24 November 2025

• Union Home Ministry stated it will not introduce the Constitution (131st Amendment) Bill, 2025 in the Winter Session.
• Clarification followed strong opposition from Punjab-based parties against placing Chandigarh under Article 240.
• The Bill was earlier listed in the Lok Sabha Bulletin, triggering concerns over altering Chandigarh’s governance.
• Chandigarh’s status is historically sensitive since the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966.

Key Points

• Proposed Bill aimed to align Chandigarh with UTs without legislatures by enabling a full-time L-G.
• Currently, Punjab’s Governor acts as Chandigarh’s Administrator.
• Ministry: No final decision; no change to existing arrangements; stakeholder consultations required.
• Opposition parties termed it central overreach into federal norms.

Static Linkages

• Article 239: Administration of Union Territories by the President.
• Article 240: President’s regulation-making power for select UTs.
• Constitutional Amendments need special majority (Article 368).
• Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 created Chandigarh as a UT and joint capital.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Could standardize administration across UTs.
  • Removes dual role of Punjab Governor, reducing conflict of interest.
• Cons
  • Sensitive due to Punjab–Haryana claims over Chandigarh.
  •   Perceived dilution of federal balance.
  • May trigger political friction in a border- sensitive State.
• Challenges
  • Maintaining Centre–State trust.
  • Balancing administrative efficiency with political sensitivities.

Way Forward

• Transparent consultations with Punjab and Haryana.
• Clear communication before listing major amendments.
• Strengthen cooperative federalism in UT governance.
• Explore a comprehensive UT governance framework.

SC REFERENCE DOES NOT OVERRIDE JUDGMENTS

• Retired CJI B.R. Gavai clarified that the SC’s Presidential Reference opinion did not intend to burden States but only interpret constitutional silence on timelines for Bill assent.
• It responded to the TN Governor case (April 8, 2024) which created a “three-month deemed assent” rule.
• On November 20, 2024, a 5-judge Bench held that Governors/President cannot be forced into fixed timelines; they must act within a reasonable period.

Key Points

• Courts cannot insert timelines where the Constitution is silent; only Parliament can do so.
• Presidential Reference opinions clarify, not overrule, prior judgments.
• “Three-month deemed assent” struck down; “reasonable period” left undefined.
• Limited judicial review available when Governors cause unreasonable delay.
• Routine Bills may need ~1 month; sensitive Bills (security/emergency) may take longer.

Static Linkages

• Article 200: Governor’s options → assent, withhold, return (except Money Bills), or reserve for President.
• Article 201: President’s assent provisions; no explicit timelines.
• Doctrine of Separation of Powers (NCERT Indian Constitution at Work).
• “Constitution speaks through its silences” → limitations on judicial legislation (Laxmikanth).
• Article 143: Presidential Reference — advisory opinions are not binding but hold persuasive authority.
• Cooperative Federalism as emphasised by NITI Aayog and multiple SC judgments (e.g., S.R. Bommai, Nabam Rebia).
• Constitutional morality & accountability of nominated offices.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Preserves judicial restraint and constitutional design.
  • Allows flexibility in complex matters.
  • Prevents indefinite delay via judicial review.
• Cons
  • Undefined “reasonable period” may legitimise delays.
  • Weakens States’ protection against gubernatorial obstruction.
  • Case-by-case review may cause inconsistency.
• Stakeholders
  • States → Need predictable timelines  Union → Prefers executive discretion
  • Judiciary → Balancing restraint & federalism

Way Forward

• Parliament may codify timelines.
• SC can evolve criteria for “reasonable period.”  
• Improve communication between Raj Bhavan &
• State Cabinets.
• Strengthen federal conventions and accountability norms.

MODI: UNSC REFORMS NOW A NECESSITY

• PM Modi at the IBSA Summit stressed that UNSC reform is an urgent necessity.
• Sought a united IBSA message for fairer global governance.
• Proposed NSA-level institutionalisation, IBSA Digital Innovation Alliance, and IBSA Fund for Climate-Resilient Agriculture.
• Summit aligned with first G20 Summit in Africa and three consecutive G20 presidencies by IBSA nations.

Key Points

• IBSA: democratic tri-continental grouping focusing on human-centric development.
• Push for zero-tolerance counterterrorism, security coordination.
• Promote sharing of UPI, CoWIN, DPI, cybersecurity, women-led start-ups.
• IBSA Fund supports 40+ countries; proposal to expand toward climate-resilient farming.
• Cooperation focus: millets, natural farming, green energy, disaster resilience, traditional medicine, health security.

