Why in news?

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that venture capital firm Tiger Global’s $1.6-billion stake sale in Flipkart to Walmart is subject to taxation.

The verdict, closely watched by foreign investors, is seen as a landmark decision that could influence cross-border deal structures and have wider implications for India’s startup ecosystem.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Dispute Over India–Mauritius Tax Treaty
• Background: Tiger Global’s Flipkart Investment
• Implications of the Verdict for Indian Startups and Investors
• Startup Funding Slowdown Amid Investor Caution

Dispute Over India–Mauritius Tax Treaty

• The case arose from Tiger Global’s 2018 exit, executed through its Mauritius-based entities.
• Tiger Global claimed protection under the India–Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA).
  • A DTAA is a bilateral treaty to prevent the same income from being taxed in both nations — the country where the income is earned and the country where the company is based out of.
• However, the Supreme Court ruled that the DTAA benefit could not be extended in this case.
• Court Rejects Treaty Benefits, Overturns High Court Order
  • In denying DTAA protection, the Supreme Court overturned an August 2024 ruling of the Delhi High Court, which had set aside a 2020 decision of the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR).
  • The AAR had earlier concluded that the transaction was prima facie structured to avoid tax.
• Broader Implications for Startup Investments
  • Mauritius had long been a favoured investment route into India due to the non-taxability of capital gains until 2016.
  • The judgment comes amid slowing startup funding, as investors increasingly prioritise profitability and clear tax certainty, potentially reshaping how foreign capital approaches Indian startup exits.

Background: Tiger Global’s Flipkart Investment

• After acquiring a stake in Flipkart, Mauritius-based entities of Tiger Global—Tiger Global International II, III, and IV Holdings—went on to invest in several Indian companies.
• Claim for Tax Exemption - Following the stake sale, the Tiger Global entities sought a “nil” withholding tax certificate from Indian tax authorities. They argued that capital gains were exempt under the India–Mauritius DTAA due to the “grandfathering” clause for shares acquired before April 1, 2017.
  • Grandfathering essentially means exempting an activity from a new law or regulation.
• Tax Authorities’ Rejection - Indian tax authorities rejected the request, concluding that the Mauritius entities lacked independent decision-making. They held that real control over share purchases and sales did not rest with these entities.
• Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR) Decision - The matter was taken to the Authority for Advance Rulings, which in 2020 dismissed Tiger Global’s claim.
  • The AAR found that the investment structure was primarily designed to obtain DTAA benefits and that effective control lay outside Mauritius—particularly in the United States—through a complex web of entities.
• Delhi High Court Intervention - On appeal, the Delhi High Court overturned the AAR ruling, holding that the conclusion of tax avoidance was arbitrary and unsustainable.
• Supreme Court’s Final Word
  • The Supreme Court of India reversed the High Court’s decision.
  • It held that DTAA protection applies only where assets are directly owned by a Mauritian entity’s permanent establishment.
  • The Flipkart transaction, he ruled, fell outside this scope—rendering the gains taxable in India.

Implications of the Verdict for Indian Startups and Investors

• End of Automatic Treaty Benefits - Tax experts warn that the ruling weakens automatic reliance on the India–Mauritius DTAA. Merely holding a Tax Residency Certificate (TRC) will no longer guarantee capital gains tax exemption.
  • TRC is an official document from a country’s tax authority.
  • It proves that an individual or entity is a tax resident there for a specific period. This is crucial for claiming benefits under a DTAA.
• Substance Over Form Becomes the Test - The judgment reinforces a shift toward examining economic substance. Investors must now show genuine commercial rationale, autonomous decision-making, and real operations in treaty jurisdictions.
• Higher Tax Uncertainty and Litigation Risk - According to practitioners, the ruling raises uncertainty for venture capital and private equity exits. Exit planning, valuations, and indemnities may need reassessment amid increased scrutiny and potential disputes.
• Impact on Offshore Investment Structures - Structures routed through Mauritius or Singapore—especially pre-2017 investments—could face closer examination. While closed cases may not reopen automatically, reassessments are now more likely where legally permitted.
• Costlier Risk Management - Experts anticipate tax insurance and indemnity mechanisms becoming scarcer and more expensive, adding to compliance costs and complicating deal-making for startups and foreign investors alike.

