Why in news?

President Donald Trump has ordered the United States to withdraw from 66 international organisations, including several UN agencies and the International Solar Alliance led by India and France. Calling these bodies “redundant” and contrary to US interests, Trump directed immediate action through a formal memorandum to all federal agencies.

India’s assessment is that the immediate fallout will be reduced funding and weakened leadership across these institutions, from the World Health Organization to UNESCO.

The resulting vacuum is expected to create space for China, which has the resources and institutional capacity to expand its influence within global governance structures.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why the US Is Pulling Out of International Organisations?
• US Exit from the Global Climate Framework
• How Trump Seeks to Project Power Outside Global Institutions?

Why the US Is Pulling Out of International Organisations?

• Trump’s Core Argument: Cost Without Control - Since beginning his second term, Donald Trump has argued that the United States contributes disproportionately to global organisations while having limited influence over their agenda.
  • He describes this as “globalist” and misaligned with US interests.
• Allegations of Pro-China Bias - Trump has repeatedly accused international bodies of favouring China, despite Washington being the largest or among the largest financial contributors. He claims US funding indirectly supports institutions that shield or empower Beijing.
• The WHO Exit as a Precedent - This reasoning underpinned the US withdrawal from the World Health Organization in January 2025. The US cited WHO’s failure to reform and its alleged inability to remain independent of political influence from member states.
• Funding Disparities Highlighted - The US pointed to payment imbalances, noting that China—despite having over three times the US population—contributes nearly 90% less to the WHO, reinforcing Trump’s view that the burden-sharing system is unfair.
• Broader Policy Direction - The WHO exit set the template for a wider retreat from international organisations, reflecting Trump’s preference for unilateral action and transactional global engagement over multilateral governance.

US Exit from the Global Climate Framework

• President Donald Trump’s memo lists the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) among bodies the US will exit.
  • The UNFCCC underpins global climate cooperation and led to later accords such as the Paris Agreement.
• The US would be the first country to leave the UNFCCC, forfeiting influence over negotiations that shape major economic policy and opportunities.
• The move follows a broader retreat: last year, the United States skipped the UN’s annual climate summit for the first time in nearly 30 years, signalling reduced engagement in multilateral climate action.
• Withdrawal from UN Women and UNFPA?
  • The US will also exit UN Women and the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), which supports family planning and maternal and child health in over 150 countries. US funding for UNFPA was cut last year.
• Funding Cuts and UN Impact
  • Exiting these bodies entails further funding reductions.
  • President Trump has already curtailed most voluntary US contributions, diminishing both American involvement and financial support across the United Nations system.

How Trump Seeks to Project Power Outside Global Institutions?

• Tariffs and Military Power as Primary Tools - Despite withdrawing from major international organisations, President Donald Trump is unlikely to step back from global influence. His administration continues to rely on tariff threats and military power as key instruments.
  • In 2025 alone, the US carried out military actions in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran, signalling readiness to use force when deemed necessary.
• Selective Multilateral Engagement - US officials have indicated that a complete withdrawal from the United Nations is unlikely. Washington wants to remain part of forums that set global standards, especially because China holds veto power at the UN. Staying engaged allows the US to counter Chinese influence from within.
• Strategic Retention of Key Bodies - Trump is expected to maintain ties with technical and regulatory bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union, International Maritime Organization, and International Labour Organization, where standards shape global commerce and technology—and where rivalry with China is intense.
• Diplomacy Backed by Force - Diplomacy is preferred, but military action remains an option—citing Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro as an example where diplomacy failed.
• NATO and Strategic Posturing - Trump’s push to acquire Greenland has raised concerns within NATO, but he has insisted the US will remain committed to the alliance.
  • His broader message underscores a belief that US power—economic and military—remains the ultimate guarantor of influence, even as institutional engagement narrows.

Why in news?

Eminent ecologist Madhav Gadgil passed away at 83 in Pune, leaving behind a lasting environmental legacy.

Among his many contributions, his role as chair of the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) remains the most influential. Although the panel’s report was rejected by the then government, Gadgil consistently advocated for safeguarding the fragile Western Ghats from unregulated development.