Static Linkages

• UN Security Council reform debate:
  • Composition: 5 permanent + 10 non- permanent members.
  • Major criticisms: low representation of Global South; outdated post-WW-II structure; veto concerns.
  • India’s long-standing claim: world’s largest democracy, major economy, top troop contributor to UNPK.
  • South-South Cooperation:
  • Rooted in Bandung Conference (1955).
  • Based on principles of mutual respect, non- conditionality, collective self-reliance.
• Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI):
  • India Stack model included in Economic Survey (2022-23) as a benchmark.
  • G20 presidencies: India (2023), Brazil (2024), South Africa (2025).

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Enhances Global South voice; boosts digital and climate cooperation.
  • Strengthens counterterrorism coordination.
• Challenges:
  • P5 resistance to UNSC reform; divergence in IBSA priorities.
  • Resource constraints for expanded IBSA initiatives.
• Stakeholders:
  • IBSA: push for equitable governance.
  • Developing nations: benefit from capacity- building.
  • P5: reluctant to share power.

Way Forward

• Build unified Global South push for UNSC reform.
• Expand DPI partnerships and IBSA Fund efficiency.
• Advance trilateral cooperation in AI norms, health security, and green energy.
• Strengthen climate-resilient agriculture projects.

THE LETTER HAS WON, SPIRIT NOT LOST

• Supreme Court gave its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference regarding whether Governors can be bound by judicial timelines while assenting to Bills.
• A five-judge Bench said:
  • Courts cannot impose timelines (letter of Constitution).
  • Evasive inaction is unconstitutional (spirit of Constitution).
• Issue arises amid repeated delays by Governors in opposition-ruled States.
• Past Presidents R. Venkataraman and K.R. Narayanan highlighted for exercising independent and fair constitutional judgment.

Key Points

• No fixed timelines in the Constitution for Governor/Bill processing.
• Unexplained delays can be challenged as violations of constitutional responsibility.
• Court avoided prescribing behaviour— maintained institutional restraint.
• Recognised risk of political predisposition in gubernatorial actions.
• Reinforces constitutional morality over political preferences.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Strengthens constitutional design and judicial restraint.
  • Checks misuse of delays by Governors.
  • Retains institutional balance.
• Cons / Challenges
  • Ambiguous timelines may still allow political stalling.
  • Burden shifts to States to seek judicial remedy.
  • Discretion remains subjective. Stakeholders
  • States: Want clearer accountability.
  • Union: Supports executive flexibility.
  • Judiciary: Preserves balance.
  • Citizens: Expect timely governance.

Way Forward

• Issue codified conventions for gubernatorial functioning.
• Draw from Sarkaria & Punchhi Commissions.
• Encourage Centre–State dialogue.
• Ensure transparent communication on Bills.
• Consider legislative clarification without weakening checks.

• Recent raids on 58 pani puri stalls in Chennai (July 2024) revealed unhygienic practices, including use of contaminated water and unsafe handling.
• Rising concerns over food adulteration and food-borne diseases have shaken consumer trust, especially regarding street food safety.
• Packaged food industry maintains comparatively higher standards under FSSAI’s regulatory regime, while the informal street food sector remains largely unregulated.
• Growing urbanisation and dependence on ready-to-eat foods have intensified the need for robust food safety regulations.

Key Points

• FSSAI oversees food safety for packaged/unpackaged foods, but enforcement is easier for packaged foods due to traceability.
• India records ~100 million food-borne illnesses and 1.2 lakh deaths annually (ORF).
• Informal sector risks: reused oil, adulterated ingredients, unsafe water, poor storage.
• Packaged foods use pasteurisation, aseptic packaging, vacuum sealing to reduce microbial contamination.
• Growth in fortified foods to combat micronutrient deficiencies.
• Vendor training under Eat Right India and Clean Street Food Hub (CSFH) improving basic hygiene.

Static Linkages

• Right to life (Article 21) includes right to safe food (SC jurisprudence).
• State List Entry 6 – Public health; food safety enforcement by states.
• Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – primary legislation unifying multiple food laws; created FSSAI.
• Codex Alimentarius Commission standards influence India’s food safety norms.
• Urban informal sector characteristics – lack of regulation, high employment elasticity.
• Public health externalities and information asymmetry in markets * role for state regulation.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Packaged foods offer transparency, traceability, safer processing.
  • Fortification supports national nutrition missions.
  • FSSAI programmes help integrate vendors into formal safety systems.
• Cons
  • Enforcement gaps due to fragmented informal sector.
  • Poor hygiene, adulteration, unsafe water increase disease burden.
  • Low reporting reduces policy responsiveness.
• Stakeholder View
  • Consumers: demand safety.
  • Vendors: lack training/resources.
  • Government: balance livelihoods with public health.
  • Industry: needs predictable, science-based rules.

