26 November 2025

• During the hearing on OBC reservation in Maharashtra local bodies, CJI Surya Kant remarked that society must not be “divided on caste lines.”
• Senior Advocate Indira Jaising highlighted the Union’s plan for a 2027 caste census, the first after 1931, to determine OBC population shares.
• 57 out of 288 local bodies exceeded the 50% reservation cap; yet SC allowed polls to avoid prolonged bureaucratic control.
• Elections in major bodies remain pending since 2022 due to the OBC quota litigation.

Key Points

• Caste Enumeration to be included in March 2027 Census.
• Triple Test Requirement for OBC political reservation:
  • Empirical data
  • Dedicated commission
  • 50% cap compliance
• SEC accepted breach of the 50% ceiling in 57 seats.
• SC: Elections may proceed; results in 57 seats subject to judicial outcome.
• Possible reference to a Constitution Bench to clarify “grey areas” around the 50% limit.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Restores democratic functioning in stalled local bodies.
  • Caste census enables data-driven reservation policy.
  • Balances OBC representation with equality before law.
• Cons
  • Caste census may deepen identity politics.
  • Slow surveys delay elections & compliance with triple test.
  • Uncertainty persists on strictness of the 50% ceiling in political reservations.
• Stakeholder Views
  • OBC Groups: Seek proportional representation.
  • Judiciary: Focus on constitutional balance.  
  • SEC: Must ensure legality + timely polls.

Way Forward

• Conduct caste enumeration with transparency.
• Ensure rapid, scientific OBC surveys.
• Clarify 50% cap via Constitution Bench.
• Maintain predictable election cycles through stronger SEC autonomy.
• Promote social cohesion alongside affirmative action.

$1T SUMMIT: TRUMP & MBS

• The 2025 Saudi–American Summit marked a reset of the 80-year-old partnership, originally built on the 1945 “oil-for-security” pact.
• Trump’s second-term visit revived ties strained by Yemen, Khashoggi, Gaza and China’s entry into Riyadh’s strategic space.
• A new defence pact designated Saudi Arabia as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA).

Key Points

• $142 billion U.S. defence sale + $270 billion investment deals.
• Saudi pledge to raise U.S. investments to $1 trillion.
• Agreements on civil nuclear collaboration and AI chips.
• Regional impact: Saudi assertiveness in Syria, Sudan, Iran talks; weakened Iranian influence.
• Oil market coordination strengthened through U.S. sanctions on Iran, Venezuela and Russian firms.

Implications for India

• Possible U.S.-approved defence access for Pakistan via Riyadh.
• Moderate but stable oil prices suit India’s energy strategy.
• Vision 2030 creates opportunities for Indian IT–AI sectors.
• China’s reduced strategic space may help India deepen ties.
• Boost for IMEC Corridor passing through Saudi Arabia.

Static Linkages

• MNNA perks: priority U.S. defence deliveries, financing, tech access (U.S. Title 22).
• India = 3rd-largest oil importer (Economic Survey).
• West Asian chokepoints vital for India’s energy security (NCERT Geography).
• India–Saudi Strategic Partnership Council (2019) as institutional linkage.

Critical Analysis

• Positives:
  • Counters China–Russia in West Asia; stabilises oil markets; opens tech cooperation; strengthens regional security.
• Negatives:
  • Pakistan may benefit militarily; oil may remain moderately high; human rights sidelined; Saudi autonomy makes policies less predictable.
• Challenges:
  • Fragile West Asian security order; unresolved Israel–Palestine issue; sanctions-driven oil volatility.

Way Forward

• Fast-track India–Saudi CEPA negotiations.
• Expand cooperation in AI, fintech, and digital infrastructure.
• Diversify oil procurement to reduce dependence.
• Strengthen maritime security presence in Arabian Sea–Red Sea.
• Monitor Pakistan–Saudi defence developments.

2013 LAW NEEDS SPINE IN 2025

• A Chandigarh college professor was dismissed after the ICC proved sexual harassment under the POSH Act (2013).
• The case sets a rare precedent but exposes major conceptual and procedural weaknesses in POSH, especially in academic institutions with strong power hierarchies.

Key Points

• POSH mandates ICCs and defines workplace sexual harassment.
• Gaps include lack of informed consent, emotional manipulation, and digital harassment recognition.
• Three-month filing limit restricts survivors.
• Terminology (“respondent”) reduces seriousness of offences.
• No clarity on inter-institutional complaints common in academia.
• ICCs often lack training in law, psychology, and digital evidence.
• “Malicious complaint” clause deters genuine victims.

