22 November 2025

• The Centre notified all four Labour Codes on Friday, operationalising major labour reforms.
• Codes replace 29 Central labour laws (1930s– 1950s era).
• Aim: Universal social security, simplified compliance, and formalisation of workforce.
• Trade unions oppose the move, calling it anti- worker; protests announced.
• Praised by industry bodies as a step toward Ease of Doing Business.

Key Points

• Codes: Wages (2019), Industrial Relations (2020), Social Security (2020), OSHWC (2020).
• Universal Social Security: Aadhaar-linked UAN, gig & platform workers included.
• Women’s rights: Night shifts with safety; free annual health checks (40+ age).
• Fixed-term employees: Same benefits as permanent workers.
• National Floor Wage to reduce wage gaps.  Single licence & digital compliance tools.
• Inspector-cum-facilitator → supportive compliance model.
• Fast dispute resolution via two-member tribunals.

Static Linkages

• DPSPs: Articles 41–43 → worker welfare, living wages & humane conditions.
• Concurrent List: Entries 22–24 empower Union & States on labour.
• ILO standards: Worker safety & equal pay.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Wider social security net incl. gig workers.
  • Boosts investment climate, improves labour mobility.
  • Enhances women’s workforce participation.
• Concerns
  • Fear of reduced job security under IR Code.  Varied State readiness → uneven rollout.
  • Enforcement may weaken due to facilitator model.
• Stakeholders
  • Govt: Modernised labour ecosystem.
  • Unions: Exploitation risk, dilution of rights.  Industry: Lower compliance burden.

Way Forward

• Strengthen inspection & digital monitoring.
• Uniform implementation support to States.
• Clarity on gig worker benefits & women’s night- shift norms.
• Periodic revision of floor wage with inflation.

SC SEEKS EC REPLY ON KERALA’S SIR DELAY

• SC issued notice to ECI on petitions by Kerala govt., CPI(M), CPI, and IUML seeking deferment of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) due to clash with Kerala local body polls.
• SIR Phase-II covers 51 crore voters across 12 States/UTs from 4 Nov–4 Dec 2025.
• Kerala local polls are on 9 & 11 Dec, creating an administrative overlap.
• SC listed the matter for urgent hearing on 26 Nov 2025.

Key Points

• SIR is a house-to-house verification under Article 324 & Section 21(3), RPA 1950.
• Aim: remove duplicates, deceased voters, and update migrant or unverified entries.
• Huge manpower: 5.3 lakh BLOs, 7.6 lakh BLAs, 10,000+ EROs/AEROs.
• Kerala govt. says simultaneous SIR requires 1.76 lakh officials + 68,000 police, making it “near-impossible”.
• CPI/CPI(M)/IUML allege possible disenfranchisement of Opposition voters.
• SC earlier refused to stay SIR in Bihar but urged ECI to use broader ID proofs.

Static Linkages

• Universal Adult Franchise (Art. 326) – Right to vote for all 18+.
• ECI powers (Art. 324) – Superintendence of elections.
• RPA 1950 & Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 – Basis for electoral roll preparation.
• BLO–ERO framework – Institutional backbone of roll revision

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Cleans outdated rolls; removes dead/duplicate entries.
  • Enhances electoral integrity before major elections.
  • Increases inclusion through door-to-door verification.
• Challenges
  • Timing clash strains officials, police, and local administration.
  • Risk of exclusion of migrants/minorities if verification incomplete.
  • Allegations of political bias reduce trust in ECI.  Massive logistical and coordination load across 51 crore electors.
• Stakeholder Views
  • State govt.: Administrative overload, request deferment.
  • Opposition parties: Fear targeted disenfranchisement.
  • ECI: Necessary to clean rolls nationwide.
  • Citizens: Need clarity, accessible grievance redressal.

Way Forward

• Avoid SIR during election schedules; use phased roll revision.
• Increase transparency: public deletion lists, clear reasons, appeals.
• Simplify documentation for vulnerable groups.
• Enhance voter awareness, helplines, and digital tools.
• Ensure adequate staffing and coordination with local bodies.

RETHINKING AN ENVIRONMENTAL SYMBOL  

• Several States are reducing mandatory green- cover norms for industrial estates to promote Ease of Doing Business.
• Global comparisons are cited, but they ignore India’s dense population, ecologically stressed landscapes, and limited natural buffers.
• Experts warn that green belts offer local mitigation but cannot replace ecosystem-level functions of natural habitats.

