Why in news?

The Supreme Court ruled that Governors cannot hold on to state legislature Bills indefinitely, emphasising that cooperative federalism requires constructive engagement with elected governments, not obstruction.

However, the Constitution Bench also held that courts cannot impose fixed timelines on Governors or the President for granting assent, nor can they create a doctrine of “deemed assent” or force the President to seek judicial advice on pending Bills.

The five-judge Bench—headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai—gave this opinion on a presidential reference asking whether constitutional courts could set deadlines for action under Articles 200 and 201, which deal with gubernatorial and presidential assent to Bills.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background of the Presidential Reference: Why the Issue Reached the Supreme Court?
• Supreme Court’s Stand on 14 Key Questions on Governor–President Powers

Background of the Presidential Reference: Why the Issue Reached the Supreme Court?

• President Droupadi Murmu invoked Article 143(1) to seek the Supreme Court’s advice after controversy arose over delays by Governors and the President in acting on state Bills.
• The trigger was an April 8 judgment in a Tamil Nadu case, where a two-judge Bench laid down strict timelines for Governors and the President to decide on Bills.
• It also used Article 142 and declared 10 Tamil Nadu Bills as having received “deemed assent” because the Governor had not acted for long periods.
• This unprecedented move raised constitutional concerns.
• To resolve the ambiguity, the President submitted a five-page reference with 14 key questions.
• These questions asked:
  • whether courts can impose deadlines on constitutional authorities,
  • whether “deemed assent” is valid, and
  • what limits govern gubernatorial and presidential powers under Articles 200 and 201.

Supreme Court’s Stand on 14 Key Questions on Governor–President Powers

• Governor’s Options on Bills Under Article 200 - The Court held that a Governor has only three options: Grant assent; Reserve the Bill for the President. Withhold assent by returning the Bill for reconsideration. There is no power to withhold assent indefinitely.
  • Article 200 - Governor’s Assent to State Bills
• Governor’s Discretion Under Article 200 - The Governor is not bound by the Cabinet’s advice when deciding on assent, return, or reservation of Bills. This function involves independent constitutional discretion.
• Justiciability of Governor’s Actions - Courts cannot review the merits of the Governor’s decision, but prolonged, unexplained inaction is justiciable. The Court may direct the Governor to act.
• Article 361 Immunity Not Absolute - Article 361 protects the individual Governor, not the institutional office. Immunity cannot be used to justify indefinite delays.
  • Article 361 (Immunity of President and Governors) - Provides personal immunity to the President and Governors from court proceedings during their term, ensuring unhindered functioning in their constitutional roles.
• No Court-Imposed Timelines on Governor - Courts cannot prescribe deadlines for Governors to act on Bills. Article 200’s phrase “as soon as possible” does not permit fixed judicial timelines.
• President’s Discretion Under Article 201 - The President’s merit-based decision on assent or withholding assent to state Bills is not open to judicial review.
• No Timelines for President Either - Courts cannot fix time limits for the President under Article 201.
  • Article 201 – President’s Assent to Reserved Bills
• President Not Required to Seek SC Opinion - The President need not consult the Supreme Court under Article 143 whenever a Bill is reserved for consideration.
  • Article 143 (Presidential Reference to Supreme Court) - Allows the President to seek the Supreme Court’s advisory opinion on significant questions of law or fact. The Court’s advice is not binding; the President may accept or reject it.
• Courts Cannot Review Bills Before They Become Law - Judicial review applies only to laws, not Bills. Courts cannot examine the content or validity of a pending Bill.
• Article 142 Cannot Substitute Constitutional Powers - The Supreme Court cannot use Article 142 to create “deemed assent” or otherwise replace the Governor/President’s constitutional role.
• No Law Without Governor’s/President’s Assent - A Bill cannot become law unless the Governor or President formally grants assent.
• No Answer on Mandatory Referral Under Article 145(3) - The Court declined to answer whether all issues requiring constitutional interpretation must first be tested under Article 145(3).
  • Article 145(3) (Constitution Bench Requirement) - Mandates that a Bench of at least five judges must hear cases involving substantial questions of constitutional interpretation or any Presidential Reference under Article 143.
• Scope of Article 142 - The Court refused a broad interpretation but reiterated that Article 142 cannot override the Constitution, especially requirements like legislative assent.
  • Article 142 (Complete Justice Provision) - Empowers the Supreme Court to issue any order necessary to ensure complete justice in cases before it.
• On Article 131 Jurisdiction - The Court declined to answer whether Article 131 is the exclusive route for resolving Centre–State disputes.
  • Article 131 (Centre–State Disputes) - Grants the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction to adjudicate legal disputes between the Union and States or among States themselves.
• No Judicial Substitution of Executive Power - Reaffirming earlier answers, the Court clarified that judicial powers cannot replace or replicate constitutionally assigned executive functions.