Years on, the report’s warnings and recommendations continue to resurface in public debate, especially after landslides and ecological disasters in the region, underscoring its enduring relevance.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• A Prescription for Protecting the Western Ghats
• Recommendations of the Gadgil Panel
• Political Opposition to the Gadgil Panel Report
• The Kasturirangan Panel and the Scaled-Down Western Ghats Plan

A Prescription for Protecting the Western Ghats

• The Western Ghats stretch from Gujarat to Kerala and Tamil Nadu and act as the water tower of peninsular India.
• Major rivers like the Cauvery, Godavari, Krishna, Periyar and Netravathi originate here.
• The region is a global biodiversity hotspot with high endemism, hosting species found nowhere else.
• Why the WGEEP Was Set Up?
  • In March 2010, the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) was constituted due to the region’s ecological sensitivity, complex geography and growing threats from climate change and unregulated development.
  • The panel’s formation was triggered by a 2010 meeting of the Save Western Ghats movement in the Nilgiris, attended by then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. The deliberations led to the creation of WGEEP.
  • The panel was tasked with:
    • assessing the ecology of the Western Ghats, identifying ecologically sensitive areas,
    • recommending ecologically sensitive zones, and
    • proposing conservation, rejuvenation and governance mechanisms for sustainable development.

Recommendations of the Gadgil Panel

• Entire Western Ghats as Ecologically Sensitive - The Gadgil-led panel designated the entire 1,29,037 sq km of the Western Ghats as an Ecologically Sensitive Area (ESA), reflecting the region’s overall ecological fragility.
• Three-Tier Sensitivity Zoning - The Ghats were divided into three categories — ESZ 1, ESZ 2 and ESZ 3 — based on levels of ecological sensitivity, with stricter controls in the more fragile zones.
• Restrictions on Development Activities - The panel proposed banning genetically modified crops, new special economic zones and new hill stations across ESZs.
  • It called for no new mining licences and the phase-out of existing mines within five years in ESZ 1 and 2, and a complete ban on new quarrying in ESZ 1.
• Limits on Infrastructure Expansion - New railway lines and major roads were to be avoided in ESZ 1 and 2, except where absolutely essential, to minimise ecological disruption.
• Creation of a Statutory Authority - The report recommended setting up a 24-member Western Ghats Ecology Authority (WGEA) under the Environment Protection Act to regulate, manage and plan activities across all ecologically sensitive zones in the six Western Ghats States.
• Composition of the Authority - The proposed authority was to include domain and resource experts, along with representatives from key nodal ministries, ensuring coordinated, multi-state environmental governance.

Political Opposition to the Gadgil Panel Report

• The Gadgil panel submitted its draft report in March 2011 and the final version in August 2011.
• The report was not made public and was instead shared with State governments for comments.
  • Environmental groups challenged the secrecy through RTI applications.
  • After intervention by the Chief Information Commissioner and subsequent court proceedings, the report was finally made public in May 2012.
• Gadgil argued that the report promoted inclusive development and recommended placing its proposals before Gram Sabhas to move away from exclusionary models of conservation and growth.
• State-Level Resistance
  • The report faced strong opposition from Kerala and Maharashtra.
  • Maharashtra objected to the proposed Western Ghats Ecology Authority, calling it a parallel structure to existing institutions.
  • Kerala argued that declaring large areas as ecologically sensitive would hurt agriculture and livelihoods in districts such as Idukki and Wayanad.
  • Political leaders and the Catholic Church warned of economic disruption and displacement of local communities.

The Kasturirangan Panel and the Scaled-Down Western Ghats Plan

• After widespread opposition to the Gadgil report, the Environment Ministry set up a High-Level Working Group in 2012 under space scientist K.Kasturirangan to review the recommendations.
• Key Recommendations of the 2013 Report
  • The Kasturirangan panel proposed declaring about 56,825 sq km of the Western Ghats as ecologically sensitive.
  • It supported curbs on mining, polluting industries, thermal power plants, and large townships, but adopted a narrower approach than the Gadgil panel.
  • Unlike the earlier report, the panel identified specific villages as ecologically sensitive and released state-wise lists, making the proposal more targeted and administratively feasible.
• Policy Deadlock Continues
  • Based on the report, the Centre has issued six draft ESA notifications, the latest in August 2024.
  • However, disagreements with States persist, and a committee led by former Director General of Forests Sanjay Kumar is still working to finalise the boundaries.

