17 September 2025

• The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry (COI), chaired by Navi Pillay, has concluded for the first time that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
• Trigger: The ongoing Gaza war began after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
• Significance: Marks a turning point since no UN- mandated body had earlier directly termed Israel’s actions as “genocide.”

Key Facts / Prelims Pointers

• Genocide Convention, 1948 (UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
• Five genocidal acts under Article II:

  • Killing members of the group

  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm.

  • Inflicting conditions of life leading to destruction  Preventing births within the group

  • Forcibly transferring children 

• COI found Israel guilty of 4 of 5 acts.
• Key officials named: PM Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, Ex-Defence Minister Yoav Gallant.
• UN rights chief Volker Turk emphasized only courts (like ICJ/ICC) can legally determine genocide.
• Israel rejected the report, calling it “false” and “biased.” 

Static Linkages

• Polity & IR: International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), UNHRC. Geography: Gaza Strip’s geostrategic location,
• Mediterranean coastline, borders with Egypt & Israel.
• History: Post-WWII conventions, Holocaust memory shaping Genocide Convention.
• Security: Middle East conflicts and global oil/economic impacts. 

 Critical Analysis Opportunities /Pros

• Report strengthens global accountability mechanisms under international law.
• Brings visibility to civilian suffering and humanitarian crises.
• Could spur reforms in UN enforcement architecture.

Challenges / Cons

• Israel rejects findings → undermines legitimacy of UN investigations.
• Enforcement weak: UN bodies lack coercive power without UNSC backing.
• Deepens polarisation in geopolitics (US vs Global South / Muslim nations).

Long-term Implications

• May impact future peace negotiations in West Asia.
• Risk of erosion of faith in multilateral institutions.
• Could redefine global debates on responsibility to protect (R2P) and sovereignty.

Way Forward

• Strengthen international legal enforcement (ICJ, ICC cooperation).
• Encourage neutral humanitarian monitoring mechanisms in conflict zones.
• Promote inclusive peace dialogues backed by regional powers + UN.
• India: Continue balancing act → support two-state solution while protecting strategic ties with both Israel and Palestine.

FAITH & FREEDOM

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• A batch of petitions challenges “Freedom of Religion” Acts enacted by 10+ States, which are essentially anti-conversion laws.
• The petitions argue these laws violate Article 25 (freedom of conscience and religion) and the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
• Trigger: Petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay seeking ban on deceitful conversions; counter- arguments highlighted the misuse of such laws against inter-faith marriages.
• Historical context: Anti-conversion debates trace back to colonial-era “missionary regulations” and later to the Constituent Assembly debates where Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected explicit restrictions on conversions.
• Previous stance: SC (2023) refused to refer issue to Law Commission on criminalising forcible conversion as a separate IPC offence.

Key Facts/Prelims Prelims Pointers

• States with such Acts: UP, MP, Uttarakhand, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Haryana, Karnataka, Rajasthan (recent).
• Punishment: Up to life imprisonment; bail conditions on par with UAPA.
• Burden of proof: On the convert, reversing usual criminal law principle.
• Third-party complaints allowed: enabling misuse by unrelated actors.
• Article 25(1) – Right to freedom of conscience and to profess, practice, and propagate religion (subject to public order, morality, health).
• Article 21 – Right to personal liberty includes marriage choice (Shafin Jahan v. Asokan, 2018, “Hadiya case”).
• SC observations: Court tests constitutionality, not policy. Key query: “Who will decide if a conversion is deceitful?”

Static Linkages

• Polity: Fundamental Rights (Part III), Directive Principles (Article 46 – protect weaker sections).
• IR link: Global debates on religious freedom (US International Religious Freedom Report, UNHRC observations).
• History: Missionary activity in colonial India, Arya Samaj’s Shuddhi movement, post-Independence anti-conversion

debates.

Critical Analysis Opportunities/Pros

• Prevents exploitation through fraud, coercion, inducement. Ensures protection of vulnerable groups from manipulation.
• Reinforces “public order” ground under Article 25(1).