Why in news?

Assam has invoked the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950 for the first time since the state cabinet approved its use earlier this year. The Sonitpur district administration has ordered five people—four women and one man—who were declared foreigners by a tribunal in 2024, to leave India within 24 hours.

However, the individuals are currently untraceable, with police stating they have been “absconding,” and locals claiming they left the area over a decade ago.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• About Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950
• Application of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950

About Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950

• The Immigrants Expulsion from Assam Act (IEAA) was enacted on March 1, 1950, in response to the Assam government’s demand for a legal mechanism to control large-scale migration from East Pakistan after Partition.
• Migration had already become a major political and demographic concern in the state.
• Why the Centre Drafted the Law?
  • Since citizenship is a Union subject, the Central government drafted the Act and delegated specific powers to Assam.
  • Originally, it was even named the Undesirable Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, highlighting its intent.
  • Recognising post-Partition instability, the Act excluded refugees, stating that people displaced due to “civil disturbances” in Pakistan would not be subject to expulsion under the law.
• Powers Granted Under the Act
  • The Act empowered the Centre to order anyone:
    • who was ordinarily a resident outside India,
    • who entered Assam before or after 1950, and
    • whose presence was deemed “detrimental” to India’s general public or to any Scheduled Tribe in Assam,
  • to remove themselves from Assam or India within a specified time and through a designated route.
  • The law authorised any officer of the Union government or Assam government to implement these expulsion orders.

Application of the Immigrants (Expulsion from Assam) Act, 1950

• The Act was applied only briefly. Its enforcement faced practical and political challenges almost immediately after it came into effect.
• Communal Tension and Mass Exodus
  • Historians note that while the Act was being finalised, communal violence in Lower Assam led to 40,000 to 1 lakh Muslims fleeing to East Pakistan.
  • This made identification of “immigrants” difficult because many affected individuals were actually Assam’s original residents, especially Bengali Muslims.
  • A triggering incident involved an old Assamese Muslim resident being ordered to leave within three days, which angered the then PM Nehru.
  • He objected to the implementation of such orders during a sensitive time.
• Nehru–Liaquat Pact Influence
  • The timing coincided with the Nehru–Liaquat Pact (April 1950), aimed at safeguarding minorities in both India and Pakistan.
  • Pakistan’s PM Liaquat Ali Khan raised concerns about Assam’s expulsion orders.
• Centre Orders Suspension of the Act
  • On April 10, 1950, two days after the pact, Nehru wrote to the then Assam CM Gopinath Bordoloi instructing him to stop all action under the IEAA.
  • Nehru stressed that minority safety and restoring peace were the top priorities — continuing expulsions would worsen tensions.
  • Historical accounts suggest that only a few hundred people were actually impacted by the Act before its enforcement was halted.

Why in News?

