27 November 2025

• ECI told the Supreme Court it can conduct the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Kerala despite local body elections.
• Kerala government and several petitioners argued that simultaneous conduct is unfeasible due to massive manpower requirements.
• States like Tamil Nadu and political parties challenged SIR timelines, alleging heavy workload on BLOs and digitisation delays.

Key Points

• Progress: 99% voters in Kerala received forms; 50% digitised.
• ECI Stand: SIR and local body elections use different staff; no HR shortage; EC ready to provide more staff.
• Kerala’s Concern: SIR needs 1.76 lakh officials + 68,000 police, making overlap with polls impractical.
• Petitioners’ Issues:
  • TN: timelines unrealistic + cyclone warning.
  • Uploading limit for party BLAs reduced (50/day → 10/day after draft roll).
  • BLOs reportedly under severe stress.
• ECI Counter: Parties “hampering distribution”; allegations not in official records.

Static Linkages

• Art. 324: ECI’s superintendence over elections.
• RPA 1950/51: Electoral roll preparation & revision.
• SEC Role: Handles local body polls (73rd/74th Amendments).
• BLOs: ECI-appointed grassroots verification officers (administrative, not statutory).

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Updated rolls reduce errors, exclusions, duplicates.
  • Coordination maintains electoral integrity.
  • ECI asserting autonomy strengthens institutional independence.
• Cons
  • Overburdened BLOs → administrative stress, ethical concerns.
  • Multiple States calling the timeline unrealistic suggests planning gaps.
  • Clash of EC–SEC responsibilities complicates federal coordination.
  • Reduced BLA upload limits may affect transparency.

Way Forward

• Phase SIR away from local elections.
• Strengthen & professionalise BLO cadre.  Uniform SOPs across States.
• More digital tools for verification.
• Pre-revision consultations with States and parties.

PLEA TO REVIVE NJAC IN COURT

• A plea was mentioned before the Supreme Court seeking revival of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
• The petitioner argues that the 2015 SC judgment striking down NJAC replaced the “will of the people” with “views of four judges”.
• The plea names the CJI and Collegium as respondents and calls the Collegium non- transparent.
• NJAC (via the 99th Amendment) briefly gave the government an equal role in judicial appointments.
• CJI Surya Kant said the Court will consider the plea.

Key Points

• NJAC created through 99th Constitutional Amendment + NJAC Act (2014).
• Provided a 6-member body: CJI, 2 SC judges, Law Minister, 2 eminent persons.
• NJAC struck down (4:1) in 2015 for violating the Basic Structure—judicial independence.
• Current plea seeks declaring the 2015 verdict void ab initio.
• Allegations: Collegium = opaque, nepotistic; Parliament’s authority undermined.

Static Linkages

• Basic Structure Doctrine – Independence of judiciary (Kesavananda Bharati).
• Evolution of Collegium – 3 Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998).
• Constitutional provisions – Articles 124, 217,368.
• Separation of Powers, Judicial Review principles.
• ARC-II recommendations on transparent appointments.

Critical Analysis

• Pros of Revisiting NJAC
  • Enhances democratic legitimacy—amendment passed unanimously + states’ ratification.
  • Reduces judicial monopoly in appointments.
  • Addresses opaqueness of Collegium.
  • Aligns with expert bodies’ advice for multi- stakeholder mechanisms.
• Cons
  • Risks executive interference in judiciary.
  • Violates judicial primacy, part of Basic Structure.
  • Govt is a major litigant → conflict of interest.  
  • Selection process for “eminent persons” lacked clarity.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Judiciary: safeguard independence.
  • Govt/Parliament: seek accountability.
  • Bar & civil society: demand transparency and diversity.

Way Forward

• Codify objective criteria for judicial appointments.
• Improve Collegium disclosures with safeguards.
• Establish a Judicial Appointments Secretariat.
• Formal Judiciary–Parliament consultative mechanism.
• Use digital workflows for transparent record- keeping.