Challenges / Cons

• Over-broad provisions → criminalises genuine inter-faith marriages.
• Burden of proof on the convert violates presumption of innocence.
• Allows third-party interference in personal choices. Chilling effect on Article 25 freedoms, minority rights, and privacy under Article 21.
• May deepen communal polarisation.

Long-term Implications

• Judicial confrontation with legislative overreach. Possible constitutional bench reference.
• Potential precedent on defining limits of State control over personal faith.

Way Forward

• Judicial scrutiny: SC must strike balance between preventing forced conversions and protecting liberty.
• Law reform: Narrowly define “fraudulent conversion”, remove vague terms like “allurement”.
• Safeguards: Disallow third-party complaints; restore burden of proof on prosecution.
• Best practices: Comparative study of laws in democracies (e.g., U.S. strict scrutiny on laws burdening religious freedom).
• Awareness programs: Promote interfaith dialogue rather than criminalisation.

GST 2.0

• GST was introduced in July 2017 to create a destination-based, consumption-led tax regime replacing multiple indirect taxes.
• Aim: avoid cascading, increase efficiency, and shift incidence of taxation onto final consumers.
• Over the years, issues persisted: multiple tax slabs, inverted duty structures, compensation cess, compliance burden.
• On 22 September 2025, a new GST rate structure is implemented with rationalisation of slabs and merging of cess.

Key Facts / Prelims Pointers

• Discontinued slabs: 12% and 28%.
• Retained: 0%, 5%, 18%.
• Introduced: 40% “demerit” rate for luxury/sin goods. Special rates below 5% continue (e.g., essentials).
• 546 goods affected → 80% rate cuts, 20% hikes. Major beneficiaries: textiles, consumer electronics, automobiles, health, food, fertilizers, renewable energy.
• Revenue loss estimates: ₹48,000 crore (MoF), some estimates higher.
• Budget assumption: 10.1% nominal GDP growth vs actual Q1: 8.8%.
• Direct tax collection Q1 2025-26: (-)4.3% growth vs 33.6% growth previous year.
• Revenue foregone already: ₹1 lakh crore (from income tax reforms).

Static Linkages

• Economy: Concepts of direct vs indirect taxes, elasticity of demand, fiscal deficit management, incremental capital output ratio (ICOR).
• Polity: GST Council (Art. 279A), Finance Commission role in fiscal transfers.
• Global Best Practice: Many countries have single-rate GST/VAT systems (e.g., New Zealand ~15%).

Cricitical Analysis Opportinuties/Pros

• Simplifies GST by reducing slabs (closer to a 3+1 structure).
• Boost to employment-intensive sectors → textiles, food, electronics.
• Lower input costs for agriculture & renewable energy.
• Raises disposable incomes → demand push in short term.
• Long-term efficiency gains from reduced cascading.

Challenges / Cons

• Revenue loss (~₹48k–100k crore) → strain on fiscal deficit.
• Revenue foregone + weak direct tax collections → gross tax revenue below Budget estimates. Exemptions & multiple slabs → continued inverted duty structure, ITC bottlenecks.
• States may face higher borrowing/cut in expenditure→ adverse on growth.
• Inflationary risk if deficit monetised through liquidity expansion.

Long-term Implications

• If consumption demand fails to rise adequately, revenue shortfall may persist.
• Investment-driven growth still key → GST reform alone not sufficient.
• Need alignment towards fewer slabs, minimal exemptions, seamless ITC to achieve full efficiency.

Way Forward

• Move towards a 2/3 rate GST structure (e.g., merit, standard, demerit).
• Minimise exemptions, ensure seamless ITC to avoid cascading.
• Strengthen compliance & digital infrastructure to widen base.
• Balance short-term fiscal prudence with long-term growth push.
• Learn from global best practices (NZ, Canada) → simple, broad-based GST with fewer slabs.