• India plans to implement the third phase of Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE 3) norms from FY28–FY32 to improve fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions from passenger vehicles.
• However, the weight-based structure of the new norms has triggered significant disagreement within the auto industry, especially between manufacturers of small cars and those with a portfolio dominated by heavier SUVs.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Background
• Why the Industry Is Divided?
• Comparison With Global Norms
• Key Technical Issues
• Challenges
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Background:

• What are CAFE norms?
  • CAFE norms regulate average fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions across a manufacturer’s fleet.
  • It proposes a movement from the current Modified Indian Driving Cycle (MIDC) to the Worldwide Harmonised Light Vehicles Test Procedure (WLTP), which the European Union adopted in 2018.
  • India follows a weight-based formula that becomes progressively stricter each year.
• CAFE 3:
  • It introduces a new weight-based efficiency formula - 0.002 × (W − 1170) + c.
  • Here W is the average fleet weight, 1,170kg is the fixed constant for weight, 0.002 is a fixed constant multiplier, and ‘c’ is a constant that changes every year.
  • Since ‘c’ continues to decrease from FY28 to FY32, the rules will become stricter over time.

Why the Industry Is Divided?

• Impact of the weight-based formula:
  • Lighter cars face steeper efficiency improvements than heavier ones.
  • Example: A 740 kg car needs to become 48% more efficient by FY32. A 2,500 kg SUV needs only 25% improvement, despite higher absolute emissions.
  • Result: Greater regulatory burden on small, budget cars.
• Small-car manufacturers’ concerns:
  • Disproportionate impact: Small cars operate on low margins and cannot easily absorb the cost of: hybrid systems, electrification, light-weighting technologies.
  • Consumers may be priced out: Stricter norms may raise costs of entry-level cars. Could discourage first-time buyers and shrink the affordable car segment.
  • Distortion of CAFE’s original intent: Maruti Suzuki argues CAFE was meant to push big cars to improve fuel efficiency, not punish small cars.
• Why some carmakers support CAFE 3?
  • Tata Motors’ stance: Claims no concerns in achieving the norms. Rejects weight-based definitions of small cars as “Arbitrary”, potentially compromising safety standards.
  • Others (Mahindra, Tata): Oppose higher exemptions for lighter cars.

Comparison With Global Norms:

• Relaxed standards for smaller cars in many countries like the US, China, Japan, and South Korea.
• Europe: Stricter norms overall, but smaller cars have relaxed CO₂ targets, while larger vehicles have tougher benchmarks.
• India’s system is the opposite, creating a regulatory imbalance.

Key Technical Issues:

• “Brick in the Boot” concern:
  • Manufacturers may artificially increase weight to enter a more relaxed efficiency band.
  • May lead to production of bigger, heavier cars; reduced affordability; and increased emissions in absolute terms.
• Relaxation for small cars:
  • Debate on the 3 g CO₂/km relaxation for small cars with mass (≤ 909 kg), engine (≤ 1200 cc), length (≤ 4,000 mm).
  • Maruti and Renault want more relaxation.
  • Tata and Mahindra oppose increasing it.
• Shift to WLTP: WLTP gives more realistic fuel economy figures than MIDC. Some manufacturers (e.g., Mahindra) requested a delay due to compliance challenges.

Challenges:

• Threat to small-car market: Rising costs may make entry-level cars unaffordable. Could worsen the market shift toward high-emission SUVs.
• Safety vs affordability trade-off: Weight-based relaxation may unintentionally encourage lighter designs at the cost of safety.
• Technological feasibility: Small cars have limited scope for expensive efficiency technologies.
• Potential loss of first-time buyers: A socially regressive outcome as small cars improve mobility for lower-income groups.
• Risk of regulatory distortion: The framework may not truly reduce total CO₂ emissions, only improve averages on paper.

Way Forward:

• Review of weight-based approach: Consider aligning with global best practices—relaxing norms for lighter cars.
• Technology-neutral incentive structure: Encourage all low-carbon technologies - mild hybrids, strong hybrids, EVs, cleaner ICE improvements.
• Gradual phase-in of WLTP: Provide adequate transition time for manufacturers.
• Targeting real emission reduction: Shift toward absolute emissions caps instead of purely weight-based formulas.
• Policy support for small cars: Financial incentives or tax benefits to protect the budget segment.