Context:

• Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has gone beyond simply checking whether government decisions are lawful and has started issuing detailed, forward-looking directions in major environmental cases.
• This has often happened because regulators failed to act properly, forcing the Court to step in.
• However, instead of fixing the regulatory process and then withdrawing, the Court has continued to play a supervisory role.
• This prolonged involvement blurs the line between judging and regulating, creates uncertainty for governments and regulated industries, and can weaken accountability. The approach, while well-intentioned, needs restraint.
• This article highlights how the Court’s growing role in issuing forward-looking environmental directions has blurred the line between judging and governing, creating uncertainty, accountability gaps, and institutional strain.

How Supreme Court Environmental Rulings Have Shifted Over Time?

• Broad Rules, Later Modified
  • In 2022, the Court ordered a minimum 1-km eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around all protected areas.
  • By 2023, it softened this rule, exempting areas where the Environment Ministry had already issued ESZ notifications, after States said a blanket rule was impractical.
• Vehicle Bans: From Strict to Flexible
  • In 2015, the Court banned registration of large diesel vehicles in Delhi-NCR.
  • Less than a year later, it lifted the ban and replaced it with a compensatory charge.
  • In 2025, it again began with a broad protection for older vehicles, then narrowed it to apply only to those below BS-IV standards.
• Firecracker Restrictions
  • The Court followed a similar pattern on firecrackers—sometimes imposing near-total bans due to air pollution, then relaxing them for festivals and “green crackers”, citing enforcement and public order challenges.
• Stepping Into the Regulator’s Role
  • Weak enforcement, delayed rules, and poor monitoring by authorities often prompted judicial intervention.
  • Instead of fixing regulatory failures, the Court frequently took over regulatory decision-making itself.
• From Legal Principles to Managing Consequences
  • In Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), the Court initially ruled that post-facto environmental clearances violate core principles.
  • Months later, it reversed course, worried about disrupting ongoing projects—showing a shift from legal doctrine to managing practical fallout.
• Key Concern
  • The pattern reflects a move from judging legality to governing outcomes, where strong principles are announced first and adjusted later—raising questions about consistency and institutional limits.

The Problem of Expertise in Court-Led Environmental Decisions

• Relying on Experts — Then Reconsidering
  • When the Court issues forward-looking environmental directions, it often depends on expert committees.
  • For example, in the Aravalli hills case, the Court adopted a unified definition to regulate mining based on expert findings.
  • Soon after, it paused the order and set up a new committee, fearing unintended legal consequences.
  • This shows how expert advice is used, questioned, and sometimes reversed.
• One-Size-Fits-All Rules Don’t Always Work
  • In the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) issue, a uniform buffer initially appeared decisive.
  • But as stakeholders highlighted differences in ecology and feasibility across regions, resistance grew.
  • What sounded scientifically sound on paper proved difficult to apply everywhere.
• A Push-Pull with Expertise
  • The Court uses expert inputs to overcome its own technical limits, but it also challenges or re-evaluates that expertise.
  • This back-and-forth is not inherently wrong, but it has led to frequent course corrections and uncertainty.
• Early Court Intervention Limits Public Challenge
  • A bigger concern is the Court acting like an approving authority too early. As environmental experts note, project developers and governments often approach the Court before statutory regulators finish their review.
  • This gives decisions a sense of finality that discourages later challenges.
  • When the Court steps in early, it can weaken meaningful scrutiny by other forums.
  • Later changes to Court-made rules then reshape who gets heard and what evidence matters—narrowing space for public participation and legal review.

Why Environmental Governance Needs Stability and Clear Roles?

• Many environmental cases continue under ongoing court supervision, with repeated interim orders and changes. While this makes course correction easy, it often creates uncertainty.
• Instead, the Court could take a steadier approach by pushing governments to do their regulatory job properly rather than managing it itself.
• This means setting clear limits on when the Court will intervene, demanding time-bound action backed by data and reasons, and focusing on reviewing legality and procedure.
• Avoiding broad rules that need quick exceptions would also bring clarity.
• Such an approach would create predictable rules for businesses, reduce confusion for governments, and give citizens a clear path to challenge environmental harm.

Why in News?

