19 November 2025

• A Supreme Court Bench recalled its May 16, 2024 judgment that termed ex post facto ECs “illegal.”
• CJI Gavai + Justice Chandran (majority) held that continuing the old verdict would cause heavy economic losses and halt major public projects.
• Justice Bhuyan (dissent) argued retrospective ECs undermine environmental jurisprudence and precautionary principles.
• The May judgment had struck down 2017 Notification & 2021 OM that allowed retrospective ECs.

Key Points

• Majority view:
  • Demolishing major projects (AIIMS Odisha, SAIL, Karnataka airport) is not in public interest.
  • Ex post facto ECs may be allowed exceptionally, with strong penalties.
• Dissenting view:
  • Retrospective ECs violate precautionary principle and sustainable development.
  • Court should not “prod” the government to regularise violations.
• Earlier verdict accused Centre of legitimising illegal constructions.

Static Linkages

• Precautionary Principle – Vellore Citizens Case (1996).
• Sustainable Development – Article 21 jurisprudence.
• Polluter Pays Principle – NEP 2006, SC doctrine.
• EPA 1986 – legal basis of EIA notifications.
• Doctrine of Public Trust – SC in M.C. Mehta cases.
• Judicial Review – Articles 32, 136.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Prevents economic waste; protects public infrastructure.
  • Ensures continuity of essential projects and employment.
  • Allows compliance through penalties.
• Cons
  • Incentivises starting projects without prior ECs.
  • Dilutes environmental safeguards.
  • Weakens consistency of environmental jurisprudence.
  • May reduce accountability of project developers.
• Stakeholders
  • Govt: Flexibility  Industry: Relief
  • Public/Environment groups: Concern over pollution & legal dilution

Way Forward

• Time-bound, transparent EC processes.
• Graded penalties linked to environmental harm.
• Strengthen EIA monitoring via tech & public participation.
• Post-facto ECs strictly exceptional.
• Establish independent Environmental Regulator.

• Kerala has moved the Supreme Court seeking postponement of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• SIR (Nov 4–Dec 4) clashes with Local Self- Government Institution (LSGI) elections scheduled on Dec 9 and 11.
• State claims simultaneous conduct will overburden personnel and hinder LSGI election deadlines under Articles 243-E & 243- U (5-year mandate).

Key Points

• SIR requires 1.76 lakh staff, 68,000 security personnel, and 25,668 additional staff.
• Kerala argues the trained pool is limited; both exercises together would cause “administrative impasse.”
• State questions SIR’s constitutionality, but the current plea only targets its timing.
• Kerala has 1,200 LSGIs and 23,612 wards; elections must be completed before 21 December.

Static Linkages

• Art. 243-E/243-U → Tenure of Panchayats & Municipalities.
• Art. 243-K/243-ZA → State Election Commissions’ powers.
• Art. 324 → ECI powers on electoral rolls.  RPA 1950 → Basis for roll preparation.
• Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (Sec 38) & Municipality Act (Sec 94) → Electoral roll provisions.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Prevents administrative overload.
  • Helps maintain quality of both SIR and elections.
  • Ensures timely conduct of LSGI elections. Concerns
  • May be seen as interference with ECI’s autonomy.
  • Delay can affect accuracy of future electoral rolls.
  • Sets precedent for States seeking deferrals.
• Stakeholders
  • State Govt: Feasibility, staffing.
  • EC/SEC: Mandate to maintain rolls & conduct elections.
  • Judiciary: Must balance mandates.

Way Forward

• Create a nationally aligned SIR calendar.
• Build a larger trained electoral workforce.
• Adopt tech-enabled roll updating (privacy- compliant).
• Strengthen Centre–State coordination for election scheduling.
• Use phased SIR to reduce logistical load.