Startup Funding Slowdown Amid Investor Caution

• The Supreme Court ruling comes against the backdrop of a broader slowdown in India’s startup funding.
• In 2025, tech startups raised $10.5 billion, down 17% from 2024 and 4% from 2023. While seed-stage funding fell sharply, early-stage investments showed resilience, signalling selective but continued investor confidence.

Why in news?

India has overtaken China to become the world’s largest rice producer in 2024–25, producing about 150 million metric tonnes and accounting for nearly 28% of global output.

While this marks a sharp rise from a decade ago and reflects stagnant Chinese production, the achievement has downsides. Paddy’s profitability has encouraged its spread into water-scarce regions, yields remain uneven across states, and its dominance raises concerns about water stress, crop diversification, and long-term nutritional security.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Steady Rise in India’s Rice Production
• India’s Rice Stocks: Surplus Beyond Food Security Needs
• Why Paddy Dominates Indian Agriculture
• Environmental and Regional Challenges of Paddy Cultivation
• Push for Crop Diversification Away from Paddy

Steady Rise in India’s Rice Production

• Long-Term Growth Trend - India’s rice output has grown consistently since the Green Revolution era. Between 1969–70 and 2024–25, the area under paddy expanded by over 36%, yields tripled, and total production rose nearly fourfold.
• Sharp Expansion in the Last Five Years - The most notable surge occurred recently. Paddy area increased from 43.66 million hectares in 2019–20 to 51.42 million hectares in 2024–25, while production jumped from 118.87 to 150 million metric tonnes.
• Growing Global Share - As output rose, India’s share of global rice production climbed from 21.95% in 2011 to about 28% in 2024, placing it just ahead of China and far above other producers like Bangladesh and Indonesia.

India’s Rice Stocks: Surplus Beyond Food Security Needs

• Rising Central Pool Reserves - With sustained production growth and high procurement, rice stocks in the central pool have risen steadily. As of January 1, 2026, stocks stood at 63.06 million metric tonnes, including unmilled paddy.
• Far Above Buffer and Welfare Requirements - This level far exceeds prescribed norms. Stocking rules require only 7.61 million tonnes on January 1, while annual needs under the NFSA and welfare schemes are about 37.2 million tonnes.
• Efforts to Reduce Excess - The government has attempted to offload surplus rice through open market sales and by diverting rice for ethanol production. Despite these measures, stocks remain elevated.
• Procurement Concentrated in Few States - During the 2023–24 kharif season, the Food Corporation of India procured 525.48 lakh tonnes—about 38% of national output. Over half of this came from Punjab, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, and Odisha.

Why Paddy Dominates Indian Agriculture?

• Wide Cultivation and Scale - Paddy is India’s most widely grown crop, cultivated in over 600 districts and spread across more than 514 lakh hectares—far exceeding the area under wheat or other major crops.
• Assured Returns Through MSP - A key attraction is assured procurement at Minimum Support Price. Paddy offers higher net returns per hectare than crops like maize and moong, making it financially safer for farmers.
• Weak Performance of Alternative Crops - Stagnant or declining yields in crops such as cotton reduce their attractiveness. Compared to global averages, India’s yields in some non-paddy crops remain low.
• Strong Export Demand - India is the world’s leading rice exporter, earning substantial foreign exchange from basmati and non-basmati rice exports to West Asia, North America, and Europe, reinforcing paddy’s appeal.
  • The country exported six million tonnes of basmati and 14.13 million tonnes of non-basmati rice during 2024-25, earning $5.9 billion and $6.5 billion respectively.
  • India exported basmati to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the UAE, the US, the UK, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Jordan and Israel during 2024-25. 

Environmental and Regional Challenges of Paddy Cultivation

• Paddy is an extremely water-intensive crop, requiring nearly 1–3 tonnes of water to produce just one kilogram of rice.
• Its widespread cultivation has severely depleted groundwater in many regions.
• In Punjab, excessive groundwater extraction has led to serious environmental and health problems, while paddy expansion into already water-stressed states has worsened declining water tables.
• Rice productivity also varies sharply across states due to differing agro-climatic conditions.
• In 2024–25, yields ranged from 4,428 kg per hectare in Punjab and 3,928 kg in Andhra Pradesh to much lower levels in Bihar (2,561 kg) and Uttar Pradesh (2,824 kg), compared to the national average of 2,929 kg per hectare.