Conclusion:

• The proposed CAFE 3 norms mark a critical step in India’s low-carbon mobility transition.
• However, their weight-based structure disproportionately burdens small cars, risks market distortions, and may undermine affordability for first-time buyers—contrary to the objective of inclusive and sustainable mobility.
• A balanced, evidence-based recalibration that ensures environmental integrity while protecting the small-car segment is essential for achieving India's long-term climate and mobility goals.

About National Industrial Classification 2025 (NIC-2025):

• The NIC is the standardized system used to classify all economic activities in India for statistical surveys, censuses (like the Annual Survey of Industries), and national accounts (GDP calculation).
• First introduced in 1962, it has been revised periodically in line with international standards and the changing economic landscape, leading to NIC 1970, NIC 1987, NIC 1990, NIC 1998, NIC 2004, and NIC 2008.
• The NIC 2025 represents the latest updated national standard for classifying economic activities in India.
• The NIC 2025 has been prepared by the MoSPI in alignment with the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC) Revision 5, developed by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD).
• The revision was carried out under the guidance of the Expert Committee for Revision of Economic Classifications (ECREC).
• Major Changes:
  • The NIC 2025 introduces a new 6-digit coding structure, in place of the 5-digit structure of NIC 2008.
  • The shift to a 6-digit structure matters because it provides the granularity needed to distinguish specific modern activities (e.g., distinguishing “fintech” from general financial services), enabling more precise measurement of the digital and green economies.
• The Salient Feature of NIC 2025 are:
  • Enhanced Classification of Intermediation Services: New classes have been created across multiple sections to reflect the growing role of intermediaries in sectors such as power, retail, logistics, healthcare, education, real estate, and food services.
  • Environmental and Green Economy Integration: Expanded coverage of carbon capture, waste management, and environmental remediation activities, with better alignment to SDGs and SEEA framework.
  • Digital Economy Representation: Cloud infrastructure, blockchain, platform-based services, and web search portals are distinctly classified, reflecting the evolving nature of the digital economy.
  • Classification is technology agnostic: In general, distinction of activities is not made based on whether an activity is carried out by means of traditional or modern production techniques.
• The NIC 2025 will serve as a vital statistical standard for compiling and analysing economic indicators across sectors.
• The classification will also assist in accurately identifying and reporting economic activities in a consistent and comparable manner.

About NASAMS (National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System):

• It is a medium-range, ground-based air defense system.
• It is designed to intercept aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.
• It was designed and developed jointly by Raytheon (United States) and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (Norway).
• NASAMS reached operational capability in 1994 and was first deployed by the Royal Norwegian Air Force.
• NASAMS is operated by 13 countries and has been integrated into the U.S. National Capital Region’s air defense system since 2005.
• In addition to the S., Norway, Finland, Spain, The Netherlands, Oman, Lithuania, Indonesia, Australia, Qatar, Hungary, Ukraine, and one undisclosed country depend on NASAMS for homeland defense and the protection of critical assets.
• Features:
  • It is built on a modular, distributed, open-hardware and software architecture.
  • It is the world’s first networked short- and medium-range air defense system that could integrate with other equipment and air defense systems.
  • It features an X-Band, 360-degree phased array air defense radar with a 75-kilometer range to identify targets.
  • The primary weapon of the system is the AIM-120 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM), which have an engagement range of about 30 kilometers.
  • The NASAMS is armed with three launchers, each carrying up to six missiles.
  • The system can engage 72 targets simultaneously in active and passive modes.
  • It features network-centric, open architecture that provides increased survivability against electronic countermeasures.
  • NASAMS can fire on target data provided by external sensors.
  • Advanced emission control features of the radars minimize the risk of revealing the NASAMS unit's own position.

