Why in the News?

• India’s electricity distribution companies (DISCOMs) have recorded a notable financial and operational turnaround, though concerns remain over their long-term sustainability.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• DISCOMs in India (Background, Financial Stress, Policy Reforms, State Support, Structural Challenges, Way Forward)

Understanding DISCOMs in India

• Power Distribution Companies, commonly known as DISCOMs, are responsible for the final stage of electricity delivery, distributing power to households, industries, and agricultural consumers.
• India currently has 72 DISCOMs, comprising State-owned utilities, private-sector entities, and power departments.
• Historically, DISCOMs have been the weakest link in India’s power sector, plagued by inefficiencies, mounting losses, and rising debt.
• Two indicators define their financial health:

• Aggregate Technical and Commercial (AT&C) losses, which capture losses from theft, technical inefficiencies, and billing gaps.
• ACS-ARR gap, the difference between the Average Cost of Supply (ACS) and Average Revenue Realised (ARR).

• For decades, high AT&C losses and non-cost-reflective tariffs resulted in persistent deficits, forcing State governments to periodically bail out DISCOMs.

Legacy of Financial Stress

• The roots of DISCOM losses lie in the functioning of earlier State Electricity Boards under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.
• Although the law required utilities to earn modest profits, political interference, subsidised tariffs, and delayed subsidy payments weakened financial discipline.
• Between 2020-21 and 2024-25, accumulated losses rose from Rs. 5.5 lakh crore to Rs. 6.47 lakh crore, while outstanding debt touched Rs. 7.26 lakh crore.
• Non-payment of dues by consumers, delayed State subsidies, and rising power procurement costs worsened the situation.

Signs of a Turnaround

• Recent years have shown measurable improvement. According to official data, DISCOMs collectively recorded a Profit After Tax of Rs. 2,701 crore in 2024-25, a sharp contrast to losses exceeding Rs. 67,000 crore in 2013-14.
• AT&C losses declined from 22.62% to 15.04%, while the ACS-ARR gap narrowed drastically to 0.06 paise per unit, indicating near cost recovery.
• This turnaround reflects better billing efficiency, improved collections, and stronger enforcement of financial discipline.

Role of Policy Reforms

• The improvement has been driven by a series of reforms:

• Revamped Distribution Sector Scheme (RDSS): Links financial assistance to measurable performance outcomes such as feeder metering, loss reduction, and system modernisation.
• Electricity Rules and Late Payment Surcharge Rules: Enabled DISCOMs to clear legacy dues in instalments, preventing snowballing of unpaid liabilities.
• Debt Discipline Measures: Since 2022, legacy dues of nearly Rs. 1.4 lakh crore have been substantially reduced through structured repayments.

• These reforms restored confidence among power generators and fuel suppliers, stabilising the electricity supply chain.

Dependence on State Support

• Despite improvements, financial sustainability remains fragile. Many DISCOMs have posted profits only after receiving tariff subsidies and loss takeovers from State governments.
• For instance, utilities in States like Tamil Nadu and Rajasthan reported profits largely due to direct fiscal support rather than operational surplus.
• This dependence raises concerns about the durability of the turnaround, especially when future liabilities such as employee pay revisions arise.

Structural Challenges Ahead

• Unmetered Agricultural Supply: Lack of accurate data on farm power consumption distorts cost recovery.
• Free or Highly Subsidised Power: Universal free electricity benefits wealthier consumers disproportionately and weakens utility finances.
• Operational Inefficiencies: Not all States have adopted feeder segregation or smart metering at scale.

• Without addressing these structural issues, improvements may prove temporary.

Way Forward

• Long-term sustainability requires deeper reforms.
• Expanding feeder segregation, promoting solar pumps in agriculture, improving metering, and ensuring cost-reflective tariffs are essential.
• Political commitment and professional management must align to transform DISCOMs into consumer-friendly and financially viable utilities.

Context:

• The Union Budget 2026-27 (Budget 2026) received an unusually high approval rating — over 95% positive commentary — described as “businesslike, calm, short, boring and good.”
• However, after the initial euphoria settled, a controversial provision emerged - the imposition of a retrospective long-term capital gains (LTCG) tax of 12.5% on Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs) effective April 2026.
• The episode reopens an old debate in Indian fiscal policy — retrospective taxation, investor confidence, and policy credibility.