• In a significant policy shift, the Government of India is set to allow private sector participation in the core conservation of protected monuments, a domain hitherto monopolised by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
• This move aims to address capacity constraints, improve efficiency, and mobilise CSR funding for heritage conservation, while retaining regulatory oversight with the ASI.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Key Developments
• How the New Model Will Work?
• Reasons for the Shift - Limitations of the Existing ASI Model
• What is New Compared to Earlier Initiatives?
• Global Parallels (Best Practices)
• Challenges and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Key Developments:

• The Ministry of Culture is empanelling private conservation architects and agencies through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, closing on January 12.
• Over 20 private heritage conservation agencies from across the country have applied.
• After empanelment, corporate donors contributing via the National Culture Fund (NCF) will be allowed to directly engage conservation agencies of their choice.
• The conservation work will be undertaken within ASI-prescribed frameworks and under its overall supervision.

How the New Model Will Work?

• Eligibility criteria for conservation architects:
  • Experience in conservation or restoration of centrally protected monuments under ASI, State Archaeology Departments, CPWD or State PWD.
  • Experience in heritage projects of PSUs, municipal corporations, and private palaces or buildings (minimum 100 years old).
• Role of donors and agencies:
  • Donors provide funds to the NCF under CSR provisions.
  • Donors have independence to select empanelled conservation architects.
  • Projects must adhere to approved Detailed Project Reports (DPRs), timeframes fixed by donors, and established conservation norms.
  • Execution will be carried out by private agencies, under guidance of conservation architects, supervision of ASI or concerned government agencies.

Reasons for the Shift - Limitations of the Existing ASI Model:

• Monopoly and capacity constraints:
  • ASI is responsible for conserving around 3,700 protected monuments.
  • It has been the sole agency for preparing DPRs, executing conservation works.
  • This led to slow project implementation, delays in utilisation of CSR funds.
• Performance of the NCF:
  • Established in 1996 with an initial corpus of ₹20 crore, the fund has received ₹140 crore in donations so far.
  • It has funded about 100 conservation projects - 70 completed, almost 20 ongoing.
  • The corporate donors faced difficulties due to weak compliance timelines.

What is New Compared to Earlier Initiatives?

• The earlier ‘Adopt a Heritage’ scheme allowed corporates to become Monument Mitras but was limited to tourist amenities (toilets, ticketing, cafes, signage).
• For the first time, private donors are being allowed into core conservation work of monuments.
• The Ministry has identified 250 monuments requiring conservation. Donors may choose from the list, or propose monuments based on regional or thematic preference (subject to approval).

Global Parallels (Best Practices):

• United Kingdom: Churches Conservation Trust with strong private participation.
• United States: Active involvement of private organisations and funding in heritage protection.
• Germany and Netherlands: Heritage foundations supported by private funding.
• These models reflect Public–Private Partnerships (PPP) under strong state regulation.

Challenges and Way Ahead:

• Risk of commercialisation of heritage: Transparent audits and periodic reviews of projects. Promote community and academic involvement alongside corporates.
• Ensuring uniform conservation: Develop clear conservation guidelines and SOPs.
• Potential conflicts: Between donor preferences and archaeological integrity.
• Need for robust monitoring mechanisms: To prevent dilution of ASI’s authority. Strengthen ASI’s role as a regulator and knowledge authority.
• Capacity constraints: Capacity-building and certification of conservation professionals.

Conclusion:

• Opening monument conservation to the private sector marks a paradigm shift in India’s heritage governance, moving towards a PPP-based, capacity-enhancing model.
• While the ASI retains supervisory control, private participation is expected to accelerate conservation, improve fund utilisation, and create a national talent pool in heritage management.
• Success, however, will depend on strong regulation, accountability, and adherence to conservation ethics.

Why in the News?

• India’s space programme is at a crucial juncture as the national space agency faces the challenge of sustaining high-frequency, complex missions at an industrial scale.

What’s In Today’s Article?

• India’s Space Programme (Overview, Capacity Constraints, Need for Industrial-Scale Execution, Governance Challenges, Global Space Economy, Way Forward)

India’s Space Programme: A Phase of Maturity

• Over the past decade, India’s space programme has achieved a remarkable breadth of accomplishments despite operating with modest budgets compared to global peers.
• Reliable launch services using the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) have become routine, while heavier and more complex missions have been executed using the GSLV and LVM-3
• Successful lunar landing capabilities, a dedicated solar observatory, and advanced Earth observation collaborations have positioned India among a select group of spacefaring nations.
• These achievements reflect a shift from experimental missions to operational reliability.
• However, sustained success has also raised expectations, pushing the space programme into a phase where the ability to execute missions consistently and at scale has become as important as technological breakthroughs.

