act, 2005 — Section 8(1)(j) originally allowed withholding personal info only if it had no relationship to public activity or if disclosure caused unwarranted privacy invasion.
- Public Interest Override: PIO could allow disclosure if larger public interest justified it.
- DPDP Act, 2023 — Section 44(3) amends RTI’s Section 8(1)(j), removing the public interest override entirely.
- K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) — Right to Privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21.
- Central Public Information Officer, SC (2019) — Personal information should remain private unless larger public interest demands disclosure.
C. Key Dimensions
🔄 How DPDP Amendment Dilutes RTI
Before DPDP: Section 8(1)(j) — Personal info withheld UNLESS public interest override applies
▼
DPDP Amendment: Section 44(3) removes public interest override completely
▼
Effect: Blanket ban on disclosure of ANY personal information
▼
Consequence: RTI requests on officials, procurement, audits, public spending can be rejected
▼
Paradox: State can process personal data without consent (DPDP Sec. 7), but citizens cannot seek transparency from the State
D. Critical Analysis
- “Legitimate Uses” Paradox: The State can surveil citizens under DPDP, but citizens are denied the ability to scrutinize the government — a dangerous asymmetry.
- Chilling Effect on Press: Journalists could be classified as “data fiduciaries” under DPDP; non-compliance attracts fines up to ₹250 crore — threatens investigative journalism.
- No Journalism Exemption: DPDP provides exemptions to startups but omits protections for journalism — unlike the EU’s GDPR which balances privacy and press freedom.
- Information Asymmetry: RTI has reduced State–citizen information asymmetry for 20 years; this amendment risks reversing those gains.
- Global Comparison: EU’s GDPR explicitly protects journalistic and academic activities from data protection obligations.
E. Way Forward
- The Constitution Bench must restore the public interest override, following the CPIO (2019) judgment.
- Introduce a journalism exemption in DPDP, similar to GDPR’s Article 85.
- Ensure RTI and DPDP work in harmony — privacy protection should not become a shield for government opacity.
- Strengthen Information Commissions with powers to adjudicate competing claims of privacy and transparency.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act deals with exemption for personal information.
- DPDP Act, 2023 — India’s data protection law; Section 44(3) amends RTI.
- K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) — Right to Privacy = Fundamental Right under Art. 21.
- GDPR = EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (2018).
- RTI Act was enacted in 2005; replaced Freedom of Information Act, 2002.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“The amendment to Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by the DPDP Act, 2023, creates a paradox where the State can process personal data but citizens cannot seek transparency. Examine the implications for democratic accountability and suggest a balanced approach.”
ARTICLE 04
Iran–U.S. Tensions: Military Build-Up, Diplomacy & India’s Stakes
A. Issue in Brief
- Tensions in West Asia have escalated with the U.S. bolstering military presence (aircraft carriers, fighter jets, destroyers) and Iran conducting joint naval drills with Russia in the Persian Gulf.
- U.S.–Iran talks in Geneva (mediated by Oman) made limited progress; gaps remain on nuclear enrichment, missile programme, and regional allies.
- Trump reportedly considering a military strike as soon as the weekend.
B. Static Background
- JCPOA (2015) — Multilateral nuclear deal between P5+1 and Iran; limited uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief.
- 2018: Trump’s first term — U.S. unilaterally withdrew from JCPOA.
- June 2025: U.S. and Israel jointly struck Iran’s nuclear facilities.
- NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) — Iran is a signatory; claims programme is for peaceful purposes.
- India–Iran ties: Chabahar Port, oil imports (Iran was once a top-2 supplier), Afghanistan/Central Asia connectivity.
C. Key Dimensions
🧠 India’s Stakes in Iran–U.S. Tensions
INDIA’S INTERESTS
🛢️ Energy Security
- Iran was top-2 oil supplier before sanctions
- Crude prices spiking (Brent up 2.84%)
- Nifty fell 1.4% on Iran tensions
🚢 Chabahar Port
- Key connectivity project to Afghanistan & Central Asia
- Bypasses Pakistan for trade access
- Long-term investment at risk during escalation
🌍 Strategic Balancing
- India supports JCPOA; needs ties with both U.S. and Iran
- Gulf Indian diaspora (8 million+) at risk
- Non-alignment in new Cold War dynamics
🔒 Regional Stability
- Iran’s role vis-à-vis Pakistan, Taliban
- Central Asia: countering Turkish/Pak influence
- Gulf investment flows to India at risk
D. Critical Analysis
- Trump’s Paradox: After withdrawing from JCPOA in 2018 and bombing Iran in 2025, Trump now seeks his own deal — echoing Obama-era diplomacy he once mocked.