The “Googly” - Retrospective Tax on Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs):

• Background of SGB scheme:
  • It was introduced in 2015–16 when global gold prices were stable or low.
  • Objective:
    • Reduce physical gold imports
    • Improve Current Account Deficit (CAD)
    • Provide investors paper gold with 2.5% annual interest
  • Original understanding: Capital gains tax exemption if held till maturity, and the investor bears gain or loss.
  • The scheme was discontinued in 2024, prior to the global gold price surge.
• What has changed? From April 2026, retrospective LTCG tax (12.5%) will be imposed on capital gains from SGBs. It applies even to bonds purchased under earlier tax-exempt terms.

Why the Move is Problematic?

• Retrospective taxation (A policy red flag):
  • Retrospective taxation violates the principle of tax certainty, undermines predictability in fiscal policy, and damages rule of law and investor trust.
  • India has past scars. For example, the 2012 retrospective tax amendment, which was widely criticized internationally, hurting India’s investment climate.
  • The current move revives those concerns.
• Marginal revenue gain, disproportionate cost:
  • For example, this new tax will net about Rs 200 crore a year — about .005% of India’s tax receipts in 2025-26.
  • In contrast, SGBs reportedly saved substantial forex by reducing gold imports, improved CAD and supported rupee stability.
  • The government made an estimated fiscal gain of Rs 50,000 crore from borrowing from the investor (at an annual rate of 2.5%) rather than 7% from the market.
  • This trade-off appears economically inefficient.
• Impact on investor confidence:
  • Investor confidence depends on stability, contract sanctity, and policy continuity.
  • The move signals the government may alter terms ex post facto when gains accrue to investors.
  • This is particularly damaging at a time when -
    • Private investment share in GDP has fallen from about 30% peak to 20%,
    • Net FDI is barely positive,
    • Recent quarterly net FDI flows are negative, and
    • The FDI as a percentage of GDP is at its lowest since the 1990 crisis.
  • The retrospective tax may further worsen India’s investment climate.

Broader Structural Issues Highlighted:

• Decline in private investment:
  • Persistent stagnation in domestic private capital formation, capital flight tendencies (Indians investing abroad), and foreign investors are cautious.
  • Reasons cited:
    • 2012 retrospective tax amendment.
    • Model Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), 2015: Provides for a 5-year cooling period (meaning a divorce agreement between a foreign and a domestic firm could only be achieved after 5-years), and restrictive dispute resolution (mandatory domestic adjudication).
    • Revised BIT (3-year cooling, possible international arbitration) shows partial correction.
  • The deeper problem is policy overconfidence and bureaucratic rigidity.
• Budget-making process - The secrecy question:
  • The economists criticizes: Colonial-era legacy of secretive Budget preparation. Lack of collaborative and consultative policymaking.
  • Suggested reform: Open, participatory budget process; pre-budget consultations with stakeholders, and greater transparency in tax changes.
  • Major reforms today (GST, trade deals, deregulation) are increasingly happening outside the Budget — a structural shift in governance style.

Positive Features of Budget 2026 Excluding Retrospective Tax:

• Policy continuity: Income tax reforms announced earlier, ongoing GST rationalization, deregulation backed by NITI Aayog.
• Trade openness: New trade agreements, increased economic openness, movement away from aggressive “self-reliance” rhetoric toward pragmatic integration.
• Structural reforms outside budget: Trade and regulatory reforms de-linked from Budget speech, more continuous reform process (unlike 1991’s one-shot Budget reform).

Key Challenges for India:

• Restoring private investment momentum
• Reversing FDI decline
• Ensuring tax certainty and contract sanctity
• Reforming BIT framework
• Improving regulatory predictability
• Strengthening institutional decision-making processes

Way Forward:

• Make retrospective taxation legally impermissible: Amend tax law to prohibit ex post facto taxation, institutionalize tax stability principles.
• Improve budget governance: Transparent, consultative budget drafting; white papers before major tax changes; strengthen Parliamentary scrutiny.
• Reform investment framework: Further liberalize BIT provisions, fast-track dispute resolution, strengthen commercial courts and arbitration mechanisms.
• Focus on investment revival: Improve ease of doing business, reduce compliance burdens, encourage domestic capital formation, strengthen financial sector depth.
• Signal policy credibility: Reverse or grandfather retrospective SGB tax, restore investor trust proactively.