Push for Crop Diversification Away from Paddy

• With a growing preference for paddy among farmers, the Union government is intensifying efforts to promote crop diversification.
• The objective goes beyond farm incomes to include nutritional security and conservation of scarce water resources.
• Incentives Linked to Fiscal Savings
  • The Agriculture Ministry has proposed incentivising farmers who shift away from paddy to alternative crops.
  • These incentives could be financed from savings in the economic cost of rice, estimated at ₹1.36 lakh per hectare.
  • This cost reflects expenses borne by the Food Corporation of India on MSP-based procurement, milling, transport and storage.
    • According to officials, rice stored by the FCI costs around ₹33 per kg, and with an average yield of 41.25 quintals per hectare, government spending reaches about ₹1,36,000 per hectare, excluding subsidies on power, fertilisers and seeds.
• Officials suggest focusing diversification efforts on districts with below-national-average paddy yields (2,929 kg per hectare) and relatively lower paddy coverage.
• Promoting Oilseeds and Pulses
  • The strategy prioritises oilseeds and pulses to reduce India’s heavy dependence on edible oil imports.
  • These crops would be promoted in a phased manner, aligned with agro-climatic suitability and soil conditions, to ensure sustainable transitions for farmers.

Why in the News?

• India’s response to child trafficking has come under focus following recent judicial directions and data highlighting low conviction rates despite large-scale child rescues.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Child Trafficking in India (Background, Legal Definitions, Constitutional Protection, Key Legislations, Judicial Interventions, Challenges, Way Forward)

Understanding Child Trafficking in India

• Child trafficking remains a persistent and grave violation of human rights in India.
• It involves the recruitment, transportation, harbouring or receipt of children for purposes of exploitation, including forced labour, sexual exploitation, slavery, servitude, or organ removal.
• Despite extensive constitutional and statutory safeguards, trafficking networks continue to operate due to socio-economic vulnerabilities and weak enforcement outcomes.
• Official data indicate that thousands of children are rescued every year, yet convictions remain disproportionately low, exposing gaps between law, enforcement, and justice delivery.

International and Domestic Legal Definitions

• At the international level, child trafficking is defined under the Palermo Protocol (2000), which treats any movement or exploitation of a child for exploitative purposes as trafficking, irrespective of consent.
• This principle has been incorporated into India’s domestic legal framework.
• Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, trafficking is defined broadly to include recruitment, transportation or harbouring through coercion, deception, abuse of power, or inducement for exploitation.
• The law recognises multiple forms of exploitation, including physical, sexual, economic, and organ trafficking, ensuring a comprehensive scope.

Constitutional Protection of Children

• The Constitution of India provides a strong foundation for protecting children against exploitation.
• Article 23 prohibits human trafficking and forced labour, while Article 24 bans employment of children in hazardous industries.
• Additionally, Article 39(e) and (f) directs the State to ensure that children are protected from abuse and are provided conditions of freedom, dignity, and healthy development.
• These constitutional principles impose a positive obligation on the State to prevent exploitation and address the structural conditions that enable trafficking.

Key Legislations Addressing Child Trafficking

• India has enacted multiple sector-specific laws to address different dimensions of child trafficking:

• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Criminalises trafficking and the buying and selling of minors.
• Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956: Targets trafficking for sexual exploitation.
• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015: Focuses on care, rehabilitation, and reintegration of trafficked children.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: Provides stringent punishments for sexual offences against children, including life imprisonment and death penalty in extreme cases.

• The POCSO Act is notable for being gender-neutral and for enabling fast-track courts to ensure speedy trials.

Judicial Interventions and Supreme Court Guidelines

• The judiciary has played a critical role in shaping India’s anti-trafficking response. In landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has recognised trafficking as a violation of the fundamental right to life and dignity.
• Cases such as Vishal Jeet v. Union of India, C. Mehta v. State of Tamil Nadu, and Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India established preventive, rehabilitative, and regulatory principles.
• More recently, the Court has issued strict guidelines emphasising victim-centric approaches, accountability of authorities, and coordinated enforcement.

Structural Challenges in Tackling Child Trafficking

• Despite a robust legal framework, several challenges persist:

• Low conviction rates, which weaken deterrence
• Socio-economic vulnerabilities such as poverty, migration, disasters, and family breakdown
• Misuse of digital platforms for recruitment under the guise of jobs or opportunities
• Fragmented enforcement, due to trafficking networks operating across State boundaries

• Law and order, being a State subject, further complicates coordinated action, making Centre-State cooperation essential.

