27 December 2025

• The Supreme Court directed the Centre to frame a uniform definition of the Aravalli Range, stretching ~700 km across Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
• Multiple expert committees (FSI, GSI, SoI, States) failed for over a year to reach consensus.
• After an SC warning of contempt proceedings (August 2025), focus shifted from defining the range to balancing ecology with mining, aligned with the National Mineral Policy, 2019.
• Controversy arose as the final approach is seen as protecting only hills above 100 m, potentially opening most of the range to mining.
• The Environment Ministry assured no new mining licences until a Management Plan for Sustainable Mining (MPSM) is prepared by ICFRE.

Key Points

• Aravallis are ancient, highly eroded fold mountains; ecological role exceeds visible hill height.
• Earlier FSI (2010) criteria relied on slope, not elevation (Rajasthan).
• Experts agreed slope/elevation alone are insufficient due to terrain variability.
• Not all Aravalli areas are hilly; not all hills in the region are Aravalli.
• Committee highlighted critical mineral potential and need for “sustainable exploitation”.

Static Linkages

• Oldest fold mountain system; barrier against desertification (NCERT).
• Supports groundwater recharge and biodiversity.
• Mining regulated under EPA 1986, FCA 1980, MMDR Act 1957.
• National Mineral Policy, 2019: self-reliance in minerals with sustainability.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Recognises strategic need for critical minerals.
  • Emphasis on a region-wide sustainable mining plan.
• Concerns
  • Height-based cut-off may exclude ecologically vital landscapes.
  • Risks to groundwater, biodiversity, and desertification control.
  • Dilution of precautionary principle in environmental governance.

Way Forward

• Use a landscape-based definition (geology + ecology + hydrology).
• Finalise MPSM with independent scientific review.
• Strengthen cumulative impact assessments.
• Ensure Centre–State coordination and public transparency.

THAR DESERT MAY REACH DELHI

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Sachin Pilot has flagged ecological risks from the Centre’s redefinition of the Aravalli hills.
• The issue arises from a committee under the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) whose recommendations were accepted by the Supreme Court of India on November 20.
• New definition: Aravalli hill = landform with ≥100 m elevation above local relief.
• Opposition claims this could remove protection from ~90% of the range; the Union government denies dilution.

Key Points

• Aravallis act as a barrier to Thar Desert expansion, reduce air pollution, recharge groundwater, and support biodiversity.
• Cited FSI data: ~1.18 lakh hills below 100 m;~1,048 above 100 m → large areas may fall outside protection.
• Concerns over continued illegal mining despite long-standing restrictions.
• Government maintains safeguards via permissions and regulatory oversight.

Static Linkages

• One of the oldest fold mountain systems (NCERT).
• Extends across Gujarat–Rajasthan–Haryana– Delhi.
• Judicial interventions (e.g., M.C. Mehta cases) have restricted mining.
• Forest Survey of India functions under MoEFCC.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Uniform definition may improve regulatory clarity and planning.
• Concerns:
  • Potential de-notification of ecologically sensitive areas.
  • Weakening of the precautionary principle.
  • Higher risks of desertification and NCR air pollution.
• Stakeholders:
  • Local communities, State governments, NGOs, urban populations.

Way Forward

• Use a multi-criteria definition (elevation + geology + vegetation).
• Notify Aravallis as Ecologically Sensitive Areas under EPA, 1986.
• Strengthen enforcement using satellite monitoring (FSI/ISRO).
• Enhance Centre–State consultation; align with SDGs.

HEALTH CARE DOES NOT NEED PPP

• The Government of Andhra Pradesh has proposed setting up 10 new medical colleges under the Public–Private Partnership (PPP) mode, linked with district hospitals.
• The move follows a rapid expansion of medical colleges in the State over the last three years, taking the total to 17 government and 19 private medical colleges.
• The new proposal aligns with NITI Aayog’s push for PPP models in social sector infrastructure, including health and medical education.
• The policy has triggered protests and debate, with concerns over privatisation of public health assets, equity in access, and quality of education

Key Points

• 10 medical colleges proposed with 150 MBBS seats each, attached to 650-bed district hospitals.
• Estimated cost: ₹450 crore per college; total around ₹4,500 crore.
• Funding sources include NABARD loans, State funds, and Union government schemes.
• PPP framework:
  • 33-year lease (extendable to 66 years) of land and district hospital at nominal rates.
  • 25% viability gap funding by the State.
  • Mandatory free OPD services and 70% free IPD beds reimbursed at Ayushman Bharat package rates.
• Concerns raised about:
  • Loss of public control over district hospitals.
  • High-cost seats and reduced opportunities for poor and middle-class students.
  • Risks of faculty shortages and compromised quality of care.