Conclusion:

• Budget 2026 stands as a paradox. On the surface, it reflects administrative maturity, fiscal stability, and reform continuity. Yet, the retrospective taxation of Sovereign Gold Bonds (SGBs) introduces a serious credibility risk.
• In an economy grappling with declining private investment and weak FDI flows, policy certainty is more valuable than marginal tax revenue. Economic growth depends not merely on macro numbers but on trust between state and investor.
• India aspires to become Viksit Bharat. That journey demands not just bold reforms — but predictable, principled policymaking. And in taxation, certainty is not a luxury. It is the foundation.

Why in news?

Union Cooperation Minister Amit Shah has launched Bharat Taxi, India’s first cooperative-based ride-hailing platform, positioning it as an alternative to private cab aggregators. The initiative is aimed at strengthening the cooperative movement while improving access to affordable and people-centric urban transport.

According to the Ministry of Cooperation, Bharat Taxi places drivers—called Sarathis—at the centre of the platform. Unlike aggregator-led models, drivers will have ownership, operational control, and greater say over earnings, reducing dependence on commission-heavy digital platforms.

The model seeks to enhance driver autonomy and ensure fairer income distribution through a cooperative structure.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What is Bharat Taxi
• Bharat Taxi’s Cooperative Business Model
• Pilot Cities and Expansion
• The Road Ahead

What is Bharat Taxi?

• A cooperative-based ride-hailing platform - Bharat Taxi is a ride-hailing app built on a cooperative model, aimed at offering an alternative to privately owned cab aggregators.
• Drivers at the core - According to the Ministry of Cooperation, the platform places drivers at the centre of ownership, operations, and value creation, allowing them greater control over earnings and day-to-day functioning.
• Reducing dependence on private aggregators - The model is intended to help drivers move away from exploitative practices often associated with aggregator-led platforms that limit income and autonomy.
• Not a direct government initiative - While government-backed, Bharat Taxi is not run by the Government of India. It is operated by Sahakar Taxi Cooperative Limited, an independent cooperative entity.
• Cooperative expertise behind the project - The initiative is supported by individuals who have previously worked with Amul, drawing on experience from one of the world’s most successful cooperative movements.

Bharat Taxi’s Cooperative Business Model

• Driver-owned structure - Under Bharat Taxi, every driver—called a Sarathi—is a member of the cooperative and holds five shares, giving them a stake in ownership and decision-making.
• Zero-commission pricing - Unlike private aggregators, Bharat Taxi does not deduct commission per ride. Drivers instead pay a fixed daily fee of ₹30 (₹18/day for auto-rickshaws) to use the platform, addressing long-standing concerns over high commissions and limited autonomy.
• Lower fares for passengers - With no per-ride commission, cost savings are passed on to riders. Officials estimate fares to be up to 30% cheaper than those charged by platforms like Uber and Ola.
• Large driver base - Bharat Taxi has stated that it already has over four lakh registered drivers, indicating significant early adoption of the cooperative model.
• Safety and verification measures - The platform includes in-built safety features, a dedicated helpline, and driver verification. In partnership with Delhi Police, 35 special booths have been set up to quickly address passenger complaints and concerns.
• Pricing Philosophy - Bharat Taxi aims to offer fair, transparent pricing, avoiding opaque surge pricing. The goal is not to be the cheapest, but the most reasonable and predictable.

