1. Nominations to J&K Assembly Outside Elected Government’s Authority: Centre’s Stand What’s the News? The Union Home Ministry has told the Jammu & Kashmir High Court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of the Union Territory can appoint five members to the Legislative Assembly without needing the “aid and advice” of the elected council of ministers. The Centre clarified that the LG is a distinct constitutional authority and not subordinate to the elected government. Key Points for UPSC (Mains & Prelims) Legal Framework Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (amended in 2023) authorises the LG to nominate: Two members from the Kashmiri migrant community (including one woman). One member representing refugees from Pakistan-Occupied Jammu & Kashmir (PoJK). Two women members if women’s representation in the House is inadequate. Relevant provisions: Sections 15, 15A, and 158 — these powers are exercised independently by the LG. Timing of Nominations Reports suggest the LG is nominating these members before the Assembly is constituted, creating political debate over its possible effect on government formation. Nominated MLAs will have equal rights and voting powers as elected members. Impact on House Composition With five nominated members, the total strength of the Assembly would rise to 95 seats. The majority mark for forming the government would increase from 46 to 48 seats. Judicial Challenge A PIL filed by Congress leader Ravinder Kumar Sharma contests the 2023 amendment. The J&K High Court has sought the Centre’s response. Comparative Context Similar provisions exist in Puducherry, where the LG nominates members under the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963, granting them full legislative powers. Globally, appointed members in legislatures are rare but exist in systems like Singapore’s Nominated MPs. Global & Constitutional Perspective While there is no direct linkage with international treaties, the arrangement relates to democratic representation principles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Strengthens the Centre’s role in J&K’s governance but may invite debate on the balance between appointed and elected representatives. International observers may question the representational autonomy in a sensitive region like J&K. 2. Language Lessons: Balancing Mother Tongue and Multilingual Education in India What’s the News? The debate around the three-language formula under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has gained momentum, with a renewed push for teaching in mother tongues during early schooling, while also ensuring access to English for global competitiveness. The discussion reflects both cultural preservation goals and concerns over linguistic diversity in a multilingual country like India. Key Points for UPSC (Mains & Prelims) NEP 2020 Provisions Medium of Instruction: Wherever possible, teaching should be in the home language, mother tongue, or local language until at least Class 5, and preferably up to Class 8. Curriculum Design: SCERTs and NCERT are tasked with preparing multilingual learning material. Textbook Availability: High-quality textbooks will be provided in home languages, and teachers are encouraged to adopt a bilingual approach to enhance comprehension. Three-Language Formula: Flexible adoption is promoted, with states choosing suitable combinations. Current Landscape As per UDISE+ 2020–21, classroom instruction for Grades 1–5 is being conducted in 28 languages across India. JEE and NEET exams are now offered in 13 Indian languages. DIKSHA Portal hosts textbooks and teaching resources in 33 Indian languages, including Indian Sign Language. AICTE guidelines allow technical courses in local languages; 19 institutions across 10 states have already implemented this. AICTE Automation AI Tool translates English-based online courses into 11 Indian languages. Constitutional & Legal Backing Article 29(1) – Protects the right of any section of citizens, including linguistic minorities, to preserve their language, script, and culture. Article 30(1) – Gives minorities the right to establish and manage educational institutions of their choice. Article 350A – Directs states to provide primary education in the child’s mother tongue where possible. Article 350B – Provides for a Special Officer for Linguistic Minorities to safeguard their rights. Right to Education Act, 2009 (Section 29(f)) – States that, where practicable, the medium of instruction should be the child’s mother tongue. Recent Developments & Global Context UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report highlights the importance of mother-tongue learning for better foundational literacy. International Models: South Africa and Philippines follow multilingual policies to strengthen local culture while enabling broader communication. Technology Integration: AI-driven translation and e-learning platforms are making multilingual education more accessible in India. Cultural & Educational Significance of Mother Tongue The mother tongue—also called the native language—is the first language a person learns at home. It shapes early thinking, cultural identity, and community connection, making it vital for emotional and intellectual development. 3. Signing Off on an Entrenched Symbol of Stigma: Renaming Caste-Linked Colonies in India What’s the News? Several state governments in India are initiating steps to remove the term “colony” from the names of settlements historically inhabited by marginalised communities, such as “Harijan Colony”, “SC Colony”, or similar nomenclature. These names, often given during colonial or early post-independence periods, carry casteist undertones and reinforce social stigma. The move is being positioned as a symbolic but important step towards dignity, equality, and constitutional morality. Background & Context Many such names originated during colonial administration, where land parcels for marginalised groups were officially designated and recorded as separate “colonies”. Over time, these terms began to serve as markers of social identity, reinforcing segregation and perpetuating untouchability in a modern context. Similar to renaming roads or cities with colonial associations, this initiative focuses on removing discriminatory identifiers from public spaces. Constitutional & Legal Framework Fundamental Rights Article 17 – Abolition of untouchability in all its forms. Article 21 – Right to life with dignity; names that stigmatise violate this principle. Article 14 – Equality before the law; symbolic equality is also part of constitutional interpretation. Judicial Interpretations The Supreme Court has emphasised that dignity is intrinsic to the right to life (e.g., Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India). Courts have recognised that symbols, terms, and public nomenclature can perpetuate discrimination, even without direct physical acts of untouchability. Policy Mechanism State governments are directing urban local bodies, gram panchayats, and district administrations to identify such names and suggest neutral or culturally respectful alternatives. Consultation with residents is a key principle, ensuring inclusivity and community participation. Recent Developments in India Multiple states (e.g., Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) have begun phased renaming drives. In some areas, names have been changed to reflect local heroes, geographical features, or cultural symbols instead of caste identity. Moves are often part of larger social justice programmes alongside infrastructure upgrades. Global Comparisons Canada – Renamed towns, landmarks, and schools carrying derogatory names for Indigenous peoples. New Zealand – Restored Māori names to places previously renamed by colonial authorities. South Africa – Post-apartheid renaming of streets, cities, and institutions to remove racial segregation references. Relevant International Conventions ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) – Calls on states to take measures against discrimination in all its forms, including symbolic and linguistic. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007) – Recognises the right of communities to maintain and promote their cultural heritage, free from imposed derogatory labels. UPSC Perspective: Social Justice, Governance & Ethics Implications for India Social Impact: Reduces visible caste markers in housing, contributing to the fight against entrenched social discrimination. Governance Impact: Shows responsiveness to marginalised communities, but also requires effective public consultation to avoid backlash. Symbolic vs Structural Change: While renaming is symbolic, it must be paired with tangible socio-economic measures to ensure lasting impact. Challenges Resistance from those claiming “heritage preservation” or fearing loss of administrative identity in official records. Bureaucratic Complexity – Updating land records, postal addresses, voter lists, and official documents. Political Sensitivities – Renaming can become politicised, especially before elections. Opportunities Can be part of urban renewal and rural development projects. Potential to integrate local history and culture in place names, fostering regional pride. Supports India’s constitutional vision of an egalitarian society. The ECI’s Lack of Transparency is Worrying What’s the News? Concerns have been growing over the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) reluctance to share detailed voter turnout data, especially Form 17C records, which contain polling station-level information. Critics argue that such delays undermine electoral transparency and public trust in the democratic process. Background: Role & Structure of ECI The ECI is a constitutional body established to ensure free, fair, and credible elections in India. Part XV of the Constitution (Articles 324–329) deals with elections, granting the ECI the superintendence, direction, and control over electoral processes. Initially a single-member body, it became multi-member after the Election Commissioner Amendment Act, 1989. Currently consists of one Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) and two Election Commissioners (ECs). Members are appointed by the President, based on recommendations from the Prime Minister. Concerns Over Transparency Delayed Data Release: Form 17C voter turnout data is not being promptly released. Lack of Granularity: Polling station-level data, crucial for independent verification, is missing. Criticism: Political parties, civil society groups, and transparency advocates have flagged the lack of openness. Impact on Trust: Restricting data access raises doubts about electoral fairness. Judicial & Global Context Supreme Court is hearing petitions seeking greater data transparency from the ECI. Global Practices: UK & Australia release constituency-level voter data quickly. Estonia uses blockchain-based systems for real-time vote counting. Need for Independent Appointments Critics argue that the appointment process for ECs is too dependent on the Executive. Recommendations for Reform: Justice Tarkunde Committee (1975), Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990), and Law Commission (2015) — appointment should be done by a collegium including the Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007) suggested adding the Law Minister and Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha to this panel. Relevant International Standards ICCPR Article 25 – Citizens have the right to genuine periodic elections with transparency and accountability. Providing Justice for Juveniles What’s in the News? A continuing debate surrounds the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, especially its provision that allows juveniles aged 16–18 to be tried as adults for heinous crimes. Supporters see it as a deterrent, while critics, including child rights groups, worry that it prioritises punishment over rehabilitation. Background & Evolution of the Law The JJ Act, 2015 replaced the JJ Act, 2000 and, for the first time, allowed juveniles in the 16–18 age group to face adult trials for heinous offences. The change was largely triggered by public outrage after the 2012 Nirbhaya case. The Act classifies offences into: Petty offences Serious offences Heinous offences Key Provisions for Trying Juveniles as Adults Section 15: In cases of heinous offences involving 16–18-year-olds, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) must conduct a preliminary assessment to evaluate: Mental and physical capacity to commit the offence Ability to understand consequences Circumstances under which the offence occurred Section 18(3): If the JJB concludes that the juvenile should be tried as an adult, the case is transferred to the Children’s Court. Role and Responsibilities of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) Conducts the preliminary assessment and provides copies of the order to the child, family, and legal counsel. Must have at least one member trained in child psychology/psychiatry; if