SC FLAGS AADHAAR VOTER ISSUE

• Supreme Court questioned whether Aadhaar— meant for welfare identity—can justify automatic voter inclusion, especially if obtained by non-citizens.
• Issue arose during challenges to the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• Bench examined whether SIR is a genuine verification or a citizenship-screening mechanism.

Key Points

• Aadhaar allowed as 12th identity document in SIR (as per Bihar order).
• Court reiterated: Aadhaar is identity, not citizenship.
• Petitioners argue SIR shifts verification burden onto electors and risks exclusion, particularly of women, migrants and illiterate voters.
• BLOs empowered to assess citizenship— criticised as arbitrary.
• EC defends SIR under Section 21, RPA 1950— duty to remove “doubtful” entries.
• Bench noted: EC has residual jurisdiction for preliminary checks.
• Timeframe concerns persist, but SC notes timelines can be extended.
• Bihar SIR deletions (~3 lakh) were far lower than feared.

Static Linkages

• Aadhaar Act, 2016: Aadhaar establishes identity, not citizenship.
• Article 326: Elections based on adult suffrage; requires voters to be Indian citizens.
• Representation of the People Act, 1950:
• Section 21: Preparation & revision of electoral rolls.
• EC empowered to maintain purity and accuracy of rolls.
• Supreme Court’s 2018 Aadhaar Judgment (Puttaswamy-II): Aadhaar cannot be mandatory for services unrelated to subsidies/welfare, except as permitted by law.
• Constitutional Morality idea (B.R. Ambedkar): State must uphold rights of all residents, including vulnerable groups.
• Model Code of Conduct (MCC) doesn’t apply to administrative tasks like SIR.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Strengthens credibility of electoral rolls.
  • Helps curb fraudulent or duplicate entries.  
  • Aadhaar simplifies identity checks.
• Cons
  • Aadhaar misuse may cause wrongful inclusion of non-citizens.
  • Possible exclusion of vulnerable groups due to documentation barriers.
  • Over-reliance on BLO discretion risks errors.
  • Tight timelines may reduce procedural fairness.
• Perspectives
  • ECI: Duty-bound to ensure accuracy.
  • Petitioners: Process is exclusionary & rushed.
  • SC: Balancing EC autonomy with rights of electors.

Way Forward

• Clearly delink Aadhaar from citizenship proof.
• Provide doorstep assistance and simplified forms.
• Extend timelines where required.
• Ensure robust appeal channels for wrongful deletions.
• Introduce transparent audits and tech-driven verification.

PRESIDENTIAL OPINION V/S FEDERAL STRUCTURE

• SC delivered its opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference concerning Governor/President powers under Articles 200–201.
• Court declined to impose timelines for granting assent to State bills.
• Critics warn it weakens federalism, strengthens unelected offices, and promotes centralisation.

Key Points

• Court upheld the discretionary space of the Governor/President but without prescribing mandatory timelines for assent.
• This indirectly legitimises indefinite delays, effectively enabling a pocket veto.
• Critics say it undermines:
• Basic structure principle of federalism.  Separation of powers.
• Democratic accountability of elected State governments.
• The judgment implicitly permits increased central influence through Governors.
• Judicial review remains available, but delays force States into repeated litigation, affecting governance.
• The opinion is critiqued for overlooking broader fiscal and administrative pressures being placed on States.

Static Linkages

• Article 200 – Governor’s options on State Bill: assent, withhold, return (once), reserve for President.
• Article 201 – President’s options: assent, withhold; no timeline prescribed.
• Basic Structure Doctrine – Federalism, judicial review, democracy (Kesavananda Bharati, 1973).
• Sarkaria Commission & Punchhi Commission – Warned against misuse of Governor’s office.
• Government of India Act, 1935 – Historical roots of Governor’s discretionary powers.
• Cooperative Federalism vs Competitive Federalism – Key NITI Aayog frameworks.
• Finance Commission – Constitutional body guiding fiscal devolution.
• Rule of Law – SC in Maneka Gandhi (1978): fairness, non-arbitrariness integral.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Avoids judicial rewriting of constitutional provisions.
  • Retains Governor/President’s supervisory role in limited contexts.
• Cons
• Weakens democratic accountability; unelected Governor can frustrate elected governments.
• Encourages political influence due to Centre-appointed Governors.
• Delays in assent hamper governance and invite litigation.
• Intensifies existing centralisation trends in fiscal and administrative spheres.