Static Linkages

• Sexual Harassment as violation of Fundamental Rights: Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(g), 21 (as upheld in Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan, 1997).
• Vishaka Guidelines (1997) – Judicially mandated framework before POSH Act was passed.
• Principles of Natural Justice in quasi-judicial bodies like ICCs. Power asymmetry in institutional hierarchies (NCERT Sociology).
• Technology as a disruptor in legal processes (digital evidence rules under Indian Evidence Act, IT Act).
• Limitation principles under general legal procedures (Limitation Act).

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Statutory mechanism post-Vishaka  
  • Decentralised ICCs
  • Broad behavioural definitions
• Challenges
  • No recognition of manipulative consent or emotional coercion
  • Rigid 3-month limit
  • Weak digital evidence framework  
  • Institutional bias and procedural delays
  • Fear of “malicious complaint” action
• Stakeholders
  • Survivors: trauma, delay, retaliation  ICCs: lack of expertise
  • Institutions: reputational concerns  
  • Accused: need procedural fairness

Way Forward

• Amend POSH to cover informed consent, emotional abuse, digital harassment
• Extend/remove limitation period  Standardise ICC functioning with expert panels
• Create inter-institutional POSH mechanism
• National protocol for digital evidence
• Periodic audits and survivor support services

LOSING THE PLOT

• 24 Nov: Delhi Police deployed heavy security, including RAF, to manage a small peaceful protest at India Gate over AQI levels near 400.
• Pollution spans a continuous airshed from Islamabad to Bihar, not just Delhi.
• The government’s law-and-order approach raised concerns about sidelining public engagement.
• India’s winter smog exposes chronic national pollution, not a seasonal anomaly.
• Fragmented governance again highlighted the need for permanent airshed institutions.

Key Points

• North India’s smog results from industry, power, transport, construction, and agricultural emissions circulating across States.
• The CAQM, meant to coordinate regional action, remains under-utilised.
• AQLI data shows PM2.5 levels severely reducing life expectancy in the Indo-Gangetic Plain.
• Rising middle-class mobilisation signals growing political sensitivity.
• Current approach relies on short-term bans and quick fixes, not structural emission cuts.

Static Linkages

• Airshed concept: pollution governed by meteorology, not administrative borders.
• Article 21: Right to clean environment (SC jurisprudence).
• EPA 1986 & Air Act 1981: statutory basis for pollution control.
• Cooperative federalism essential for environmental governance.
• Polluter Pays & Precautionary Principles recognised by courts.
• Municipal role via 74th Amendment (urban environment, public health).

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Citizen protests enhance accountability and political pressure.
  • CAQM provides a regional coordination mechanism.
  • Greater data transparency via real-time monitoring.
• Challenges
  • Fragmented authority → weak enforcement.
  • Seasonal emergency mindset ignores year-round pollution.
  • Ineffective tech quick fixes divert resources.
  • Crop burning persists due to poor alternatives.
  • Inconsistent monitoring and limited public access to data.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Government prioritises public order.
  • Citizens demand health-centred governance.
  • Farmers need economic incentives, industry requires feasible compliance.

Way Forward

• Adopt airshed-level governance as core planning unit.
• Strengthen CAQM with mandatory sectoral plans and public compliance dashboards.
• Retire/retrofit polluting plants; enforce tighter emission norms.
• Support farmers with bio-decomposers, machinery subsidies, MSP-linked incentives.
• Expand EVs, public transport, congestion management.
• Establish permanent environmental institutions; prioritise dialogue over policing.

• Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan moved the Delhi High Court against Google and YouTube over AI-generated deepfake videos showing them in fabricated and explicit scenarios.
• They seek damages and protection against AI model training on such content.
• The case spotlights India’s legal gaps in regulating AI misuse and protecting identity.

Key Points

• Personality rights cover name, image, likeness, voice, persona.
• In India, these arise from Article 21 (post- Puttaswamy, 2017).
  • Major Indian rulings:  Amitabh Bachchan (2022) – independent personality rights.
  • Anil Kapoor (2023) – ban on AI use of likeness/catchphrase.
  • Arijit Singh (2024) – voice protected from AI cloning.
• No dedicated law; regulation scattered across IT Act 2000, Intermediary Guidelines 2024, and deepfake advisories.
• Global approaches:
  • EU GDPR + AI Act – consent + mandatory deepfake disclosure.
  • US – state-level “right of publicity”; ELVIS Act (2024) curbs AI misuse of voice/likeness.
  • China – tight rules against deceptive synthetic content; courts protect voice rights.