- Arab Anxiety: Gulf states, despite investing heavily in Trump, prefer dialogue over military escalation — U.S. bases in their territory make them vulnerable to Iranian retaliation.
- Iran’s Internal Dynamics: Moderates forced to align with conservatives post-U.S. bombings; domestic protests gnawing at stability — external pressure may strengthen hardliners.
- India’s Dilemma: Must balance U.S. strategic partnership with energy security and Iran connectivity — a classic multi-alignment challenge.
E. Way Forward
- India should push for a revived multilateral framework for Iran’s nuclear programme — bilateral U.S.–Iran deal would exclude India’s interests.
- Diversify energy imports while keeping Iran channel open through Chabahar exemptions.
- Strengthen evacuation preparedness for Indian diaspora in Gulf (Operation Kaveri-type contingency planning).
- Use diplomatic channels (Oman, Qatar) to advocate de-escalation consistent with India’s tradition of strategic autonomy.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- JCPOA = Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015); P5+1 = UNSC permanent members + Germany.
- Chabahar Port — In Sistan-Balochistan province, Iran; operated under India–Iran bilateral agreement.
- IRGC = Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Iran’s elite military force).
- Strait of Hormuz — Chokepoint through which ~20% of global oil passes.
- Oman has traditionally mediated U.S.–Iran back-channel talks.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Examine the implications of the current Iran–U.S. military standoff for India’s energy security, strategic connectivity, and its policy of multi-alignment. Suggest a diplomatic approach for India.”
ARTICLE 05
Epstein Files: Governance Questions, Accountability & Ethical Dimensions
A. Issue in Brief
- Release of Jeffrey Epstein files by the U.S. Department of Justice has exposed deep connections between political power, corporates, and criminal networks globally.
- Prince Andrew (ex-Duke of York) was arrested in the U.K. on suspicion of misconduct in public office.
- India angle: Names of an Indian industrialist and a Union Minister have surfaced; questions raised about governance and accountability.
- Bill Gates pulled out of AI Impact Summit keynote due to Epstein associations.
B. Static Background
- Epstein: Convicted sex offender (2008); arrested again in 2019; died reportedly by suicide before trial.
- Issues of public office accountability, conflict of interest, and ethical conduct of public servants (relevant under the Code of Conduct for Ministers).
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Addresses misconduct by public servants.
- Parliamentary Privileges: Government shut down Parliament discussion on Epstein files, raising questions about accountability.
C. Key Dimensions
| Ethical Dimension | Application |
|---|---|
| Accountability in Public Office | Should public servants be investigated for associations with convicted criminals? The editorial argues continuing in office with such associations signals approval. |
| Transparency vs. Cover-Up | Parliament discussion was shut down; U.S. DOJ redacted names — survivors allege cover-up by those in power. |
| Moral Responsibility vs. Legal Culpability | Not all named may have participated in crimes, but proximity to a convicted offender after 2008 raises moral questions about judgment and values. |
| Institutional Integrity | U.K. stripped titles and arrested a royal; India’s response — dismissing emails as “trashy ruminations” — contrasts sharply. |
| Voice of the Vulnerable | Survivors’ sustained struggle over decades led to accountability — underscores importance of protecting whistleblowers and victims. |
D. Critical Analysis
- Ethics of Association: Engaging with a convicted offender after 2008 (when facts were public) demonstrates failure of moral reasoning by public figures.
- Trivialisation of Crimes: Describing sex offences against minors in dismissive language normalises rape culture — a GS-IV relevant ethical concern.
- Parliamentary Accountability: Shutting down discussion denies elected representatives their constitutional role of holding the executive to account.
- Comparative Response: U.K. arrested a royal family member; India has not initiated any public investigation into its named individuals.
E. Way Forward
- Strengthen code of conduct for Ministers with mandatory disclosure of foreign associations.