TIME TO FIX INDIA’S CEREAL MESS

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Tamil Nadu faced controversy in kuruvai paddy procurement due to delays, corruption charges, and unexpected rise in cultivation (~2 lakh acres).
• Reflects larger issues in India’s procurement– PDS system, especially oversupply of rice and continued dependence on imports of pulses and edible oils.

Key Points

• National paddy (rice) procurement touched 119.86 lakh tonnes (Oct 2025) vs 82.08 lakh tonnes in 2024.
• Central pool rice stock: 356.1 lakh tonnes vs norm 102.5 lakh tonnes—over 3× the requirement.
• Wheat PDS offtake exceeded procurement in 2 of the last 3 years.
• ₹2 lakh crore annual food subsidy burden.
• Imports (2023–24): Edible oil ₹1.2 lakh crore, Pulses ₹30,000 crore; 55% edible oil demand met through imports.
• Oilseed area static (~25 million ha), production rarely crosses 400 lakh tonnes.
• ICRIER estimates 28% leakage in rice–wheat distribution.
• MSP-centric procurement continues to incentivise paddy over diversification.

Static Linkages

• MSP decided by CACP; benefits concentrated regionally.
• Buffer Stock Norms under Dept. of Food & Public Distribution.
• Green Revolution legacy → cereal- centric agriculture.
• Continuous cereal cultivation → soil degradation, groundwater stress.
• NFSA: PDS coverage 75% rural, 50% urban.
• Crop diversification promoted under DFI, NMSA.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Ensures food security & stable farmer incomes.
  • Supports NFSA obligations and stabilises prices.
• Concerns
  • Excess rice stocks, high fiscal cost.
  • Heavy import dependence for pulses/oilseeds.
  • Distorted cropping patterns favouring paddy.
  • Significant PDS inefficiencies and leakages.
  • Weak procurement infrastructure for pulses/oilseeds.
  • Underutilised FPOs/SHGs.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Farmers rely on paddy for assured returns.
  • Government faces fiscal & storage pressures.
  • Consumers need stable pulse/oil prices.

Way Forward

• Shift procurement focus to pulses & oilseeds.
• Guarantee procurement + insurance to push diversification.
• Allow predictable rice exports during surpluses.
• Strengthen FPOs/SHGs for decentralised procurement.
• End-to-end digital PDS to curb leakages.
• Promote region-appropriate cropping & soil- health initiatives.

UNPACKING THE GLOBAL ‘HAPPINESS’ RANKING

• WHR 2025 places Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden at the top.
• India ranks 118, Pakistan ranks 109.
• Report uses Gallup Cantril Ladder to measure life satisfaction.
• Raises a key question: Does happiness reflect economic growth or social perception?

Key Points

• Nordic countries score high due to strong social trust, low corruption, reliable services.
• India has strong GDP but low perceived satisfaction because expectations are rising.
• Societies with lower expectations often report higher happiness, affecting developing nations’ rankings.
• WHR notes community kindness and social trust matter more than income.
• India has strong family support, but weak institutional trust and growing urban isolation.
• Perception-based indices can create biases against open democracies.

Static Linkages

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being relates to happiness.
• Easterlin Paradox: more income does not always increase happiness.
• Article 47: State duty to improve public health and living standards.
• Social Capital Theory: closer communities → higher well-being.
• Bhutan’s GNH: alternative development model focusing on happiness.
• NITI Aayog’s MPI: includes quality-of-life indicators.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Captures factors beyond income.
  • Highlights importance of trust, fairness, mental health.
  • Encourages holistic development.
• Cons / Concerns
  • Perception-driven, not fully objective.
  • WEIRD bias—favors Western individualistic societies.
  • Democracies appear less “happy” due to open criticism and high aspirations.
  • India’s strong family networks are not fully counted.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Government: rankings have western bias.
  • Citizens: dissatisfaction may reflect ambition, not unhappiness.
  • Researchers: call for culturally sensitive indicators.

