Why in news?

Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) involves technologies that capture carbon dioxide from industrial emissions or directly from the air and convert it into useful products such as fuels, chemicals, construction materials, or polymers.

Unlike carbon capture and storage (CCS), which stores CO₂ underground permanently, CCU reuses the captured carbon within the economy, turning emissions into productive inputs instead of waste.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Why India Needs Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)
• India’s Progress on CCU
• Global Efforts to Advance CCU
• Risks and Challenges in Scaling CCU in India
• Way Forward

Why India Needs Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU)?

• India is the world’s third-largest CO₂ emitter, with major emissions coming from power generation, cement, steel, and chemical industries.
• While renewable energy can curb future emissions, several industrial sectors remain hard to decarbonise due to their carbon-intensive processes.
• CCU provides a solution by reducing emissions from these “hard-to-abate” sectors while creating new industrial value chains.
• It also supports India’s net-zero target for 2070 and promotes a circular, low-carbon economy.

India’s Progress on CCU

• Policy and Research Support - India has begun advancing CCU through research funding by the Department of Science and Technology, which has developed a dedicated R&D roadmap.
• The Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has also released a draft 2030 CCUS roadmap identifying potential projects.
• Industry-Led Pilot Projects
  • Ambuja Cements (Adani Group), in collaboration with IIT Bombay and Swedish partners, is piloting technology to convert captured CO₂ into fuels and materials.
  • JK Cement is developing a CCU testbed to use captured CO₂ in products like lightweight concrete blocks and olefins.
  • Organic Recycling Systems Limited (ORSL) is leading India’s first pilot-scale Bio-CCU platform, converting CO₂ from biogas streams into bioalcohols and specialty chemicals.

Global Efforts to Advance CCU

• European Union: Linking CCU to Circular Economy - The EU’s Bioeconomy Strategy and Circular Economy Action Plan promote CCU as a tool to convert CO₂ into fuels, chemicals, and materials, supporting sustainability and circularity goals.
• United States: Incentives and Funding Support - The US encourages CCU through tax credits and public funding, particularly for projects producing CO₂-derived fuels and chemicals, helping scale industrial applications.
• United Arab Emirates: Integrating CCU with Green Hydrogen - The UAE’s Al Reyadah project and proposed CO₂-to-chemicals hubs combine CCU with green hydrogen, aiming to decarbonise heavy industry while creating new value chains.
• China - China is rapidly scaling CCUS projects, particularly in coal-based power and chemical industries. It is investing in pilot projects that convert captured CO₂ into fuels and building materials.

Risks and Challenges in Scaling CCU in India

• Cost Competitiveness - Capturing, purifying, and converting CO₂ is energy-intensive and expensive. Without policy incentives or carbon pricing, CCU-derived products may struggle to compete with cheaper fossil-based alternatives.
• Infrastructure Gaps - Effective CCU deployment requires co-located industrial clusters, CO₂ transport systems, and integration with downstream industries. Such infrastructure remains unevenly developed across India.
• Regulatory and Market Uncertainty - The lack of clear standards, certification systems, and stable market signals creates uncertainty for investors and limits demand for CO₂-based products.

Way Forward

• Although India has developed policy roadmaps for CCU, successful implementation, supportive regulations, and financial incentives will be crucial to achieving long-term climate and industrial goals.

Context:

• The Union Budget 2026–27 has significantly increased defence expenditure, allocating ₹7.85 lakh crore (~$86.7 billion) — a 19% increase from the previous year’s ₹6.81 lakh crore.
• The increase is driven primarily by a 21.8% rise in capital outlay to ₹2.19 lakh crore, aimed at accelerating military modernisation and strengthening deterrence.
• The enhanced allocation reflects a strategic shift toward credible deterrence, operational readiness, and defence self-reliance, rather than military escalation.