Pilot Cities and Expansion

• Bharat Taxi pilots began in Delhi-NCR and Rajkot in late 2025.
• The service has since expanded to cities like Ahmedabad, where adoption has been rapid.
• As per government data:
  • Around 4 lakh drivers are registered.
  • Over 10,000 rides daily are being completed.
• The aim is nationwide operations by 2029, making it the largest ride-hailing platform in India.
• Early Adopters: Hope Mixed with Caution
  • The early adopters have welcomed the zero-commission model but report initially lower earnings due to fewer bookings.
  • Despite this, both drivers remain hopeful that demand will rise as awareness grows.
  • Many drivers say they prefer a driver-owned, cooperative platform over private aggregators that take high commissions.
  • Some passengers report teething troubles, such as:
    • Staff unfamiliar with software at booths.
    • Longer queues.
  • Higher fares at certain locations compared to earlier prepaid services.
  • Officials acknowledge early challenges and say pricing algorithms and operations will improve as more data is gathered.

The Road Ahead

• Bharat Taxi’s early phase reflects strong government backing, rapid driver onboarding, and high expectations, but also the realities of building scale in a competitive market.
• Its success will depend on increasing ride volumes, refining pricing, and delivering consistent user experience, while staying true to its cooperative promise.

Why in news?

The expiry of the New START Treaty marks the end of five decades of binding nuclear limits between the US and Russia, raising global concerns about strategic stability and the risk of a renewed nuclear arms race.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Cold War Arms Control Efforts
• Post–Cold War Nuclear Arms Reduction
• A New Phase in US–Russia Arms Control
• After New START: What Lies Ahead

Cold War Arms Control Efforts

• In the late 1960s, at the peak of the Cold War, the Soviet Union began expanding its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) arsenal to match the United States.
• In January 1967, US President Lyndon B. Johnson warned that Moscow was developing an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system around its capital, raising fears of a destabilising first-strike capability.
• SALT Talks and Early Treaties
  • To curb the escalating arms race, Washington and Moscow launched the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in November 1969.
  • These negotiations produced two key agreements:
    • The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which capped missile defence systems at 200 (later reduced to 100) per side.
    • An interim SALT accord under which both sides agreed not to expand their ICBM capabilities.
• SALT II and Its Collapse
• Negotiations for a follow-up pact, SALT II, began in 1972 and culminated in a 1979 agreement limiting nuclear delivery vehicles—such as ICBMs, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic bombers—to 2,250 each.
• However, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, US President Jimmy Carter withdrew the treaty from Senate consideration, and it was never ratified.
• Unravelling of Controls
  • Years later, the US unilaterally exited the ABM Treaty in 2002, arguing it constrained defences against terrorist and rogue-state missile threats.
  • This marked an early step in the gradual erosion of Cold War-era arms control frameworks.

Post–Cold War Nuclear Arms Reduction

• After the Cold War, the US and Russia signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) in 1991.
• It required both sides to cap deployed strategic delivery systems at 1,600 and reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000.
• Crucially, START I mandated the destruction of excess missiles and bombers, backed by an intrusive verification regime that included on-site inspections, data exchanges, and satellite monitoring.
• Because of the Soviet Union’s collapse and efforts to denuclearise former Soviet states, implementation took longer than expected.
• The reductions were completed only in December 2001, and the treaty expired in 2009.
• START II: An Unfulfilled Follow-on
  • A second agreement, START II, was signed in January 1993. It aimed to cut strategic warheads further, to 3,000–3,500 by 2003.
  • However, the treaty never entered into force due to delays in ratification in both countries.
  • After the US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, Russia formally withdrew from START II, and plans for a START III agreement collapsed.
• SORT: A Temporary Bridge
  • In May 2002, the two countries adopted the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), committing to reduce operationally deployed warheads to 1,700–2,200.
  • SORT came into force in 2003 after legislative approval in both countries.
  • It was conceived as an interim arrangement and was later superseded by the New START treaty in 2011.

A New Phase in US–Russia Arms Control

• In 2010, US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START).
• The agreement came into force on February 5, 2011, marking a renewed commitment to nuclear arms control after earlier treaties expired.
• Key Limits and Reductions
  • Under New START, both countries agreed to cap their strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 and limit strategic delivery vehicles to 800, including both deployed and non-deployed systems.
  • These cuts were substantial, requiring about a 30% reduction in warheads and a 50% reduction in delivery vehicles compared to the earlier SORT agreement.
• Verification and Inspections
  • To ensure compliance, the treaty established a strong verification mechanism.
  • Each side was permitted to conduct up to 18 on-site inspections per year of the other’s strategic nuclear facilities, along with regular data exchanges.
• Extension and Expiry
  • The treaty allowed for a one-time extension. In 2021, after President Joe Biden took office, the US and Russia mutually agreed to extend New START by five years, setting its expiry date at February 5, 2026.