Key Points

• Green belts reduce TSP by ~65% and noise by 10–17 dB, but their impact is site-specific.
• They cannot replicate natural carbon sequestration, hydrology, biodiversity, or habitat connectivity.
• Industrial plantations are often narrow, mono- species, and degrade over time.
• A two-tier approach is suggested:
  • On-site green belts for local mitigation.
  • Off-site ecological restoration (wetlands, degraded lands, buffers).
• Should integrate with Green Credit Programme, carbon offsets, and State greening plans.

Static Linkages

• EIA 2006 mandates green belts as pollution- mitigation measures.
• Aligns with Nature-Based Solutions, CAMPA afforestation, and carrying- capacity studies.
• NCERT concepts: ecosystem services, landscape ecology, fragmentation, succession.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Greater flexibility for industries; improved land-use efficiency.
  • Better investment climate; supports industrial growth.
• Concerns
  • Relaxation risks greenwashing; weakens ecological buffers.
  • India needs stronger green belts due to high population density & pollution.
  • Off-site compensation often poorly monitored.
  • May conflict with constitutional environmental duties.
• Stakeholders
  • Industry: Wants flexibility.
  • Communities: Seek pollution control & microclimate protection.
  • State: Balances growth & ecological safeguards.
  • Ecologists: Demand science-based, landscape-level norms.

Way Forward

• Adopt landscape-level green planning, not uniform plot-based norms.
• Allow relaxation only with verifiable off-site ecological commitments.
• GIS-based monitoring and third- party audits.
• Promote native multi-layer vegetation, not narrow monocultures.
• Use Green Credit, CAMPA, ESG and CSR frameworks for restoration.

INDIA’S NEW DIRECTION POINTS TO ASIA

• At the 2025 Tianjin SCO Summit, the Putin– Modi–Xi interaction reflected rising Asian strategic convergence.
• The Busan G2 Summit showed U.S. discomfort amid Asia’s growing influence.
• The U.S. prioritises “pulling India” away from China and discouraging Russian oil imports.
• India asserts strategic independence as ties with China (border talks) and Russia (defence, energy) deepen.
• India reassesses foreign policy, defence posture, and AI sovereignty in a rapidly shifting global order.

Key Points

•  India is emerging as a major economy amid U.S. attempts to reshape multilateralism.
• Russia remains a tested partner; S-400 was crucial in “Operation Sindoor.”
• With China, India follows a ‘trust but verify’ approach as Ladakh border negotiations progress.
• Asia’s rise is driven by value-chain integration, not Western-style alliances.
• India may consider re-engaging with RCEP to diversify markets.
• National security must shift toward cyber warfare, AI, drones, space, and reduced manpower-heavy formations.
• India’s AI Mission funding is inadequate for global competitiveness; sovereignty in foundational models is essential.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Enhances India’s strategic autonomy and multipolar engagement.
  • Strengthens Asia-centric economic opportunities.
  • Boosts indigenous tech and defence modernisation.
  • Reduces vulnerability to unilateral U.S. pressure.
• Cons / Challenges
  • Managing China relations amid border sensitivities.
  • Deep defence dependence on Russia.
  • U.S. may impose tech/export restrictions.  RCEP could threaten MSMEs.
  • AI ecosystem underfunded and hardware- deficient.
  • Defence restructuring may face internal resistance.
• Stakeholders
  • India: Autonomy, tech sovereignty.
  • U.S.: Wants India in China-balancing coalition.
  • China: Seeks stable border, wary of India’s rise.  Russia: Reliable defence-energy partner.
  • ASEAN/Central Asia: View India as a balancer to China.

Way Forward

• Advance Strategic Autonomy 2.0 balancing U.S.– China–Russia.
• Increase AI Mission funding and build foundational models.
• Prioritise capital-intensive defence: drones, AI, hypersonics, cyber.
• Institutionalise a Cyber Command for future warfare.
• Evaluate calibrated re-entry into RCEP.
• Deepen Eurasian connectivity through Chabahar.
• Maintain firm, verifiable engagement with China on border issues.

• SC’s opinion on the 16th Presidential Reference (2024) held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines or deemed assent on Governors/President.
• However, it warned against prolonged inaction by these authorities.
• This contrasts with the April 2025 SC ruling that fixed a three-month limit and granted deemed assent for certain Tamil Nadu Bills.
• States argue the new view weakens federalism and expands the Governor’s discretion.

Key Points

• No judicially mandated one-size-fits-all timeline for assent.
• Article 200’s “as soon as possible” deemed too flexible for enforcement.
• Governors not strictly bound by Council of Ministers’ advice in assent matters.
• Even after re-passage, a Bill can be reserved for the President.
• Bills reserved under Article 200/201 can remain pending indefinitely.
• “Limited mandamus” allowed but no definition of “reasonable delay.”
• Judicial review excluded for President’s decisions under Article 201.