Key Features of Defence Budget 2026–27:

• Increased defence allocation: One of the largest increases (total ₹7.85 lakh crore, 15.19% increase over previous year) in recent years, reflecting growing recognition of hard-power requirements in national security.
• Focus on capital modernisation:
  • Capital outlay of ₹2.19 lakh crore (21.8% increase), with fighter aircraft, submarines, drones and unmanned systems, air defence systems, and modern combat platforms as focus areas.
  • This marks a shift from manpower-heavy expenditure to technology-driven capability building.
• Push for defence indigenisation:
  • Around 75% of modernisation funds earmarked for domestic procurement, reinforcing Atmanirbhar Bharat in defence manufacturing.
  • This will promote indigenous weapons platforms, domestic defence industry, strategic autonomy, and reduced import dependence.
• Strengthening operational readiness:
  • Revenue expenditure of ₹3.65 lakh crore will support logistics, maintenance, training, and operational preparedness.
  • Increased spending partly linked to recent operational requirements after Operation Sindoor.

Deterrence Consolidation vs Arms Race Narrative:

• International criticism: Some international observers interpret India's defence expansion as destabilising, escalatory, triggering an Asian arms race.
• Strategic reality:
  • The budget increase reflects deterrence consolidation, closing capability gaps, and reducing vulnerability to coercion.
  • India’s modernisation is characterised by defensive orientation, capability correction, and strategic realism.

Structural Weaknesses:

• India's military preparedness:
  • Air power deficiencies: Fighter squadrons below sanctioned strength, aging aircraft fleets, and limited air defence coverage.
  • Naval constraints: Increasing maritime responsibilities in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), overstretched naval assets, and need for submarine expansion.
  • Army modernisation gaps: Continued reliance on legacy platforms, slow mechanisation, and equipment obsolescence.
• Impact: These deficiencies affect deterrence credibility and adversary perceptions.

Changing Security Environment:

• Pakistan factor: Pakistan's strategy is closely linked with nuclear deterrence doctrine. Potential reliance on risk-taking behaviour during crises. Possibility of limited conflicts under the nuclear umbrella.
• China challenge: Rapid military modernisation, expanding naval presence, military infrastructure along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), and lessons from the 2020 Galwan crisis.
• Two-front threat: Growing China–Pakistan strategic coordination, possibility of simultaneous pressure along: Western and Northern borders.
• Strategic autonomy concerns:
  • Global uncertainty and transactional foreign policies among major powers. Reduced reliability of external security guarantees.
  • True strategic autonomy requires independent military capability, defence self-reliance, and crisis resilience.

Strategic Significance of Defence Spending:

• Deterrence as a material condition:
  • Deterrence depends on military capability, technological superiority, and operational readiness.
  • Underinvestment in defence can encourage adversary coercion, increase their risk-taking abilities, and raise conflict probability.
• Defence spending as strategic insurance:
  • The defence budget aims to prevent quick military advantage by adversaries, increase conflict costs, strengthen crisis stability, and improve resilience.
  • It is not intended to match adversaries platform-for-platform, and pursue militaristic expansion.

Challenges and Way Forward:

• Fiscal constraints: Defence spending competes with social sector spending, infrastructure investment, and welfare schemes.
  • Build sustainable defence financing: Multi-year defence budgeting, efficient expenditure management, and lifecycle cost planning.
• Fast-track procurement: To minimise slow acquisition processes, bureaucratic hurdles, and cost overruns.
• Technology gaps: Dependence on foreign technologies. Limited domestic R&D capacity.
  • Prioritise emerging technologies: AI-enabled warfare, Autonomous systems, Cyber warfare, and Space capabilities.
• Capability-planning gap: Persistent mismatch between strategic ambitions and military capability.
  • Strengthen defence indigenisation: Expand the domestic defence ecosystem. Promote private sector participation. Improve technology transfer.
• Limited two-front preparedness: Simultaneous conflict readiness remains limited.
  • Improve jointness and integration: Strengthen theatre commands, improve tri-service coordination, and enhance integrated planning.
  • Maintain credible deterrence on: Northern border, Western front, and Maritime domain.

Conclusion:

• The Defence Budget 2026–27 represents a strategic course correction rather than militaristic escalation.
• The increased allocation reflects India's recognition that peace is preserved through credible deterrence and capability, not restraint alone.
• By addressing long-standing capability gaps and strengthening defence self-reliance, India is moving toward a more secure and strategically autonomous posture.
• This is essential for maintaining stability in an increasingly uncertain Asian security environment.

Why in the News?

