The Constitutional Right to Peaceful Protest, Supreme Court’s Landmark Observations on Police Conduct

Why in News?

On July 27, 2026, the Supreme Court of India made significant oral observations regarding police conduct during mass demonstrations, stating that the constitutional right to peaceful protest is “absolutely guaranteed” and cannot be denied merely because there is an agitation . The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, indicated that it may consider framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during large-scale demonstrations . The observations came during hearings on petitions over the Delhi Police crackdown on the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests at Jantar Mantar on July 20, 2026 .

Introduction

“Right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed. That cannot be denied. Merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant orally remarked on July 27, 2026 . These observations from the Supreme Court represent a significant judicial intervention in the ongoing debate over police conduct during the CJP-led protests against the NEET paper leak.

The Court’s remarks came as it agreed to hear a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha over the Delhi Police crackdown on the CJP protest . The CJI further emphasised, “Self-evolved discipline is needed which is essential to democratic process” and that “discipline is integral to the democratic process” . The Court also stressed that every life, including that of police personnel, is equally important .

Background

The Jantar Mantar Protests

The CJP protests began on June 20, 2026, at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak and chaos in CBSE’s marking process. The movement, which started as a satirical social media campaign following Chief Justice Surya Kant’s “cockroach” remark in May 2026, had grown into the largest sustained street challenge to the Modi government since 2014.

The July 20 Crackdown

On July 20, 2026, the opening day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, more than ten thousand protesters attempted to march to Parliament. Delhi Police responded with tear gas and baton charges. By the force’s own count, roughly 180 people were hurt—118 police personnel and 60 protesters . Amnesty International questioned whether the response met basic tests of proportionality. The incident triggered nationwide solidarity protests and drew sustained international media attention.

Key Issues Raised

1. The Right to Peaceful Protest

The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirm that the right to peaceful protest is “absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution” . This principle is rooted in Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably without arms. The CJI’s statement that “merely because there is agitation, there cannot be [police excess]” establishes a clear judicial position against the disproportionate use of force against peaceful demonstrators .

2. Proportionality and Discipline

The Court emphasised that “discipline is integral to the democratic process” . This observation suggests that while the state has the right to maintain law and order, the use of force must be proportionate and disciplined. The CJI’s call for “self-evolved discipline”  indicates that the Court expects the police to exercise restraint even in the face of large-scale protests.

3. Need for Uniform Guidelines

The CJI indicated that the Court may consider framing “uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during large-scale demonstrations” . This is a significant development, as it suggests a move toward codifying the standards that should govern police behaviour during protests across the country. Such guidelines would provide clarity to both law enforcement agencies and citizens about the permissible limits of conduct during demonstrations.

4. Independent Examination of Police Excess

The Court observed that “If there is police excess committed, it should be independently examined” . This indicates that allegations of police brutality should not be dismissed merely because they occur in the context of a protest. The Court also directed the preservation of all footage and records for a thorough investigation .

Timeline of Events

Judicial Developments

Supreme Court’s Initial Reluctance

On July 21, 2026, the Supreme Court initially declined a request for urgent listing of a plea challenging police action against students during the CJP-led protest march . The CJI had remarked, “Please don’t waste our time and don’t waste yours. Your time is more valuable than ours” .

Delhi High Court’s Intervention

On July 21, the Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to respond to allegations of brutality during the July 20 march and ordered the preservation of all footage and records for a thorough investigation . The court refused to accept the police’s argument that injured protesters should individually pursue legal remedies, observing that the allegations were not of isolated incidents. During the hearing, petitioners also alleged excessive use of force and violations of Supreme Court guidelines on crowd control .

Supreme Court’s Shift on July 27

On July 27, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha over the Delhi Police crackdown . The Court scheduled the matter for hearing and made strong oral observations regarding the right to peaceful protest and the need for police discipline .

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

Article 19(1)(b): Right to Peaceful Assembly

The Supreme Court’s observations are rooted in Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Court’s emphasis that this right is “absolutely guaranteed” reinforces that this fundamental right cannot be curtailed except through reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

The Doctrine of Proportionality

The Court’s observations on police conduct invoke the doctrine of proportionality—the principle that state action must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. The CJI’s statement that “merely because there is agitation, it does not mean there should be a lathi charge”  suggests that the use of force must be proportionate to the threat posed by the protest.

Separation of Powers

The Court’s willingness to frame guidelines on police conduct raises questions about the separation of powers. While the judiciary has the power to issue guidelines to ensure the protection of fundamental rights, such guidelines must be balanced with the executive’s role in maintaining law and order.

Social and Political Significance

Restoring Trust in Institutions

The Court’s observations come at a time when trust in institutions—including the police and the judiciary—has been eroded. The CJP protests exposed a widening trust deficit between the government and the public. The Court’s reaffirmation of the right to peaceful protest and its willingness to examine police conduct represent an important step toward restoring institutional credibility.

The Limits of State Power

The Court’s observations reaffirm that state power is not absolute and that even in the context of protests, the use of force must be disciplined and proportionate. This is particularly significant given the government’s initial response to the CJP protests, which included the use of tear gas, baton charges, and allegedly pellet guns.

Judicial Activism

The Court’s willingness to consider framing guidelines on police conduct reflects a form of judicial activism—the judiciary stepping in to fill a regulatory gap where the executive has failed to provide clear standards. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s role in protecting fundamental rights and ensuring accountability in governance.

Challenges

1. Balancing Rights and Order

The challenge for the judiciary is to strike a balance between protecting the right to peaceful protest and allowing the state to maintain law and order. While the Court has reaffirmed the right to protest, it must also acknowledge the legitimate concerns of law enforcement agencies.

2. Implementation of Guidelines

Even if the Court frames guidelines on police conduct, their implementation will depend on the willingness of law enforcement agencies to follow them. Ensuring compliance will require training, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms.

3. The Role of Political Leadership

The Court’s observations do not address the political leadership that authorised or condoned the police action. Holding political leadership accountable for police excess remains a challenge in a system where the executive has significant control over law enforcement.

Way Forward

1. Framing of Uniform Guidelines

The Court should proceed with framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during mass demonstrations. These guidelines should specify the conditions under which force may be used, the level of force that is permissible, and the procedures to be followed in the event of police excess.

2. Independent Oversight Mechanisms

There is a need for independent oversight mechanisms to investigate allegations of police brutality. The Court’s observation that “police excess committed, it should be independently examined”  suggests a recognition of this need.

3. Training and Accountability

Law enforcement agencies must be trained in crowd management and the proportionate use of force. Accountability mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure that police personnel who engage in excess are held accountable.

4. Strengthening the Right to Protest

The right to peaceful protest must be protected through legal and institutional mechanisms. This includes ensuring that protest sites are safe, that protesters are not subjected to disproportionate force, and that the right to assemble is not unduly restricted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations on July 27, 2026, represent a significant affirmation of the constitutional right to peaceful protest. The CJI’s statement that “right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed” and that “merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess”  sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies and the government about the limits of state power.

The Court’s willingness to consider framing uniform guidelines on police conduct is a welcome development that could provide much-needed clarity on the standards that should govern police behaviour during protests. As the CJI observed, “Self-evolved discipline is needed which is essential to democratic process” . The challenge now is to translate these observations into concrete guidelines and ensure their implementation.

The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What observations did the Supreme Court make regarding police conduct during the CJP protests?

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, observed that the right to peaceful protest is “absolutely guaranteed” under the Constitution and that “merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess.” The Court stated that “discipline is integral to the democratic process” and indicated that it may consider framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during mass demonstrations .

Q2: What was the Supreme Court’s initial response to the petitions on police brutality, and how did it change?

On July 21, the Supreme Court initially declined an urgent hearing on police brutality, with the CJI remarking, “Please don’t waste our time” . On July 27, the Court agreed to hear a petition filed by Rajya Sabha MP Manoj Jha and made strong oral observations regarding the right to peaceful protest and the need for police discipline .

Q3: What did the Delhi High Court direct regarding the July 20 crackdown?

The Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Police to respond to allegations of brutality and ordered the preservation of all footage and records for a thorough investigation . The court refused to accept the police’s argument that injured protesters should individually pursue legal remedies, observing that the allegations were not of isolated incidents .

Q4: What is the constitutional basis for the right to peaceful protest in India?

The right to peaceful protest is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Supreme Court’s observations reaffirm that this right is “absolutely guaranteed” and cannot be curtailed except through reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) .

Q5: What is the significance of the Supreme Court’s willingness to frame guidelines on police conduct?

The Court’s willingness to consider framing uniform guidelines on police conduct represents a form of judicial activism—the judiciary stepping in to fill a regulatory gap where the executive has failed to provide clear standards. Such guidelines would provide clarity to both law enforcement agencies and citizens about the permissible limits of conduct during demonstrations, ensuring that the right to peaceful protest is protected while allowing the state to maintain law and order .

Madras High Court Strikes Down Government Jobs for Karur Stampede Victims’ Kin, A Constitutional Reckoning

Why in News?

On July 27, 2026, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court delivered a significant judgment, striking down the Tamil Nadu government’s orders granting government jobs to family members of the victims of the September 2025 Karur stampede . The Division Bench of Justices C.V. Karthikeyan and R. Sakthivel allowed a batch of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the decision of Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay’s government, ruling that the appointments violated the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution . This landmark ruling serves as a vital reminder of the constitutional limits on executive power and the importance of ensuring fairness and equality in public employment.

Introduction

On July 10, 2026, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay visited Karur to distribute appointment orders to family members of the victims who had died in a stampede the previous year . This ‘humane gesture’ was part of a larger political narrative, symbolising the government’s commitment to the welfare of its citizens. However, this act of compassion was quickly challenged in court, leading to a judgment that has significant implications for the state’s executive powers and the constitutional framework governing public employment.

The Karur stampede occurred in September 2025 during an election roadshow addressed by Chief Minister Vijay himself . In the aftermath, the state government decided to grant government jobs to the families of the deceased as a form of compensation. While the government argued that it was exercising its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution, the High Court ruled that any such exercise must remain within the “confines of the Constitution” . The court’s decision to quash the appointments reinforces the principle that governance must be guided by constitutional morality and not just by political expediency.

Background

The Karur Stampede (September 2025)

The tragedy in Karur occurred during an election roadshow addressed by Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) president and Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay in the run-up to the 2026 Assembly elections. The stampede resulted in the loss of several lives, causing immense grief and raising questions about crowd management and public safety. In a bid to provide relief to the grieving families, the government announced that it would provide government jobs to the kin of the deceased, viewing it as a ‘humane gesture’ .

The Government’s Executive Order

The Chief Minister personally handed over the appointment orders on July 10, 2026, at a function in Karur . At the time, the court had permitted the event to proceed but had made it clear that the appointments would be subject to judicial review. The government invoked its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution to justify the decision, arguing that it was a compassionate measure to help families cope with sudden loss.

Key Issues Raised

1. Violation of Articles 14 and 16: Equality Before Law

The High Court held that the appointments were a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws, while Article 16 ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The court observed that the government cannot bypass these fundamental rights in the name of compassion.

2. The “Floodgates” Argument: Precedent and Public Policy

The court raised a critical concern about the precedent this would set. Justice Karthikeyan noted that if such compensation jobs were granted to victims of the stampede, it would “only open the floodgates for others” . The bench referred to other tragic incidents such as fireworks accidents and road accidents due to negligence, suggesting that the government would be compelled to offer similar relief in all such cases, leading to administrative chaos.

3. The Waitlist Conundrum: Unfairness to Existing Aspirants

The court observed that there are long waitlists in every department for employment on compassionate grounds. “It is not that employment is granted immediately on application being received. Employment is granted only in accordance with seniority,” the court noted . The bench argued that overlooking the needs of those waiting for years would be unfair and discriminatory.

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

The Principle of Equality (Article 14)

The judgment reinforces that the State cannot treat individuals arbitrarily. Even in its executive functions under Article 162, the government cannot confer benefits on a select few based on a political decision, thereby violating the principle of equality.

The Ban on Descent-Based Discrimination (Article 16(2))

While this case does not directly involve the ground of “descent” in the traditional sense of caste or lineage, the ruling broadly applies the principle that government jobs cannot be distributed as largesse. The Supreme Court has previously held that policies for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16, and cannot discriminate on grounds of descent .

Executive Power (Article 162) vs. Constitutional Morality

Article 162 of the Constitution defines the extent of executive power of the State. However, the court made it clear that “any exercise of executive power had to be within the confines of the Constitution” . The State cannot act in a manner that is arbitrary or that violates the fundamental rights of citizens.

Social and Political Significance

A First Major Setback for the TVK Government

This judgment has been described as the “first-ever major setback” for the ruling TVK government led by Chief Minister Vijay . It serves as a powerful reminder to the government that its administrative decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny and must stand the test of constitutional validity.

The Intersection of Politics and Compassion

The court rejected the government’s argument that the appointments were simply a “humane gesture.” The ruling clarified that while compassion is essential in governance, it cannot override the “cause of the public” . In a democracy, the state must ensure that its actions are fair, non-discriminatory, and based on established policies rather than populist impulses.

Challenges

1. The Balance Between Relief and Constitutional Rights

The challenge for the government was to balance the need to provide immediate relief to the grieving families against the constitutional requirement of equality and non-discrimination.

2. Managing Public Expectations

The judgment highlights the difficulty governments face when they attempt to provide ad-hoc benefits. Such measures often create unrealistic expectations and lead to legal challenges.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court’s ruling on the Karur stampede appointment case is a classic example of the judiciary acting as the guardian of the Constitution. By striking down the government’s decision to grant jobs to the families of the victims, the court has reaffirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and that all state actions must be tested against its provisions. It reinforces that while the executive may have the power to take decisions, it does not have the licence to act arbitrarily. In doing so, the court has prevented a potential violation of the rights of countless other citizens who are waiting for their turn in the employment queue, ensuring that governance remains fair and just.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What was the main reason for the Madras High Court striking down the Tamil Nadu government’s order for compassionate jobs?

The Madras High Court struck down the order because it violated the principles enshrined in Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment) of the Constitution. The court held that the executive action under Article 162 must be within the confines of the Constitution and that granting such benefits to a select few would be arbitrary and unfair to other candidates awaiting employment .

Q2: What is the significance of Articles 14 and 16 in the context of public employment?

Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, prohibiting discrimination and arbitrary state action. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These articles ensure that public employment is based on merit, policy, and fairness, not on political patronage or executive whims.

Q3: What is “compassionate appointment,” and why is it considered an exception to the general rules of employment?

Compassionate appointment is a scheme to provide government jobs to a dependent family member of a deceased government employee to help the family cope with sudden financial crisis. The Supreme Court has held that this is an exception to the general rule of open recruitment and is not a vested right. It is a concession to help the family tide over the immediate crisis, and must be governed by a clear and transparent policy to avoid arbitrariness .

Q4: How does the doctrine of “floodgates” apply to government decisions?

The “floodgates” doctrine, as applied by the court in this case, suggests that if the government makes a decision to grant a special benefit to one set of victims, it creates a precedent. The court argued that this could lead to numerous similar demands in other tragic incidents such as road accidents or industrial disasters, thereby overburdening the administration and creating a chaotic situation.

Q5: What is the extent of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution?

Article 162 defines the extent of the executive power of a State, which extends to matters on which the State Legislature has power to make laws. However, the exercise of this executive power is subject to the Constitution. The High Court clarified that the executive power cannot be used to bypass fundamental rights or to act arbitrarily; any such exercise must be within the “confines of the Constitution” .

Mullaperiyar Safety Row, Kerala Nominates Ashutosh Dash to Expert Panel Amid Protests

Why in News?

Kerala has nominated Ashutosh Dash, a former Chief Engineer of Odisha, as its representative on the Independent Panel of Experts (IPoE) tasked with the Comprehensive Dam Safety Evaluation (CDSE) of the Mullaperiyar Dam . This follows a dispute in June 2026, when Kerala protested the “unilateral” removal of its original nominee, T.K. Sivarajan, from the panel . The central government’s National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) subsequently asked Kerala to nominate a new expert . The CDSE is a statutory exercise under the Dam Safety Act, 2021, mandated to be completed by December 2026 .

Introduction

The nomination of Ashutosh Dash to the Independent Panel of Experts marks a crucial step in resolving a procedural deadlock over the safety audit of the over 130-year-old Mullaperiyar Dam. This inter-state dispute between Kerala and Tamil Nadu, concerning the safety and operation of the dam on the Periyar River, is one of India’s most contentious and long-standing water conflicts . The recent controversy highlighted the sensitive federal dynamics at play when the central government intervenes in state-specific safety concerns regarding critical infrastructure.

The Mullaperiyar Dam, located in Kerala but operated and maintained by Tamil Nadu, has been a source of friction for decades, primarily revolving around its structural integrity and the safety of downstream populations in Kerala . The Dam Safety Act, 2021, mandated a comprehensive safety evaluation for all specified dams, including Mullaperiyar, to be carried out by an independent panel of experts . The constitution of this panel was seen as a critical opportunity to conduct a thorough, scientific assessment of the dam’s condition. The dispute over Kerala’s representation on this panel threatened to undermine the credibility of the entire safety exercise, highlighting the challenges of cooperative federalism in managing inter-state river disputes.