Rising Mission Complexity and Capacity Constraints

• As India prepares for upcoming programmes such as human spaceflight, advanced lunar exploration, and next-generation launch vehicles, mission complexity is increasing rapidly.
• These programmes demand higher launch frequencies, parallel project execution, and faster turnaround times.
• However, the current launch cadence and integration capacity have emerged as structural bottlenecks.
• A limited number of launches in recent years has highlighted constraints in testing infrastructure, manufacturing depth, and project scheduling.
• When delays or anomalies occur in one mission, they often cascade across unrelated programmes, slowing the overall pace of development.
• This challenge underlines the need for greater industrial integration, expanded testing facilities, and a workflow capable of absorbing setbacks without disrupting the entire mission pipeline.

Need for Industrial-Scale Execution

• The next phase of India’s space journey requires a transition from mission-centric execution to system-level industrial performance.
• This involves separating design, integration, and operational roles more clearly and expanding the industrial supply chain for structures, avionics, and propulsion systems.
• An industrial-scale approach would allow routine missions to proceed independently of experimental or research-oriented projects.
• It would also reduce dependence on a single institutional bottleneck and enable higher mission throughput.
• Such a shift is essential for achieving long-term goals such as reusable launch systems and high-payload capabilities.

Governance Challenges in a Liberalised Space Sector

• India’s space sector has undergone liberalisation in recent years, with the creation of new institutions to promote private participation and commercialisation.
• While roles have been outlined on paper, practical governance challenges remain.
• The absence of a comprehensive national space law has led to ambiguity in authorisation, liability, insurance, and dispute resolution.
• As a result, the national space agency often continues to function as a default regulator, technical certifier, and problem-solver, even in areas that should ideally be handled by specialised bodies.
• Clear statutory backing for regulatory and commercial institutions would reduce institutional overload and allow the core space agency to focus on frontier technologies and strategic missions.

Competitiveness in a Rapidly Evolving Global Space Economy

• Globally, the space sector is shifting towards higher launch frequencies, partial reusability, and rapid satellite manufacturing.
• Competitiveness now depends not only on engineering excellence but also on cost efficiency, production depth, and access to capital.
• India’s future launch systems are being designed with reusability and heavy-lift capability in mind, reflecting this changing environment.
• However, building and operating such systems requires advanced manufacturing ecosystems, robust qualification infrastructure, and sustained investment.
• Recent declines in private investment highlight the difficulty of financing long-gestation space hardware projects, underscoring the need for targeted funding mechanisms and long-term policy stability.

Way Forward for India’s Space Programme

• The success of India’s space ambitions will depend on whether its institutions can evolve from executing individual landmark missions to functioning as a resilient industrial system.
• Engineering capability, regulatory clarity, manufacturing depth, and financial support must mature together.
• If this transition is achieved, India will be able to deliver complex missions routinely, strengthen its global competitiveness, and unlock new opportunities in science, security, and commercial space activities.

Context

• The architecture of fiscal federalism in India is designed around the constitutional obligation of resource sharing between the Union and the States.
• Central to this framework are the Finance Commissions (FCs), which periodically determine the share of Union tax revenues devolved to States and the formula used to distribute them.
• While the recommendations of fifteen FCs have been implemented, the Sixteenth FC’s report is awaited, and the broader system of transfers has come under scrutiny.

Central Transfers and Fiscal Autonomy

• Central transfers take three primary forms: tax devolution, grants-in-aid and Centrally Sponsored Schemes (CSS).
• Over time, concerns have grown that this system has progressively reduced fiscal autonomy for States.
• The Goods and Services Tax (GST) curtailed independent revenue-raising powers and created compensation dependencies, while GST rate cuts generated additional revenue shortfalls.
• At the same time, CSS expanded in scope, prescribing expenditure patterns and reducing flexibility for State-level prioritisation.
• Another contentious issue is the Union’s increasing reliance on cesses and surcharges, which are constitutionally excluded from the divisible pool.
• High-performing States also argue that FC recommendations privilege equity over efficiency, with frequent changes in weighting of variables such as population and income distance.
• These decisions have contributed to perceptions of arbitrariness, especially given persistent disparities in expenditure needs and fiscal capacity across regions.