• The United States has imposed preliminary countervailing duties of 126% on solar imports from India following a subsidy investigation.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Duties on Solar Panels (Background, India’s Expanding Capacity, Impact on Manufacturers, Industry Response, Implications, etc.)

Background to the US Decision

• The U.S. Commerce Department has announced preliminary countervailing duties (CVD) of 126% on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules imported from India.
• The move follows an investigation into alleged unfair subsidies that enabled Indian manufacturers to sell solar products at lower prices in the U.S. market.
• The investigation also covers Indonesia and Laos, with varying duty rates. These measures are separate from broader global tariffs previously announced by the U.S. administration. The final determination is expected later this year.
• This development comes at a time when India’s solar manufacturing capacity has expanded significantly.

India’s Expanding Solar Manufacturing Capacity

• India’s solar module manufacturing capacity has grown rapidly and now exceeds 140 gigawatts (GW) per annum.
• It is expected to rise further to over 165 GW by March 2027.
• However, domestic demand has not kept pace. Annual solar capacity installations in India are projected at around 45-50 gigawatts direct current (GWDC).
• This creates a structural supply-demand imbalance. The industry has relied partly on exports to absorb surplus capacity.
• Between 2021 and 2024, over 90% of India’s solar photovoltaic module exports were shipped to the U.S.
• Solar exports to the U.S. were valued at $792.6 million in 2024, marking a sharp increase compared to 2022.
• Given this heavy dependence, the U.S. decision has significant implications.

Potential Impact on Indian Manufacturers

• Export Disruption
  • Industry analysts warn that the high duty rate could make the U.S. market largely inaccessible for Indian solar manufacturers.
• Pricing Pressure in the Domestic Market
  • If export volumes are redirected to India, the already oversupplied domestic market may face intensified pricing pressure.
  • With manufacturing capacity far exceeding annual installations, additional supply could reduce module prices and compress profit margins for domestic original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).
• Project and Financing Implications
  • Industry experts note that tariffs can alter project-level assumptions, affecting:
    • Financing structures
    • Power purchase agreement (PPA) timelines
    • Electricity tariffs
  • Solar project implementation in India is already facing challenges such as slower project award activity, delays in PPA signing, and transmission connectivity constraints.
  • Any further disruption may impact renewable energy deployment targets.

Divergent Industry Responses

• While many experts see the duties as disruptive, some major Indian manufacturers claim limited exposure to the U.S. market.
• Certain firms have reportedly reduced exports to negligible levels in anticipation of U.S. policy tightening.
• Exports to the U.S. are estimated to have declined sharply in 2025 and currently account for only a small share of total production for some players.
• This suggests that the impact may vary across companies depending on their export exposure and business strategies.

Broader Trade and Strategic Context

• The U.S. investigation stems from allegations that Chinese manufacturers, facing high U.S. tariffs, shifted production to countries such as India, Indonesia, and Laos to retain market access.
• India, Indonesia, and Laos together accounted for 57% of U.S. solar module imports in the first half of 2025.
• The duties aim to protect U.S. domestic solar manufacturing and restore “fair competition,” according to U.S. industry groups.
• At the same time, higher import costs may increase solar project costs within the U.S., potentially slowing clean energy deployment there.

Implications for India’s Energy Transition

• India has set ambitious renewable energy targets, including 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030. A robust domestic manufacturing ecosystem is central to achieving these goals.
• The U.S. duties may compel India to:

• Diversify export markets
• Strengthen domestic demand through policy incentives
• Encourage overseas manufacturing investments

• Experts suggest that India may need to shift from exporting products to exporting capital by establishing manufacturing units abroad to retain access to key markets.

Context

• The issue of inheritance rights for tribal women stands at the intersection of gender justice, constitutional protection, and indigenous identity.
• The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 grants daughters equal rights in ancestral property, yet it expressly excludes Scheduled Tribes.
• Consequently, many tribal women remain subject to customary laws that often deny them equal or absolute property rights.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Nawang v. Bahadur clarified that the Act cannot apply to Scheduled Tribes unless Parliament decides otherwise.
• While this resolves long-standing legal ambiguity, it sharpens the debate between equality and cultural autonomy.