Way Forward

• Statutory or convention-based time limits for assent.
• Implement Punchhi Commission norms on Governor’s conduct.
• Strengthen Inter-State Council and decentralised fiscal frameworks.
• Limit political misuse of central agencies.
• Promote predictable and transparent fiscal federalism.

• A bomb blast in New Delhi caused civilian casualties.
• Concerns raised over media rush to blame communities, especially Kashmiris.
• Issues highlighted: collective punishment, demolitions, detentions, job insecurity, and alienation in J&K post-Article 370.
• Call for peace through dialogue, dignity, and Vajpayee’s “Insaniyat–Jamhooriyat” framework.

Key Points

• Premature media speculation fuels suspicion of Kashmiri students and workers.
• Collective punishment through house demolitions, detentions, raids increases resentment.
• Youth distress deepens due to civil liberty curbs, unemployment, and fear of arbitrary action.
• Post-2019 changes intensify concerns about identity, land, and job protections.
• Peace requires addressing root causes, not only security responses.

Static Linkages

• Articles 14, 19, 21, 22 – equality, liberty, due process.
• Preamble values: dignity, justice, fraternity.  Alienation and identity (NCERT Sociology).
• Internal security: community trust in CI/CT operations.
• Ethics: media responsibility; natural justice.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Emphasizes rights-based security.
  • Promotes dialogue and non-violence.
  • Highlights need for ethical media conduct.
• Concerns
  • Stereotyping of Kashmiris deepens mistrust.
  • Excessive force or demolitions may violate due process.
  • Youth unemployment + perceived disempowerment = radicalisation risk.
  • Post-370 policy communication gaps widen alienation.

Way Forward

• Ensure judicial oversight on demolitions/arrests.
• Revive political dialogue and CBMs in J&K.  Expand jobs, skills, and youth engagement.
• Media guidelines to prevent communal profiling.
• Strengthen grievance redress and local institutions.
• Adopt a holistic CT approach: security + socio- economic inclusion.

LIMITED ROOM

Context of the News

• Rupee weakened ~7% (Nov 2024–Nov 2025), echoing the 11–12% fall in 2018 amid global dollar strength.
• RBI conducted major forex interventions and swaps, including a $10 bn buy–sell swap (Feb 2025).
• CAD widened due to costlier crude, higher gold imports and tariff-led export pressures.
• RBI sold ~$50 bn forex, yet depreciation continued due to heavy external stress.
• India still has strong FX reserves (~$693 bn) and very low CPI inflation (0.25%, Oct 2025).

KEY POINTS

• Rupee depreciation driven by
  • Strong U.S. dollar and capital outflows.
  • Costlier crude imports after the shift from Russian to U.S. oil.
  • Rising gold imports as a hedge in uncertain times.
  • Trade imbalance caused by global tariffs and weak export competitiveness.

• Under India’s managed-float exchange rate, the RBI can only smooth volatility, not peg the rupee.
• RBI interventions (Nov 2024–2025):
  • $50 billion net forex sale to stabilise the rupee.
  • $10 billion buy–sell swap to inject long-term rupee liquidity.
• Domestic macro backdrop:
  • Inflation at historic low (0.25%), providing policy space.
  • FX reserves remain comfortable (~$693 billion).
• Structural vulnerabilities:
  • Oil imports = >20% of total imports (FY25, MoF).
  • Trade agreements with Japan, UAE, ASEAN worsening India’s trade balance