Way Forward

• Build Social Capital: community spaces, shared activities, stronger neighbourhood networks.
• Improve Institutional Trust: simpler services, transparent delivery, faster grievance redressal.
• Mental Health Priority: expand Tele-MANAS, counselling in schools and workplaces.
• Create India-specific Well-being Index: include family support, cultural bonds, social resilience.

• India saw a record trade deficit of $41.68 bn (Oct 2025) due to:
• U.S. 50% tariff shock (from August).
• Sharp fall in exports + surge in bullion imports.
• Labour-intensive exports hit; rupee weakened; hedging and portfolio outflows increased.
• Govt + RBI announced export-support measures; structural shift still unclear.

Key Points

• Exports down 11.8% YoY to $34.38 bn; U.S. exports down 9%.
• Gold imports tripled, silver up 5× → safe-haven demand.
• Rupee weakened from ₹85.6/$ → ₹88.4/$.   Import rise driven by costlier currency + cheaper foreign intermediates.
• Russian imports -27.7%, U.S. imports +13.8%.
• Govt launched ₹25,060 cr export-promotion package; RBI gave tariff relief steps.
• India–U.S. trade talks may soften tariff pressures.

Static Linkages

• Trade deficit → Current Account Deficit.  Currency depreciation & J-curve effect.  Gold imports and CAD relationship (Eco Survey).
• WTO principles on tariffs and market access.
• Labour-intensive sectors and employment link.

Critical Analysis

• Pros:
  • Encourages export diversification.  May strengthen India–U.S. ties.
  • Intermediates help maintain export competitiveness.
• Cons:
  • Higher CAD, rupee pressure, imported inflation.
  • Labour-intensive job losses.
  • Dependence on U.S. exposes India to external shocks.
  • Rising intermediate imports weaken domestic value chains.

Way Forward

• Fast-track India–U.S. trade deal.
• Boost domestic supply chains & reduce import reliance.
• Diversify export markets (EU, ASEAN, Africa).  Strengthen export credit, MSME capacity.
• Broaden rupee settlement mechanisms.

BAD TIDINGS

Context of the News

• A stone quarry collapsed in Obra, Sonbhadra (UP), killing and trapping workers.
• Sonbhadra is part of India’s mineral-rich belt and hosts ~6,000 MW coal capacity.
• State govt ordered a three-tier probe; FIR filed for safety violations.
• Concerns over delayed disaster response, inadequate safety gear, and possible illegal quarrying.

Key Points

• Region has multiple stone and coal mines across Vindhyas–Kaimur hills.
• No local disaster response base, slowing rescue operations.
• Micro-geological surveys rarely done despite being essential.
• Unsafe blasting and lack of benching increased collapse risk.
• Contractors are small, under-regulated, and often bypass scientific norms.

Static Linkages

• MMDR Act, 1957 – State role in mining leases & regulation.
• NDMA guidelines on industrial/mining disasters.
• EIA 2006 – safety, environmental management, mine closure norms.
• Occupational Safety & Health Code, 2020 – worker safety provisions.
• Geology basics – slope stability, fracture/joint systems.

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Quick FIR and multi-level inquiry.
  • Public scrutiny pushing accountability.
• Challenges
  • Weak monitoring after lease approval.
  • Illegal mining & political–contractor nexus.  Lack of scientific blasting and benching.
  • Workers’ poor training and safety compliance.  
  • No decentralised disaster-response setup.
• Stakeholders
  • Workers: unsafe, informal work.
  • Govt: revenue vs safety dilemma.
  • Local communities: environmental threats.  Experts: long-ignored scientific warnings.

Way Forward

• Mandatory micro-geological mapping before mining.
• Set up local SDRF units in mining belts.
• Enforce benching, blasting norms, PPE.
• Tech-based monitoring (drones, sensors).
• Engage IIT (ISM) Dhanbad for periodic audits.
• Transparent, digital mining compliance dashboards.
• Worker insurance & social security (E-Shram, PM-SBY).