• Trigger: The Supreme Court (July 2025) endorsed Allahabad HC’s guidelines (Mukesh Bansal, 2022) on Section 498A IPC (now Section 85, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) introducing a two-month cooling period + referral to Family Welfare Committees (FWC) before coercive action.
• Historical background:
  • Section 498A IPC (1983) was introduced to punish cruelty against women in matrimonial settings.
  • Over time, concerns of misuse led to judicial & statutory safeguards.
  • Lalita Kumari (2014) → preliminary inquiry allowed in matrimonial disputes before FIR.
  • Arnesh Kumar (2014) → rationalised arrests, introduced “notice of appearance.”
  • Satender Kumar Antil (2022) → bail if arrest violated Arnesh safeguards.
  • Rajesh Sharma (2017) → FWCs mandated, but struck down by Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar (2018).

Key Facts/Data (Prelims Pointers)

• Statistical trends (NCRB):
  • Registered cases: 1,13,403 (2015) → 1,40,019 (2022).
  • Arrests: 1,87,067 (2015) → 1,45,095 (2022).
• Legal shifts: Section 498A IPC → Section 85 BNS. Criminal law reforms (2023–25): cruelty cases placed under preliminary inquiry before FIR.
• CrPC Amendment 2008: “Principle of necessity” for arrest.

Static Linkages

• Polity & Constitution: Article 21 (life & personal liberty), Article 14 (equality before law).
• Criminal Law: Evolution from IPC →BNS, CrPC → BNSS.
• Judiciary: Doctrine of judicial restraint, separation of powers.
• Women issues: Dowry prohibition laws, Domestic Violence Act, gender justice framework.

Critical Analysis Opportunities/Pros

• Protects innocent husbands/families from arbitrary arrest.
• Reduces police excesses & misuse of law.

Challenges/Cons:

• Delays immediate protection & justice for genuine victims.
• Undermines functional autonomy of police & magistrates.
• Repeats Rajesh Sharma (2017) mistake—judicial overreach.
• Creates legal uncertainty—no statutory authority for FWCs.

Long-term implications:

• Weakens victim’s trust in legal system.
• Risks normalising patriarchal suspicion of women’s complaints.
• Possible clash with legislative intent & fundamental rights.

Way Forward

• Revisit ruling: Restore victim’s prompt access to justice.
• Strengthen safeguards: Use Arnesh Kumar checklist & CrPC amendments instead of extra-legal FWCs. Alternative reforms: Fast-track matrimonial offence cases, mandatory counseling (but post-FIR, not pre- FIR).
• Global best practices: Protective orders (like restraining orders in US/EU) with speedy hearings, not cooling delays.

CONSTITUTIONAL CLARITY

Context & Bachground

• Trigger: The Supreme Court’s April 8, 2025 judgment clarified that Governors and the President cannot indefinitely withhold assent to Bills under Articles 200 and 201.
• Presidential Reference (Article 143): Following this judgment, the Centre sought the Court’s advisory opinion on 14 questions regarding Governor/President’s powers.
• Historical Background:
  • Articles 200 & 201 of the Constitution deal with Governor’s assent to State Bills.
  • The issue has been politically contentious, with Opposition-ruled States alleging deliberate delays.
  • Similar tussles in the past: Shamsher Singh (1974), Nabam Rebia (2016) on Governor’s discretionary powers.
  • Article 143 allows Presidential References, but advisory opinions are not binding unlike judgments under Article 141.

Key Facts/ Prelims Pointers

• Articles involved:

  • Article 200 – Options before Governor: (i) Assent, (ii) Withhold assent, (iii) Return for reconsideration, (iv) Reserve for President.

  • Article 201 – President’s options when Bill is reserved.

• Judicial Review: Court questioned why Governor’s decisions under Article 356 are reviewable but not under Article 200.
• April 8, 2025 Judgment: Governors cannot paralyse legislative functioning through inaction.
• Centre’s step: Instead of filing a review/curative petition, it sought a Presidential Reference.