Way Forward: Strengthening India’s Anti-Trafficking Response

• A multi-dimensional strategy is required to tackle child trafficking effectively.
• This includes improving investigation quality, strengthening rehabilitation mechanisms, enhancing digital surveillance, and ensuring faster trials.
• Most importantly, conviction rates must improve to establish credible deterrence.
• Equally critical is addressing root causes through social protection, education, livelihood support, and awareness programmes.
• A strong institutional partnership between the Union and States is indispensable for disrupting trafficking networks operating across jurisdictions.

Why in News?

• The U.S. President Donald Trump invited India to join the proposed Board of Peace for Gaza, a new governance and conflict-management mechanism.
• The initiative emerges from a group of Islamic countries backed Trump’s peace plan for Gaza and coincides with broader U.S. efforts to restructure global governance outside traditional multilateral institutions, especially the United Nations (UN).
• The proposal has triggered a global debate on the future of the post-World War II international order, particularly the relevance and authority of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Board of Peace for Gaza
• India’s Position
• Broader Global Governance Debate
• Key Challenges and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Board of Peace for Gaza:

• Purpose and mandate:
  • To supervise Gaza’s transitional governance, stabilisation, and reconstruction.
  • To oversee a temporary technocratic, apolitical Palestinian administration.
  • To manage funding for redevelopment until the Palestinian Authority (PA) completes institutional reforms.
  • Trump now seeks to expand this Gaza-specific mechanism into a global conflict-resolution template.
• Composition and leadership:
  • Chaired by U.S. President Donald Trump, its members include select invited countries and global leaders (e.g., Tony Blair).
  • It will operate as an invitation-only body, not based on universal membership.
• UN linkage:
  • UNSC Resolution 2803 authorised a Board to supervise Gaza’s transition until 2027.
  • Russia and China abstained, but the countries of the Global South voted for it.

India’s Position:

• Current status: India has received the invitation but has not formally responded. Pakistan has also been invited.
• India’s stated principles:
  • Consistent support for a Two-State Solution (Israel and Palestine coexisting).
  • India welcomed the first phase of Trump’s peace plan, especially release of hostages, and enhanced humanitarian assistance to Gaza.
• On military involvement: The U.S. is seeking troops for a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF). India has clearly ruled out participation, as ISF is not a UN peacekeeping mission.

Broader Global Governance Debate:

• Challenge to the UN system:
  • Critics argue the Board of Peace undermines UN Charter principles, sovereign equality of states, and collective decision-making.
  • It is seen as an attempt to sidestep the UNSC and concentrate authority in the U.S.-led executive body.
• Trump’s multilateral skepticism:
  • Because of the continuation of Trump’s long-standing approach. For example, withdrawal from UNESCO, WHO; exit from over 60 international organisations.
  • Aligned with Project 2025 (the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for Trump’s second term), which called for sharp reductions in multilateral commitments and a preference for ad hoc coalitions where the US sets the agenda.
• From Gaza to global template:
  • Trump aims to transform the Board into a general crisis-management club.
  • It is framed as a solution to UNSC paralysis, especially veto politics.
  • It risks diverting funds, legitimacy, and attention away from the UN if successful.

Key Challenges and Way Ahead:

• For global order:
  • Erosion of multilateralism and UN centrality. Rise of exclusive, power-driven governance mechanisms. Undermining rules-based international order.
• For India:
  • Tension between commitment to reformed multilateralism, and pragmatic engagement with the U.S.-led initiatives.
  • Risk of legitimising a system that weakens India’s long-term push for UNSC reform, and marginalises voices of the Global South.
• India’s options:
  • Calibrated engagement: Engage diplomatically without endorsing erosion of UN authority. Maintain distinction between political oversight and military involvement.
  • Defend UN-centric multilateralism: Reiterate support for UNSC-authorised mechanisms. Resist normalisation of extra-UN security architectures.
  • Strategic autonomy: Balance ties with the U.S. while safeguarding India’s principled positions. Coordinate with like-minded countries of the Global South.
  • Push for UN reform: Use the crisis to highlight urgency of UNSC reform, not its bypassing.