Background

The Mullaperiyar Dam: A History of Conflict

The Mullaperiyar Dam is a masonry gravity dam built in 1895 across the Periyar River. A 999-year lease agreement between the then Travancore Kingdom and the British government gave Tamil Nadu the rights to the dam’s water for irrigation and power generation. Despite being in Kerala, the dam is operated by the Tamil Nadu government. Over the years, Kerala has raised concerns about the structural safety of the aging dam, especially in the context of seismic activity in the region and the potential catastrophic impact of a dam failure on downstream districts. Tamil Nadu, however, maintains that the dam is structurally sound and that its water is vital for the irrigation needs of its farmers. The dispute has been adjudicated multiple times in the Supreme Court, which has ultimately held the dam to be safe while mandating ongoing safety monitoring .

The Dam Safety Act, 2021

The Dam Safety Act, 2021, was enacted by the Parliament to provide for the surveillance, inspection, operation, and maintenance of all specified dams in the country to prevent dam failure-related disasters. The Act establishes institutional mechanisms at the national and state levels, including the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) and State Dam Safety Organisations (SDSOs) . A key provision of the Act is the requirement for a comprehensive dam safety evaluation (CDSE) of all specified dams by an independent panel of experts (IPoE). This evaluation is intended to provide a thorough and objective assessment of a dam’s condition, moving beyond routine visual inspections . For the Mullaperiyar Dam, this CDSE is a critical step in resolving long-standing safety concerns with a scientific assessment.

Key Issues Raised

Dispute over Kerala’s Representation

The controversy began in June 2026 when the NDSA, under the Union Jal Shakti Ministry, replaced Kerala’s nominee, T.K. Sivarajan, on the IPoE . Kerala strongly objected, calling the decision “unilateral” and a violation of the state’s rights . Kerala Water Resources Minister Mons Joseph confirmed that the state was not consulted before the removal . The state argued that excluding its representative undermined transparency and the spirit of cooperative federalism in matters directly affecting the safety of millions of people living downstream .

The Centre’s Justification

Union Minister of State for Jal Shakti, Raj Bhushan Choudhary, informed the Rajya Sabha that the Kerala representative had “expressed his inability to continue due to personal reasons,” leading to the nomination of another expert in his place . However, Kerala officials contested this explanation, pointing out that Sivarajan was on a foreign trip and had informed both the state government and the CDSE committee .

Constitutional and Federal Dimensions

The core issue involves the principle of cooperative federalism. Kerala argued that its representation on the panel was not just a procedural formality but a fundamental right to have its safety concerns heard in a decision-making process that directly impacts its territory and citizens. The central government’s action was seen as an overreach, undermining Kerala’s ability to participate in the safety evaluation of a dam located in its state . The matter also touched upon the delicate balance between the central government’s regulatory powers under the Dam Safety Act and the states’ rights under the Constitution to manage their own water resources and public safety.

Timeline of Events

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

The matter involves the interpretation of the Dam Safety Act, 2021, and the extent of the central government’s power under it. The NDSA, under the Jal Shakti Ministry, has the authority to constitute expert panels and mandate safety evaluations . However, Kerala’s objection was based on the principle that the central government cannot act arbitrarily in matters concerning state interests. The Supreme Court has historically played an active role in resolving the Mullaperiyar dispute, from constituting an Empowered Committee in 2010 to ordering the formation of a Supervisory Committee in 2014 . The Dam Safety Act, 2021, was seen by the Court as a potential mechanism to end the “perennial” legal battle , but this incident shows that its implementation can itself become a point of contention.

Social and Political Significance

The Mullaperiyar Dam is a deeply emotive issue in Kerala. The dam’s safety is directly linked to the lives and livelihoods of millions in the downstream Idukki and Ernakulam districts. Any perceived threat to the dam’s integrity triggers widespread public anxiety. The unilateral removal of Kerala’s expert was, therefore, seen not just as a bureaucratic decision but as a political move that ignored the state’s legitimate security concerns. It reignited public debate and political opposition, forcing the central government to backtrack and allow Kerala a fresh nomination . This incident underscored how technical issues can quickly become charged political battles, impacting the trust between the state and central governments and testing the resilience of India’s federal structure.

Challenges

Balance of Expertise and Federal Representation

One of the key challenges is ensuring that the IPoE is composed of the best technical experts while also respecting the federal principle that states directly affected by a dam must be represented in its safety evaluation. The NDSA’s unilateral action, even if technically within its rights, created a crisis of confidence. The challenge is to design a process where expert independence is maintained without alienating the states involved.

Addressing the Core Safety Concerns

The CDSE is ultimately about resolving the underlying safety concerns. The panel’s findings will be critical, but there remains a risk that the political controversy could overshadow the scientific assessment. The challenge is to ensure that the panel’s report is based purely on technical merit and that its recommendations are accepted by both states, paving the way for a lasting solution.

Way Forward

Full and Transparent Cooperation

For the CDSE to succeed, both Kerala and Tamil Nadu must cooperate fully with the IPoE and the NDSA, providing access to all necessary data, documents, and physical inspection points. The political will to accept the findings, whatever they may be, is essential.

Implementation of Recommendations

The ultimate test will be the implementation of the IPoE’s recommendations. If the panel recommends any remedial measures, they must be executed in a time-bound manner, irrespective of political differences. The Supreme Court may need to continue its oversight role to ensure compliance.

Conclusion

The nomination of Ashutosh Dash to the Mullaperiyar Dam safety panel is a pragmatic step that has resolved a procedural deadlock and opened the way for the long-awaited safety audit. However, the dispute over Kerala’s representation revealed the deep-seated distrust between the central and state governments on this issue and the fragility of the federal consensus when it comes to inter-state disputes over vital infrastructure. The true test now lies in whether this expert panel can perform its work free of political interference and whether its findings will be accepted by both states. The safety of millions and the integrity of India’s federal structure depend on a resolution that is both technically sound and politically acceptable.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: Who is Ashutosh Dash, and why was he nominated to the Mullaperiyar Dam safety panel?

Ashutosh Dash is a former Chief Engineer and former Special Secretary to the Odisha government . He was nominated by Kerala as its representative on the Independent Panel of Experts (IPoE) for the comprehensive safety evaluation of the Mullaperiyar Dam after the state protested the unilateral removal of its previous nominee, T.K. Sivarajan, from the panel .

Q2: What is the Independent Panel of Experts (IPoE) on Mullaperiyar Dam?

The IPoE is a five-member panel constituted by the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) to carry out a Comprehensive Dam Safety Evaluation (CDSE) of the Mullaperiyar Dam, a statutory exercise mandated under the Dam Safety Act, 2021 . The panel is tasked with conducting a thorough inspection of the 130-year-old masonry dam and submitting its findings to the NDSA and the governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu .

Q3: Why did the Kerala government protest the removal of its nominee from the panel?

Kerala protested the removal of T.K. Sivarajan, calling the Centre’s move “unilateral” and a violation of the state’s rights . The state argued that excluding its representative from the expert panel undermined transparency, weakened Kerala’s ability to participate in matters affecting the safety of millions of people living downstream, and was against the principles of cooperative federalism . Kerala also claimed it was not consulted before the decision .

Q4: What is the significance of the Dam Safety Act, 2021, in the context of this dispute?

The Dam Safety Act, 2021, mandates a comprehensive dam safety evaluation for all specified dams, including the Mullaperiyar Dam, through an independent panel of experts . The Act, which created the National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA), was seen as a mechanism to end the long-standing legal battle over the dam’s safety by providing a structured, independent, and statutory mechanism for its safety assessment. The current issue revolves around the implementation of this Act and the federal tensions it has highlighted .

Q5: What are the key challenges in resolving the Mullaperiyar Dam dispute?

The key challenges are balancing the need for technical expertise in the safety evaluation with the federal principle of state representation, ensuring that the Independent Panel of Experts works free of political interference, and guaranteeing that the panel’s recommendations are accepted and implemented by both Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The issue is deeply emotive and political, making it difficult to separate scientific assessment from political posturing.

The Unbearable Weight of Leverage, How US Trade and Nuclear Policies Are Reshaping Global Alliances

Why in News?

In a week of high-stakes diplomatic maneuvering, the United States has weaponized two key policy instruments—trade and nuclear cooperation—to extract strategic concessions from India and Saudi Arabia. On July 23, 2026, the U.S. Trade Representative imposed a 10% Section 301 “forced labour” tariff on imports from India , timed precisely as negotiations for a bilateral trade deal entered their final stages. Simultaneously, President Donald Trump announced that a landmark U.S.-Saudi civilian nuclear agreement, signed just a day earlier, would be contingent on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords and normalizing ties with Israel . These twin moves reveal a consistent pattern: Washington is using economic and technological leverage to advance its strategic interests, even at the cost of alienating key allies.

Introduction

The week of July 23, 2026, may come to be remembered as a turning point in American foreign policy. In the span of 48 hours, the Trump administration demonstrated how economic and technological instruments can be repurposed as weapons of geopolitical leverage. The Section 301 tariffs on India—ostensibly a “forced labour” measure—are widely seen as a pressure tactic to secure a favourable trade deal . The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement, signed with great fanfare, was almost immediately undermined by the President’s own demand that Riyadh normalise relations with Israel—a condition conspicuously absent from the original deal .

These moves are not isolated. They reflect a broader strategic doctrine: one that views every transaction as a potential source of leverage, and every ally as a bargaining chip. As the Indian trade expert noted, “whenever India is talking about trade deal, it has to think separately about trade deal and separately about these investigations” . The same logic applies to the U.S.-Saudi deal—nuclear cooperation and regional diplomacy are now inextricably linked, whether Riyadh likes it or not.

Background

The Legal Evolution of US Tariff Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2026 decision struck down the administration’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping “reciprocal tariffs,” dealing a body blow to its trade agenda [citation:original]. In response, the administration pivoted to Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, launching investigations into “excess capacity” and “forced labour” across nearly 60 countries . The Section 301 forced labour tariffs announced on July 23 are the product of this pivot: they are more permanent than the temporary Section 122 tariffs that expired on July 24, and they are calibrated to reward countries that have trade deals with the U.S. while penalizing those that do not [citation:original].

The Nuclear Deal That Wasn’t

The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement, signed on July 22, 2026, was the culmination of years of negotiations . It would allow U.S. companies to build nuclear infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including potentially a uranium enrichment facility—a provision that has sparked widespread concern about nuclear proliferation . However, within hours of the deal’s announcement, President Trump publicly declared that it “will not involve any material enrichment” and that it was “completely dependent on Saudi Arabia joining the widely recognised and successful Abraham Accords” .

Key Issues Raised

1. The Tariffs Are a Trade Negotiation Tactic, Not a Labour Rights Measure

If stopping forced labour were the primary focus, tariffs would have been applied equally across all offenders, regardless of trade deal status. Instead, the final tariff structure is heavily differentiated: countries that have trade deals with the U.S. face lower effective tariffs, while those without face higher rates [citation:original]. For instance, the European Union and Taiwan face a total tariff of just 10%, while Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland benefit from a 12.5% cap. India faces a 10% tariff, down from the initial proposal of 12.5% —a reduction that was only secured after India issued a notification banning the import of goods made using forced labour [citation:original].

As Ajay Srivastava, founder of the Global Trade Research Initiative, noted: “The proposed tariffs are viewed as part of broader U.S. pressure tactics, and India should treat Section 301 actions and the India–U.S. bilateral trade agreement negotiations separately” . The next Section 301 investigation, on “excess capacity,” has yet to play out and could result in further tariffs [citation:original].

2. The U.S. Has Not Been Accused of Forced Labour—Yet Faces Tariffs

India has not been accused of using forced labour in its exports [citation:original]. The Section 301 investigation was not about forced labour in India, but whether India had blocked imports tied to forced labour elsewhere . Yet India faces tariffs because it was deemed to have “failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition” . This is a fundamentally different standard—one that penalizes countries for their trade with third parties, not for their own labour practices.

3. The Saudi Nuclear Deal Sets a Dangerous Precedent for Non-Proliferation

The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement has raised widespread alarm about nuclear proliferation. According to the details disclosed by Washington, the agreement would allow U.S. companies to build nuclear infrastructure for Saudi Arabia, including a uranium enrichment facility if a joint study deems it necessary . This has been described as granting Saudi Arabia “legal nuclear threshold capability”—a status that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East .

Israeli nuclear non-proliferation expert Vilan warned that “the agreement directly broke the nuclear order in the Middle East” . Yoel Guzansky, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, wrote that “the central issue is not the use of nuclear energy itself, but the possibility that Saudi Arabia could be granted the right to enrich uranium” . This could undermine the “United Arab Emirates model,” which is based on giving up enrichment capabilities, and encourage other countries in the region to demand similar rights .

4. The Abraham Accords Condition Undermines the Deal’s Logic

President Trump’s decision to condition the nuclear agreement on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords is a strategic reversal of the original deal. Saudi Arabia has long resisted normalising ties with Israel, especially following the Gaza war . The Crown Prince has insisted on a clear pathway to a two-state solution for Palestinians—a position that conflicts with Israel’s current government . By linking nuclear cooperation to normalization, the U.S. has essentially set a condition that Saudi Arabia is unlikely to accept, potentially rendering the agreement stillborn.

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

The Separation of Powers in US Trade Policy

The Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling striking down emergency tariffs was a significant check on executive power [citation:original]. The administration’s pivot to Section 301 represents a shift to a statutory authority that requires more procedural rigour—but ultimately achieves the same result. This illustrates the tension between executive flexibility and legislative oversight in trade policy.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation and US Standards

The U.S. has historically demanded that countries seeking nuclear cooperation accept the “gold standard” of non-proliferation—including the IAEA’s Additional Protocol, which grants inspectors broad powers to conduct short-notice inspections [citation:original]. The U.S.-Saudi deal reportedly lacks this provision [citation:original], raising questions about whether the U.S. is applying different standards to different allies. As Senator Bernie Sanders noted, “President Trump claimed to go to war with Iran to prevent it from refining nuclear fuel, yet now he is allowing his ‘close ally’ Saudi Arabia to carry out the same uranium enrichment activities—absurd” .

The Abraham Accords and Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy

The Abraham Accords were designed to normalise relations between Israel and Arab states without requiring a resolution to the Palestinian issue. By linking nuclear cooperation to Saudi normalization, the U.S. has effectively placed the Palestinian issue back at the centre of regional diplomacy . This could revive calls for a two-state solution, which the current Israeli government firmly rejects .

Social and Political Significance

India’s Farmers and the Trade Deal

As India and the United States race to conclude a trade agreement, agriculture has emerged as a major sticking point. Indian farmers fear that cheaper U.S. imports could threaten their livelihood . Raminder Singh, a farmers’ union leader, compared India’s farm sector to a “goat” facing the “lion” of U.S. agriculture . The trade deal negotiations are therefore not just about tariffs, but about the political survival of the government, given the influence of the farming vote bank.

Saudi Arabia’s Economic Ambitions

Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of nuclear energy is driven by its Vision 2030 economic diversification plan. The kingdom relies heavily on oil and gas for electricity generation, and its leadership believes that nuclear power would help meet rising domestic energy demand while freeing more oil and gas for export . The kingdom has also committed to achieving 50% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2030—a target it is far from meeting . Nuclear power is seen as essential to meeting this goal.

Israel’s Strategic Dilemma

The U.S.-Saudi nuclear deal poses three strategic dilemmas for Israel :

1. Nuclear Race: Saudi nuclear capabilities could trigger a regional nuclear arms race, weakening Israel’s strategic edge.

2. Erosion of Qualitative Military Edge: The deal is part of a broader U.S. effort to deepen military partnerships with multiple Middle Eastern states, including providing advanced weapons systems .

3. Palestinian Issue: Linking the deal to the Abraham Accords could bring the Palestinian issue back to the forefront, pressuring Israel on the two-state solution.

Challenges

1. India’s Trade Balancing Act

India must navigate between its desire for a trade deal with the U.S. and its domestic political constraints. The agricultural sector, which sustains nearly half the population, is a red line . Meanwhile, the Section 301 tariffs are a moving target—the excess capacity investigation has yet to conclude, and further tariffs could be imposed [citation:original].

2. Saudi Arabia’s Sovereignty

Saudi Arabia views its nuclear programme as a matter of national sovereignty and economic necessity. The Trump administration’s demand for normalization with Israel is seen as an infringement on Saudi sovereignty . The kingdom has already shown that it can resist U.S. pressure on this issue.

3. Israel’s Dependence

Israel is caught between its reliance on the U.S. to counter the Iranian nuclear threat and the U.S. creating another potential nuclear rival in the region . The “Abraham Accords” condition may be its only hope of preventing a Saudi nuclear programme, but Riyadh’s demands on Palestine are difficult to meet.

