19 December 2025

• The Supreme Court asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take a “sympathetic view” on requests to extend the enumeration phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.
• Petitioners from Uttar Pradesh and Kerala argued that even revised timelines were too short and risked exclusion of genuine voters.
• Revised timelines:
  • Kerala: Enumeration till 18 December; draft roll on 23 December.
  • Uttar Pradesh: Enumeration extended till 26 December.
• The Court did not issue mandatory directions, respecting ECI’s autonomy.
• The constitutional validity of SIR will be heard on 6 January 2026.

Key Points

• SIR: A non-routine, intensive exercise to verify and update electoral rolls beyond annual summary revision.
• Petitioners’ concern:
  • No urgency as UP Assembly elections are due in 2027.
  • Possibility of large-scale voter exclusion (claimed ~25 lakh in Kerala).
• ECI’s stand:
  • Extensions already granted based on feedback.
  • Judicially imposed deadlines may undermine constitutional independence.
  • SC declined to examine issues related to data sharing with volunteers at this stage.

Static Linkages

• Article 324: ECI’s plenary powers over elections (subject to law made by Parliament).
• Representation of the People Act, 1950:
• Governs preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
• Provides for intensive and special revisions.
• Universal Adult Franchise (NCERT Polity):
• Requires inclusion, accuracy, and fairness in voter lists.

Critical Analysis

• Advantages
  • Improves credibility and purity of electoral rolls.
  • Removes duplicates, deceased, and ineligible voters.
  • SC’s restraint preserves separation of powers.
• Concerns
  • Short timelines may violate the substantive right to vote.
  • Risk of procedural arbitrariness and wrongful deletions.
  • Data handling by volunteers raises privacy and trust issues.

Way Forward

• Follow state-specific timelines based on population and migration.
• Strengthen appeal and correction mechanisms during SIR.
• Ensure trained enumerators and clear data- protection protocols.
• Increase voter awareness drives before intensive revisions.

INDIA-OMAN PACTS BOOSTS TRADE

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• India and Oman signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) in 2025.
• It aims to deepen trade, services, investment and labour mobility.
• It is India’s 2nd CEPA in the GCC (after UAE, 2022).
• Oman’s first bilateral trade agreement since 2006 (US–Oman FTA).

Key Trade Commitments

• Oman → India
  • Duty-free access on 98.08% tariff lines  
  • Covers 99.38% of India’s exports
• India → Oman
  • Liberalised tariffs on 77.79% tariff lines  
  • Covers 94.81% of imports from Oman
• Trade Data (2024–25)
  • India’s exports to Oman: $4.06 billion
  • India’s imports from Oman: $6.5 billion
  • Oman accounts for ~1% of India’s total trade

Sectoral Impact

• Full tariff elimination for Indian exports in:
  • Gems & jewellery
  • Textiles, leather, footwear
  • Engineering goods, automobiles
  •  Pharmaceuticals & medical devices
  • Plastics, furniture, agricultural products
• Sensitive sectors excluded by India:
  • Dairy, tea, coffee, rubber, tobacco  
  • Gold & silver bullion, jewellery
  • Footwear, sports goods, metal scrap

Services & Labour Mobility

• Major highlight: Mode 4 commitments (movement of professionals)
• Intra-Corporate Transferees quota increased from 20% to 50%
• Contractual Service Suppliers stay extended:
  • 90 days → 2 years (+ 2-year extension)
• Liberalised entry for skilled professionals in key sectors

Strategic Significance

• Strengthens India’s engagement with West Asia & GCC
• Acts as a gateway to GCC, Africa, Central Asia & Eastern Europe
• Supports India’s export diversification strategy  Enhances India’s role in regional value chains

Static Concept Linkage

• FTAs/CEPAs → Preferential trade under WTO rules
• Services trade → GATS Modes of Supply  Trade creation vs trade diversion
• Economic diplomacy as foreign policy tool

Critical Analysis

• Positives
  • Near-complete market access for Indian exports
  • Boost to labour-intensive manufacturing
  • Strong services and mobility commitments  
  • Enhances India’s economic footprint in Gulf
• Concerns
  • Persistent trade deficit with Oman
  • Implementation challenges in services mobility  
  • Limited gains if MSMEs fail to integrate
  • Exposure to external economic shocks

Way Forward

• Effective implementation and dispute- resolution mechanisms
• MSME onboarding and export facilitation  
• Mutual recognition of qualifications
• Use CEPA as a template for India–GCC FTA  
• Strengthen logistics and trade facilitation

SC OKAYS KOLHAPUR HC BENCH

• The Supreme Court (Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria) dismissed a petition challenging the establishment of a Circuit Bench of the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur.
• The Bench upheld the decision as consistent with the constitutional vision of bringing justice closer to the people.
• The Circuit Bench was notified on August 1 under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

Key Facts

• Legal basis: Section 51(3), States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
• Authority: Chief Justice of the High Court, with Governor’s approval, can appoint additional places of sitting.
• Challenge: Petition alleged violation of Article 14 (arbitrariness and discrimination), citing demands from other regions like Pune and Solapur.
• Supreme Court ruling:
  • No constitutional requirement to satisfy all regional demands simultaneously.
  • Article 14 does not mandate absolute uniformity in administrative decisions.
  • Differential treatment is valid if based on objective criteria.
• Rationale for Kolhapur:
  • Serves contiguous districts.
  • Located at a substantial distance from the principal seat.
  • Chosen after assessing accessibility, feasibility, litigation needs, and institutional capacity.
  • Finding: No evidence of mala fides or extraneous considerations.