Conclusion:

• The invitation to India to join the Board of Peace for Gaza places New Delhi at a critical crossroads in global diplomacy.
• While the initiative promises flexibility and decisiveness in conflict management, it also represents a fundamental challenge to the UN-led multilateral order that India has long defended.
• As global governance enters a phase of extraordinary flux, it tests India’s ability to balance principle with pragmatism in an evolving world order.

Context

• The recent partial reunification of ancient Buddhist gems associated with the historical Buddha marks a moment of considerable significance for India’s cultural heritage sector.
• These artifacts, dispersed for more than a century, were reacquired from abroad by an Indian conglomerate and subsequently transferred to the government, prompting a celebratory public exhibition inaugurated in Delhi by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
• Beyond the event itself lies a deeper question about the long-term stewardship, presentation, and interpretation of these relics.
• If handled with care and foresight, their return has the potential to shift public attitudes toward India’s museums, enhance heritage governance, and position India as a central destination for global Buddhist pilgrimage.

Buddhist Relics and Early Indian Heritage Practices

• Understanding the historical place of relics in Buddhism clarifies why such objects, often visually modest and materially unremarkable, commanded extraordinary devotion.
• Following the Buddha’s passing, his corporeal remains, including ash and bone fragments, were periodically divided among followers and ultimately placed in vessels with gems and offerings.
• These relics were interred in stupas, large hemispherical mounds that functioned simultaneously as reliquaries, teaching devices, and ritual centres.
• Their power derived not from aesthetic value but from their perceived ability to sanctify spaces, cultivate devotion, and transform the spiritual lives of those who approached them.

Sanchi as a Model of Spatial and Ritual Engagement

• The Great Stupa at Sanchi illustrates the sophisticated strategies through which relics were contextualized in early India.
• Initially constructed under Ashoka and later expanded, the stupa complex incorporated gateways at the cardinal directions leading to a circumambulatory path.
• Carved reliefs on the gateways depicted episodes from the Buddha’s life, scenes of worship, auspicious symbols, and figures in foreign dress, suggesting both historical continuity and cross-cultural interaction along emerging trade routes.
• Such visual programs prepared visitors emotionally and intellectually to encounter the relics, while railings and monastic presence facilitated a semi-secluded sacred environment conducive to reflection and community-building.
• The success of these strategies is reflected in Sanchi’s growth as a major religious centre supported by diverse social strata and by the expansion of Buddhist sites across the subcontinent.

Adaptation Across Regions and Symbolic Presence

• As Buddhism spread, relic-centred practices evolved.
• In peninsular India, for example, rock-cut cave complexes often contained monolithic stupas that lacked corporeal relics yet conveyed the Buddha’s presence symbolically through sculpture and architectural design.
• This adaptation demonstrates that Buddhist sacred environments could operate even in the absence of physical remains, underscoring the importance of spatial, visual, and ritual framing in mediating sacred experience.
• Such precedents offer instructive models for contemporary institutions seeking to present relics in ways that respect both historical traditions and modern sensibilities.

Contemporary Challenges of Display and Stewardship

• With little of the original Piprawaha stupa surviving, the recently reunited relics are expected to move into a public institution after the Delhi exhibition.
• Merely placing them behind glass vitrines would replicate a colonial museological model that encourages passive viewing and strips objects of ritual potency.
• To avoid this, museums must articulate and implement long-term strategies that honour the multifaceted roles relics have historically played.
• Thoughtfully designed spaces should allow visitors to engage with the relics through chanting, contemplation, meditation, or aesthetic appreciation, acknowledging that relics can still function as living objects within the cultural sphere.

Institutional Responsibilities and Community Engagement

• The return of the relics should also catalyse systemic changes in heritage education and governance.
• Museums could establish grants and fellowships encouraging collaboration among art historians, anthropologists, scientists, and filmmakers to trace how artifacts shape social worlds.
• Educational initiatives should introduce postgraduate students and heritage practitioners to stewardship, restitution ethics, and interpretive methodologies.
• Simultaneously, institutions must engage communities living near heritage sites to combat illicit antiquities trafficking by training them in documentation practices, legal awareness, and heritage advocacy.
• Such programs align India’s heritage stewardship with international norms while empowering local custodians.