About Semeru Volcano:

• It is located in East Java, Indonesia.
• It is one of the most active volcanoes in Indonesia.
• At 3,676 metres (12,060 feet), it is the highest peak on Java Island and sits on the Pacific “Ring of Fire”.
• It lies at the southern end of a volcanic massif extending north to the Tengger caldera.
• Summit topography is complicated by the shifting of craters from NW to SE.
• Semeru, also known as Mahameru, has erupted numerous times in the past 200 years, including a deadly episode in 2021 that killed 62 people and buried villages in hot ash.
• It is known for its regular ash explosions that typically occur at intervals of 10-30 minutes.

About Curacao:

• Curacao is an island country situated in the south Caribbean Sea, about 60 km north of the coast of Venezuela.
• It is also a territorial country of the Netherlands.
• The country includes the main island of Curacao and the island of Klein Curacao, which cover a combined total area of 171 square miles.
• Although physiographically part of the South American continental shelf, Curaçao and neighboring islands off the northern coast of South America are usually considered to constitute the southwestern arc of the Lesser Antilles.
• Until the Netherlands Antilles was dissolved in October 2010, the country was one of its island territories and was governed as the “Island Territory of Curacao.”
• Currently, Curacao is administered by an independent government established by the people of Curacao and is fully autonomous in most matters, except those outlined in the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
  • Government: Constitutional Monarchy (multi-party system)
  • The head of state is the Dutch monarch, represented by a governor, and the head of government is the prime minister.
• Once colonised by the Dutch for decades, Curacao has transformed into a thriving tourist destination and an important oil-refining hub.
• The capital is Willemstad. The center of the city, due to its unique architecture, has been designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
• Languages: Papiamento, Dutch, English
• According to the 2023 census (published in January 2025), the population stands at 156,115, with a sex ratio of 81.9 men for every 100 women.

About BvS10 Sindhu:

• The BvS10 is a well-known articulated all-terrain vehicle used by several European militaries.
  • The BvS10 is already in service with the armed forces of Austria, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
  • It’s also on order for the German Army and has been selected for the US Army’s Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV) program.
  • Its design allows for two connected vehicle sections that help it cross difficult terrain that conventional wheeled or tracked vehicles struggle with.
• BvS10 Sindhu is an upgraded variant of the BvS10 with adaptations tailored specifically for India’s terrain and climate.
• L&T will manufacture the BvS10 Sindhu at its Armoured Systems Complex in Hazira, Gujarat, with technical and design support from BAE Systems Hägglunds (a Swedish business unit of BAE Systems, focused on military ground vehicles), the original manufacturer of the BvS10 platform.
• The Sindhu variant can be reconfigured for multiple purposes: troop transport, command post, ambulance, recovery, logistics, or even a weapons-armed version.
• This flexibility is ideal for the Indian Army’s diverse mission needs.
• It’s customized for India’s extreme terrain: high-altitude regions, deserts, marshlands, and flood-prone zones.
• The vehicle is also amphibious, able to operate in water or flooded terrain.

About BIRSA 101:

• It is India's first indigenous CRISPR-based gene therapy, designed to treat Sickle Cell Disease (SCD).
• The therapy has been named Birsa-101 in honour of the tribal leader Birsa Munda.
• Developed by: It is developed by the CSIR-Institute of Genomics and Integrative Biology (IGIB).
• Key Features of BIRSA 101
  • CRISPR Technology: It utilizes the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing tool to correct the genetic mutation causing Sickle Cell Disease.
  • Affordability: It is priced significantly lower than global CRISPR treatments, making it more accessible to the poorest populations.

How does Birsa-101 cure sickle cell disease?

• Birsa-101 precisely corrects the mutations in the genetic code that causes the disease.
• The therapy has to be given as a one-time infusion, after which the body should start producing normal red blood cells instead of sickle-shaped ones.

What is Sickle Cell Disease?

• It is a genetic condition that leads to the body’s red blood cells becoming rigid, sickle-shaped, and less capable of carrying oxygen.
• The shape of the blood cells can also lead to blockages in blood flow, leading to acute episodes of pain, chronic pain, organ damage, anaemia, infections, and strokes.
• A person can be a carrier and not have a disease.
• The likelihood of a child having the disease increases if both parents are carriers or one parent has the disease and the other is a carrier.