After New START: What Lies Ahead

• End of Legal Limits on Nuclear Arsenals - With the treaty’s expiry, binding caps on US and Russian nuclear warheads cease to exist. As of 2025, the US holds about 5,277 warheads and Russia around 5,449, raising concerns over unchecked expansion.
• Rising Risks and Loss of Transparency - Experts warn that the absence of arms control increases the danger of accidental or unintended escalation, especially amid regional conflicts involving Russia or China. Ending limits also reduces transparency over nuclear forces.
• Erosion of Nuclear Deterrence - Analysts argue that traditional nuclear deterrence is weakening as a stabilising force. The breakdown of arms control norms signals a shift toward open-ended strategic competition among major powers.
• Global Implications and Non-Proliferation Concerns - The lapse could undermine restraint worldwide, just ahead of the 2026 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review. While rethinking arms control is possible, experts caution that even limited mutual restraint is safer than unconstrained nuclear rivalry.

Context

• India’s latest defence budget represents a notable shift after years of stagnation, marking the first sustained double-digit increase in allocation and reaching 2% of GDP.
• In an unstable global environment, this increase signals strategic intent and a renewed emphasis on preparedness.
• However, higher spending alone does not guarantee improved outcomes.
• The real test lies in whether the allocation can translate into faster acquisition, stronger domestic capacity, and long-term capability through systemic reform rather than incremental adjustment.

Key Feature of the Budget Regarding the Defence

• A key feature of the budget is the renewed focus on modernisation, particularly through a significant rise in capital expenditure.
• This shift corrects years of imbalance in which revenue expenses dominated at the cost of future readiness.
• The Indian Air Force and Army benefit from substantial increases aimed at platforms, heavy vehicles, and weapons, strengthening operational credibility across multiple theatres.
• At the same time, the weakened currency reduces the purchasing power of these allocations, especially for imported systems, partially offsetting the headline gains.

The Good and the Bad

• The emphasis on domestic manufacturing is reinforced by reserving a large share of acquisition spending for local firms, further advancing indigenisation.
• Defence exports have expanded rapidly over the past decade, reflecting growing industrial competence and policy continuity.
• This progress shows that domestic production is no longer aspirational but achievable.
• However, not all services benefit equally. Despite its expanding role in the Indian Ocean, the Navy receives a comparatively modest increase, largely because of its ability to absorb funds efficiently.
• This exposes a paradox in allocation logic, where institutional efficiency may unintentionally constrain future growth.
• Another structural issue is the continued burden of pensions, which consume a substantial share of overall spending.
• Historically treated separately, their inclusion today limits flexibility and distorts comparisons with earlier periods when defence allocations were significantly higher as a share of GDP. 

Bureaucracy and Delays

• Beyond allocations, entrenched bureaucracy remains a central obstacle. Procurement procedures, particularly cost-focused procurement norms, favour established firms and disadvantage smaller players critical for innovation in a technology-driven sector.
• Without assured demand, predictable timelines, and long-term planning, private participation remains constrained.
• Chronic delays in major acquisition programmes further weaken outcomes.
• Projects approved decades ago continue to face shifting timelines, eroding deterrence and forcing repeated extensions of legacy platforms.
• These delays also result in underutilisation of allocated funds, with large sums returning unspent at the end of the fiscal year.
• The absence of a non-lapsable modernisation fund compounds this problem, allowing short-term fiscal convenience to override sustained capability development.

Challenges and the Way Ahead: R&D Lies Scattered

• Investment in R&D has increased, but research remains fragmented and poorly integrated with production and deployment.
• Despite the dual-use nature of many technologies, translation into operational advantage is limited.
• Overall spending on research remains low compared to global peers, and private-sector participation is minimal.
• Without unified direction and stronger collaboration with industry, incremental funding increases are unlikely to yield transformative results.
• The broader conceptual challenge lies in how defence spending is perceived.
• Framed narrowly as a trade-off against welfare, its wider contribution to infrastructure, employment, and growth is often overlooked.
• Programmes such as border connectivity and indigenous shipbuilding demonstrate strong multiplier effects across the economy, supporting long-term development alongside security. 