Tax Contribution versus Collection

• Economically advanced States such as Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu argue that they contribute disproportionately to Union revenues while receiving relatively smaller shares through devolution.
• The challenge lies in distinguishing between where taxes are collected and where income is generated.
• Direct taxes are often recorded in States where corporate headquarters or high-income individuals file returns, rather than where economic value is actually created.
• Multi-State firms, labour mobility and complex inter-State transactions exacerbate this attribution gap.
• Examples illustrate these distortions: automobile firms based in Tamil Nadu produce for a national market, yet tax payments may be recorded in other States.
• Plantation companies headquartered in Kerala generate profits nationwide, though taxes accrue locally.
• These patterns underscore that direct tax collections are not a reliable measure of State-wise contribution.

 GSDP as a Proxy for Tax Accrual and The Mismatch

• GSDP as a Proxy
  • Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) provides a more accurate proxy for assessing the underlying tax base.
  • Since GSDP reflects the scale of economic activity and assuming comparable tax administration efficiency across States, a State’s share in national GSDP can approximate its contribution to Union revenues.
  • This relationship is especially strong for GST, a destination-based tax whose attribution across States aligns with consumption.
  • From 2020–21 to 2024–25, the Union devolved 41 percent of gross tax revenues to States, supplemented through grants and CSS, amounting to ₹75.12 lakh crore.
• The Mismatch
  • Uttar Pradesh received the largest share (15.81 percent), followed by Bihar (8.65 percent) and West Bengal (6.96 percent).
  • However, these States accounted for only 4.6, 0.67 and 3.99 percent of combined direct and GST collections.
  • In contrast, Maharashtra contributed 40.3 percent but received just 6.64 percent, while Karnataka and Tamil Nadu contributed 12.65 and 7.61 percent, receiving 3.9 and 4.66 percent respectively. These imbalances have intensified concerns about fairness.
  • Correlation patterns further illuminate this mismatch. The Fifteenth FC’s devolution shares correlate strongly with actual transfers but weakly with tax collections.
  • GSDP shares correlate strongly with collections and moderately with transfers, indicating that GSDP aligns contribution with redistribution.
  • Only Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra show GSDP shares below tax shares, due to headquarters clustering.
  • Tamil Nadu shows the opposite pattern, reflecting production whose taxes accrue elsewhere.

Potential Reforms and Redistribution Effects

• If central transfers were allocated purely on GSDP shares, nine of twenty major States would gain, with Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu benefiting most.
• Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Madhya Pradesh would experience the largest reductions.
• These changes would be moderate because GSDP shares differ less sharply from tax collection shares than current devolution outcomes.

Conclusion

• The debate over India’s central transfers is ultimately a contest between competing principles of federal design: equity, efficiency and legitimacy.
• The Indian system prioritises equity through redistribution, benefiting fiscally weaker States but generating dissatisfaction among high-contributing States.
• Increasing the weight of GSDP in the formula could better reflect economic contributions, enhance legitimacy and strengthen cooperative federalism without abandoning redistribution.

About Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC):

• It is a transformative initiative by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, aimed at democratizing digital commerce.
• It aims at promoting open networks for all aspects of the exchange of goods and services over digital or electronic networks.
• It represents a step toward digital commerce democratization, shifting it from a platform-centric model—where a few e-commerce giants dominate the market—to an open, interoperable platform where buyers and sellers can interact regardless of the platforms they’re using.
• It is based on open-sourced methodology, using open specifications and open network protocols independent of any specific e-commerce platform.
• It envisions creating a level playing field for sellers, buyers, and service providers across India, particularly small and medium enterprises (MSMEs).
• The initiative has several key objectives:
  • Democratization of Commerce: Break the dominance of large e-commerce platforms by enabling interoperability across networks.
  • Inclusivity: Empower small businesses, retailers, and local artisans to access the digital marketplace.
  • Cost Efficiency: Lower the cost of customer acquisition and transaction processing for sellers.
  • Market Expansion: Bridge regional and linguistic gaps, bringing untapped markets into the fold of digital commerce.
  • Customer Empowerment: Increase options for buyers by providing access to a broader array of sellers.
• It will enable local commerce across segments, such as mobility, grocery, food order and delivery, hotel booking and travel, among others, to be discovered and engaged by any network-enabled application.
• It comprises buyer-side apps where consumers can place orders, seller-side apps that onboard merchants and display their listings, and logistics platforms that handle deliveries.
• Benefits:
  • It offers small retailers an opportunity to provide their services, and goods to buyers across the country through an e-commerce system.
  • It enables merchants to save their data to build credit history and reach consumers.
  • It is expected to digitise the entire value chain, promote inclusion of suppliers, derive efficiencies in logistics, and enhance value for consumers.
  • ONDC protocols would standardize operations like cataloguing, inventory management, order management, and order fulfilment.