- Allow parliamentary discussion on matters of public interest — no blanket gag on sensitive topics.
- Establish an independent ethics commission (as in many democracies) to investigate conduct of high officials.
- Protect survivors and whistleblowers with stronger legal frameworks.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Misconduct in Public Office — Common law offence in the U.K.; no direct equivalent in India.
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — India’s primary anti-corruption law for public servants.
- Parliamentary Privileges under Articles 105 (Parliament) and 194 (State Legislatures).
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-IV, 10 marks)
“What ethical obligations do holders of public office have regarding their personal associations? Discuss with reference to the concept of ‘moral responsibility’ beyond legal culpability.”
ARTICLE 06
AI Impact Summit — India’s AI Vision, Global Cooperation & Governance
A. Issue in Brief
- PM Modi declared India sees its “destiny in AI” at the AI Impact Summit plenary; proposed MANAV framework (Moral systems, Accountable governance, National sovereignty, Accessible means, Valid uses).
- Key announcements: Tata–OpenAI partnership, Anthropic–Infosys deal, Jio to reduce “cost of intelligence”.
- Switzerland to host 2027 AI Summit in Geneva; Macron pitched for India–France AI framework.
- Galgotias University “Robodog” controversy highlighted gaps between claims and actual innovation capacity.
B. Static Background
- National AI Strategy (NITI Aayog, 2018) — Identified healthcare, agriculture, education, smart cities, and transport as priority sectors.
- IndiaAI Mission (2024) — ₹10,372 crore allocation for AI compute, innovation, and skilling.
- Bletchley Park Declaration (2023) — Global AI safety commitments.
- EU AI Act (2024) — World’s first comprehensive AI regulation.
C. Key Dimensions
🔄 India’s AI Ecosystem — Building Blocks
Compute Infrastructure: HyperVault (Tata–OpenAI, 100MW → 1GW), Data centres, Semiconductor fabs
▼
AI Models & Platforms: OpenAI, Anthropic partnerships; BHASHINI (multilingual AI); Agentic AI systems
▼
Industry Integration: TCS, Infosys building enterprise AI; Jio democratising access; Startups ecosystem
▼
Governance Framework: MANAV framework; Sovereign AI; India–France cooperation; G7/Summit series
▼
Outcomes: Healthcare AI, AgriTech, Financial inclusion, Multilingual services, Global South empowerment
D. Critical Analysis
- Dependency Risk: India’s AI strategy relies heavily on foreign models (OpenAI, Anthropic) — “sovereign AI” claims need backing with domestic foundational models.
- Innovation Gap: The Galgotias “Robodog” incident (a rebranded Chinese Unitree Go2) exposes how claims of indigenous innovation can mask over-reliance on imports.
- Regulatory Vacuum: India has no comprehensive AI legislation yet; MANAV is a vision, not a law.
- Global Power Dynamics: Switzerland’s Parmelin rightly warned that AI governance shouldn’t be controlled by “a few big powers” (U.S. & China = 70%+ of global AI industry).
- Job Displacement Concern: IT firms’ stock fell on Claude Opus 4.6 release — signals market fears about AI replacing service jobs, India’s key export sector.
E. Way Forward
- Invest in indigenous foundational AI models — not just integration partnerships.
- Enact a comprehensive AI governance framework with risk-based regulation (learning from EU AI Act).
- Build AI skilling at scale — align with National Education Policy for AI literacy from school level.
- Ensure AI for inclusion — prioritise healthcare, agriculture, and governance applications for underserved populations.
- Lead Global South AI coalition to prevent AI divide; link to SDGs 4, 8, 9, 10.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- MANAV = Moral, Accountable, National sovereignty, Accessible, Valid — PM Modi’s AI framework.
- IndiaAI Mission — ₹10,372 crore; focus on compute, innovation, datasets, skilling.
- BHASHINI — IT Ministry’s AI-powered translation initiative for Indian languages.
- 2027 AI Summit — Geneva, Switzerland; 2028 — UAE.
- EU AI Act (2024) — World’s first comprehensive AI regulation framework.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-III, 15 marks)
“India aspires to be an AI superpower while relying heavily on foreign AI models and infrastructure. Critically examine the concept of ‘Sovereign AI’ in the Indian context and suggest a roadmap for building indigenous AI capabilities.”