Way Forward

• Expand vendor certification & municipal licensing.
• Strengthen inspections, water testing, and hygiene audits.
• Promote low-cost hygiene infrastructure.
• Scale up CSFH and awareness campaigns.
• Enable digital hygiene ratings for vendors.

DIFFICULT CHOICES

Context of the News

• A leaked 28-point peace plan by the Trump administration has caused concern in Kyiv.
• Plan requires Ukraine to cede parts of Donetsk & Luhansk, and recognise Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk as effectively Russian.
• Conflict in Kherson & Zaporizhzhia to be frozen along current lines.
• Ukraine to abandon NATO bid, limit troops to 6 lakh, and accept halt to NATO expansion.
• Russia has reacted positively; Ukraine & EU are drafting an alternative “peace with dignity” proposal.

Key Points

• Russia retains territory it currently controls; sanctions on Russia to be lifted.
• U.S. to offer unspecified security guarantees to Ukraine.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Provides a structured negotiation route.  
  • Could reduce immediate hostilities.
  • Opens space to rebuild Europe’s security framework.
• Cons
  • Legitimises territorial gains by force.
  • Weakens Ukraine’s sovereignty & democratic mandate.
  • Ambiguous security guarantees risk future instability.
  • Potential intra-NATO disagreements.
• Challenges
  • No consensus on territory.
  • Deep distrust between Russia & NATO.  
  • Ukrainian domestic constraints.
  • Risk of long-term frozen conflict.

Way Forward

• A credible multilateral security framework via NATO–EU–OSCE–UN.
• Clear, enforceable security guarantees for Ukraine.
• Stepwise negotiations: ceasefire → humanitarian access → political talks.
• Monitoring via UN/OSCE missions.
• Stronger European defence coordination.

LABOUR CODES: KEY CHANGES FOR ALL

• Govt begins implementing four labour codes— Wages, Social Security, Industrial Relations, OSH—from 21 Nov 2025.
• Replace 29 central labour laws to modernise labour regulation.
• Aim: Ease of doing business, uniform wages, expanded social security.
• Trade unions oppose provisions on hire-and- fire, strikes, fixed-term jobs, and wider contract labour use.

Key Points

1. Code onWages

• Universal minimum wage + National Floor Wage.
• Uniform wage definition; deductions ≤50%.
• Overtime = 2× wage; work hours 8–12 hrs/day, 48 hrs/week cap.
• Mandatory wage slips + strict payment timelines.

2. Codeon Social Security

• Integrates 9 laws; covers unorganised, gig/platform and fixed-term workers.
• Aggregators to contribute 1–2% turnover for gig-worker fund.
• PF for establishments with 20+ employees; ESIC pan-India; mandatory for 1 person in hazardous jobs.
• Gratuity after 1 year for fixed-term workers.

3. IndustrialRelations Code

• Merges 3 laws; defines “worker” widely (incl. journalists, sales staff).
• Fixed-term jobs recognised.
• Retrenchment/closure approval threshold raised 100 → 300 workers.
• 60-day strike notice mandatory for all industries; mass casual leave (>50%) = strike.
• Sole negotiating union (51%) or council (20% representation).

4. OSHCode

• Merges 13 laws; single licence & e- compliance.
• Factory threshold: 20 (with power) / 40 (without).
• Contract labour threshold 50 workers.
• Women allowed night shifts with safety norms.
• Mandatory appointment letters, annual health checks; safety committees for large units.

Static Linkages

• Labour is in Concurrent List.
• DPSPs: Article 42 (work conditions), Article 43 (living wage).
• Earlier laws: Industrial Disputes Act, Minimum Wages Act.
• Informal workforce ~90% (Economic Survey).  
• ILO’s decent work standards.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Simplifies 29 laws → 4 codes; boosts ease of doing business.
  • First-time social security for gig/platform workers.
  • Standardised wage concepts reduce disputes.
  • Wider PF/ESIC coverage supports formalisation.
• Cons
  • Hire-and-fire flexibility may increase job insecurity.
  • Stricter strike rules weaken collective bargaining.  Gig worker contributions may be inadequate.
  • Differing state rules risk inconsistency.
• Stakeholders
  • Govt: Balanced labour–industry reform.
  • Industry: Lower compliance burden.
  • Unions: Fear erosion of rights.
  • Workers: Mixed—security + flexibility issues.
  • Ethical/Constitutional Dimensions
  • Balancing economic goals with worker dignity.  
  • Protecting right to collective action (Art. 19).
  • Fair wages as per DPSPs.

Way Forward

• Strengthen gig-worker protection; increase contributions.
• Ensure uniform implementation across states.
• Use digital inspection for transparency.
• Update National Floor Wage regularly.
• Enhance social dialogue with unions.