Static Constitutional & Legal Linkages

• Article 214: High Courts for States. Article 225: Jurisdiction and powers of High Courts.
• Article 14: Equality before law → allows reasonable classification, not mechanical equality.
• Article 21: Access to justice as part of the right to life (Hussainara Khatoon case).
• States Reorganisation Act, 1956 – Section 51(3):
  • Enables decentralised judicial sittings within a State.
• Doctrine of Reasonable Classification:
  • Intelligible differentia
  • Rational nexus with objective (here: access to justice).

Constitutional Significance

• Reinforces judicial decentralisation without constitutional amendment.
• Balances institutional autonomy with citizen- centric justice delivery.
• Clarifies limits of Article 14 in administrative and judicial governance.
• Aligns with transformative constitutionalism focusing on substantive access, not formal equality.

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Improves access to justice for remote regions.
  • Reduces cost, delay, and travel burden for litigants.
  • Decongests principal High Court seat.
• Concerns
  • Possibility of competitive regional demands.
  • Requires adequate judicial manpower and infrastructure to avoid dilution.

Way Forward

• Frame objective, transparent criteria for future circuit benches.
• Periodic review based on pendency, accessibility, and performance.
• Complement physical benches with e-courts and digital access.
• Strengthen judge strength and infrastructure as recommended by Law Commission and Economic Survey.

• Parliament has introduced the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, 2025 to replace MGNREGA, 2005.
• The Bill proposes a structural shift from a rights-based, demand-driven employment guarantee to a centrally controlled, allocation- based framework.
• The move has raised concerns regarding constitutional values, federalism, decentralisation, and social justice.

Key Points

• MGNREGA provides a legal guarantee of 100 days of wage employment to rural households.
• Employment is universal, voluntary, and demand-driven.
• Entire wage cost is borne by the Union government; States share limited costs.
• The new Bill:
  • Replaces demand-driven employment with normative financial allocations.
  • Removes the legal obligation of the Centre to provide work beyond allocated funds.
  • Increases State governments’ financial burden to ~40%.
  • Centralises project design, audits, and monitoring.
  • Prohibits employment during peak agricultural seasons.
  • Makes Aadhaar linkage and digital attendance mandatory.
• In 2024–25, ~8.9 crore workers demanded work, but ~1 crore were denied.
• Average employment remains below 50 days, despite statutory entitlement.
• Rural employment spending has stayed below 0.2% of GDP

Static Linkages

• State obligation towards livelihood security.
• Directive Principles as instruments of economic democracy.
• Federal distribution of fiscal and administrative powers.
• Decentralised governance through local institutions.
• Equality in wages and access to work.
• Social justice for historically marginalised groups.

Critical Analysis

• Concerns
  • Dilutes the right to work by removing legal enforceability
  • Converts welfare from entitlement-based to budget-limited assistance.
  • Greater fiscal stress on States undermines cooperative federalism.
  • Centralisation weakens Panchayati Raj Institutions.
  • Seasonal work ban reduces workers’ bargaining power, especially women.
  • Digital conditions risk exclusion due to connectivity and authentication failures.
  • Disproportionate impact on SCs, STs, and women, who form the majority of beneficiaries.
• Possible Rationale
  • Fiscal predictability for the Centre.
  • Greater monitoring through digitisation.
  • Alignment with broader livelihood missions.

Way Forward

• Refer the Bill to a Parliamentary Standing Committee.
• Retain the demand-driven, rights-based core of rural employment.
• Ensure adequate, need-based funding, indexed to rural distress.
• Strengthen Panchayat autonomy in planning and execution.
• Use digital tools as enablers, not eligibility barriers.
• Integrate employment support with skill development and livelihood diversification.

BOLD STEP FOR NUCLEAR GOALS

Context of the News

• Parliament passed the SHANTI Bill, 2025 to enable large-scale expansion of nuclear energy.
• It consolidates provisions of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010.
• Objective: support high human development, energy security, and decarbonisation.
• India targets 100 GW nuclear capacity by mid- century pasted

Key Points

• HDI rises with per capita energy consumption (income, health, education).
• To reach HDI ~0.9, India may need ~24,000 TWh/year energy generation.
• Current electricity generation (2023–24): ~1,950 TWh.
• Electricity share in Final Energy Consumption:~22% → needs major rise.
• Solar & wind:
  • Intermittent
  • Storage-intensive  
  • Land-constrained
• Nuclear power:
  • Low-carbon
  • 24×7 baseload
  • Essential for industry & green hydrogen  
• India’s strengths:
  • Indigenous 700 MW PHWRs
  • Fuel fabrication, heavy water, waste reprocessing
• SHANTI Bill:
  • Statutory recognition to nuclear regulator  Primary safety & liability on licensee

Static Linkages

• Energy–development relationship  
• Baseload vs intermittent power
• Three-stage nuclear programme  
• Polluter pays principle
• Independent regulation in high-risk sectors
•  Sustainable development

Critical Analysis

• Pros
  • Reliable baseload decarbonised power
  • Supports heavy industry & hydrogen economy  
  • Reduces fossil fuel dependence
  • Builds on indigenous capability
• Concerns
  • High capital cost & long gestation  
  • Uranium import dependence
  • Safety perception & regulatory strength

Way Forward

• Nuclear–renewable balanced energy mix  
• Strengthen regulator autonomy
• Invest in advanced reactors & waste handling
• Improve public risk communication
• Secure uranium through diplomacy