About PSLV-C62 Mission:

• It is a multi-payload mission of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) that will carry one primary satellite and 18 secondary payloads into space.
• It is ISRO’s first space launch of 2026.
• It is scheduled to lift off from Sriharikota.
• The mission's primary payload is the earth observation satellite EOS-N1 (codenamed ‘Anvesha’), an hyperspectral imaging satellite developed primarily for the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) for strategic purposes.
  • Unlike conventional imaging satellites, hyperspectral satellites can “see” the Earth in hundreds of wavelengths, allowing them to identify materials and objects with far greater precision.
  • This capability makes EOS-N1 a high-value asset for national security, border surveillance and strategic monitoring.
  • At the same time, the satellite will also be used for civilian applications such as agriculture planning, urban mapping, mineral detection, and environmental monitoring.
• PSLV-C62 will also carry Europe's Kestrel Initial Demonstrator (KID), an experimental mission involving a small re-entry capsule developed in collaboration with a Spanish startup.
  • The capsule is expected to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere and splash down in the South Pacific Ocean.
• Additionally, commercial payloads from startups and research institutions across India, Mauritius, Luxembourg, the UAE, Singapore, Europe, and the United States are manifested for the PSLV-C62 Mission.
• Several Indian startups and academic institutions are also flying their satellites.
  • These include OrbitAID Aerospace’s AayulSAT, CV Raman Global University’s CGUSAT-1, Dhruva Space’s DA-1, Space Kidz India’s SR-2, Assam Don Bosco University’s Lachit-1, Akshath Aerospace’s Solaras-S4, and Dayanand Sagar University’s DSAT-1.
• Bengaluru-based OrbitAID Aerospace’s AayulSAT stands out as a historic first.
  • It is India’s maiden on-orbit satellite refuelling payload.
  • The mission aims to demonstrate technologies that could extend the operational life of satellites by enabling in-orbit servicing and refuelling.
  • Such capabilities are seen as crucial for tackling space debris and improving sustainability in Earth’s increasingly crowded orbital environment.

About Sports Authority of India (SAI) :

• It is the apex national sports body of India, established by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, Government of India.
• It was set up in 1984 to carry forward the legacy of the IX Asian Games held in New Delhi in 1982 under the Department of Sports.
• It is a registered society fully funded by the Government of India.
• It has been entrusted with the twin objectives of promoting sports and achieving sporting excellence at the national and international level.
• It’s primary efforts include widespread talent scouting and training of selected individuals by providing vital inputs like coaching, infrastructure, equipment support, sports kits, competitive exposure, etc.
• It has played a significant role in shaping India’s sports development by providing training to elite athletes and at the same time operating a number of schemes for the identification and development of young talent.
• The schemes are being implemented through various regional centres and training centres of SAI spread throughout the country.
• SAI implements the following Sports Promotional Schemes across the country to identify talented sportspersons in various age groups and nurture them to excel at the national and international levels:
  • National Centres of Excellence (NCOE)
  • SAI Training Centre (STC)
  • Extension Centre of STC
  • National Sports Talent Contest (NSTC)
• In addition to that, a number of academic programmes in physical education and sports are also offered by SAI.
• SAI is also entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining and utilizing, on behalf of the Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports, the following stadiums in Delhi, which were constructed/renovated for the IXth Asian Games.
  • Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Stadium
  • Indira Gandhi Sports Complex
  • Major Dhyan Chand National Stadium
  • Syama Prasad Mookherjee Swimming Pool Complex
  • Karni Singh Shooting Ranges.