Static Linkages

• Governor’s role: Constitutional head, bound by aid and advice (Art. 163).
• Judicial doctrines: Constitutional silence ≠ unlimited discretion.
• Federalism in India: Quasi-federal, but requires cooperative balance.

Critical Analysis Opportunities / Pros:

• Reinforces judicial clarity on ambiguous constitutional provisions.
• Prevents misuse of office to delay State legislations.
• Strengthens cooperative federalism and accountability of constitutional authorities.

Challenges / Cons:

• Political misuse of Governors persists; neutrality often questioned.
• Presidential Reference route creates confusion vis-à- vis binding judgments.
• Centre–State trust deficit deepens.

Long-term Implications:

• May redefine scope of judicial review over Governor’s actions.
• Could reduce executive overreach in Opposition-ruled States.
• Sets precedent for limiting constitutional inaction by high offices.

Way Forward

• Define time limits for Governor/President to act on Bills (like UK’s royal assent convention).
• Codify Governor’s discretionary powers in line with Sarkaria Commission & Punchhi Commission recommendations.
• Promote cooperative federal forums (Inter-State Council, GST Council-style mechanisms) for dispute resolution.
• Strengthen judicial recourse for States in case of undue delay.

A BRIEF RESPITE KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• India’s August 2025 trade data offers temporary relief with exports rising and imports falling, narrowing the trade deficit.
• Triggered by the U.S.’s imposition of steep tariffs: 25% reciprocal tariffs from August 7 and 50% punitive tariffs from August 27.
• This development is critical as the U.S. is India’s largest trading partner and tariff escalation comes amidst ongoing trade negotiations.
• Historically, India has faced trade tensions with major partners (e.g., U.S. withdrawal of GSP benefits in 2019; earlier WTO disputes on poultry, solar panels).

Key Facts / Prelims Pointers

• Exports (Aug 2025): $35.10 bn (+6.7% YoY).
• Imports (Aug 2025): $61.59 bn (–10.12% YoY).
• Trade deficit: $26.49 bn (vs. $27.35 bn in July).
• U.S. Exports (Aug): $6.86 bn (down from $8.01 bn in July).
• Gold imports: –57% YoY; Silver imports: –60% YoY.
• Pharma exports: +6.94% YoY → $2.51 bn (tariff- exempt sector).
• China imports (Apr–Aug 2025): +10.19%, despite strained ties.

Static Linkages

• Polity & IR: WTO rules, bilateral trade negotiations, FTA dynamics.
• Economy: Balance of Payments (BoP), trade deficit implications, tariff impact on supply chains.
• Geography: Resource dependence (gold, coal imports; China’s dominance in electronics/steel inputs).
• Environment: Lower coal imports → climate & energy transition relevance.

Critical Analysis Opportunities/

• Narrowing trade deficit improves BoP position.
• Push for import substitution → opportunity for “Make in India” & domestic suppliers.
• Pharma & sunrise sectors (electronics, engineering goods) show resilience

Challenges/Cons

• Tariff shock from U.S. could erode competitiveness of labour-intensive exports (textiles, gems).
• Declining imports may signal slowing domestic demand → economic stress.
• Dependence on China despite political friction undermines strategic autonomy.

Long Term Implications

• Sustained tariffs could reconfigure India’s export markets.
• Risk of job losses in labour-intensive sectors (textiles, seafood).
• Strategic recalibration needed → diversification of trade partners, FTAs with EU/UK.

Way Forward

• Negotiation Diplomacy: Fast-track India–U.S. trade talks; leverage pharma and digital trade.
• Diversification: Expand markets in Africa, Latin America, EU to reduce U.S. dependence.
• Domestic Capacity: Promote PLI schemes, skill training, logistics upgrades to enhance competitiveness.
• Tariff Shielding: Extend targeted interest subvention & credit support to vulnerable sectors.
• Best Practices: Follow Vietnam/Mexico model of integrating into alternative global value chains during tariff wars.