Way Forward

India: Resist a Rush to a Trade Deal

India should resist being pushed into a trade deal by the threat of Section 301 tariffs. As the original article argues, “The tariffs should not push India towards a deal. Experience has shown that the U.S. tariff landscape can change radically even after a deal is signed” [citation:original]. A trade deal should be based on mutual benefit, not coercion.

Saudi Arabia: Leverage Its Strategic Position

Saudi Arabia holds significant leverage: it is a key U.S. ally in the region, a major oil producer, and a gateway to the Arab world. It can afford to resist the Abraham Accords condition and insist on a deal that respects its sovereignty and its position on Palestine.

The U.S.: Consistency and Credibility

The U.S. risks undermining its own credibility by applying double standards—fighting Iran over nuclear enrichment while allowing Saudi enrichment . The administration must also recognize that using tariffs and nuclear deals as leverage in this manner breeds resentment and distrust among allies, which has long-term strategic costs.

Conclusion

The events of July 23-26, 2026, reveal a consistent pattern in U.S. foreign policy: the use of economic and technological leverage as tools of geopolitical coercion. The Section 301 tariffs on India are not about forced labour—they are about extracting a trade deal. The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement is not about energy cooperation—it is about forcing normalization with Israel.

In both cases, the U.S. has achieved short-term leverage at the cost of long-term trust. India is now more cautious about trade deals, Saudi Arabia is questioning the reliability of U.S. security guarantees, and Israel is facing a potential nuclear rival in the region . As one observer noted, “the execution of the deal has had the opposite effect” [citation:original]. The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What was the rationale behind the U.S. Section 301 tariffs imposed on India in July 2026?

The Section 301 tariffs were imposed on India and approximately 60 other countries under the pretext of addressing forced labour imports. The USTR claimed India “has failed to impose and effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition” . However, as the original article notes, if stopping forced labour were the primary focus, tariffs would have been applied equally across all offenders, regardless of trade deal status. The tariffs are widely viewed as a pressure tactic to push India towards a bilateral trade agreement [citation:original].

Q2: Why has the U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement become controversial, and what is the significance of the “Abraham Accords” condition?

The U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement, signed on July 22, 2026, would allow U.S. companies to build nuclear infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including potentially a uranium enrichment facility . This has raised concerns about nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The controversy deepened when President Trump declared on July 23 that the agreement is “completely dependent on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords” and normalising ties with Israel —a condition not included in the original deal. This has put Saudi Arabia in a difficult position, as it has resisted normalisation with Israel, especially following the Gaza war.

Q3: How have the Section 301 tariffs been structured to favour countries with U.S. trade deals?

The tariffs are differentiated: countries with trade deals with the U.S. face lower effective tariffs. The European Union and Taiwan face a total tariff of just 10% . Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland benefit from a 12.5% cap. India, which does not have a bilateral trade deal with the U.S., faces a 10% tariff . This structure incentivizes countries to sign trade deals with the U.S. to reduce their tariff burden, demonstrating the geopolitical leverage embedded in the tariff policy.

Q4: What are the three strategic dilemmas the U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement poses for Israel?

According to analysis by Israeli experts, the agreement poses three dilemmas : (1) Nuclear Race: Saudi nuclear capabilities could trigger a regional nuclear arms race; (2) Erosion of Qualitative Military Edge: The deal is part of a broader U.S. effort to deepen military partnerships with multiple Middle Eastern states; (3) Palestinian Issue: Linking the agreement to the Abraham Accords could bring the Palestinian issue back to the forefront, pressuring Israel on the two-state solution. Israel’s government was reportedly not consulted before the agreement was signed and only learned of it through media reports .

Q5: What are the key challenges India faces in negotiating a trade deal with the U.S. amidst the Section 301 tariffs?

India faces multiple challenges: (1) the agriculture sector, which sustains nearly half the population, is a red line for any trade deal ; (2) the U.S. tariff landscape can change radically even after a deal is signed, as seen with previous tariff fluctuations [citation:original]; (3) the next Section 301 investigation, on “excess capacity,” has yet to conclude and could result in further tariffs [citation:original]; and (4) domestic political pressure from farmers is significant. As one trade expert noted, India should “treat Section 301 actions and the India-U.S. bilateral trade agreement negotiations separately” .

AI for All, Why India’s Digital Revolution Must Include Women in Informal Work

Why in News?

As India positions itself as a global AI leader through the IndiaAI Mission and the India AI Impact Summit 2026, a critical question has emerged: Will the productivity gains unlocked by artificial intelligence be broadly shared or concentrated among those already well-served?  This question is particularly urgent for the approximately 82% of working women in India who are in informal employment, spanning agriculture, home-based production, domestic services, and micro-enterprises . The gender implications of AI adoption are, above all, a question of economic inclusion. As UN Women has warned, AI is already reimagining reality for billions, but it is still getting women wrong; without gender-responsive design, testing and oversight, it risks amplifying stereotypes, discrimination and digital violence instead of expanding opportunity .

Introduction

India’s journey towards Viksit Bharat by 2047 rests on whether the productivity gains unlocked by artificial intelligence are broadly shared or concentrated among those already well-served. AI is reshaping value chains across agriculture, logistics, health care and financial services. The design choices in these systems, who they are built for, whose data they train on, and whose languages they speak, will determine whether this transformation amplifies India’s inclusive growth story or adds a dimension to structural inequalities .

India has built substantial AI infrastructure in a short period: the IndiaAI Mission, the BHASHA Interface for India (BHASHINI) multilingual platform, the AI Governance Guidelines, and targeted cross-sector partnerships . The India AI Impact Summit 2026 showed that these ambitions are matched by a growing ecosystem of practitioners, innovators, and civil society . The opportunity is to ensure that the productivity gains from this infrastructure reach those at the base of the economic pyramid—women farmers, home-based workers, self-help group members, and platform participants .

Background

India’s AI Ambitions

The IndiaAI Mission, approved by the Cabinet in March 2024, has been designed to build a robust AI ecosystem guided by the vision of ‘Making AI in India and Making AI Work for India’ . The Mission’s focus on inclusive growth is strongly reflected in the IndiaAI Innovation Centre, which is developing multilingual Large Language Models and domain-specific foundational models tailored to India’s diverse socio-economic contexts. These models, trained using the national GPU grid, are being designed to serve women entrepreneurs, farmers, gig workers, and small retailers through vernacular AI assistants, micro-advisory tools, and sector-specific knowledge engines .

India’s AI Governance Guidelines, released in November 2025, set out seven guiding principles, including fairness and equity . The governance philosophy is grounded in seven guiding principles or “sutras”: Trust is the foundation, People first, Innovation over restraint, Fairness and equity, Accountability, Understandable by Design, and Safety, resilience, and sustainability . Translating these into gender-responsive outcomes is both a governance priority and a development opportunity .

The Challenge of Informal Women Workers

About 82% of working women in India are in informal employment, spanning agriculture, home-based production, domestic services and micro-enterprises . With 76.9% of rural women engaged in agriculture as per the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2023-24 reporting, women are a primary constituency in India’s agricultural sector . However, AI systems are often designed without considering the specific constraints women face: language barriers, land access patterns, mobility constraints, and time limitations.

Key Issues Raised

1. The Promise of AI in Agriculture and Informal Work

AI holds considerable promise for Indian farmers through precision agriculture applications, real-time advisory on crop health, input optimisation and market access . Early evidence is telling: a 2024 study of Farmer.Chat, deployed across 12 States, found that 61% of women users reported improved quality of life within 45 days, with engagement levels two to three times those of male users . Farmer.Chat, created in partnership with OpenAI and linked to the Indian government’s VISTAAR (Virtually Integrated Systems to Access Agricultural Resources) digital public infrastructure, was initially rolled out to more than 5,000 field-level agriculture extension workers in five states . The app allows farmers to access agricultural content, including farmer-generated videos of resilience practices, in the very languages they speak . Since its launch, 12,000 extension agents in India, Kenya, and Nigeria have adopted Farmer.Chat, serving 500,000 farmers .

While the specific design features driving this outcome require further documentation, the results suggest that when AI agricultural tools reach women, keeping in mind language, land access patterns, mobility constraints, and relevance, meaningful engagement follows .

2. AI’s Gender Bias Problem

A study of 133 AI systems found that 44% demonstrated gender bias, while more than a quarter showed both gender and racial bias . Large language models have repeatedly associated women with the home, family and childcare, while linking men to business, leadership and career success . When researchers asked large language models to complete a sentence that began with a person’s gender, about one in five responses came back sexist or misogynistic; some even described women as property or as sexual objects .

These outcomes are not random errors. They are the predictable output of AI systems trained on decades of unequal representation of women and men . As UN Women’s Jayathma Wickramanayake explained, AI models “pull bias from decades of text written by people, about people, in a world where women were filed under home and family, and men were filed under business and career” . This isn’t a bug waiting to be fixed; “it’s a choice that we make over and over in training data, in design rooms, in policy documents that stay silent on half of the population” .

3. Digital Safety as a Prerequisite for Participation

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence, including deepfakes, online harassment, and non-consensual imagery, creates a measurable “chilling effect,” discouraging women from participating fully in digital economic spaces . According to UN Women data, nearly one in four surveyed women human rights defenders, activists and journalists reported experiencing AI-assisted online violence . Twelve per cent said personal images had been shared without their consent, while six per cent reported being targeted by deepfakes or manipulated images and videos . 98% of deepfake videos online are pornographic, and around 99% of those targeted are women .

4. Women’s Underrepresentation in AI Development

Women account for only 30% of the global AI workforce . This matters because diverse teams tend to catch bias faster while a system is still being designed, tested, or rolled out. Fewer women in the room often means the issues that specifically affect women simply slip through the cracks . The people building these systems do not adequately reflect the diversity of the populations they are intended to serve, raising concerns that the future of AI is being built without their perspectives reflected in the blueprint .

Governance Priorities

Gender Impact Assessments

The India AI Governance Guidelines’ principles of fairness and equity require operationalisation through proportionate gender impact assessments for AI systems affecting economic opportunity, welfare access or safety for women and girls . These should examine whether outcomes vary by sex, location, caste, disability and work status, and whether redressal mechanisms are accessible in regional languages. Where AI decisions on credit, employment or welfare cannot be explained, trust suffers disproportionately among marginalised groups .

AI Literacy as Public Infrastructure

Access to tools is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. Training programmes for women in informal work must be designed around their time constraints, literacy levels and livelihood contexts . Embedding AI literacy within Deen Dayal Antodaya Yojana – National Rural Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NRLM), Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Grameen Kaushalya Yojana (DDU-GKY) and Skill India, with linkages to Mission Shakti’s Sakhi network, would allow trusted community infrastructure to carry new digital capability .

The YUVA AI for All National AI Literacy Campaign under the IndiaAI Mission aims to create foundational AI awareness among lakhs of students and young learners through a short, self-paced “AI 101” course . This approach—positioning AI literacy as a core life skill rather than a specialised privilege—could be extended to women in informal work .

Private sector partnerships are also emerging. Microsoft, Frontier Markets, and Saral Jeevan India Foundation have partnered to equip 30,000 women from Self-Help Groups with AI skills as part of the She Leads Bharat: Udyam programme . The initiative aims to build a scalable national model capable of empowering one million women entrepreneurs and reaching 100 million rural households by 2030 .

Digital Safety

The IT (Amendment) Rules, 2021 require grievance mechanisms for harmful content; the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s proposed mandatory labelling of AI-generated synthetic content adds further protection . Effective implementation, with accessible survivor-facing remedies in regional languages, is a prerequisite for women’s sustained digital participation .

Challenges

1. Bias in Datasets

A critical challenge is the lack of representative datasets in the Indian context. IIT-Madras researchers have developed a dataset called IndiCASA (Contextually Aligned Stereotypes and Anti-stereotypes) to detect and assess biases in the complexities of caste, gender, religion, disability, and socioeconomic status in India . However, most existing efforts at bias evaluation have been western-centric, primarily analysing disparities in gender and race . There is a significant paucity of systematic, India-specific evidence on many of these harms .

2. Structural Underfunding of Evaluation

AI evaluation in India’s development sector remains narrowly technical, overlooking gendered risks across design, deployment, and impact . Evaluators have highlighted the structural underfunding of evaluation and called for evaluators to act as embedded partners, co-defining success with communities .

3. Women’s Exclusion from AI Governance

Of 138 countries assessed worldwide, only 24 referred to gender in their national AI strategies, and just 18 included substantive gender-responsive measures . This policy gap means that the inequalities of the past risk being carried into the technologies of tomorrow .

Way Forward

1. Build Gender-Responsive Training Datasets

There is a need to build gender-responsive training datasets grounded in women’s lived realities, particularly for high-stakes sectors such as healthcare, agriculture, financial inclusion, and public service delivery . India’s BHASHINI multilingual platform, which aims to provide AI services in all Indian languages, must be developed with gender-sensitive design .

2. Embed Evaluation from the Development Stage

Evaluation should be embedded from the development stage through interdisciplinary teams, using complementary methods rather than relying on a single approach . The measure of success should be outcome-based: did this help a woman access an entitlement, navigate a platform, or move to better-paid work? 

3. Create Stronger Feedback Loops

An AI incident database that documents cases of AI misuse, bias, discrimination, and exclusion would help identify patterns and inform corrective action . Community-based evaluations of AI applications, especially where systems affect access to rights, bodily integrity, or essential services, should be supported .

4. Integrate Gender into AI Governance Institutions

The institutional architecture for AI oversight—including the AI Governance Group and AI Safety Institute—must integrate gender expertise and ensure that women’s voices are represented in decision-making . The proposed Artificial Intelligence (Ethics and Accountability) Bill, 2025, which includes provisions for anti-discrimination in critical sectors and mandatory bias audits, should be strengthened with gender-specific provisions .

Conclusion

By 2047, the measure of India’s AI success should not be aggregate indicators alone, but whether women in informal work have gained meaningful, productive access to the tools and opportunities that AI enables . That is the standard consistent with Viksit Bharat, and it is within India’s reach.

India’s first digital revolution, led by Digital India and UPI, connected citizens. The next must ensure that AI connects them to opportunity . This means designing systems that are multilingual, gender-sensitive, and accessible, where the rural woman entrepreneur, the data labeler from Nagaland, and the young coder from Bhopal all have a stake in India’s AI future .

As UN Women has stressed, when designed with safety and used with intention, AI can do the opposite of the harms now being documented. It can detect stereotypes rather than reproduce them, broaden representation instead of narrowing it, and improve accessibility at scale . The choices made today will shape whether AI amplifies India’s inclusive growth story or adds a dimension to structural inequalities .

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the significance of the IndiaAI Mission for women’s economic inclusion?

The IndiaAI Mission, approved in March 2024, focuses on inclusive growth through the IndiaAI Innovation Centre, which is developing multilingual Large Language Models and domain-specific foundational models designed to serve women entrepreneurs, farmers, gig workers, and small retailers through vernacular AI assistants and micro-advisory tools . The YUVA AI for All National AI Literacy Campaign positions AI literacy as a core life skill accessible to all, including women in informal work .

Q2: What evidence exists that AI tools can benefit women farmers in India?

A 2024 study of Farmer.Chat, an AI-powered agricultural advisory app deployed across 12 States, found that 61% of women users reported improved quality of life within 45 days, with engagement levels two to three times those of male users . The app has been adopted by 12,000 extension agents serving 500,000 farmers across India, Kenya, and Nigeria .

Q3: What are the main risks of AI bias for women in India?

UN Women has warned that AI is still “getting women wrong” . A study of 133 AI systems found that 44% demonstrated gender bias, with large language models repeatedly associating women with home and family while linking men to business and leadership . About one in five responses from LLMs completing gender-based sentence starters were sexist or misogynistic . Additionally, women face AI-enabled violence, with 98% of deepfakes targeting women .

Q4: What are the governance recommendations for gender-responsive AI in India?

The India AI Governance Guidelines, released in November 2025, set out seven guiding principles including fairness and equity . Operationalising these requires gender impact assessments for AI systems, AI literacy programmes embedded in existing women’s livelihood missions, and effective implementation of digital safety frameworks like the IT (Amendment) Rules, 2021 . The proposed AI Ethics Bill includes provisions for anti-discrimination in critical sectors and mandatory bias audits .

Q5: What is the Digital ShramSetu Mission, and how does it relate to women workers?

The Digital ShramSetu Mission is a national mission proposed by NITI Aayog to integrate cutting-edge technologies into India’s informal economy, which employs 49 crore workers . The mission aims to provide workers with digital IDs and wallets showing verified skills and work records, with smart digital contracts that release payments automatically . It targets raising worker incomes, increasing women’s participation, and expanding access to insurance and other benefits .

To Fix Unemployment, Fix the Economy First, Lessons from China for India’s AI Era

Why in News?