Static Linkages

• Welfare State obligations and public provisioning of health services
• Fiscal federalism and off-budget borrowings via development banks
• Human capital formation and demographic dividend
• Role of regulation in mixed economy models
• Health as a merit good and issues of market failure

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Expands medical seats and infrastructure.
  • Mobilises private capital amid fiscal stress.
• Cons
  • Long leases dilute public accountability.
  • Risk of commercialisation and inequitable access.
  • Weak regulatory capacity of the State.
  • Fragmentation of public health system.

Way Forward

• Evidence-based need assessment for colleges and beds.
• Strengthen existing government medical colleges.
• Invest in faculty and bonded rural service.
• Limit PPP to non-core services.
• Improve regulatory and contract enforcement capacity.

• Delhi–NCR continues to face severe air pollution, with PM2.5 and toxic gases as key concerns.
• Vehicular emissions remain the dominant contributor, yet public discourse and litigation often target seasonal stubble burning.
• Judicial and policy debates have resurfaced on the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP), its limits in multi-source and transboundary air pollution, and the emerging shift towards a government- pays approach.

Key Points

• PPP mandates that the entity causing environmental damage must bear remediation costs.
• Recognised as part of Indian law by the Supreme Court in Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996).
• Statutory backing provided under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
• Air pollution involves multiple point and non- point sources, making precise cost allocation difficult.
• Seasonal stubble burning cannot be treated as the sole or dominant source of urban air pollution.
• Air pollution exhibits regional and transboundary characteristics, limiting unilateral liability frameworks.

Static Linkages

• Directive Principles mandate environmental protection by the State.
• Fundamental Duties emphasise citizen responsibility towards the environment.
• Environmental statutes empower the executive to regulate, penalise, and close polluting activities.
• Judicial preference for compensatory and restorative justice over strict economic internalisation of pollution costs. pasted

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Promotes accountability and deterrence.  
  • Supports sustainable development.
• Limitations
  • Source attribution in air pollution is complex.
  • Transboundary pollution weakens enforceability.
  • Judicial practice shifts burden to the State.
  • Limited discussion on individual environmental duties. pasted

Way Forward

• Apply proportional liability based on source apportionment.
• Strengthen inter-state and regional cooperation.
• Integrate health-cost valuation in pollution control.
• Balance state action with citizen responsibility.

GATES AND WINDOWS

Context of the News

• The Election Commission of India is conducting a Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls, based on the Bihar model.
• Aim: remove duplicate, outdated, deceased, or migrated entries.
• Phase I draft rolls show large-scale deletions, raising concerns about voter exclusion.
• Exercise is being carried out under tight timelines with heavy reliance on digital processes.

Key Points

• Burden of proving eligibility effectively shifts from the State to the voter.
• High speed + digital dependence increases exclusion risks.
• Old electoral rolls (2002–05), not machine- readable, cause mismatch-based deletions.
• Claims and objections work only for voters with awareness, time, and resources.
• Lack of public, disaggregated data on deletions weakens transparency.
• Overburdened field staff face pressure to meet targets, affecting quality.

Static Linkages

• Universal adult suffrage as the basis of Indian democracy.
• Electoral rolls as a continuous administrative responsibility of the State.
• Equality, non-arbitrariness, and due process under rule of law.
• Digital governance and the digital divide.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Roll purification improves electoral integrity.  
  • Periodic revision is legally necessary.
• Concerns
  • Treating voter exclusion as an acceptable risk undermines democracy.
  • Appeals-based correction favours socio- economically advantaged groups.
  • Single appeal window insufficient to fix systemic errors.
  • Potential creation of a two-tier electorate, affecting substantive equality.

Way Forward

• Reassert State responsibility for voter inclusion.
• Extend timelines and allow multiple correction windows.
• Publish anonymised, disaggregated deletion data.
• Combine digital tools with assisted offline mechanisms.
• Reduce workload pressure on field staff.