Conclusion

• The reunification of the Piprawaha relics represents more than an act of repatriation; it provides an opportunity to reimagine heritage stewardship in India.
• By adopting historically informed display strategies, enhancing educational infrastructures, and involving communities in heritage protection, India can ensure that these relics are not merely preserved but meaningfully revived.
• If such efforts succeed, the relics will not only have returned to the land of the Buddha but will once again be able to exert their transformative aura, inviting both local and international publics to engage with India’s profound Buddhist past.

Context

• The split verdict delivered by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan in Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) v. Union of India marks a significant moment in India’s constitutional and anti-corruption
• The dispute concerns Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which bars inquiry or investigation into allegations against public servants for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties without prior sanction of the appropriate government.
• The controversy revives longstanding questions regarding the balance between shielding honest officials and preserving investigative independence.

Historical and Legal Context

• The conflict surrounding Section 17A follows earlier judicial interventions against executive control over corruption investigations.
• The Single Directive, which required government approval before investigating senior bureaucrats, was struck down in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998).
• The judgment emphasised that the rule of law, equality before law, and protection against the politician-bureaucrat nexus demand insulation of investigative agencies from executive interference.
• Parliament later reintroduced a similar threshold through Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, enacted via the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
• In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI (2014), the Supreme Court invalidated Section 6A, declaring differential investigative thresholds for senior officials discriminatory and violative of Article 14.
• The Court reiterated that however high you may be, the law is above you, underscoring the principle of accountability irrespective of official rank.
• Section 17A of the PC Act, inserted in 2018, extended the protective threshold from senior bureaucrats to all public servants.
• Critics argue that this framework suppresses corruption detection and conflicts with Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014), which mandates FIR registration upon disclosure of a cognisable offence.
• The government defended Section 17A as a safeguard against frivolous complaints and a necessary measure for administrative confidence and policy stability.

The Competing Judicial Views

• Justice Nagarathna’s Position: Section 17A is Unconstitutional
  • Justice Nagarathna held that Section 17A imposes an impermissible barrier to initial inquiry and thus protects the corrupt.
  • The vice lies not in who grants approval but in the requirement of prior sanction itself.
  • For her, Section 17A revives protections previously rejected and undermines transparency, probity, and the demands of the rule-based governance.
  • She identified structural conflicts of interest: the government both oversees the accused officials and grants approval for investigations, enabling a shared departmental interest to deny sanction.
  • The arrangement promotes an institutional nexus that discourages scrutiny and allows wrongdoing to remain unchecked.
• Justice Viswanathan’s Position: Section 17A is Constitutional with Safeguards
  • Justice Viswanathan agreed that vesting approval power in the government would be unconstitutional but viewed prior sanction as legitimate to prevent policy paralysis and shield honest decision-makers from vexatious complaints.
  • The constitutional defect lies in placement, not existence. He proposed that the Lokpal, conceived as an independent anti-corruption authority, could serve as an external filter.
  • The Lokpal Act and PC Act operate in the same normative field, as both incorporate mechanisms for screening, accountability, and protection against misuse, allowing an institutional equilibrium that balances governance and scrutiny.

The Core Constitutional Disagreement and Broader Implications

• The Core Constitutional Disagreement
  • The core disagreement centres on whether prior investigative filters are impermissible barriers or permissible institutional checks if independent.
  • Justice Nagarathna rejects any pre-investigation threshold as inconsistent with earlier jurisprudence, while Justice Viswanathan endorses a hybrid model where an independent authority mitigates abuse while preventing executive veto.
• Broader Implications and the Way Forward
  • The dispute engages three constitutional concerns: separation of powers, anti-corruption capability, and administrative efficiency.
  • The resolution will shape India’s state accountability
  • Excessive investigative insulation promotes impunity, whereas unmediated investigative power risks bureaucratic hesitation and diminished state capacity in economic and administrative fields.

Conclusion

• The split verdict in CPIL v. Union of India illustrates a constitutional struggle to balance governance, integrity, and oversight within the modern administrative state.
• A larger Bench of the Supreme Court will now determine whether investigative autonomy, filtered scrutiny, or an institutional hybrid best reflects constitutional commitments to democracy and the rule of law.