Historical Background: The Legal Exclusion of Scheduled Tribes

• Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act explicitly bars its application to Scheduled Tribes unless notified by the Central Government.
• This exclusion was intended to preserve tribal customs, social practices, and community-based systems of inheritance.
• However, the result has been a dual framework: non-tribal Hindu women benefit from statutory reform, while tribal women remain governed by traditional norms.
• This distinction produces legal disparity among women based solely on tribal status and reinforces structural inequalities within certain communities.

Judicial Inconsistency and the Practice of “Hinduisation”

• Prior to 2025, courts adopted inconsistent interpretations. In some cases, inheritance rights were extended to tribal women who had adopted Hindu customs, a process described as Hinduisation.
• Courts relied on a broad reading of Section 2(1), treating such individuals as falling within the scope of Hindu.
• This interpretation overlooked the overriding effect of Section 2(2).
• The consequence was judicial inconsistency, uncertainty in property disputes, and pressure on women to negotiate between tribal identity and statutory rights.
• The approach risked weakening constitutional guarantees meant to protect indigenous communities from forced assimilation.

The Supreme Court’s Clarification: Nawang v. Bahadur (2025)

• In Nawang v. Bahadur, the Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision that had granted inheritance rights to ‘Hinduised’ tribal daughters.
• The Bench reaffirmed that only Parliament holds the authority to extend the Act to Scheduled Tribes.
• Two principles were reinforced:
  • Legislative supremacy over judicial expansion.
  • Continued governance of tribal inheritance by customary practices unless validly amended by statute.
• The ruling restored doctrinal clarity and upheld the constitutional design that provides special protection to indigenous communities.

Equality Versus Cultural Protection: A Constitutional Dilemma

• The judgment followed closely after Ram Charan v. Sukhram, where exclusion of daughters from ancestral property was held to violate fundamental rights and Article 14 guarantees of equality.
• The constitutional tension becomes evident:
  • The commitment to gender equality demands equal inheritance rights.
  • The framework protecting Scheduled Tribes seeks to preserve distinct customs and institutions.
• Prioritising tribal autonomy without addressing internal inequalities may perpetuate discrimination. Conversely, imposing uniform statutory law risks eroding cultural identity.
• Balancing constitutional morality with respect for tradition remains a central challenge.

Defining Hindu and the Question of Identity

• In Sastri Yagnapurushadji v. Muldas Brudardas Vaishya, Hinduism was described broadly as a way of life, not confined to a single doctrine or prophet.
• Conversion depends on bona fide intention and conduct.
• However, religious conversion does not automatically dissolve tribal membership if customary practices continue.
• Granting rights based solely on religious alignment risks reducing tribal status to a matter of faith rather than recognizing it as a distinct socio-cultural identity.
• The earlier reliance on Hinduisation effectively created a conditional path to equality, undermining the idea that indigenous communities deserve both recognition and protection without sacrificing their heritage.

The Need for Legislative Reform

• The reaffirmation of Section 2(2) leaves unresolved concerns about discrimination under certain customary systems.
• If statutory reform remains inapplicable and customs deny equal rights, tribal women may continue to face exclusion justified as tradition.
• A sustainable solution requires legislative reform. Parliament may consider:
  • Enacting a special statute for tribal succession.
  • Codifying customary laws with safeguards ensuring gender parity.
  • Designing reforms that preserve cultural distinctiveness while securing equality.
• Such an approach would avoid forced assimilation into Hindu law and instead create a framework rooted in both social justice and community autonomy.

Conclusion

• The ruling in Nawang v. Bahadur decisively ends judicial ambiguity surrounding the application of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes.
• It reinforces legislative authority, protects tribal autonomy, and rejects inheritance claims based on conditional Hinduisation.
• Yet the deeper constitutional question persists: how to harmonize equality with cultural preservation.
• Protecting identity cannot justify continued exclusion, and enforcing uniformity cannot erase diversity.
• Meaningful progress depends on thoughtful parliamentary intervention that secures equal inheritance rights, respects customary governance, and advances the broader goals of substantive equality and constitutional justice.

Context

• In September 2018, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered its landmark judgment in Indian Young Lawyers Association vs State of Kerala, allowing women of all ages to enter the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.
• The ruling sparked nationwide debate and protests, especially in Kerala, reflecting tensions between religious autonomy and constitutional morality.
• At stake was not merely temple entry, but the deeper question of how a secular democracy reconciles faith, equality, and individual dignity.