The Cockroach Janta Party’s movement has highlighted the political urgency for reforming the economy to create more employment for India’s youth. As India grapples with high youth unemployment—44-45% among those aged 20-24 —the debate has intensified over how to balance economic growth with job creation. The article “To fix unemployment, fix the economy first” argues that fixing the education system alone will not solve the unemployment problem; the basic structure of the economy must be reformed . This comes at a time when China, despite being an authoritarian state, has shown remarkable responsiveness to worker anxieties over AI displacement, offering lessons for India’s approach to technology-led growth.

Introduction

India’s leaders find themselves in the middle of conflicting trends. First, they are pushing ahead with reforms for ‘ease of doing business’; diluting the rights of workers to organise; and weakening environmental protection. Second, they are promoting the widespread application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to improve ‘productivity’ in agriculture, industry, health and education—with productivity defined purely in economic terms as more output with less human input. Third, they also see the need to change the pattern of growth and increase employment elasticity .

Since India has the largest population of youth in the world, its economic growth should have the highest employment elasticity. However, the increased adoption of AI will only make it worse. China, the only other country with a population exceeding one billion, has done much better in this regard; the per capita income of Chinese citizens has risen roughly eight times faster than Indians’ in the last 30 years .

The China Model: AI with a Human Face

Balancing Technological Ambition with Job Security

China has invested billions to become an AI superpower and has raced to integrate the technology across a range of industries. By 2024, more than two million robots were already working in Chinese factories. In Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, Meituan, the nation’s largest food delivery service, has experimented with using small autonomous robots to deliver food .

However, China’s advances in AI have run headlong into a growing problem: anxiety over the workers who could be displaced. Despite being an authoritarian country, the Chinese government is “very attentive to what people are thinking and saying on the Internet.” History has taught them that another revolution will form if disenchanted and educated youth rise along with the disgruntled workers and peasants .

Precedent-Setting Judicial Interventions

Chinese courts have been swift to act on AI-related labour disputes. A court ruled in May 2026 that a tech company had illegally laid-off a worker after replacing him with AI software. Another ruled that “the development of artificial intelligence technology should be applied to liberating labour, promoting employment and improving people’s livelihood.” Yet another ruled that “companies that benefit from technology must, at the same time, adopt social responsibilities and protect worker rights” .

These rulings have established important principles:

1. AI replacement does not justify automatic termination: In a Hangzhou case, a quality assurance supervisor (surnamed Zhou) was offered a 40% pay cut after AI replaced his role. When he refused, the company terminated his contract. Both the district and intermediate courts ruled the dismissal unlawful, finding that AI-driven replacement does not constitute a “major change in objective circumstances” under China’s Labor Contract Law .

2. Companies cannot shift technological risks onto workers: The Hangzhou court stressed that any job adjustment must be based on fair negotiation, adding that a 40% pay cut was not reasonable . The court noted that “where role adjustments are necessary, firms are encouraged to prioritize upskilling pathways to move staff toward higher-skill, intervention-focused posts” before considering lateral transfers .

3. Voluntary cost-cutting does not justify layoffs: In a Beijing case involving a map data collector whose entire department was replaced by AI, an arbitration panel ruled that the company’s adoption of AI was a voluntary move to remain competitive and did not warrant the employee’s firing .

Policy Responses at Scale

China’s response extends beyond the courts. The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security announced in January 2026 that it would roll out policies to address the impact of AI on jobs, including targeted support for key industries. In June, the State Council issued a plan on implementing an “employment-first” strategy for the 2026-2030 period .

Party officials have proposed sweeping government interventions such as requiring employers to offer training to help workers adapt to an AI-centric job market . The 15th Five-Year Plan (2026-30) also calls for integrating AI’s effects into employment assessment mechanisms for major policies, projects, and productivity planning .

The Chinese government’s “people-first” ideology has served China’s economy and its people well. China’s leaders have remained socialists; they have always put the needs of common citizens, and the stability of China’s society, above economists’ demands for deregulation of markets and prices, especially with respect to labour, food, education, health, and housing .

India’s Labour Reforms: A Critical Examination

The Four Labour Codes

In November 2025, the Indian government implemented four new Labour Codes, replacing 29 outdated laws. The Codes on Wages, Social Security, Industrial Relations, and Occupational Safety & Health have been marketed as “simplification” and promise flexibility and ease of doing business .

The Codes introduce several significant changes:

• Industrial Relations Code: Raises the threshold for government approval for layoffs from 100 to 300 workers, meaning factories with up to 300 employees can now fire, retrench, or shut down without state oversight .

• Fixed-Term Employment: Recognises fixed-term employment with parity to permanent workers but risks becoming a legalised route to avoid permanence .

• Unified Definition of Wages: Allows half of a worker’s pay to be labelled as “allowances,” reducing contributions to PF, ESI, and gratuity .

• Self-Certification Model: Introduces online and computer-based inspection where employers upload documents and self-certify compliance, reducing physical inspections .

The Labour Perspective

Critics argue that while the Codes appear progressive, they effectively remove the state from its protective role. Labour rights activists say the reforms erode rights in the name of ease of doing business . The framework increases the vulnerability of industrial workers by reducing ex-ante government oversight over employment termination decisions .

The consequences are real: workers like Sagar Singh and Sikander Amitabh, migrants from Uttar Pradesh working in a steel factory in Maharashtra, explain that taking a month off to deal with a crisis means returning as a “fresh hire” with all social security benefits reset .

The Road Ahead for India

Reorienting Reform Priorities

Indian income levels must rise rapidly—in agriculture, manufacturing, and services. The government has added ‘ease of living’ to ‘ease of doing business’ as the purpose of the reforms required for India to become ‘Viksit Bharat’ by 2047 . To make it a reality, policies must put more teeth into increasing employment and incomes, and stave off the negative impacts that AI will have on employment.

Policies must require that employers take more responsibility for training their own workers; they must be restrained from laying them off. New policies must put workers’ rights ahead of capitalists’ rights, as China has done. India’s labour market reforms, with the four labour codes, are directed to improve ‘ease of doing business’, which is undoubtedly necessary. However, the ‘ease of doing business’ must now become subordinate to the ease of living and earning for all citizens .

Learning from China

India’s leaders would do well to learn from China’s leaders on how to navigate this moment in history. While the views of financial investors must be heard, the views of workers and small-time entrepreneurs must be heard much more . China’s example demonstrates that rapid technological adoption need not come at the expense of worker protection—if the political will exists to balance the two.

Key lessons for India include:

1. Judicial protection of worker rights in the face of AI-driven displacement

2. Employment impact assessments before large-scale AI deployment

3. Mandatory training and upskilling pathways for displaced workers

4. Employment-first strategies integrated into national planning

Conclusion

The Cockroach Janta Party’s movement has highlighted the political urgency for reforming the economy to create more employment for India’s youth. China’s experience offers a counterpoint to the conventional wisdom that AI-driven growth must come at the expense of job security. By prioritising worker protection even as it pushes for AI adoption, China demonstrates that technological advancement and labour rights are not mutually exclusive.

India’s leaders face a choice: continue down the path of deregulation that prioritises ease of doing business over worker welfare, or follow China’s example of balancing technological ambition with robust worker protections. The rights of all workers must be firmly protected. The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the current state of youth unemployment in India, and why is it a political concern?

Youth unemployment among those aged 20-24 is around 44-45%, with 70% of unemployed young people being university graduates. This has fuelled movements like the Cockroach Janta Party, which has highlighted the political urgency for reforming the economy to create more employment for India’s youth .

Q2: How has China responded to AI-induced job displacement?

China has taken a multi-pronged approach: judicial rulings protecting workers (declaring AI-driven layoffs illegal unless proper procedures are followed), government policies mandating training and upskilling, and an “employment-first” strategy in its 15th Five-Year Plan. Chinese courts have ruled that AI replacement does not constitute a “major change in objective circumstances” that justifies termination .

Q3: What are the key changes introduced by India’s four Labour Codes?

The Codes raise the threshold for government approval for layoffs from 100 to 300 workers, introduce fixed-term employment, unify the definition of wages (allowing reclassification of allowances), and replace physical inspections with a self-certification model. Critics argue these changes prioritise ease of doing business over worker protections .

Q4: What is the “employment elasticity” concept, and why does it matter for India?

Employment elasticity is the amount of meaningful employment created with each unit of GDP growth. India has been a laggard in employment elasticity since the 1990s reforms. As India has the largest population of youth in the world, its economic growth should have the highest employment elasticity, but AI adoption could further reduce it .

Q5: What lessons can India learn from China’s approach to AI and employment?

India can learn from China’s balance between technological ambition and worker protection: judicial intervention to protect workers from AI displacement, employment impact assessments before large-scale AI deployment, mandatory training pathways for displaced workers, and treating worker protection as a matter of social stability. The Chinese government puts the needs of common citizens above economists’ demands for deregulation .

The Next Chapter for Education, Pralhad Joshi’s Inheritance and the Unfinished Agenda of NEP 2020

Why in News?

On July 25, 2026, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned following weeks of nationwide protests by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over the NEET-UG paper leak . Within hours, Pralhad Joshi, a five-term BJP Lok Sabha MP from Karnataka, was appointed as the new Education Minister . This leadership transition occurs at a critical juncture when India’s education system is navigating the ambitious reforms of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, while simultaneously grappling with a crisis of public trust in examination integrity.

Introduction

Pralhad Joshi, the new Union Minister for Education, inherits a range of structural changes to Indian education initiated by his predecessor Dharmendra Pradhan [citation:image]. Mr. Pradhan’s exit has been under a cloud, but his five-year tenure was marked by a ramping up of efforts to implement the National Education Policy 2020, which the Union Cabinet had accepted a year before he took charge [citation:image]. Earlier, at the Petroleum Ministry, he had made his mark on programme implementation by delivering eight crore LPG connections to poor households in three years against a four-year target [citation:image].

The immediate challenge before Joshi will be to address the students’ concerns about a shambolic examination process and restore credibility in high-stakes entrance tests such as NEET, JEE Main, CUET, and NET . His task is particularly difficult since he already handles the heavyweight portfolios of consumer affairs, food and public distribution, and new and renewable energy, with education now as an additional charge .

NEP’s Recommendations on Foundational Literacy: NIPUN Bharat’s Progress and Gaps

Through NIPUN Bharat, formally launched by Mr. Pradhan’s predecessor on the heels of pandemic-era learning losses, the government was finally acting on decades of evidence from surveys by voluntary organisations that India’s schoolchildren were lagging far behind in reading and math, despite formally graduating year after year [citation:image]. It seeks to ensure every child attains fundamental literacy and numeracy by the end of Grade 3, by 2026-27 [citation:image].

The PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan (PRS) 2024 results signalled a strong shift. Grade 3 students who have benefitted from the first three years of NIPUN Bharat performed the strongest, scoring 64% in Language and 60% in Math, outperforming those in Grades 6 and 9 . The Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) 2024 showed a seven-percentage-point gain in numeracy since 2018 [citation:image]. ASER 2024 also showed that 23.4% of Class III students in government schools can now read a Grade II-level text — the highest since 2005, up from 16.3% in 2022 .

However, the gains remain uneven. Fewer than a quarter of students nationally could read a Grade 2 text, and Grade 5 levels remained roughly where they were pre-pandemic [citation:image]. The same PARAKH survey found that while Class III students have shown improvement, the parity fades in higher grades, with Class VI and IX private school students scoring 8-11 percentage points higher in Language and six points higher in Mathematics . This suggests a need for NIPUN Bharat to expand to cover Grades 3-5 — a move that has been indicated as part of the next phase .

The Push to Boost Teaching Quality

Though standards for teachers are common in advanced nations, the National Professional Standards for Teachers (NPST) is India’s first initiative to assess and classify teachers – as proficient, expert or advanced – against uniform national standards, with career progression tied to this ladder [citation:image]. The National Mentoring Mission, meant to identify mentor teachers to guide others up this ladder through nomination and volunteering, is being rolled out with online sessions, but awareness among the country’s one crore teachers remains low and impact assessments are yet to be formalised. NPST itself has not been rolled out, leaving teachers little incentive to engage with the mentoring sessions [citation:image].

More than 14 lakh teachers have been trained under the NISHTHA foundational programme . However, many government school teachers say they’ve been handed new curricula without adequate support . “They told us to make learning ‘play-based’ for Class 1, but didn’t train us or give enough teaching materials,” says a government primary teacher in Uttar Pradesh . Teacher readiness lags, with outdated B.Ed programmes that barely equip educators for new pedagogies .

Key Changes Attempted in Higher Education

Some initiatives drew sharper controversy. The 2025 draft UGC regulations on appointing teachers, Vice-Chancellors and staff faced strong opposition — notably for giving governors a decisive say in Vice-Chancellor appointments and for removing the cap on contractual professorships [citation:image]. The draft regulations were designed to expand the pool of potential candidates for Vice Chancellor positions by allowing distinguished individuals from industry, public policy, and public sector undertakings to be eligible, with ten years of experience at the senior level .

Separately, the UGC’s new undergraduate and postgraduate degree rules, built around flexibility and multidisciplinarity to create a skilled workforce, have been formally in force since the 2025 academic year – but institutions across States are still barely grasping radical concepts such as a commerce student studying science, or transferring credits across colleges via the National Credit Framework [citation:image]. While 35 universities have begun transitioning into multidisciplinary institutions with central support, the uptake of reforms such as multiple entry-exit options remains limited – underlining both early momentum and implementation hurdles .

An example of education-skilling convergence is the Swayam Plus platform, which offers over 500 industry-developed courses across 15 sectors, including emerging technologies. Some 6.5 lakh have registered for these courses. The new modules under “AI for All” have reportedly drawn one lakh registrations [citation:image]. However, the key gap is that most colleges that come under State universities are often resistant to changing the idea of giving a package deal and accept flexibility in accepting credits [citation:image].

The Controversy over Language Policy

Mr. Pradhan also pushed to steamroll NEP adoption – particularly the three-language policy – by tying central funding for primary education schemes to compliance by States. Tamil Nadu remains a holdout, though West Bengal’s new government has accepted it [citation:image]. In March 2025, the Union government withheld Rs. 2,152 crore in education funds from Tamil Nadu. The trigger: the State’s continued refusal to implement the three-language policy proposed in the NEP 2020 . Tamil Nadu remains the only State that follows a two-language formula—Tamil and English in government schools .

In CBSE schools, Mr. Pradhan directly mandated the learning of two Bharatiya languages from Classes 6 to 12, prioritising Indian languages over English. Some relief has been granted to current students, but the government has held firm on this as the norm going forward – even though NEP, in the same breath as it champions Indian languages, also emphasises the learning of English and other foreign languages [citation:image].

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin has slammed the Centre’s three-language policy, calling it a “covert mechanism to impose Hindi” . He questioned the lack of reciprocity: “Will students in Hindi-speaking states be mandated to learn Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam—or even languages like Bengali and Marathi?” . In response, Tamil Nadu unveiled its own State Education Policy in August 2025 as an alternative to the NEP, reaffirming the bilingual policy of Tamil and English .

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

The education reforms are implemented against a backdrop of several constitutional and governance challenges:

1. Federal Tensions: The three-language controversy highlights the tension between central policy and state autonomy. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the Centre cannot compel state adoption of NEP, reinforcing regional customisation as a constitutional prerogative .

2. Funding Gap: The NEP mandates a 6 per cent GDP allocation to education, a figure that mirrors the Kothari Commission’s (1979) call. Five years on, funding has fallen short: allocations slipped from 3.53 per cent of GDP pre-NEP to just 2.5 per cent in 2024-25 .

3. UGC Powers: The UGC’s power to make regulations derives from Section 26(1) of the UGC Act 1956, which empowers it to regulate the qualifications required for appointment to the teaching staff of universities . However, critics have argued that the draft regulations effectively bypass State Governments’ role in Vice-Chancellor appointments .

4. Legislative Scrutiny: The proportion of Bills referred to Parliamentary Standing Committees has declined significantly, indicating reduced legislative scrutiny. This is relevant as the government has indicated that a new education bill—the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill—may be introduced to replace the UGC [citation:image].

Way Forward

1. Strengthen Foundational Learning Continuum

The next phase of NIPUN Bharat should expand to cover Grades 3-5 and strengthen the continuum from pre-primary through Grade 1. The absence of a nationally defined school readiness marker limits accountability for early learning outcomes . Strengthening the continuum from Anganwadi through Balvatika to Grade 1 remains an urgent priority for NIPUN 2.0 .

2. Address Teacher Readiness

Teacher training must be overhauled to ensure B.Ed institutions align with NEP pedagogy . The National Professional Standards for Teachers must be rolled out with meaningful incentives for career progression.

3. Bridge the India-Bharat Divide

The urban-rural divide in educational outcomes must be addressed through increased funding for rural infrastructure, targeted teacher training, and localized curriculum frameworks that respect state autonomy .

4. Resolve Language Tensions

The three-language formula must be implemented with genuine flexibility, respecting states’ linguistic autonomy while promoting multilingualism. States like Tamil Nadu have demonstrated that a two-language policy can produce strong educational outcomes without the chaos of forced multilingualism .