STATIC LINKAGES

• India follows a managed float exchange rate (RBI, FEMA, 1999).
• Balance of Payments (BoP) structure—Current & Capital Accounts (NCERT Class XII, Introductory Macroeconomics).
• Impact of crude oil prices on inflation and CAD (Economic Survey).
• RBI’s tools for forex management: spot interventions, forward operations, swaps.
• Elasticity approach & Marshall–Lerner condition on currency depreciation and exports.
• J-curve effect on trade balance after depreciation.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Positives
  • Comfortable reserves; low inflation gives policy space.
  • Swaps help add liquidity without sharp rate hikes.
  • Depreciation may aid export competitiveness modestly.
• Concerns
  • Continued forex sales risk depleting reserves.
  • Costlier oil + weaker rupee can revive inflation.
  • FTAs not aligned with domestic competitiveness.
  • Gold imports worsen CAD and signal risk aversion.
• Stakeholders
  • RBI: Contain volatility, preserve reserves.
  • Government: Reduce structural vulnerabilities.
  • Industry: Faces costlier imports; uncertain pricing.
  • Consumers: Exposed to imported inflation.

WAY FORWARD

•  Fast-track transport electrification & clean energy transition.  
• Adopt a holistic trade strategy, not scattered FTAs.
• Build larger strategic petroleum reserves.
• Enhance export competitiveness via logistics & MSME support.
• Promote diversified energy sources (biofuels, hydrogen, RE).
• Strengthen CAD management through services exports & tourism.

ARAVALLI

• On 20 Nov 2025, SC accepted MoEFCC’s new definition: only landforms ≥100 m above local relief qualify as Aravalli Hills.
• FSI assessment: This excludes over 90% of Aravalli hillforms (most <100 m).
• Experts warn exclusion may open mining, worsen desertification and Delhi-NCR air pollution.
• Earlier technical committee recommended ≥30 m height + ≥4.57° slope, protecting ~40% of the range.

KEY POINTS

• FSI’s findings:
  • Out of 12,081 Aravalli hills ≥20 m, only 1,048 (8.7%) are ≥100 m.
  • Even 10–30 m hills act as natural windbreaks, curbing dust from Thar Desert.
• Height distortion issue:
  • Ministry compared district elevation (above MSL) with hill height (above local relief) — technically incomparable.
• Slope dilution issue:
  • Ministry used district-level average slope, ignoring the fact that plains lower the average.
• Exclusion of districts:
  • Several known Aravalli districts such as Chittorgarh and Sawai Madhopur are not included in the ministry’s 34-district list.
• Earlier technical recommendation (2024):
  • Definition suggested hills with ≥30 m elevation and ≥4.57° slope, covering ~40% of Aravallis.
• Environmental concerns:
  • Loss of lower Aravalli ridges may exacerbate dust storms, desertification, and Delhi-NCR pollution.
• SC’s acceptance:
  • Court accepted (i) uniform definition, (ii) prohibition of mining in inviolate areas, and

(iii) sustainable mining guidelines

STATIC LINKAGES

• Aravalli is one of the oldest fold mountain systems (Precambrian; Proterozoic era).
• Acts as a natural barrier against the Thar Desert’s eastward expansion.
• Key ecological roles:
  • Regulates groundwater recharge in semi- arid Rajasthan and Haryana.
  • Serves as a wildlife corridor (e.g., Sariska– Delhi Ridge).
  • Forest Survey of India (FSI) – statutory body under MoEFCC, responsible for forest mapping.
  • Supreme Court role – powers under Article 142, continuing mandamus in environmental matters (e.g., Godavarman case).
• Environmental governance:
  • Mining governed under MMDR Act, 1957 and Environment Protection Act, 1986.
  • Use of slope and relief as geomorphological tools from NCERT Physical Geography.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

• Pros
  • Uniform definition brings regulatory clarity.
  • Allows mining in non-core zones → revenue for states.
• Cons
  • Over 90% Aravallis lose protection → ecological risk.
  • Worsens dust storms, NCR pollution, biodiversity loss.
  • Scientific flaws: using district-level averages; ignoring local relief.
  • Raises concerns on precautionary approach in policymaking.

WAY FORWARD

• Reconsider 100-m threshold, adopt graded protection.
• Strengthen mapping via GSI–FSI–SOI collaboration.
• Enforce mining audits, curb illegal mining.
• Integrate Aravallis into climate adaptation plans.
• Prioritise eco-restoration and buffer zones.