About Reserve Bank – Integrated Ombudsman Scheme, 2026:

• It is aimed at further improving the efficiency of the resolution of complaints filed by aggrieved customers of banks and other regulated entities.
• It will come into force on July 1, 2026, replacing the existing Integrated Ombudsman Scheme of 2021.
• The proceedings under the Scheme shall be summary in nature and shall not be bound by any rules of evidence.
• The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) will appoint one or more of its officers as RBI Ombudsman and RBI Deputy Ombudsman to carry out the functions entrusted to them under the Scheme.
  • The appointments will be made generally for a period of three years at a time.
• The RBI will establish a Centralised Receipt and Processing Centre at one or more locations, as may be decided, to receive complaints filed under the Scheme and process them.
• Who does it cover?
  • The entities covered under the new scheme include commercial banks, regional rural banks, state and central co-operative banks, and urban co-operative banks with deposits of Rs 50 crore or more.
  • Additionally, NBFCs that accept deposits or have assets over Rs 100 crore and engage in customer dealings are also included.
  • Furthermore, all non-bank prepaid payment issuers, such as digital wallets, and credit information companies that handle credit scores, are part of this list.
  • The scheme excludes housing finance and core investment companies.
• What kind of complaints can be filed?
  • Customers can file complaints related to deficiency in service, such as delays, failure to follow RBI directions, or inadequate customer service.
  • However, issues involving commercial judgment of institutions, disputes between regulated entities, employer–employee matters, or cases already before courts or tribunals are excluded.
  • A key condition for filing a complaint with the ombudsman is that the customer must first approach the concerned entity.
  • The ombudsman can be approached only if there is no response within 30 days or if the customer is dissatisfied with the reply.
• Is there a cap on compensation?
  • There is no limit on the value of the dispute that can be brought before the ombudsman.
  • RBI Ombudsman can award compensation of up to ₹30 lakh for consequential financial loss and up to ₹3 lakh for non-financial losses such as harassment, mental anguish, or loss of time.
• How can complaints be filed?
  • Complaints can be filed online through the RBI’s Complaint Management System portal, or sent by email or post to a centralised receipt and processing centre.
• The complaint handling process:
  • The RBI Ombudsman (or Deputy) acts like a judge for these disputes.
  • The process emphasises conciliation and settlement between the customer and the regulated entity.
  • If a settlement cannot be reached, the ombudsman can pass an award after giving both sides an opportunity to be heard.
  • If a customer is unhappy with the decision of the Ombudsman, she can appeal to the appellate authority (RBI's executive director) within 30 days.
  • Entities can appeal too, but only with senior approval and not if they ignored document requests.
  • The authority can uphold, change, or send back the case.

About Pratas Islands:

• The Pratas Islands, also known as the Dongsha Islands, are a small group of three islands located in the northern part of the South China Sea.
• These islands are characterized by a circular atoll structure, with Dongsha Island being the only island above sea level, while the other two are submerged.
• They are composed primarily of clastic coral and reef flats.
• Once discovered during the ancient Han Dynasty, Dongsha Island became an important point along trade and fishing routes through the Taiwan Strait, which separates Taiwan from mainland China, and the Bashi Channel between Y'Ami Island of the Philippines and Orchid Island of Taiwan.
• They are strategically important positions along the major sea route connecting the Pacific and Indian ocean.
• The People’s Republic of China claims them, but Taiwan controls them and has declared them part of the Dongsha Atoll National Park.
• There are no permanent residents. But Taiwanese marines are stationed there.
• The region is notable for its rich biodiversity, supporting a variety of flora and fauna, including numerous fish species, coral, and migratory birds like the Chinese Egret.
• The ongoing tensions between Taiwan and China, along with the impacts of global warming, continue to pose risks to the islands and their biodiversity.

About Irrawaddy Dolphin:

• It is a euryhaline species of oceanic dolphin found in discontinuous subpopulations near sea coasts and in estuaries and rivers in parts of the Bay of Bengal and Southeast Asia.
  • Euryhaline organisms survive in a range of salinity. These organisms thrive in saltwater, freshwater, and brackish water.
• Scientific Name: Orcaella brevirostris
• Habitat and Distribution:
  • It is found in rivers in South and Southeast Asia: the Irrawaddy (Myanmar), the Mahakam (Kalimatan, Indonesia), and the Mekong (Cambodia).
  • Indian presence: Occurs mainly in Chilika Lake (Odisha); also reported in the Sundarbans region.
  • Irrawaddy dolphins prefer coastal areas, particularly muddy, brackish waters at river mouths and deltas, and do not appear to venture far offshore.
• Conservation Status:
  • IUCN Red List: Endangered