Conclusion

• The current budget reflects ambition and improved prioritisation, but outcomes will depend on execution.
• Aligning spending with industrial capacity, accelerating decision-making, integrating research, and revisiting outdated financial structures are essential.
• If pursued seriously, these changes can convert higher allocations into durable strength, reinforcing national autonomy in an increasingly contested world.

Context

• From the Aravalli ranges to coastal mangroves, India stands at a profound moral and constitutional crossroads.
• Amitav Ghosh’s The Hungry Tide offers a powerful metaphor for the present moment: nature remembers what law and power attempt to erase.
• Environmental safeguards are increasingly diluted in the name of development, raising concerns that the Constitution may become a silent witness to ecological loss.
• Such damage is neither abstract nor distant; its consequences, like the tide, return with relentless force.

Policy Shifts and Judicial Retreat in Environmental Protection

• Recent regulatory changes reflect a weakening of environmental safeguards.
• On December 18, 2025, non-coal mining projects were permitted to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) without specifying land location or area, reversing the principle of prior scrutiny.
• This was compounded by the Supreme Court’s recall of Vanashakti vs Union of India (2025), which had prohibited retrospective environmental clearances.
• Although a suo motu stay by Chief Justice Surya Kant temporarily restored institutional credibility, the broader trend reveals increasing judicial leniency, treating environmental law as a procedural formality rather than a substantive safeguard.

The Aravalli Controversy: Redefining Ecology Through Reductionism

• The Aravalli ranges illustrate this shift most starkly. As the ecological backbone of north-western India, they prevent desertification, recharge groundwater, stabilise soil, and sustain biodiversity.
• Earlier rulings, notably M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (2004) and subsequent orders up to 2010, recognised irreversible damage caused by unregulated mining and rejected narrow, height-based definitions.
• However, issue relating to Definition of Aravalli Hills and Ranges (2025) accepted a 100-metre elevation criterion, ignoring hydrology, ecological continuity, and geomorphology.
• This reductionist approach departs from the precautionary principle articulated in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India (1996) and effectively removes protection from vast ecologically significant areas.

Constitutional Implications: Articles 21, 48A, 14, and Environmental Rights

• These developments have serious constitutional
• The right to a clean and healthy environment has been read into Article 21, while Article 48A obligates the state to protect and improve the environment, and Article 51A(g) places a corresponding duty on citizens.
• Judicial interpretations that enable ecological exclusion hollow out these provisions.
• Moreover, selective protection based solely on altitude creates an arbitrary classification with no rational nexus to ecological goals, violating the equality principle under Article 14.
• Such arbitrariness undermines both environmental justice and constitutional coherence.

Judicial Leniency and the Erosion of Environmental Deterrence

• The dilution of protection extends beyond the Aravallis. Courts and regulatory bodies increasingly approve projects based on assurances of mitigation rather than strict enforcement.
• Despite Common Cause vs Union of India (2017) clearly rejecting the legalisation of environmental violations after the fact, post-facto and conditional clearances have become routine.
• This erosion weakens the deterrent function of environmental law and signals that compliance is negotiable.

Mangroves, Coastal Ecology, and the Illusion of Compensation

• The consequences are especially visible in coastal ecosystems. Mangroves function as flood buffers, carbon sinks, and biodiversity reservoirs.
• Judicial approvals allowing the felling or transplantation of tens of thousands of mangrove trees for infrastructure represent a serious ecological setback.
• Reliance on compensatory afforestation ignores ecological science: mature mangrove ecosystems take decades to develop and cannot be recreated elsewhere.

Infrastructure in Fragile Ecosystems: The Char Dham Project

• A similar pattern emerges in the Himalayan region through the Char Dham highway project.
• A 2025 study identified 811 landslide-prone zones along the route, underscoring the fragility of the Himalayan ecosystem.
• Although ecological importance was acknowledged in Citizens for Green Doon vs Union of India (2021), wider roads were permitted on strategic grounds.
• Subsequent floods and disturbances raise serious questions about this balancing exercise, especially regarding intergenerational responsibility.