Static Linkages

• CA debates removed “in his discretion” to curb Governor’s arbitrary powers.
• Sarkaria Commission: Suggested a six-month limit for assent.
• Federalism is a Basic Structure (Kesavananda Bharati).
• Article 163 limits Governor’s discretion to specified situations.
• Judicial review permitted for mala fide or irrational exercise of power.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Protects separation of powers.
  • Allows case-specific remedies for undue delay.
• Concerns
  • Expands Governor’s ability to stall bills.
  • Weakens State legislative authority and cooperative federalism.
  • No safeguard against indefinite Presidential pendency.
  • States must litigate to prove delay, causing administrative friction.

Way Forward

• Define “reasonable time” through law or constitutional convention.
• Implement Sarkaria/Punchhi recommendations on Governor’s neutrality.
• Ensure time-bound action on Bills reserved for the President.
• Strengthen IGR mechanisms for Centre–State coordination.
• Promote transparent and codified procedures for bill processing.

OVERCOMING RESISTANCE

Context of the News

• India has launched NAP-AMR 2.0 after limited implementation of NAP 1.0 (2017–21).
• WHO Global Antibiotic Resistance Surveillance Report (2024):
• India: 1 in 3 infections resistant to common antibiotics; global average: 1 in 6.
• High resistance seen in E.coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae to last-line drugs.
• AMR now spans human health, livestock, food systems, soil and water ecosystems.
• Renewed push to strengthen the One Health approach.

Key Points

• NAP-AMR 1.0 improved lab networks (helped by COVID-19 upgrades) and banned Colistin in animals.
• Implementation lagged due to weak State participation; only Kerala showed measurable reduction in AMR.
• NAP-AMR 2.0 aims for tighter antibiotic stewardship, stronger surveillance, IPC, and One Health integration.
• Focus on curbing misuse and OTC antibiotic sales.

Static Linkages

• AMR linked to natural selection, drug regulation (Schedule H/H1), pollution impacts, food safety systems, and public health governance (a State subject).

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Clear national intent; better labs; One Health alignment; international best practices (e.g., Colistin ban).
• Challenges
  • State–Centre coordination gaps; OTC antibiotic misuse; weak veterinary regulation; limited community-level data; low awareness.
• Stakeholder Views
  • Doctors want clearer guidelines; farmers seek alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters; environmental agencies demand pollution monitoring.

Way Forward

• Enforce Schedule H1 strictly.
• Create State AMR Cells with funding.
• Expand surveillance to farms, water bodies, food chains.
• Promote rapid diagnostics and wastewater AMR monitoring.
• Tighten controls on antibiotic use in animals and aquaculture.
• Launch nationwide awareness campaigns.

CENTRE’S ELASTIC LEGAL DOCTRINE EXPOSED

• SC delivered its Advisory Opinion (Presidential Reference No. 1 of 2025) on gubernatorial powers under Article 200.
• It set aside the 2024 Tamil Nadu v. Governor ruling that had prescribed indicative six-month timelines for Governors.
• SC stressed the “dialogic” nature of assent but left timelines undefined.
• Raised major concerns for federalism, separation of powers, and legislative supremacy.

Key Points

• Governor cannot withhold assent without reasons.
• Assent process is a joint constitutional dialogue between Legislature & Governor.
• SC rejected fixed timelines, citing need for elasticity in discretion.
• Court may still intervene in cases of “prolonged inaction”, but without defined standards.
• Creates uncertainty on when delay becomes constitutional subversion.

Static Linkages

•  Article 200 – Options: assent, withhold assent with reasons, return (non-Money Bills), refer to President.
• Article 163 – Governor acts on aid and advice except where discretion applies.
• Federalism as Basic Structure – SR Bommai (1994).
• Constitutional Morality – NCT of Delhi (2018).
• Checks & Balances – NCERT Polity fundamentals.

Critical Analysis

• Strengths
  • Ensures reasons for withholding assent.
  • Recognises legislative–executive dialogue.
  • Retains judicial review as a safeguard.
• Concerns
  • No clear timeline → scope for indefinite delays.
  • Vague judicial intervention → greater litigation & politicisation.
  • Allows Governors to stall Bills without accountability.
  • Weakens federal balance and legislative supremacy.
• Stakeholder View
  • States: fear erosion of autonomy.  Union: prefers broader oversight.
  • Judiciary: retains role but without clear standards.

Way Forward

• Define reasonable time-frame for assent.
• Enforce Code of Conduct for Governors (2nd ARC).
• Increase transparency in assent decisions.
• Use Inter-State Council for Centre–State dispute resolution.
• Reinforce neutrality of constitutional offices.