not, experts must be consulted. The child is entitled to free legal aid through the District Legal Services Authority. Must consider the Social Investigation Report (SIR) or Social Background Report (SBR), prepared by probation officers, child welfare officers, or social workers. Experts assisting the JJB must be trained specifically for Section 15 assessments. Current Concerns & Implementation Challenges The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) is legally required to monitor proper enforcement, but gaps persist. Some JJBs and Children’s Courts fail to fully apply the principles of rehabilitation and restorative justice. Lack of trained experts and inconsistent use of SIR/SBR affects fairness. The process risks criminalising vulnerable youth rather than focusing on reform. Recent Trends & Global Context NCRB data shows rising juvenile involvement in cybercrime and sexual offences. UNICEF promotes a restorative justice approach focused on reintegration. Global best practices: Norway invests heavily in reintegration programs, achieving low reoffending rates. Other countries focus more on counselling and community service rather than incarceration for young offenders. Relevant Conventions & Treaties UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – prioritises rehabilitation over punishment. Beijing Rules (1985) – UN guidelines for juvenile justice administration. Special Summary Revision (SSR) of Bihar’s Electoral Rolls & Its Political Ripple Effects About the Issue The Special Summary Revision (SSR) of Bihar’s electoral rolls for 2025 has revealed notable changes in the voter base due to large-scale outmigration from the state. Economic hardship, lack of industrialisation, and seasonal labour demand in other states have led to demographic shifts that could significantly influence the state’s electoral dynamics. Key Points for UPSC (Prelims & Mains) High Outmigration:Bihar has one of the highest net migration rates in India, with lakhs moving annually to states like Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, Delhi, and Kerala for work. Changing Constituency Profiles:Reduced resident voter counts in certain constituencies may alter political mobilisation strategies and even future delimitation outcomes. Electoral Commission’s Role: SSR aims to update voter lists annually. Digitisation of electoral rolls to remove duplicates and allow easier verification for migrant voters. Link to Labour Economy:Migrant-heavy districts are often also remittance-dependent, which influences local economic policies. Recent Developments Digitisation Drive:The Election Commission is integrating National Voters' Services Portal (NVSP) with Aadhaar authentication to reduce duplication. Migration-Politics Link: Similar migration-linked political impacts seen in Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, and Jharkhand. International examples include: Philippines – Overseas Filipinos’ remittances and political clout. Mexico – Diaspora voting influencing presidential elections. Global & Legal Context International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – Article 25 guarantees equal participation in public affairs without unreasonable restrictions. UN Migrant Workers Convention (1990) – Recognises the rights of migrant workers, including political participation in home countries. India–ASEAN Trade Talks: Reviewing AITIGA Amid Rising Trade Deficit and Strategic Interests What’s the News? Between August 11 and 14, 2025, India and ASEAN officials are engaged in a fresh round of negotiations in New Delhi to review the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement (AITIGA). The review comes at a crucial time when India’s trade deficit with ASEAN has widened significantly, raising concerns over trade imbalances and the need for a more equitable trade framework. Key Points for UPSC (Prelims & Mains) AITIGA Background: Signed in 2009, the agreement aims to facilitate free flow of goods between India and the ten ASEAN member countries. The current review is meant to address issues that have emerged over the last decade, especially the growing trade deficit in India’s trade balance. Trade Figures (2024–25): India’s Exports to ASEAN: Approx. $39 billion Imports from ASEAN: Approx. $84.2 billion Trade Deficit: Around $45.2 billion, highlighting an imbalance. Trade Concerns: India's worry about cheaper Chinese products entering India through ASEAN countries due to ASEAN’s membership in RCEP, from which India withdrew in 2019. Limited market access for some Indian products, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. Strategic Importance of ASEAN for India: ASEAN constitutes the third-largest market globally and India’s fourth-largest trading partner. It is central to India’s Act East Policy and Indo-Pacific strategy, serving as a key bridge to East and Southeast Asia. Connectivity projects such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand (IMT) Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Project link India’s North East to ASEAN markets, boosting regional integration. Broader ASEAN Profile (Prelims Focus) Members: 10 countries including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Myanmar, Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Brunei. Founded: August 8, 1967, via the Bangkok Declaration. Population & Economy: Around 662 million people, GDP about $3.2 trillion (2022). Core Principles: Sovereignty respect, non-interference, peaceful dispute resolution, and mutual cooperation. Institutional Structure: ASEAN Summit (annual), ASEAN Coordinating Council, ASEAN Regional Forum, Secretariat based in Jakarta. India–ASEAN Cooperation Beyond Trade Economic Cooperation: FTA in goods, with ongoing discussions on services and investments. ASEAN-India Business Council promotes private sector engagement. Connectivity: Road, rail, and port connectivity initiatives aim to integrate India’s North East with Southeast Asia, promoting trade and people-to-people contact. Security & Defence: Joint military exercises and maritime cooperation contribute to regional security and balance China’s growing influence. Cooperation under India’s SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) vision. Cultural & Educational Links: Student exchange programmes, think tanks, and cultural festivals foster stronger ties. ASEAN-India Centre for research and policy dialogue. Funding Mechanisms: ASEAN-India Cooperation Fund, Science & Technology Development Fund, Green Fund for environmental projects.