Static Linkages

• Article 21 – dignity, privacy, autonomy.  
• Reasonable Restrictions (Art. 19(2)) – defamation, public order.
• Copyright moral rights, passing-off principles.
• IT Act provisions against impersonation and misuse of online identity.
• Union List control over digital communication.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Protects individuals from defamation, identity theft, extortion.
  • Increases intermediary accountability.
  • Promotes ethical AI and safeguards public trust.
• Concerns
  • No codified law; courts fill gaps.
  • Cross-border hosting complicates enforcement.
  • Determining liability of platforms vs developers remains unclear.
  • Deepfake detection is technically complex; regulation risks overreach.
• Stakeholders
  • Celebrities: demand strong protection.  Platforms: seek flexible rules.
  • Judiciary: reactive, rights-expanding role.  
  • Public: vulnerable to misinformation.

Way Forward

• Enact a Personality Rights Act with clear definitions.
• Mandatory watermarking, traceability, deepfake labels.
• Strong intermediary liability and rapid takedown norms.
• AI audits, risk-classification, and a specialised AI regulator.
• Global cooperation guided by UNESCO AI Ethics.
• Fast-track cyber courts for deepfake-related disputes.

TRUMP’S BOLD UKRAINE PLAN

Context of the News

• US President Trump has unveiled a Ukraine peace plan proposing reintegration of Russia into the Western-led order.
• Key elements include:
  • Russia’s return to the G7,
  • A US–Russia economic partnership,
  • Acceptance of Russian control over eastern Ukraine + Crimea,
  • No NATO membership for Ukraine.
• Europe, Ukraine and US establishment are alarmed; Trump aims to dilute Russia–China closeness.
• India sees major geopolitical implications.

Key Points

• Plan mirrors several Russian demands; offers an ultimatum to Kyiv on aid.
• US domestic split: foreign policy elite oppose; MAGA bloc wants disengagement from Europe.
• Russia expects European fatigue and deeper Western divisions.
• If successful, Russia may reduce dependence on China.
• India prefers early conflict resolution and flexible ties with both US and Russia.

Static Linkages

• Balance of Power: preventing dominance of any Eurasian power.
• Non-Alignment: issue-based engagement, no bloc alignment.
• Mackinder’s Heartland Theory: centrality of Eurasia in global power.
• India’s strategic autonomy: independent decision-making.
• Energy security & defence diversification: long-standing Indian priorities.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Weakens China–Russia axis → strategic relief for India.
  • widens India’s manoeuvring space between great powers.
  • Stabilises energy markets and Russia-dependent defence supply chains.
  • Reduces risk of a US–China G2 order.
• Cons
  • Sets precedent of territorial concessions.
  • Trans-Atlantic tensions may rise.
  • US policy volatility persists; Russia may distrust US motives.
  • India must handle sanctions risks, especially on energy purchases.
• Stakeholder View
  • Ukraine fears loss of sovereignty; Europe opposes appeasement.
  • US divided; Russia sees opportunity to regain great-power status.
  • India wants de-escalation without harming core interests.

Way Forward for India

• Maintain strategic autonomy and avoid ideological camps.
• Deepen ties with both US and Russia while safeguarding core interests.
• Push for diplomacy under UN Charter principles.
• Use G20/SCO/BRICS to promote Eurasian stability.
• Continue diversified energy and defence procurement.

RIGHTS VISION AHEAD

• India observed the 76th Constitution Day (26 Nov 2025).
• Editorials highlighted how the Constitution was ahead of its time, especially in equality, minority rights, affirmative action, and secularism.
• Renewed focus on how it departs from Western liberal constitutionalism by recognising caste hierarchies and community power.

Key Points

• Articles 14, 15, 17, 23 broaden equality to tackle social and caste-based discrimination, including by private actors.
• India pioneered affirmative action (1950) earlier than Western democracies.
• Secularism ensures no state religion, bans compulsory religious taxation (Art. 27) and instruction (Art. 28).
• Articles 25–26 protect individual and group religious freedoms; 29–30 safeguard minority culture and institutions.
• Limitations include emergency powers, colonial-era laws, and historically strong executive authority.
• Constitution remains a unifying moral framework for diversity and social justice.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Expanded equality framework addressing structural injustice.
  • Early adoption of affirmative action.
  • Balanced secularism protecting both individuals and denominations.
  • Strong cultural and linguistic protections for minorities.
• Cons
  • Emergency powers weaken civil liberties.
  • Colonial laws dilute constitutional morality.
  • Tension between individual vs. group rights (personal laws).
  • Implementation gaps in rights enforcement. Stakeholder Views
  • Marginalised groups emphasise need for protections.
  • Civil liberty groups seek stronger rights safeguards.
  • Minorities want cultural autonomy with gender-just reforms.
  • State favours strong executive for governance stability.

Way Forward

• Strengthen civil-liberties jurisprudence.  Repeal outdated colonial laws.
• Expand anti-discrimination law to private sector.
• Balance cultural autonomy with universal civil rights.
• Review affirmative action mechanisms.  Improve judicial efficiency.
• Boost constitutional literacy nationwide