ARTICLE 07
Manipur — New Government, Buffer Zones & the Road to Peace
A. Issue in Brief
- After nearly a year of President’s Rule, Manipur has a new government with CM Y. Khemchand Singh (Meitei) and two Deputy CMs — Nemcha Kipgen (Kuki-Zo) and Losii Dikho (Naga) — ensuring tri-ethnic representation.
- Over 260 killed, 62,000 displaced since ethnic violence erupted on May 3, 2023; buffer zones remain between Kuki-Zo and Meitei areas.
- Deputy CM Kipgen took oath from Delhi, has not yet visited Imphal — reflecting persistent security concerns.
B. Static Background
- Article 356 — President’s Rule; imposed in Manipur after breakdown of constitutional machinery.
- Sixth Schedule — Provides for autonomous district councils in tribal areas of NE India.
- Inner Line Permit (ILP) — Regulatory framework under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
- Root Cause: Meitei demand for Scheduled Tribe status → Kuki-Zo opposition → ethnic violence.
- CBI tasked with investigating rape cases from 2023; yet to arrest or file charge sheet in many cases.
C. Key Dimensions
| Challenge | Details |
|---|---|
| Trust Deficit | CM admits he cannot predict when displaced persons can return home; buffer zones still needed where “wounds of violence remain deep”. |
| Justice Delayed | CBI has not arrested a single person or filed charge sheets in multiple rape cases from 2023. A victim succumbed to injuries in January 2026 while awaiting justice. |
| Intra-Tribal Tensions | Distinct identities among Kuki, Zomi, Hmar, Thadou communities — Deputy CM Kipgen must navigate these while building consensus. |
| Governance from Distance | Deputy CM Kipgen operating from Kangpokpi, not Imphal — constitutional duty vs. security reality. |
| Protests against Reconciliation | Kuki-Zo civil society groups protested Kipgen joining the government — reflects deep community opposition to political engagement with the Meitei-dominated government. |
D. Critical Analysis
- Representation ≠ Reconciliation: Tri-ethnic cabinet is symbolic but insufficient without ground-level confidence-building measures.
- Justice as Foundation: Without prosecuting perpetrators of violence and sexual crimes, talk of peace rings hollow.
- Women’s Role: Kipgen’s appointment as first woman Deputy CM is significant but her framing of “a caring mother nurtures a peaceful home” risks reducing women’s political role to gendered stereotypes.
- Federal Failure: Centre’s delayed response, prolonged President’s Rule, and inadequate CBI action reflect governance failure at the highest levels.
E. Way Forward
- Fast-track CBI cases: Special courts for conflict-related crimes; time-bound charge sheets.
- Phased removal of buffer zones with joint community patrolling and confidence-building measures.
- Implement Naga/Kuki peace accords in parallel with ethnic reconciliation.
- Strengthen autonomous governance mechanisms under the Sixth Schedule for tribal areas.
- Rehabilitation framework: ₹33 crore DBT is a start; need comprehensive resettlement + livelihood plan for 62,000 IDPs.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- Article 356 — President’s Rule; imposed when State government cannot function per Constitution.
- Sixth Schedule — Articles 244(2) & 275(1); autonomous district councils in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram.
- ILP (Inner Line Permit) — Required for outsiders to enter certain NE states; under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
- Manipur has 60 Assembly seats; Kuki-Zo hold 10 seats.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Mere political representation of warring ethnic groups in the government does not guarantee reconciliation. In light of the Manipur crisis, discuss the prerequisites for sustainable peace in ethnically divided societies.”
ARTICLE 08
DGCA Proposes Stricter Rules on Unruly Airline Passengers
A. Issue in Brief
- The DGCA is proposing amendments to allow airlines to directly impose flying bans of up to 30 days without referring to an independent committee.
- Six new categories of unruly behaviour added: smoking on board, alcohol on domestic flights, tampering with emergency exits, unauthorized use of life-saving equipment, protests/sloganeering, intoxication-related conduct.
- IATA data: Unruly incidents rose to 1 per 480 flights in 2023 (from 1 per 568 in 2022).
B. Static Background
- Aircraft Act, 1934 & Aircraft Rules, 1937 — Govern civil aviation in India.