5. Restore Trust in Examinations

The NEET controversy has exposed deep failures in the examination system. The Nilekani task force’s recommendations must be implemented to ensure technology-driven, leak-proof examinations that restore public confidence.

Conclusion

As Pralhad Joshi takes charge of the Education Ministry, he inherits a complex legacy of ambitious reforms, implementation challenges, and a crisis of public trust. The NEP 2020 has achieved notable successes in foundational learning and higher education enrollment, but significant gaps remain. From teacher readiness and language policy to examination integrity and funding, the path to Viksit Bharat is strewn with unfinished business.

The new minister must navigate federal tensions, bridge the India-Bharat divide, and restore trust in a system that has failed millions of young Indians. As one educationist put it: “The NEP was visionary, but without financial and structural support, it risks becoming another lost opportunity” . The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What were the key achievements of NIPUN Bharat Mission in its first five years?

NIPUN Bharat has led to significant gains in foundational literacy and numeracy. The PARAKH Rashtriya Sarvekshan (PRS) 2024 showed Grade 3 students scoring 64% in Language and 60% in Math, outperforming those in Grades 6 and 9 . ASER 2024 showed that 23.4% of Class III students in government schools can now read a Grade II-level text — the highest since 2005 . The mission established clear learning goals, structured teaching-learning materials, and teacher training programmes .

Q2: What is the three-language formula, and why has it become controversial?

The three-language formula mandates that students learn three languages—two of which must be native to India. It was intended to foster national integration. However, Tamil Nadu has resisted it, arguing it imposes Hindi on non-Hindi speaking states. Tamil Nadu follows a two-language policy (Tamil and English). In March 2025, the Union government withheld Rs. 2,152 crore in education funds from Tamil Nadu over its refusal to implement the policy .

Q3: What are the key challenges in implementing the NEP 2020?

Key challenges include: funding shortfalls (education spending at 2.5% of GDP against the 6% target), urban-rural divides in learning outcomes, teacher readiness gaps, resistance from states on the three-language formula, and limited uptake of higher education reforms like multiple entry-exit options and the Academic Credit Bank .

Q4: What were the key controversies surrounding the draft UGC Regulations 2025?

The draft UGC Regulations 2025 faced strong opposition for giving governors a decisive say in Vice-Chancellor appointments, removing the cap on contractual professorships, and allowing distinguished individuals from industry and public policy to be eligible for Vice-Chancellor posts [citation:image]. Critics also argued the regulations effectively bypass State Governments’ role in university appointments .

Q5: What is the significance of Tamil Nadu’s State Education Policy?

In August 2025, Tamil Nadu unveiled its own State Education Policy as an alternative to the NEP 2020, reaffirming the bilingual policy of Tamil and English . The policy rejects the three-language formula, has no public exams for Class 11, mandates Tamil till Class 10, bans parallel coaching centres, and suggests reforms in teacher recruitment. It reflects a broader resistance to centralisation and language imposition .

The Urea Imperative, India’s Quest for Self-Reliance in Fertilizer Security

Why in News?

In a significant move to bolster India’s agricultural self-sufficiency, the Union Cabinet approved the National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026) on July 14, 2026 . This policy aims to reduce India’s dependence on imported urea by facilitating the establishment of 8-9 new gas-based urea manufacturing plants with a combined capacity of 10 million tonnes (MT) . This decision comes amid global supply chain disruptions, rising fertilizer prices, and growing concerns about the overuse of chemical fertilizers—factors that have exposed India’s vulnerability in ensuring food security for its 1.4 billion people .

Introduction

Urea, the most widely consumed nitrogenous fertilizer in India, is the cornerstone of the country’s agricultural productivity. It accounts for more than half of the total fertilizer consumption, directly impacting crop yields and the livelihoods of millions of farmers . However, for decades, India has relied on imports to bridge the gap between domestic production and demand. The new policy is designed to change this equation, marking a decisive push toward urea self-reliance under the government’s Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative .

As India navigates the complexities of the 21st century, the NIPU-2026 represents more than just an industrial policy. It is a strategic intervention aimed at insulating the Indian farmer from the volatility of international markets and geopolitical shocks, as seen in the recent West Asia crisis . However, achieving self-reliance requires a multi-pronged approach: incentivizing investment through a revamped framework, promoting balanced fertilizer use, and exploring innovative alternatives.

Background: The Evolution of India’s Urea Policy

Legacy of the New Investment Policy (NIP) 2012

The foundation of the current push was laid under the New Investment Policy of 2012, which was formulated to attract investments in greenfield, brownfield, and revival projects in the fertilizer sector . Under this policy, six new urea units were commissioned—four through joint ventures of public sector undertakings and two by private companies . This added a combined capacity of 7.62 MT to India’s domestic manufacturing base .

However, the investment window under the 2012 policy expired in October 2019 . While the existing 33 operational units managed to increase production from 22.5 MT in 2014-15 to 30.6 MT in 2024-25, the demand continued to outstrip supply . India’s annual urea consumption is around 40 MT, leaving a persistent gap of about 10 MT, which is met through costly and risky imports .

The Growing Crisis

India’s dependence on imports has left it vulnerable to multiple shocks. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered input cost escalations and logistical disruptions, forcing manufacturers to scale down production . Furthermore, volatile natural gas prices and rising global costs have underscored the strategic necessity of increasing domestic capacity . The fertilizer subsidy bill, which crossed ₹2.17 lakh crore in 2025-26, is a significant burden on the exchequer, with urea alone accounting for over ₹1.42 lakh crore of this bill .

Key Issues Raised: The Reforms in NIPU-2026

The NIPU-2026 addresses the shortcomings of the 2012 framework through three key structural reforms aimed at improving transparency, project viability, and investor confidence .

1. Separation of Fixed and Variable Costs

The new policy mandates the separation of fixed and variable costs for the calculation of subsidies, bringing greater transparency to the support mechanism . This is intended to give investors a clearer picture of the returns they can expect, making project planning more reliable.

2. Viable Return on Equity (RoE) Band

NIPU-2026 introduces a guaranteed Return on Equity (RoE) band, with a floor of 12% and a ceiling of 16% . The 12% floor is intended to keep projects attractive to investors, while the 16% ceiling limits excessive returns and balances investor incentives with public spending . This provides greater certainty to project developers, mitigating the risks associated with long gestation periods.

3. Mitigation of Foreign Exchange (Forex) Risk

Many key components for building urea plants are imported, exposing projects to currency fluctuations. The new policy allows for the fixed-cost component of the project to be converted into Indian rupees after four years based on prevailing exchange rates . This shields developers from the impact of a depreciating rupee, making projects more financially viable.

Expected Impact

According to the government, these measures are estimated to result in savings of over ₹250 crore for each plant established under NIPU-2026, compared to those approved under the 2012 policy . The policy aims to add 10 MT of fresh capacity by setting up 8-9 new gas-based plants.

Timeline of Events

• 2012: The New Investment Policy (NIP-2012) is introduced to attract investment in the urea sector, leading to the establishment of six new plants .

• October 2014: The NIP-2012 was amended to further facilitate fresh investment .

• October 2019: The investment window under NIP-2012 expires .

• 2014-15: Total indigenous urea production stands at 207.54 Lakh Metric Tonnes (LMT) .

• 2023-24: Production from existing units reaches 314.07 LMT .

• 2025-26: The total fertilizer subsidy bill for the year is ₹2,17,281.10 crore .

• July 14, 2026: The Union Cabinet approves the National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026), aiming to add 10 MT of new capacity .

The Fertilizer Subsidy Challenge

The fertilizer subsidy is a critical component of India’s agricultural policy, ensuring that farmers can access inputs at affordable prices. The government aims to maintain the MRP of urea at a stable level; currently, a 45 kg bag of urea is priced at ₹242 . However, this stability comes at a high cost to the exchequer, as the government must bear the difference between the delivered cost and the market realization.

Source: Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers 

The rising subsidy bill highlights the fiscal pressure that fertilizer imports place on the economy. By boosting domestic production, the government aims to curtail these imports and stabilize the subsidy burden .

Challenges Ahead

1. Environmental Concerns and Overuse of Urea

India is the world’s second-largest consumer of fertilizers . The overuse of urea has led to a decline in Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE), with only 30-50% of applied nitrogen being utilized by crops . This inefficiency contributes to soil degradation, water pollution, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Geopolitical and Supply Chain Risks

While NIPU-2026 aims to reduce import dependency, the initial phases of construction and the ongoing operation of new gas-based plants depend on a secure supply of natural gas, which is itself subject to global price volatility .

3. Transition to Balanced Use

India has experimented with alternatives like Nano Urea to promote more efficient nutrient management. However, the adoption of nano fertilizers among farmers has been slow, reportedly due to controversies over its efficacy . The government promotes the use of Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) to encourage a balanced use of chemical, organic, and biological inputs .

4. Project Delays and Cost Overruns

Setting up chemical plants is a capital-intensive and complex process. The 2012 policy faced challenges, and NIPU-2026 will likely encounter similar hurdles related to land acquisition, environmental clearances, and technology procurement.

Way Forward

1. Holistic Nutrient Management: The government must continue to aggressively promote INM, Soil Health Cards, and organic farming to curb the over-reliance on urea . Incentivizing the use of alternatives like Nano Urea and bio-fertilizers will be key to long-term sustainability.

2. Creating a Conducive Environment: The success of NIPU-2026 hinges on ensuring a stable natural gas supply and addressing procedural bottlenecks to enable the timely completion of projects.

3. Investing in Innovation: Continued investment in research and development for green fertilizers and precision nutrient delivery systems is essential to improve NUE and reduce environmental impact .

Conclusion

The National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 is a bold and necessary step toward India’s fertilizer security. It acknowledges the strategic vulnerability of depending on imports and seeks to empower the Indian farmer by making domestic production more robust. By creating a more transparent and viable framework for investors, the government aims to bridge the widening gap between demand and supply. However, achieving true “self-reliance” will require not just building more factories but also fostering a paradigm shift in how India manages its nutrients—moving from a regime of overuse to one of precise, sustainable, and efficient application. The true success of NIPU-2026 will be measured not just by the tonnes of urea produced, but by the long-term health of India’s soil and the prosperity of its farmers.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026), and what are its key objectives?
A: NIPU-2026 is a policy approved by the Union Cabinet to encourage new investments in India’s urea sector. Its primary objective is to achieve self-reliance in urea production by establishing 8-9 new gas-based manufacturing plants with a total capacity of 10 million tonnes, thereby reducing the country’s import dependence .

Q2: How does NIPU-2026 differ from the earlier New Investment Policy (NIP-2012)?
A: NIPU-2026 introduces three major reforms over NIP-2012: (1) separation of fixed and variable costs for greater subsidy transparency, (2) introduction of a guaranteed Return on Equity (RoE) band with a floor of 12% and a ceiling of 16% to attract investors, and (3) mitigation of foreign exchange risk by converting fixed costs into rupees after four years . The government estimates these changes will save over ₹250 crore per plant compared to the previous policy.

Q3: Why is India’s dependence on urea imports a significant concern for national security?
A: India’s dependence on urea imports exposes its agricultural sector and food security to global market volatility and geopolitical disruptions. Events like the West Asia crisis and closure of the Strait of Hormuz have demonstrated how supply chain shocks can spike prices and threaten the availability of this critical input for farmers, making import reduction a strategic imperative .

Q4: What is the magnitude of India’s fertilizer subsidy bill, and why is it a challenge?
A: The total fertilizer subsidy in 2025-26 is ₹2,17,281.10 crore, with urea alone accounting for ₹1,42,175.74 crore . This massive subsidy is a significant burden on the exchequer, and a large portion of it is attributed to the cost of imported urea. Reducing imports through domestic production is a key strategy to manage this fiscal pressure .

Q5: What is the government doing to promote the balanced and efficient use of fertilizers?
A: The government promotes Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), which encourages the scientific integration of organic sources, chemical fertilizers, and biological inputs to improve soil health and nutrient use efficiency . It also promotes the use of alternatives like Nano Urea and bio-fertilizers, and provides Soil Health Cards to farmers for site-specific nutrient recommendations .

The CBSE-OSM Crisis, When Digital Evaluation Failed 18 Lakh Students

Why in News?

The Supreme Court has expressed serious concern over the “frustration of young children” caused by the Central Board of Secondary Education’s (CBSE) On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, which left approximately 18 lakh Class XII students unable to access their evaluated answer scripts . While only about 4 lakh students could view their scripts, the rest were denied the opportunity to verify their evaluation or seek correction of errors . The crisis, which has led to the transfer of CBSE’s top leadership and a parliamentary inquiry, exposes fundamental governance failures in one of India’s largest digital education reforms .

Introduction

India witnessed two major examination-related controversies in the summer of 2026—NEET and CBSE’s On-Screen Marking (OSM) crisis. Both predominantly affected Class XII students. In both cases, the then Union Education Minister assured the nation that no student would suffer injustice. However, the national response to the two controversies differed sharply .

Alleged irregularities in NEET, involving admissions to about 1.4 lakh medical seats, rightly led to Re-NEET 2026, nationwide debate, judicial scrutiny, organisational restructuring, and policy reforms. In contrast, the unresolved CBSE-OSM controversy, which affected nearly 18 lakh Class XII students, received comparatively little public attention despite its much wider academic impact .

What is On-Screen Marking (OSM)?

On-Screen Marking is a digital evaluation method where scanned answer scripts are marked by examiners on a screen instead of on paper . CBSE adopted it to standardise evaluation and speed up result processing. However, students are meant to view their own scanned, marked scripts after results, but the current system does not guarantee this access at scale .

The system was introduced as a major digital reform. Instead of conventional manual assessment, answer sheets were scanned and evaluated digitally. However, shortly after results were declared, students reported discrepancies in evaluated answer sheets, concerns over scanned copies, verification processes and alleged technical glitches .

Key Issues Raised

1. Limited Access to Answer Scripts

Around 98 lakh answer scripts had already been digitised under OSM. Yet only about four lakh students could access nearly 11 lakh evaluated scripts, leaving 14 lakh students without a meaningful opportunity to verify their evaluation or seek correction of genuine errors . Complaints about portal glitches, payment failures, blurred scans, missing pages, mismatches in answer sheets, and other procedural deficiencies remained largely unaddressed .

2. Substantial Mark Revisions

The answer scripts that underwent independent scrutiny revealed serious concerns, including blurred scans, missing pages, mismatches in answer sheets, and substantial mark revisions after re-evaluation . In one widely reported case, a student’s History marks increased from 74 to 97, elevating the student to the position of a CBSE topper . Another student’s Physics marks rose from 71 to 90, a revision of 19 marks out of 100 . Such outcomes demonstrate that the review process could correct significant evaluation errors—but only for those who managed to access it .

3. Structural Flaws in the Review Process

Unlike the earlier pen-and-paper system, where answer scripts had to be retrieved and digitised on request, every OSM answer script had already been digitised during evaluation. In principle, every student could therefore have been given immediate access . Instead, the OSM review process required students to apply, pay the prescribed fee, and rely on an online portal to access records that were already in digital form . Portal glitches, payment failures, delayed access, and overlapping verification and re-evaluation timelines left little time to detect and report deficiencies before the review window closed .

4. Procurement Irregularities

A Class XII student, Sarthak Sidhant, conducted a forensic analysis of the OSM tender documents and alleged that CBSE “rewrote its own rulebook” to favour Coempt EduTeck, the company awarded the contract . He claimed to have reviewed hundreds of tender documents and compared multiple versions of the request-for-proposal documents issued by CBSE. The blog detailed changes across three RFP rounds, including relaxed eligibility criteria and the removal of a blacklisting provision . The student pointed out that the older RFP disqualified any vendor “blacklisted earlier,” whereas the new version mentioned only “currently blacklisted,” masking Coempt’s past as Globarena .

Timeline of Events

Government and Judicial Response

Parliamentary Intervention

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education examined the issue and heard Sarthak Sidhant’s presentation. After the meeting, Congress MP and panel chairperson Digvijaya Singh said: “He has made his presentation. It is for the committee to decide. The full committee is concerned, and we will consider whatever can be done in the interest of the students” .

Transfer of CBSE Leadership

On June 2, 2026, the Centre transferred CBSE Chairman Rahul Singh and Secretary Himanshu Gupta and ordered an inquiry into the procurement of the OSM services . The move came on the very day the Parliamentary Standing Committee examined the issue .

Supreme Court’s Observations

On July 15, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the “frustration of young children” and the “creeping problems” in the OSM process . The court sought a status report from the government detailing the progress made by a one-member probe committee of retired IAS officer S. Radha Chauhan, tasked to unearth the reasons behind the technical defects . “Look at the amount of frustration young children are having to face,” Chief Justice of India Surya Kant observed .

Central Information Commission’s Intervention

The Central Information Commission (CIC), exercising its powers under Section 25(5) of the RTI Act, had already advised CBSE to frame comprehensive SOPs, describing them as “the dire need of today’s scenario” . Yet these SOPs remain unpublished .