Procedural Inequality and Corporate Advantage

• Environmental governance increasingly favours economically powerful actors.
• Large corporations navigate clearance processes with ease, while public objections are marginalised and hearings curtailed.
• Environmental compliance becomes a checklist, undermining procedural fairness and public trust. This imbalance violates equality guarantees and entrenches perceptions of regulatory capture.

The Judiciary’s Changing Role and the Need for Institutional Reform

• Indian courts have historically been custodians of environmental rights.
• In M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed the public trust doctrine, recognising natural resources as held by the state for the people.
• Departures from this jurisprudence necessitate reform, including regular sittings of the Supreme Court’s Green Bench and similar benches in High Courts.

Conclusion

• Ease of doing business must not become ease of environmental destruction.
• When law forgets what nature remembers, the Constitution risks standing mute before irreversible loss. Environmental harm is cyclical, cumulative, and unforgiving.
• Restoring environmental justice requires reaffirming constitutional duties, ecological science, and fairness, recognising development as a process constrained by environmental limits rather than a justification for their erosion.

About El Chichon Volcano:

• El Chichón, also known as Chichonal, is a stratovolcano in Mexico.
• This volcano is made up of several lava domes and a tuff ring.
  • A tuff ring is a low, wide ring of volcanic ash and rock.
• El Chichón sits between two larger volcanic areas: the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt and the Central America Volcanic Arc.

About Hakki Pikki Tribe:

• ‘Hakki-Pikki’ is one of the major tribal communities in Karnataka.
• In Kannada, the word ‘Hakki’ stands for ‘bird' and ‘Pikki’ stands for the verb ‘to catch’.
• Therefore, the community is known as the ‘bird catcher,’ which is their traditional occupation.
• They are recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in India.
• Language:
  • Despite being surrounded by Dravidian languages and living in southern India, the community speaks an Indo-Aryan language.
  • Their mother tongue was designated 'Vaagri' by scholars.
  • They communicate in 'Vaagri' at home but speak in Kannada when conducting daily business.
  • UNESCO has listed ‘Vaagri’ as one of the endangered languages.
• Rituals and Customs:
  • The tribe follows Hindu traditions and celebrates Hindu festivals.
  • They follow a clan-based social structure and practice endogamy within their clan.
  • The tribe prefers cross-cousin marriages.
  • The society is matriarchal, where the groom gives dowry to the bride’s family.

About Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs):

• Denotified Tribes (DNTs) are those communities which were once notified under the Criminal Tribes Acts, enforced by the British Raj between l871 and I947.
  • Once a tribe becomes “Notified” as criminal, all its members were required to register with the local magistrates, failing which they would be charged with a ‘crime’ under the Indian Penal Code.
• After Independence, this Act was repealed in 1952, and the communities were “denotified”, hence the name.
• The DNTs are among the most neglected, marginalised, and economically deprived communities, with most living a life of destitution.
• Historically, these communities never had access to private land or home ownership and used forests and grazing lands for their livelihood and residential use.

Status of DNTs in India:

• In India, roughly 10 percent of the population are DNTs.
• In 2014, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment constituted a National Commission for De-notified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (NCDNT) for a period of three years-
  • to prepare a state-wise list of castes belonging to DNTs  
  • to suggest appropriate measures in respect of Denotified and Nomadic Tribes that may be undertaken by the Central Government or the State Government.
• The Ministry constituted the Development and Welfare Board for Denotified, Nomadic, and Semi-Nomadic Communities (DWBDNCs) in 2019.
  • The Board has been mandated to formulate and implement welfare and development programmes for these communities.
• The Renke Commission (2008) was earlier commissioned to identify and list the DNT communities.

Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs (SEED):

• It was launched by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment for the welfare of DNT communities.
• It is being implemented by DWBDNCs.
• Aim: To provide free competitive exam coaching, health insurance, housing assistance, and livelihood initiatives at the community level, and financial assistance for construction of houses will be provided to the members of DNTs Communities.