- Current system: Airlines report to an independent committee (headed by retired district & sessions judge) → decides within 45 days on No-Fly List.
- DGCA CAR (Civil Aviation Requirement) on handling of unruly passengers.
- Tokyo Convention (1963) — International framework for offences on board aircraft.
C. Key Dimensions
| For the Amendments | Against the Amendments |
|---|---|
| Faster response to safety threats | Risk of airline high-handedness and overreach |
| Empowers cabin crew — primary role is flight safety | Conflates legitimate passenger grievances with unruly behaviour |
| Global trend toward stricter enforcement | IndiGo precedent: airline responses influenced by revenue, not safety |
| Monitoring from check-in counter = preventive | No distinction between ground-level anger and in-flight disruption |
| Deters dangerous behaviour (tampering exits, intoxication) | Removal of independent committee oversight = lack of accountability |
D. Critical Analysis
- Safety vs. Consumer Rights: Empowering airlines unilaterally risks conflating genuine passenger grievances (delays, cancellations, unfair practices) with safety threats.
- Need for Balance: The editorial rightly argues for distinguishing “unruly” behaviour on ground vs. disruptive behaviour during flight.
- Accountability Gap: Removing the independent committee check removes an important safeguard against airline overreach.
E. Way Forward
- Maintain independent committee oversight for bans exceeding 7 days; allow airlines only short-term bans for immediate threats.
- Separate ground-level complaints from in-flight safety threats.
- Strengthen passenger grievance redressal mechanisms alongside stricter safety enforcement.
- Mandatory body cameras / CCTV on aircraft for evidence-based decisions.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- DGCA = Directorate General of Civil Aviation (under Ministry of Civil Aviation).
- No-Fly List in India is governed by DGCA CARs (Civil Aviation Requirements).
- IATA = International Air Transport Association (industry body, not regulatory).
- Tokyo Convention (1963) — International law on offences on aircraft.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 10 marks)
“The DGCA’s proposed amendments to empower airlines to directly ban unruly passengers raise concerns about the balance between flight safety and consumer rights. Discuss, suggesting safeguards against airline overreach.”
ARTICLE 09
SC to Hear 250+ Petitions Challenging CAA from May 5
A. Issue in Brief
- The Supreme Court scheduled final hearing from May 5–7 and May 12 on over 250 petitions challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 and its Rules.
- CAA accelerates Indian citizenship for non-Muslim migrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.
- Lead petitioner: Indian Union Muslim League; the case argues CAA discriminates on the basis of religion.
B. Static Background
- CAA, 2019 — Amends the Citizenship Act, 1955; grants citizenship to persecuted Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, and Christians from three neighbouring countries.
- Article 14 — Right to Equality; prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion.
- Article 11 — Parliament’s power to regulate citizenship by law.
- Sixth Schedule exemption — CAA does not apply to tribal areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Tripura under the Sixth Schedule.
- Inner Line Permit areas — Exempted under Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873.
- CAA Rules were notified nearly 5 years after the Act (March 2024).
C. Key Dimensions
🧠 Constitutional Arguments — For & Against CAA
CAA CHALLENGE
🔴 Against CAA
- Violates Article 14 — religion-based classification
- Excludes Muslims (e.g., Ahmadiyyas, Hazaras)
- Threatens Assam’s demography (NRC link)
- Once citizenship granted, irreversible
🟢 For CAA
- Art. 14 allows reasonable classification
- Targets persecuted minorities in Islamic states
- Provides citizenship, doesn’t take anyone’s away
- Art. 11 gives Parliament plenary power on citizenship
📍 NE India Concerns
- Threat to indigenous tribal demography
- Sixth Schedule & ILP exemptions exist
- Assam: NRC complications
⚖️ Judicial Questions
- Is religion a “reasonable classification”?
- Can Parliament define who is “persecuted”?
- Interplay of Art. 14, 15, 21, and 11
D. Critical Analysis
- Reasonable Classification Test: The key constitutional question is whether religion-based classification satisfies the intelligible differentia + rational nexus test under Article 14.
- Exclusion Concern: Persecuted Muslim minorities (Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan, Rohingya-like groups) are excluded, challenging the stated humanitarian objective.