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

Right to Equal Opportunity and Fairness

The OSM controversy raises fundamental questions about the right to equal opportunity in education and the principle of fairness in public examinations. The Supreme Court’s intervention, noting the “frustration of young children,” signals that the current process fails a basic due process test for an examination body . When a student cannot verify whether their performance has been evaluated fairly, it amounts to a denial of natural justice.

Accountability of Public Institutions

The crisis exposes the accountability deficit in India’s education governance. The Central Information Commission had already advised CBSE to frame comprehensive SOPs for script access, yet these SOPs remain unpublished . The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Rakesh Binjola sought individual responsibility to be fixed for a failure which affected a large number of students in India and abroad .

Right to Information and Transparency

The limited disclosure of answer scripts raises questions about the application of the Right to Information Act, 2005. CBSE’s failure to proactively disclose answer scripts, when they already existed in digital form, contradicts the spirit of proactive disclosure under Section 4(2) of the RTI Act .

The Proposed Solution: Seven-Day Transparency Framework

Since every answer script already exists in digital form, the crisis can still be resolved through a simple, time-bound framework :

At the end of the process, CBSE should publish anonymised statistics on verification requests, deficiencies detected, re-evaluations conducted, and mark revisions made. This framework requires no new technology or major expenditure—it simply ensures that every student has an equal opportunity to verify the fairness of the evaluation .

Way Forward

1. Immediate Implementation of Transparency Framework

The new Union Education Minister now has an opportunity to bridge the transparency gap in the OSM system. The proposed Seven-Day Transparency Framework offers a practical, low-cost roadmap to ensure universal access to evaluated answer scripts, timely verification, and transparent grievance redressal .

2. Structural Reforms in CBSE

The crisis is not merely a glitch but a structural problem . The way forward is to let CBSE do the one thing it was built to do—conduct examinations and issue credible certificates. Regulation and standard-setting should move to a body insulated from the examination business, as recommended by Chapter 8 of NEP 2020 .

3. Independent Oversight of Digital Evaluation

A robust governance framework for digital evaluation systems must include pre-rollout stress-testing of platforms, transparent procurement processes, clear grievance redressal mechanisms, and proactive disclosure of evaluated answer scripts.

4. Restoring Public Trust

The credibility of the OSM system will ultimately be judged by its ability to deliver transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity to every student. If these reforms are implemented with urgency, the Supreme Court’s “frustrated young minds” can become millions of smiling faces, confident that their performance has been evaluated fairly, transparently, and justly .

Conclusion

The CBSE-OSM crisis is a cautionary tale about the dangers of implementing digital reforms without adequate safeguards, transparency, and accountability. While the intention to modernise evaluation was sound, the execution—from vendor selection to student access—was deeply flawed. The crisis affected nearly 18 lakh students and exposed the gap between the promise of a transparent digital system and the reality of restricted access.

The Central Information Commission’s advice to CBSE to frame comprehensive SOPs remains unheeded. The Parliamentary Standing Committee has expressed dissatisfaction with the answers provided by CBSE. And the Supreme Court has flagged the “frustration of young children.”

The priority now is to implement a transparent and robust framework that ensures every student has an equal opportunity to verify the fairness and accuracy of the evaluation. The proposed Seven-Day Transparency Framework offers a practical, low-cost, and time-bound solution to restore public confidence in India’s largest school examination system .

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the CBSE On-Screen Marking (OSM) system, and what was the controversy surrounding it?

CBSE’s On-Screen Marking is a digital evaluation method where scanned answer scripts are marked by examiners on a computer instead of on paper . The system was introduced to standardise evaluation and speed up results. However, the 2026 Class XII results, which saw the pass percentage drop to 85.20%, were followed by widespread complaints about access issues. Approximately 18 lakh students could not access their evaluated answer scripts, as only about 4 lakh could view them . The controversy also involved allegations of procurement irregularities, including changes to tender conditions that critics claimed favoured a particular vendor .

Q2: What role did the Supreme Court play in the OSM controversy?

On July 15, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the “frustration of young children” caused by the OSM system and the “creeping problems” in the digital evaluation process . The court sought a status report from the government detailing progress made by a one-member probe committee headed by retired IAS officer S. Radha Chauhan . The court made it clear it was not approaching the issue adversarially and sought Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s assistance in resolving the matter .

Q3: What structural flaws were identified in the OSM review process?

Under the earlier pen-and-paper system, answer scripts had to be retrieved and scanned on request. Under OSM, every answer script was already digitised, yet students still had to apply, pay fees, and use an online portal to access them . Portal glitches, payment failures, and overlapping verification and re-evaluation timelines prevented most students from completing the process . Additionally, students were required to verify the completeness and authenticity of their answer scripts before seeking re-evaluation, with overlapping windows leaving little time for both steps .

Q4: What did the student’s forensic analysis of the OSM tender reveal?

Class XII student Sarthak Sidhant analysed multiple versions of the OSM tender documents and alleged that CBSE “rewrote its own rulebook” to favour Coempt EduTeck . His findings included relaxed eligibility criteria across three RFP rounds, the removal of a blacklisting provision that would have disqualified Coempt (which had operated under the name Globarena), and elimination of a clause requiring ownership of software source code . His analysis gained national attention and was presented before the Parliamentary Standing Committee .

Q5: What is the proposed Seven-Day Transparency Framework to resolve the OSM crisis?

The proposed framework involves three steps: (1) Universal disclosure of all digitised answer scripts to every student through registered email, WhatsApp, and schools on the first day; (2) Verification of the completeness and authenticity of digitised scripts, including identifying blurred scans, missing pages, and mismatches, during the next three days; and (3) Targeted re-evaluation of genuine grievances after verified scripts are made available during the remaining four days . At the end of the process, CBSE should publish anonymised statistics on verification requests, deficiencies detected, re-evaluations conducted, and mark revisions made .

NEET in the Digital Age, Supreme Court Seeks Nilekani Task Force’s Vision for a Secure, Computer-Based Future

Why in News?

The Supreme Court, recognizing the systemic failures behind recurring examination leaks, has indicated it will consult the newly formed high-powered task force on transitioning the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) to a computer-based test (CBT) . This decision comes amidst the government’s commitment to a technology-driven overhaul and follows weeks of student protests that forced significant political and administrative changes. The Court has set a hearing date of August 3, 2026, to examine the roadmap for this transition and to hear pending petitions on broader NEET reforms .

Introduction

The turmoil surrounding the NEET-UG 2026 paper leak has acted as a catalyst for a fundamental rethinking of India’s examination architecture. As the Central Bureau of Investigation probes the alleged leak that forced the cancellation of the May 3 exam and a subsequent re-test, the Supreme Court has taken a proactive stance to ensure that “ad-hocism” does not become a permanent feature of the system . The Court has stressed that extraordinary measures, such as deploying the Indian Air Force to transport question papers, while necessary for the re-test, cannot be a permanent solution .

In its quest for “out-of-the-box” solutions to prevent future breaches, the Supreme Court is turning to the expertise of a task force led by Nandan Nilekani . This panel, announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, represents the government’s most ambitious attempt to leverage technology for systemic reform . The Supreme Court will seek the task force’s views on how to implement a robust Computer-Based Testing framework, with a strong emphasis on cybersecurity, data protection, and database security to shield the examination process from vulnerabilities .

Background: The 2026 NEET Controversy

The Paper Leak and its Aftermath

The NEET-UG 2026 examination, held on May 3, was cancelled by the National Testing Agency (NTA) on May 12 following widespread allegations of a paper leak . The cancellation and the subsequent re-test on June 21 threw the lives of nearly 2.2 million aspirants into chaos and sparked nationwide protests. Students demanded accountability, leading to the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan on July 25 and his replacement by Pralhad Joshi .

The Government’s Response: A Multi-Pronged Approach

In response to the crisis, the government has taken several decisive steps:

• Legislative Action: The government proposed the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to increase punishment for offenders from 3-5 years to 5-10 years and enhance the fine from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh .

• Institutional Reform: A high-powered task force was constituted to recommend technology-driven reforms for the examination ecosystem.

• Judicial Oversight: The Supreme Court has made it clear that it will “very closely monitor” the implementation of reforms to ensure the institutionalization of a foolproof system .

The Supreme Court’s Intervention and the Call for Reform

The Supreme Court has been vocal in its criticism of the system’s shortcomings. It observed that “ad-hocism is what has troubled us for so many years” and stressed the need for complete and total institutionalisation . The Court is not just concerned with the current crisis but is focused on creating a permanent, secure, and reliable examination process for the future. The bench, comprising Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, has made it clear that it will follow up on the matter throughout the year to ensure that reforms are not just announced but effectively implemented .

The Nandan Nilekani-Led Task Force: A Technology-First Approach

The composition of the task force indicates the government’s intent to build a robust, multi-layered defence against exam malpractices. Chaired by the former UIDAI chairman and Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani, the panel includes experts in technology, space, intelligence, administration, and logistics . The other members are former ISRO chairman S. Somanath, former Intelligence Bureau director Tapan Deka, IIT Madras director V. Kamakoti, former education secretary Anita Karwal, and logistics expert Amrit Lal Meena .

The task force is tasked with more than just suggesting a mode of examination; it is expected to design a comprehensive, technology-driven framework that can restore public trust. According to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the government is “going ten extra miles” to address student concerns, and the entire exercise is being monitored at the highest executive level . The task force’s recommendations will form the blueprint for a new examination ecosystem, moving from identity to integrity .

The Core Issue: Transitioning to Computer-Based Testing (CBT)

The transition from the traditional pen-and-paper format (PPT) to Computer-Based Testing (CBT) is at the heart of the current judicial and executive discourse . A shift to CBT is seen as the most effective way to eliminate the risk of physical paper leaks, which have plagued the system for years.

What is Computer-Based Testing (CBT)?

In a CBT model, candidates answer questions on a computer terminal instead of paper . The responses are digitally recorded and transmitted securely. This eliminates the entire chain of physical handling, transportation, and storage of question papers, which is the primary point of vulnerability in the current system .

The Court’s Concerns: Cybersecurity and Data Protection

However, the Supreme Court has rightly flagged that a transition to CBT is not without its own risks. The Court has pressed the government to address critical questions: “Can it be shifted? How can the data be kept safe? If you digitise it, how will you secure it? Who will handle cybersecurity?” .

The bench has emphasized that the shift requires “additional safeguards with respect to cyber security, database protection” . Justice Narasimha noted, “When the transition occurs from physical conduct to online, what additional safeguards need to be taken, how the database is secured etc… Data storage is also an issue” . This highlights that while the problem of physical leaks may be solved, it must not be replaced by a problem of digital vulnerabilities.

Way Forward: A Phased, Secure, and Institutionalised Transition

As the matter stands adjourned to August 3, 2026, the path forward is becoming clearer.

1. Seeking Expert Guidance: The Supreme Court will solicit the Nandan Nilekani-led task force’s suggestions on a secure transition to CBT . Their recommendations on the technical, logistical, and cybersecurity aspects will be critical .

2. Hybrid Approach: The transition will not be a complete overhaul from one day to the next. The government has also explored alternatives like Computer-assisted Secure Pen-and-Paper Testing (CPPT), where question papers are digitally generated and printed securely at authorised centres shortly before the exam . This could serve as an intermediate step.

3. Infrastructure Development: The government has proposed establishing 1,000 secure testing centres across the country to support a large-scale transition to CBT .

4. Stakeholder Familiarisation: Petitioners have urged the release of a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and providing demo tests and mock examinations to help students familiarise themselves with the new format .

Conclusion

The NEET paper leak of 2026 has been a watershed moment, forcing a necessary reckoning with the vulnerabilities of India’s examination system. The Supreme Court’s decision to seek the expertise of the Nilekani-led task force on transitioning to Computer-Based Testing signals a commitment to a long-term, technology-driven solution.

This transition, however, is not just about changing the medium from paper to screen. It is about building a digitally secure, transparent, and reliable ecosystem. The focus on cybersecurity and data protection, as emphasised by the Court, is a recognition that a new set of risks accompanies a new technology. Success will depend on a well-calibrated strategy that combines technological innovation with robust regulatory frameworks, comprehensive infrastructure, and a deep commitment to institutionalising these changes for the millions of students whose futures depend on it.

Trust, The Unfinished Business of India’s Examination Reforms

Why in News?

On July 27, 2026, IIT Madras Director V. Kamakoti, a member of the high-powered task force on examination reforms, identified “trust” as the single biggest challenge in preventing examination paper leaks . His remarks came as the Supreme Court pushed for “out-of-the-box” solutions to stop recurring NEET paper leaks  and the task force, led by Nandan Nilekani, began its work on overhauling India’s examination ecosystem . The statement underscores a fundamental truth: while technology can secure processes, the integrity of human actors remains the weakest link in India’s examination system .

Introduction

“The only challenge is trust. We need teachers who we can trust, who will set the question paper and keep quiet.” 

This observation from V. Kamakoti, Director of IIT Madras, cuts to the heart of India’s examination crisis. As a member of the six-member high-powered task force constituted by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to reform the National Testing Agency (NTA), Kamakoti has identified the core issue that no amount of technology can fully resolve: human integrity .

The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak, which led to the cancellation of the exam and triggered nationwide protests, exposed not just procedural failures but a deeper crisis of trust in the examination system . The leak originated not from the transportation of question papers—as was the case in 2024—but from the question paper setters themselves, who allegedly leaked the papers to students through special coaching classes . This fundamental breach of trust has shaken the credibility of India’s largest examination system and prompted a comprehensive rethinking of how examinations are conducted .

Background: The NEET-UG 2026 Paper Leak

The Nature of the Leak

The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak followed a different pattern from the 2024 incident. In 2024, the leak occurred while question papers were in transit after being printed—a process vulnerability that could be addressed through stricter logistics and monitoring . In 2026, however, the leak originated at the level of the question paper setters themselves .

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) investigation revealed a systematic conspiracy. P.V. Kulkarni, a Chemistry Lecturer involved in the examination process on behalf of the NTA, had access to the question papers . During the last week of April 2026, he allegedly mobilized students with the help of another accused and conducted special coaching classes at his residence in Pune, where he dictated the questions along with options and correct answers . Students who paid several lakhs of rupees were given access to the leaked questions .

Similarly, Manisha Gurunath Mandhare, a Senior Botany Teacher from Pune who was appointed by the NTA as an expert, allegedly had complete access to the Botany and Zoology question papers and conducted coaching classes where the questions were disclosed . The CBI arrested nine accused in connection with the case .

The Fallout

The leak led to the cancellation of the NEET-UG 2026 examination held on May 3, followed by a re-examination. The incident sparked nationwide protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), which demanded accountability from the government. After 36 days of agitation, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan resigned on July 25 . The following day, Prime Minister Modi announced the formation of a high-powered task force to recommend examination reforms .

Key Issues Raised

1. The “Root of Trust”

Kamakoti has repeatedly emphasized that every examination system rests on two key pillars: the question paper setters and the invigilators at examination centres . These are the “root of trust” on which the entire examination ecosystem depends. “If that root of trust is shattered, the whole system collapses,” he stated .

The 2026 NEET leak demonstrated this vulnerability in stark terms. The individuals who were entrusted with setting the question papers—the very people expected to maintain confidentiality—became the source of the leak . “This time the leak started from the level of the question paper setters themselves,” Kamakoti noted .

The challenge is compounded by the scale of the examination. NEET is conducted in 12 languages, and at least 40 to 50 people are involved in the question paper-setting and translation process. “If even one person’s integrity is compromised, the security fails,” Kamakoti observed .

2. Accountability and Organisational Structure

Kamakoti has stressed that every individual and process in the exam hierarchy—from question generation to centre administration—must be held directly accountable through a clear organisational structure . “There should be a structure where everyone is accountable so that the system is as foolproof as possible,” he said .

He drew a parallel with the banking sector, suggesting that accountability mechanisms similar to the “maker-checker” process could help strengthen examination security by ensuring multiple layers of verification and responsibility . “Who is doing which part is to be reviewed,” he stated. “We call it structural organisation” .

3. The Limits of Technology

While Kamakoti acknowledges that technology intervention is “extremely important” for conducting examinations at scale, he has cautioned against over-reliance on automation . “I do not think AI can independently set a question paper. AI may be able to generate questions, but someone still has to look at them and review them,” he said .

He also noted that while AI can assist with translation for multilingual examinations like NEET, final verification would still require human intervention . “The NEET exam is very inclusive in that it is conducted in 12 languages, so someone has to check the translations as well. AI can definitely help with translation, but someone has to closely check those translations,” he said .

Kamakoti also pointed out that technology alone cannot address the challenge of invigilators who may compromise the process. “If the invigilator starts helping students, technology alone cannot solve the problem,” he said, noting that surveillance cameras, jammers, and other monitoring systems can only supplement, not replace, human integrity .

4. Restoring Public Confidence

Kamakoti has emphasized that restoring public confidence should remain the central objective of the task force . “The aim is to set up a system to ensure robust, leak-proof and transparent exams at scale,” he stated . He said transparency also means candidates should clearly understand how their marks have been awarded .