Background of the Case

• The Practice in Question
  • The Sabarimala temple, dedicated to Lord Ayyappa, traditionally barred women between the ages of 10 and 50, citing the deity’s celibate nature and long-standing custom.
  • The exclusion was supported by Rule 3(b) of the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Rules, 1965.
• The Majority Judgment
  • By a 4:1 majority, the Court held that:
    • Devotees of Lord Ayyappa did not form a separate religious denomination.
    • The exclusion violated women’s freedom of religion.
    • Rule 3(b) was unconstitutional and contrary to statutory guarantees of temple access.
  • The majority emphasized gender justice, non-discrimination, and the primacy of fundamental rights.
• The Dissenting Opinion: Justice Indu Malhotra’s Perspective
  • Justice Indu Malhotra’s dissent advanced a contrasting constitutional vision.
  • She argued that collective rights of religious communities must be harmonised with individual rights.
  • A broad principle of formal equality, she held, cannot override long-standing religious customs.
  • Central to her reasoning was the essential religious practice She viewed the exclusion as integral to the temple’s religious character and therefore constitutionally protected.

The Essential Religious Practices Doctrine

• Origins and Application
  • The essential religious practices (ERP) test empowers courts to determine whether a practice is fundamental to a religion.
  • If deemed essential, it receives protection under Articles 25 and 26; if not, the State may regulate it.
  • In Sastri Yagnapurushadji vs Muldas Bhudardas Vaishya (1966), the Court interpreted Hindu scriptures to define doctrinal essentials.
• Criticisms of the Doctrine
  • The ERP doctrine presents serious challenges:
  • It invites theological adjudication by secular courts.
  • It lacks procedural depth for resolving complex religious disputes.
  • It fails to resolve conflicts where an essential practice undermines human dignity.
  • By conditioning protection on judicial recognition of essentiality, the doctrine risks entrenching exclusionary practices.

The Anti-Exclusion Test: A Constitutional Alternative

• Conceptual Framework
  • To address these limitations, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud proposed the anti-exclusion test. This approach shifts the inquiry from theological necessity to constitutional impact.
  • Religious groups retain autonomy in defining their tenets, but practices that systematically exclude individuals in ways that impair dignity must yield to constitutional values.
  • The test focuses on whether exclusion restricts access to spaces central to civic or spiritual life and whether it violates equal moral membership.
• Key Distinction from the ERP Test
  • The distinction between the two approaches is foundational:
    • The ERP test asks whether a practice is essential to religion.
    • The anti-exclusion test asks whether its consequences are compatible with equality, liberty, and constitutional governance.
  • Under this framework, courts avoid doctrinal evaluation and instead assess the constitutional harm caused by exclusion.
  • The emphasis shifts from preserving tradition to safeguarding substantive equality.

Broader Constitutional Implications

• The principles emerging from Sabarimala extend beyond temple entry.
• Questions concerning the Dawoodi Bohra community’s practice of excommunication and the rights of Parsi women who marry outside the faith raise similar tensions between communitarian claims and individual conscience.
• India’s constitutional framework recognizes both religious freedom and the authority of denominations to manage their affairs.
• However, these rights are subject to public order, morality, and other fundamental rights.
• In a society, where religion shapes social identity, courts cannot ignore the real-world effects of exclusion.

Religion, Secularism, and Constitutional Morality

• The Indian Constitution envisions a model of principled secularism, neither hostile to religion nor subordinate to it.
• Religious belief remains protected, but its outward expression must align with the Constitution’s commitment to equal citizenship.
• The anti-exclusion approach affirms that faith is autonomous in doctrine yet accountable in practice.
• It reinforces the idea that no community can deny individuals access to institutions central to civic participation and spiritual life in the name of custom alone.

Conclusion

• The Sabarimala verdict represents a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
• It exposes the limitations of the essential religious practices doctrine and foregrounds the need for a dignity-centred framework.
• If the individual is the core unit of constitutional concern, then communitarian autonomy cannot override access to public religious spaces.
• By placing dignity, non-discrimination, and constitutional supremacy at the heart of the inquiry, the anti-exclusion test aligns religious freedom with the Constitution’s transformative vision.