- Irreversibility: Unlike many government policies, citizenship once granted cannot be easily reversed — making pre-implementation judicial review critical.
- Delayed Notification: 5-year gap between Act (2019) and Rules (2024) raises questions about political timing.
E. Way Forward
- SC must pronounce on the constitutionality of religion as a basis for classification in citizenship laws.
- Consider whether persecution-based criteria (irrespective of religion) would better serve humanitarian goals.
- Address Assam and NE-specific concerns separately from the general constitutional challenge.
- Ensure any citizenship process has robust verification mechanisms to prevent misuse.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- CAA, 2019 — Amends Citizenship Act, 1955; cut-off date: December 31, 2014.
- Three countries covered: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan.
- Six religions: Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis, Christians.
- Article 11 — Parliament’s power to make law on citizenship.
- Sixth Schedule areas and ILP areas are exempted from CAA.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-II, 15 marks)
“Examine the constitutional validity of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in light of Article 14. Can religion serve as a ‘reasonable classification’ for granting citizenship? Discuss.”
ARTICLE 10
China’s Robotics Ambitions — Rise of Unitree & Lessons for India
A. Issue in Brief
- Chinese robotics firm Unitree made headlines at the AI Summit (its robot was rebranded by Galgotias University as homegrown) and at China’s New Year Gala (autonomous humanoid robots performing martial arts).
- China holds 40% of the global robotics market; domestic market expected to grow from $47 billion (2024) to $108 billion by 2028.
- Robotics is prioritised in China’s 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–30).
B. Static Background
- “Made in China 2025” — Industrial upgrade plan that fuelled robotics innovation with massive funding to universities and provincial governments.
- China has 7,40,000 reported firms in the robotics field.
- India’s National Robotics Mission — Still at conceptual stage; no comparable ecosystem.
- PLI Scheme (India) — Covers some advanced manufacturing but robotics not a focus area yet.
C. Key Dimensions
| Parameter | China | India |
|---|---|---|
| Market Share | 40% of global robotics market | Negligible global share |
| Number of Firms | 7,40,000+ in robotics sector | Nascent startup ecosystem |
| Policy Support | Made in China 2025; 15th FYP; massive R&D funding | No dedicated robotics policy; IndiaAI Mission focuses on AI, not robotics |
| University–Industry Link | Strong (Unitree founder’s university prototype → VC funding → company) | Weak (Galgotias incident shows gap between claims and capability) |
| Key Risk | Overcrowding (like EV market); many firms may not survive | Missing the robotics wave entirely |
D. Critical Analysis
- China’s Innovation Flywheel: University prototypes → competitions → grants → startups → mass production → global dominance. India lacks this seamless pipeline.
- India’s Credibility Gap: The Galgotias incident — presenting a $1,600 Chinese product as indigenous innovation at a prestigious summit — reveals deeper problems in India’s higher education and R&D ecosystem.
- Strategic Implications: Robotics is the next manufacturing frontier; India risks being a consumer (like smartphones) rather than a producer.
- Competition within China: Even China worries about overcrowding — lesson for India to build quality over quantity.
E. Way Forward
- Launch a dedicated National Robotics Mission with clear targets and funding.
- Strengthen university–industry linkages: Fund robotics labs in IITs/NITs with industry collaboration mandates.
- Include robotics in PLI schemes with focus on industrial, agricultural, and healthcare robotics.
- Build testing infrastructure — robotics standards, certification labs, competition-based grants (learning from China’s model).
- Address the higher education quality crisis — the Galgotias incident is a symptom, not the disease.
F. Exam Orientation
📌 Prelims Pointers
- “Made in China 2025” — China’s industrial policy to upgrade manufacturing; covers robotics, AI, EVs, aerospace.
- China’s 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–30) — Prioritises robotics as a “strategic emerging field”.
- PLI Scheme (India) — Production Linked Incentive; covers 14 sectors but not specifically robotics.
- Unitree — Chinese firm; Go2 quadruped robot available for ~$1,600.
📝 Mains Practice Question (GS-III, 15 marks)
“China’s robotics industry has grown rapidly through strong university-industry linkages and state-backed innovation policy. What lessons can India draw for its own manufacturing and technology ambitions? Discuss with reference to recent developments.”