The successful conduct of the NEET re-examination, which happened “without any issues,” proved that the system is capable of working effectively when properly implemented . However, the task force’s objective is to ensure that such success becomes the norm rather than the exception.

Task Force Composition and Mandate

The high-powered task force is chaired by technology entrepreneur and Aadhaar architect Nandan Nilekani . The other members include:

• S. Somanath, former ISRO Chairman

• Tapan Deka, former Intelligence Bureau Director

• V. Kamakoti, Director of IIT Madras

• Anita Karwal, former Education Secretary

• Amrit Lal Meena, logistics expert 

According to the Prime Minister’s announcement, the task force will focus on examination reforms, and based on its report, steps will be taken to ensure the credibility of upcoming examinations at the earliest . The government has said the panel will focus on technology, institutional reforms and improving the credibility of the examination ecosystem .

Kamakoti indicated that the panel’s recommendations would be divided into short-term, medium-term and long-term measures . With major examinations beginning later in the year, he said the panel would aim to complete at least its initial recommendations before December . The task force’s mandate extends beyond NEET and will examine India’s broader examination ecosystem, including JEE, CUET, GATE, and state public service commission examinations .

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

The examination crisis has raised several constitutional and governance issues:

1. Right to Equality: Recurring paper leaks undermine the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity in public employment and education.

2. Accountability of Public Institutions: The crisis has exposed the accountability deficit in bodies like the NTA, which functions with only 24 of its 39 sanctioned permanent posts filled .

3. Federal Tensions: The Centre’s handling of the crisis has been questioned by opposition-led states, highlighting the federal dimensions of education governance.

4. Legislative Response: The government is moving the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026, which seeks to increase punishment for offenders from 3-5 years to 5-10 years and enhance the fine from ₹10 lakh to ₹50 lakh .

Challenges

1. Human Vulnerability

The core challenge, as Kamakoti has emphasized, is human integrity. The NEET 2026 leak demonstrated that even with improved logistics and security, the process remains vulnerable when trusted individuals betray their responsibilities .

2. Scale of Operations

NEET involves nearly 22 lakh candidates, over 40 question setters, and examination centres across the country . Securing such a massive operation requires not just technology but robust organisational structures and accountability mechanisms.

3. Implementation Gaps

The Radhakrishnan Committee’s recommendations, formed after the 2024 leak, remain only partially implemented . This highlights the challenge of translating reform proposals into effective action.

4. Political and Administrative Will

Sustained reforms require consistent political and administrative commitment. The resignation of the Education Minister, while a response to public pressure, also disrupts continuity in policy implementation.

Way Forward

1. Strengthening Accountability

Kamakoti has stressed the need to fix accountability in every institution responsible for conducting examinations across the country . This would include clear roles, responsibilities, and consequences for failures.

2. Building Trust Through Transparency

Transparency in evaluation and decision-making would help restore public confidence. Kamakoti has highlighted the need for candidates to understand how their marks have been awarded .

3. Leveraging Technology Wisely

While technology is essential, it must be used as a complement to, not a substitute for, human integrity. The task force’s recommendations should reflect a balanced approach that addresses both technological and human vulnerabilities.

4. Institutional Strengthening of NTA

The NTA needs to move away from reliance on contractual and outsourced staff toward a permanent, accountable workforce, as recommended by the Radhakrishnan Committee .

Conclusion

“The root of trust is the question paper setter. Even if AI generates question papers, there has to be a trusted human being to verify them.” 

V. Kamakoti’s observation captures the fundamental challenge facing India’s examination system. The NEET-UG 2026 paper leak was not primarily a failure of technology or logistics—it was a failure of human trust. Those entrusted with the integrity of the examination process became the source of its compromise.

As the high-powered task force led by Nandan Nilekani begins its work, it must address this core issue. Technology can encrypt papers, secure transmission, and monitor centres, but it cannot guarantee the integrity of the individuals who set the questions and oversee the process. Rebuilding trust requires not just technological solutions but robust accountability mechanisms, transparent processes, and a reaffirmation of the values that underpin the examination system.

The challenge is formidable, but the successful conduct of the NEET re-examination demonstrates that the system can work effectively when properly implemented. The task force’s mission is to ensure that such success becomes the norm, and that every student can trust that their future is determined by merit, not manipulation.

The Pellet Gun Controversy, Balancing State Power and the Right to Peaceful Protest

Why in News?

The Supreme Court of India has agreed to hear a petition seeking a ban on the use of pellet guns and metallic projectiles for crowd control by law enforcement agencies, following allegations of their use during the July 20, 2026, protests led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. The petition, filed by retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad and two others who sustained injuries, argues that the use of such weapons fails constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness, amounting to an unconstitutional fetter on the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) [citation:image]. The court has also indicated it would consider framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during large-scale demonstrations, while affirming that “the right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution” [citation:image].

Introduction

On a sweltering July morning, the historic Jantar Mantar in New Delhi became the epicentre of a national crisis. Tens of thousands of young protesters, demanding accountability for the NEET-UG paper leak, attempted to march to Parliament. What followed was a police crackdown that left at least 60 civilians injured and drew allegations of excessive force, including the use of pellet guns [citation:image]. The incident not only exposed the widening trust deficit between the government and citizens but also reignited a fundamental constitutional debate: where does the right to peaceful protest end and the state’s duty to maintain public order begin?

The Supreme Court, while hearing a petition on the matter, made a landmark observation: “The right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution. So long as it is a peaceful agitation, merely because there is agitation, there cannot be police excess… Discipline is integral to the democratic process” [citation:image]. This statement, alongside the petition seeking a ban on pellet guns, has brought the constitutional framework governing protest and policing into sharp focus.

Background

The Jantar Mantar Protests and the July 20 Crackdown

The Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protests began on June 20, 2026, at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the NEET-UG paper leak and chaos in CBSE’s marking process. The movement, which started as a satirical social media campaign following Chief Justice Surya Kant’s “cockroach” remark in May 2026, had grown into the largest sustained street challenge to the Modi government since 2014.

On July 20, 2026, the opening day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament, more than ten thousand protesters attempted to march to Parliament. Delhi Police responded with tear gas and baton charges. By the force’s own count, roughly 180 people were hurt—118 police personnel and 60 protesters [citation:image]. However, allegations soon emerged that police had used pellet guns against protesters, causing severe injuries, with some reports suggesting loss of vision.

The Petition: A Call to Ban Pellet Guns

On July 27, 2026, retired Intelligence Bureau Special Director Yashovardhan Azad, along with two other victims of alleged pellet-gun injuries, moved the Supreme Court seeking a ban on the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles fired from pump-action or projectile-action guns (PAG), or pellet guns, for crowd control [citation:image].

The petition argued that “the use of such projectile-action guns (PAGs) or pellet guns loaded with wholly or partly metallic pellets for crowd dispersal fails the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality and reasonableness. It amounts to an unconstitutional fetter on the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution” [citation:image]. The petitioners prayed that such weapons be decommissioned or banned from being deployed for crowd dispersal against civilian assemblies [citation:image].

Key Issues Raised

1. The Constitutional Right to Peaceful Protest

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the right to peaceful protest is “absolutely guaranteed” under the Constitution [citation:image]. This right is rooted in Article 19(1)(b), which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Supreme Court has held that holding peaceful demonstrations to air grievances is a fundamental right traceable to Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution . It is a fundamental right to raise slogans, albeit in a peaceful and orderly manner, without using offensive language .

The right to assembly can be restricted in the interests of public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India, but such restrictions must be reasonable and proportionate . As the Supreme Court observed in the present case, “Merely because there is agitation, it does not mean there should be a lathi charge. Discipline is integral to the democratic process” [citation:image].

2. The Proportionality of Force

The petition challenging the use of pellet guns argues that such weapons fail the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness [citation:image]. This invokes the doctrine of proportionality, a cornerstone of constitutional law, which holds that state action must be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved.

The doctrine has been applied in several contexts, including the use of force by the state. In the context of protest, the state may use force to disperse an unlawful assembly or maintain public order, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed by the assembly. The use of pellet guns, which can cause serious injury and even blindness, has been challenged on the grounds that it is inherently disproportionate and unreasonable.

3. The Need for Uniform Guidelines on Police Conduct

The Supreme Court indicated that it may consider framing “uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during large-scale demonstrations” [citation:image]. This is a significant development, as it suggests a move toward codifying the standards that should govern police behaviour during protests across the country. The Court observed that “Self-evolved discipline is needed which is essential to democratic process” [citation:image].

The Court also directed the preservation of all footage and records for a thorough investigation, indicating that allegations of police excess should be independently examined and not dismissed merely because they occur in the context of a protest [citation:image].

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

Article 19(1)(b): The Right to Peaceful Assembly

The right to peaceful assembly is a cornerstone of democratic participation. It allows individuals to come together, protest, and express collective opinions, provided it is done peacefully . As the Supreme Court has held, this right can be traced to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) & 19(1)(b) of the Constitution .

The Doctrine of Proportionality

The doctrine of proportionality requires that state action be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. In the context of protest, the state may use force to maintain public order, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed by the assembly. The petition challenging the use of pellet guns argues that such weapons fail this test.

The Principle of Necessity

The principle of necessity requires that the state use only the minimum force necessary to achieve its objective. The petition argues that the use of pellet guns is unnecessary for crowd control, as less harmful alternatives exist.

The Principle of Reasonableness

The principle of reasonableness requires that state action be reasonable and not arbitrary. The petition argues that the use of pellet guns is unreasonable, as it can cause serious injury and even blindness.

The Broader Context: Police Brutality and the Right to Protest

The Jantar Mantar crackdown exposed a broader pattern of police brutality against peaceful protesters in India. The incident was not isolated. In 2020, a mob entered the JNU campus and attacked students even as the police looked away. In 2019, personnel of the Delhi Police entered the library of Jamia Millia Islamia and beat up students during the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act [citation:image]. The crackdown on the CJP protests marked a new low in this trend, with images of batons with nails, slaps, and groping [citation:image].

The petition seeking a ban on pellet guns is part of a larger struggle to hold law enforcement accountable and protect the right to peaceful protest. It reflects a growing recognition that the use of excessive force against peaceful protesters undermines democratic legitimacy and erodes public trust in institutions.

Challenges

1. Balancing Rights and Order

The challenge for the judiciary is to strike a balance between protecting the right to peaceful protest and allowing the state to maintain law and order. While the Court has reaffirmed the right to protest, it must also acknowledge the legitimate concerns of law enforcement agencies.

2. Implementation of Guidelines

Even if the Court frames guidelines on police conduct, their implementation will depend on the willingness of law enforcement agencies to follow them. Ensuring compliance will require training, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms.

3. The Role of Political Leadership

The Court’s observations do not address the political leadership that authorised or condoned the police action. Holding political leadership accountable for police excess remains a challenge in a system where the executive has significant control over law enforcement.

Way Forward

1. Framing of Uniform Guidelines

The Court should proceed with framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during mass demonstrations. These guidelines should specify the conditions under which force may be used, the level of force that is permissible, and the procedures to be followed in the event of police excess.

2. Independent Oversight Mechanisms

There is a need for independent oversight mechanisms to investigate allegations of police brutality. The Court’s observation that “police excess committed, it should be independently examined” suggests a recognition of this need.

3. Training and Accountability

Law enforcement agencies must be trained in crowd management and the proportionate use of force. Accountability mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure that police personnel who engage in excess are held accountable.

4. Strengthening the Right to Protest

The right to peaceful protest must be protected through legal and institutional mechanisms. This includes ensuring that protest sites are safe, that protesters are not subjected to disproportionate force, and that the right to assemble is not unduly restricted.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s observations and the petition seeking a ban on pellet guns represent a critical moment in India’s constitutional journey. The Court’s reaffirmation that the right to peaceful protest is “absolutely guaranteed” and that “merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess” sends a clear message about the limits of state power [citation:image].

The petition challenging the use of pellet guns raises fundamental questions about the proportionality and reasonableness of state force. The use of such weapons, which can cause serious injury and even blindness, fails the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness [citation:image].

The Court’s willingness to consider framing uniform guidelines on police conduct is a welcome development that could provide much-needed clarity on the standards that should govern police behaviour during protests. As the CJI observed, “Self-evolved discipline is needed which is essential to democratic process” [citation:image]. The challenge now is to translate these observations into concrete guidelines and ensure their implementation.

The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the constitutional basis for the right to peaceful protest in India?

The right to peaceful protest is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably and without arms. The Supreme Court has held that holding peaceful demonstrations to air grievances is a fundamental right traceable to Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution .

Q2: What are the constitutional tests that state action must satisfy in the context of crowd control?

State action, including the use of force for crowd control, must satisfy the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. The force used must be necessary to achieve the objective, proportionate to the threat posed, and reasonable in the circumstances [citation:image].

Q3: What is the significance of the petition seeking a ban on pellet guns?

The petition argues that the use of pellet guns for crowd dispersal fails the constitutional tests of necessity, proportionality, and reasonableness. The petition seeks a ban on the use of wholly or partly metallic kinetic projectiles fired from pump-action or projectile-action guns for crowd control by law enforcement agencies. It argues that such weapons amount to an unconstitutional fetter on the right to freedom of assembly guaranteed under Article 19(1)(b) of the Constitution [citation:image].

Q4: What observations did the Supreme Court make regarding police conduct during the Jantar Mantar protests?

The Supreme Court observed that “the right to peaceful protest is absolutely guaranteed under the Constitution” and that “merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess.” The Court stated that “discipline is integral to the democratic process” and indicated that it may consider framing uniform guidelines to regulate police conduct during large-scale demonstrations [citation:image].

Q5: What is the doctrine of proportionality, and how does it apply to the use of force during protests?

The doctrine of proportionality requires that state action be proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. In the context of protests, the state may use force to maintain public order, but the force used must be proportionate to the threat posed by the assembly. The use of pellet guns, which can cause serious injury and even blindness, has been challenged on the grounds that it is inherently disproportionate and unreasonable. The Supreme Court’s observations that “merely because there is agitation cannot justify police excess” and that “discipline is integral to the democratic process” reflect the application of this doctrine [citation:image].

When Deepfakes Meet Defamation, Nitin Gadkari’s Legal Battle Against Social Media Giants

Why in News?

On July 27, 2026, the Bombay High Court allowed Union Minister Nitin Gadkari to initiate legal proceedings against Meta, Google, and X Corp over defamatory social media content, including AI-generated deepfakes, that falsely linked him to the Centre’s Ethanol Blending Programme . The minister identified at least 24 posts circulating online that he claims falsely portray him as responsible for the E20 policy’s implementation, and has sought damages of ₹11 crore along with directions for their removal. The case, which involves critical legal questions about jurisdictional procedures, the liability of social media platforms for user-generated content, and the emerging challenge of AI-generated deepfakes in public discourse, is poised to set significant legal precedents in India’s digital jurisprudence.

Introduction

The intersection of digital defamation, artificial intelligence, and political accountability has come into sharp focus with the Bombay High Court’s decision to grant Union Minister Nitin Gadkari leave to file a civil suit against major social media platforms . This case represents a significant moment in India’s legal response to the proliferation of AI-generated misinformation and the accountability of social media intermediaries.

The legal battle, which has garnered substantial attention, rests on a constitutional and procedural question: can a political figure leverage the courts to restrict speech and enforce accountability on platforms that host defamatory content? The case, centered on procedural requirements under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, underscores the complex terrain where free speech, defamation, and the evolving nature of digital content converge.

Background: The Ethanol Blending Programme and the Controversy

India’s Ethanol Blending Programme

The Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP) was introduced by the Centre in 2003 as a nationwide policy initiative for blending ethanol with petrol in phases. The implementation of 20% ethanol blending with petrol (E20) was achieved during the 2025-26 period, ahead of schedule [citation:image].

The programme has been positioned as a multi-pronged initiative:

• Reducing Import Dependence: India, a net importer of crude oil, aims to reduce its reliance on imported fossil fuels.

• Boosting Rural Economy: The policy provides a stable, alternative income source for farmers, with farmers earning approximately ₹45,000 crore from ethanol production .

• Environmental Benefits: Ethanol blending helps cut vehicular emissions .

The Allegations Against Gadkari

Despite his role as Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways since 2014, Gadkari has maintained he had no role in the E20 policy decisions, which fall under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas [citation:image]. However, social media users have circulated posts falsely portraying him as personally responsible for the E20 fuel programme .

The controversy is fueled by allegations of a conflict of interest. Political opponents have pointed to the business interests of Gadkari’s sons:

• Nikhil Gadkari is the managing director/promoter of Cian Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd.

• Sarang Gadkari runs Manas Agro Industries & Infrastructure Ltd, now a subsidiary of Cian.

Critics have alleged that these companies have benefited from the ethanol blending policy:

• Cian Agro’s revenue reportedly rose from ₹18 crore in June 2024 to about ₹723 crore a year later.

• Its share price allegedly rose from ₹37 in January 2025 to ₹638 (approximately 2000% increase) over a few months .

Key Legal Issues Raised

1. Defamation and Deepfakes

The suit, which seeks a permanent injunction against false online posts, identifies at least 24 posts that Gadkari claims are defamatory . The case is significant because it involves AI-generated deepfakes—synthetic media where a person’s likeness is digitally manipulated to create false representations .

The allegations of defamation are particularly serious in the context of a public figure. While public figures generally have a higher threshold to prove defamation in the United States, India’s defamation laws do not make such a distinction. This makes the case a test of how traditional legal standards apply to the new phenomenon of AI-generated content.

2. Intermediary Liability

The suit names Meta, Google, and X Corp as defendants, raising questions about the liability of social media platforms for user-generated content . Under Indian law, notably the Information Technology Act, 2000, and its associated rules, social media platforms are generally considered “intermediaries.” They are protected from liability for content posted by third parties, provided they comply with due diligence requirements.

However, Section 79 of the IT Act states that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by it, provided that the intermediary does not initiate the transmission, select the receiver, or select/modify the information contained in the transmission. This safe harbour is conditional upon the intermediary observing “due diligence” and acting “expeditiously” to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or a court order. This case will test the limits of this immunity when it comes to allegedly defamatory content and deepfakes.

3. Jurisdictional Question: Clause XII of the Letters Patent

The petition was moved under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, which requires the High Court’s permission when a part of the cause of action arises outside the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction [citation:image]. The High Court’s decision to grant leave to file a substantive civil suit is a significant procedural ruling.

Courts consider several factors under Clause XII:

• Preventing Multiplicity of Litigation: Courts grant leave to avoid multiple lawsuits in different jurisdictions .

• Discretionary Power: Granting leave is a discretionary power, exercised judiciously to balance the interests of justice.

4. Freedom of Speech and Expression

The case raises fundamental questions about the limits of free speech. In India, freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2), including for defamation. The right to free speech is not absolute, and the case tests the boundaries of permissible speech, especially in the context of social media.

Government Response and Public Debate

Minister’s Defence

Gadkari has defended the ethanol policy, stating that consumers unhappy with E20 fuel can opt for pure petrol, which is available at a higher price . He acknowledged that ethanol-blended fuel causes a “minor” reduction in mileage due to its lower calorific value, but argued that the impact is noticeable mainly at higher speeds.

Consumer Concerns

Despite the government’s defence, concerns about the ethanol policy have been raised by consumers and critics:

• Reduced Mileage: Users report a 6-8% drop in mileage in 2- and 4-wheelers .

• Engine Issues: Older vehicles may not be designed for higher ethanol blends, leading to reports of corrosion, damage to fuel lines, and rough starts .

• Cost vs. Benefit: Even if the per-litre price is stable, the loss in mileage and increased maintenance may negate any savings .

Constitutional and Governance Dimensions

Ministerial Accountability

The case raises questions about ministerial accountability and the division of responsibilities. As the Union Minister for Road Transport and Highways, Gadkari’s public advocacy for a policy that falls under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas is a significant governance issue.

This raises several questions:

• Policy Domain: Should a minister publicly defend policies outside his direct portfolio?

• Conflict of Interest: Should there be greater transparency about potential conflicts of interest when policymakers or their immediate family members have business interests connected to sectors affected by government policy?

• Accountability: Should every ministry remain accountable for its own decisions, with clear responsibility and public transparency?

Digital Rights and Regulation

The case has also ignited a debate about digital rights and regulation. The proliferation of deepfakes and AI-generated content has outpaced the legal frameworks designed to address it. Cases like this will shape India’s approach to regulating social media platforms, protecting citizens from online defamation, and balancing free speech with accountability.

Challenges

1. Jurisdictional Hurdles

The case was filed under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, a procedural requirement necessitated because a part of the cause of action arose outside the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This highlights the complexity of legal action against multinational tech companies.

2. Intermediary Liability

India’s current legal framework provides safe harbour to intermediaries, making it difficult to hold platforms liable for content posted by users. The case may push for stricter accountability for platforms, especially in cases involving deepfakes and other AI-generated content.

3. Deepfakes and Technology

The case underscores the challenge of addressing deepfakes. These synthetic media are difficult to detect, and their creation and proliferation are outpacing the development of legal and technological solutions.

4. Free Speech vs. Defamation

The case raises the difficult question of balancing the right to freedom of speech and expression with the right to protect one’s reputation. As a public figure, Gadkari’s defamation claim is complex, given the political nature of the allegations and the public interest in discussing government policies.

Way Forward

1. Strengthening Laws Against Deepfakes

India needs comprehensive legislation to address the challenges of deepfakes and other AI-generated content. This includes clear definitions, robust enforcement mechanisms, and effective remedies for victims.

2. Clarifying Intermediary Liability

There is a need for greater clarity on the liability of social media platforms for user-generated content. The “safe harbour” provision should be strengthened to ensure that platforms act responsibly and take down harmful content expeditiously.

3. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability

The case highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability in government policy-making. Clear guidelines on ministerial roles and potential conflicts of interest can help prevent such controversies.

4. Promoting Digital Literacy

Public awareness campaigns about the dangers of deepfakes and AI-generated misinformation can help citizens critically evaluate the content they see online.

Conclusion

The Nitin Gadkari defamation case against Meta, Google, and X Corp is a landmark legal battle that will significantly influence India’s response to online defamation and the challenge of deepfakes. The Bombay High Court’s decision to allow the suit underscores the growing recognition that legal frameworks must evolve to address the complexities of the digital age.

The case highlights the tension between protecting free speech and holding individuals and platforms accountable for defamatory content. As the case progresses, it will set important precedents for how Indian law handles defamation in the digital age and the liability of social media platforms for user-generated content.

The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the Ethanol Blending Programme, and why has it become controversial?

The Ethanol Blending Programme (EBP) is a policy initiative aimed at blending ethanol with petrol to reduce India’s dependence on imported crude oil, boost the domestic biofuel economy, and cut vehicular emissions. It has become controversial due to concerns about reduced vehicle mileage, engine compatibility issues, and allegations of a conflict of interest involving Union Minister Nitin Gadkari’s family business interests in ethanol-producing companies.

Q2: What is the significance of Clause XII of the Letters Patent in this case?

Clause XII of the Letters Patent requires the High Court’s permission when a part of the cause of action arises outside the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction. The Bombay High Court’s decision to grant leave was a procedural ruling allowing Gadkari to file a civil suit against social media platforms, despite some aspects of the case occurring outside its jurisdiction. It is a discretionary power aimed at preventing the multiplicity of litigation and ensuring that related issues are addressed in a single legal forum.

Q3: What is the legal framework governing intermediary liability in India?

Under Indian law, social media platforms are considered “intermediaries” under the Information Technology Act, 2000. Section 79 of the Act provides them with “safe harbour” protection from liability for third-party content, provided they comply with due diligence requirements and act expeditiously to remove unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or a court order. This case tests the limits of this immunity.

Q4: What are deepfakes, and why do they pose a legal challenge?

Deepfakes are synthetic media, often AI-generated, where a person’s likeness is digitally manipulated to create false representations. They pose a legal challenge because they blur the line between fact and fiction and are difficult to detect. Traditional laws on defamation and privacy, which were developed in a pre-digital era, struggle to keep pace with the rapid evolution of this technology.

Q5: What are the key constitutional and governance issues raised by this case?

The case raises significant constitutional and governance issues, including: (1) the tension between the right to freedom of speech and expression and the right to protect one’s reputation; (2) questions about ministerial accountability and the division of responsibilities among ministries; (3) concerns about conflicts of interest involving policymakers and their families; and (4) the need for regulatory frameworks to address the challenges of AI-generated content and online defamation.

The Vanishing Cut List: When India’s Film Censor Board Goes Dark

Why in News?

The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), India’s statutory film certification body, has quietly removed public access to the “cut list” section of its website, displaying an “under maintenance” message for several days . This move has eliminated the only public record of cuts and modifications ordered by the censor board for films currently showing in theatres or scheduled for release . The development comes at a time when the CBFC’s institutional norms have weakened significantly, with allegations of delayed certification and politically motivated censorship mounting against the board .

Introduction

For decades, the CBFC’s cut lists have served as a crucial public record of changes ordered to films, enabling citizens, filmmakers, and researchers to track the growing politicisation of film censorship . The records revealed a pattern of suppression against films depicting casteism, religious prejudice, themes that could affect India’s foreign relations, and anti-establishment content . Now, this transparency mechanism has been disabled, raising serious questions about accountability and institutional integrity.

The move comes at a time when the CBFC’s functioning itself is under scrutiny. According to an Indian Express investigation, the censor board has not met as a full body in six years, has not published an annual report in eight years, and its members’ tenure expired five years ago . The 13-member board, legally mandated to meet quarterly and file annual reports, now runs solely at the “discretion” of its chairperson, raising questions about the very legality of its certification decisions .

Background: The CBFC and Its Mandate

What is the CBFC?

The Central Board of Film Certification is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 . Its primary function is to certify films for public exhibition in India, operating through a four-tier rating system: U (unrestricted), UA (parental guidance), A (adults only), and S (restricted to specialised audiences) . The board is required by law to function as a 13-member body meeting every quarter and filing annual reports .

The Cut List: A Transparency Tool

The cut list, formally known as “Part II of the certificate,” is a tabulated record of cuts, modifications, and additions ordered by the censor board for each film . This includes dialogue muting, scene deletions, title changes, and the addition of disclaimers. These lists have long been accessible on the CBFC’s website and served as the only public record of censorship decisions in India.

In 2023, The Hindu demonstrated the importance of this data by using a code to retrieve hundreds of cut lists, revealing how CBFC cuts reflect political and ideological trends . Without this data, systematic analysis of censorship patterns becomes impossible.

Key Issues Raised

1. The Disappearance of the Cut List

The cut list section of the CBFC website has been displaying “under maintenance” for several days, effectively blocking public access . This comes after the censor board made it impossible to automatically fetch cut lists from its website, adding another layer of opacity .

The CBFC chairperson Shashi Shekhar Vempati’s office stated that “various portions of the CBFC e-Cinemaplan system are currently undergoing long-overdue technical maintenance to improve citizen centricity, user experience, and to consistently implement various mandatory rules and compliances within the online workflow” . However, the timing and nature of the outage have raised concerns, especially given the board’s history of opaque functioning.

2. The Unaccountable “One-Man” Board

An Indian Express investigation revealed that the CBFC’s institutional norms have broken down significantly :

• No meetings in six years: The 13-member board last met six years ago, despite legal requirements to meet quarterly .

• No annual reports in eight years: The last available report on the CBFC’s website is from 2017 .

• Expired tenure: The board appointed in 2017 had a three-year term ending in 2020, with no renewals since then .

• Questionable legality: The CBFC now runs solely at the “pleasure” of its chairperson, Prasoon Joshi, with members stating there is “no work for any of them” and that their ID cards have expired .

The investigation led to the question: has India’s film certification process quietly slipped into an era of unaccountable, one-man ‘Censorship Raj’? 

3. Politicisation of Censorship

The CBFC’s cuts have increasingly reflected political bias, targeting films that question power, caste, or faith . Notable cases include:

• Udta Punjab: Initially required 89 cuts before judicial intervention significantly reduced them .

• Padmaavat: Required 26 cuts and a title change to release .

• Punjab 95 and Phule: Films that dared to question established narratives faced the censors’ scissors .

• Recent cases: Multiple High Courts have criticised the CBFC for delaying certification for films like Emergency, Jana Nayagan, and Satluj .

4. The Constitutional Tension

The censorship debate goes to the heart of constitutional freedoms. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including artistic expression. Yet the Cinematograph Act, 1952, allows pre-censorship of films—a restriction permitted under Article 19(2) only on grounds of public order, decency, morality, and sovereignty.

The tension manifests when the CBFC, as an administrative body, imposes cuts on films already given an “A” (adults only) certificate. Critics argue that once a film is certified for adult audiences, the state has no business deciding what a consenting adult can watch—transforming certification into censorship .

Timeline of Events

Institutional and Governance Dimensions

Institutional Failure

The CBFC’s breakdown is a classic case of institutional atrophy. The non-renewal of board members, the absence of meetings, and the failure to publish annual reports constitute a violation of statutory obligations. Yet the board continues to function—certifying films, ordering cuts, and exercising significant power over cultural expression—without the institutional legitimacy required by law.

This creates a dangerous precedent: a body that violates its own governing statutes cannot legitimately claim the authority to impose restrictions on constitutional rights.

Lack of Judicial Oversight

Judicial intervention has been the primary check on CBFC overreach. The Bombay High Court’s intervention in Udta Punjab was a landmark moment, observing that the role of the CBFC is to certify films, not to act as a moral guardian . Yet such interventions are reactive and case-specific, not structural. The removal of the cut list is an administrative decision, not a judicial one, and no court has yet been asked to rule on its legality.

The “Maintenance” Excuse

The CBFC’s claim of “technical maintenance” raises several red flags. If the system is indeed being upgraded, a clear timeline and public notification should have been issued. In the absence of these, the “maintenance” excuse appears as a cover for eliminating transparency—a pattern consistent with the board’s broader decline.

Challenges

1. Restoring Institutional Legitimacy

The first challenge is restoring the CBFC’s institutional legitimacy. This requires appointing a full board in accordance with statutory requirements, holding regular meetings, and publishing annual reports.

2. Restoring Transparency

The cut list must be restored as a publicly accessible record. The board should also consider releasing historical cut lists in machine-readable format to enable systemic analysis and public oversight.

3. Resolving the Certification vs. Censorship Debate

The debate over whether the CBFC should certify or censor is unlikely to be resolved quickly. However, a clear line should be drawn: once a film receives an “A” certificate, no content-based cuts should be mandated. The assumption that adults are incapable of making their own viewing choices is paternalistic and inconsistent with constitutional freedoms .

4. Judicial Engagement

Courts need to examine the systemic issues within the CBFC, not just individual cases. The Bombay High Court’s intervention in Udta Punjab was a start, but more structural scrutiny is needed. The removal of the cut list could itself become a subject of judicial review.

Way Forward

1. Strengthen the Board’s Independence

The CBFC’s independence must be restored. The government should allow the board to function as a statutory body, without political interference in its certification decisions.

2. Enforce Transparency

The cut list must be restored and maintained as a public record. The CBFC should also consider publishing its certification decisions with explanations, similar to the practice followed by the Central Information Commission.

3. Reform the Cinematograph Act

The Cinematograph Act, 1952, predates the digital age and its assumptions about what constitutes “offensive” content are outdated. A comprehensive review of the Act, with public consultation, is overdue.

4. Adopt a Self-Regulatory Model

The television industry has adopted a self-regulatory model for content certification. A similar model could be considered for films, with the CBFC retaining oversight but delegating day-to-day certification to independent bodies.

Conclusion

The removal of the CBFC’s cut list from public view is not a technical glitch. It is a symptom of a deeper institutional rot—a censor board that has ceased to function as a board and has lost its statutory legitimacy. In a democracy, censorship must be transparent, accountable, and based on clear legal standards. The CBFC, as it currently operates, meets none of these requirements.

The question is no longer about individual films or cuts. It is about whether India’s film certification process will continue to operate in the shadows, or whether the democratic principles of transparency and accountability will be restored. The canary is singing—and it would be wise to listen.

5 UPSC-Style Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), and what is its statutory mandate?

The CBFC is a statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, established under the Cinematograph Act, 1952. Its primary function is to certify films for public exhibition in India, operating through a four-tier rating system. The board is legally required to function as a 13-member body meeting every quarter and filing annual reports .

Q2: What is the “cut list,” and why is its removal significant?

The cut list, formally known as “Part II of the certificate,” is a tabulated record of cuts, modifications, and additions ordered by the censor board for each film. It is the only public record of censorship decisions in India. Its removal eliminates public transparency on what changes the CBFC has ordered, making it impossible to track censorship patterns and politicisation trends .

Q3: What are the key findings of the Indian Express investigation into the CBFC’s functioning?

The investigation revealed that the CBFC has not met as a full body in six years, has not published an annual report in eight years, and its members’ tenure expired five years ago. The 13-member board now runs solely at the discretion of its chairperson, raising questions about the legality of its certification decisions .

Q4: How does film censorship in India raise constitutional issues?

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including artistic expression. The Cinematograph Act allows pre-censorship of films as a restriction permitted under Article 19(2) on grounds of public order, decency, morality, and sovereignty. Critics argue that once a film receives an “A” (adults only) certificate, the state has no business deciding what adults can watch—transforming certification into censorship .

Q5: What reforms are needed to address the CBFC’s institutional failures?

Key reforms include: appointing a full board in accordance with statutory requirements; holding regular meetings and publishing annual reports; restoring public access to cut lists; considering legislative reform of the Cinematograph Act; and strengthening judicial oversight of censorship decisions. A self-regulatory model, similar to television content regulation, could also be considered .