About National Technical Textiles Mission:

• It was launched in 2020 by the Ministry of Textiles to boost technical textiles in India.
• It was launched for a period from 2020-21 to 2025-26 with an outlay of Rs.1,480 crores. 
• Components of the National Technical Textiles Mission:
  • Research, Innovation and Development: It supports R&D in technical textiles, inviting proposals to develop new materials and processes.
  • Promotion and Market Development: It aims to increase technical textile adoption in India through market promotion and international collaborations.
  • Export Promotion: Focuses on boosting exports of technical textiles with a dedicated export council.
  • Education, Training, and Skill Development: Promotes technical textiles education, skill training, and internships in top institutes and industries.

What are Technical textiles?

• Technical textiles are defined as textile materials and products used primarily for their technical performance and functional properties rather than their aesthetic or decorative characteristics. 
• Other terms used for defining technical textiles include industrial textiles, functional textiles, performance textiles, engineering textiles, invisible textiles, and hi-tech textiles.
• These products are broadly classified into 12 different categories- Agrotech, Oekotech, Buildtech, Meditech, Geotech, Clothtech, Mobiltech, Hometech, Sportstech,Indutech, Protech, Packtech.
• Applications: They are used in products that help protect people, improve machinery, and solve practical problems, such as in car parts, building materials, medical equipment, and safety gear.

About Vedanthangal Bird Sanctuary:

• Location: It is located in the Chengalpattu District of Tamil Nadu
• It is one of the oldest bird protected areas in the country as well as in the State of Tamil Nadu.
• This freshwater wetland is a people-protected water bird area.
  • The history of which goes back to centuries where local people have been protecting this heronry (Breeding ground of Herons) and in return, have been benefited by the manure-rich water from the lake that increases the agriculture yield multifold–Liquid Guano Effect.
• This site is also recognized internationally, as an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA). It belongs to the Coromandel Coast biotic province.
• It was designated as Ramsar Site in 2022.
• Flora: It includes Alangium salviflorum trees, Acacia nilotica, thorn forests and dry evergreen scrub.
• Fauna: It is home to black-headed ibis (Threskiornis melanocephalus), Eurasian spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) and painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala).

About Vande Mataram 150 years Celebration:

• “Vande Mataram,” written by Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in a blend of Sanskrit and Bengali, is the National Song of India.
• It was first featured in his novel Anand Math in 1882, with its tune composed by Yadunath Bhattacharya.
• It became a symbol of patriotism during India’s freedom struggle.
• Historical Background:
  • It was initially composed independently and later included in Bankim Chandra Chatterjee’s novel “Anandamath” (published in 1882).
  • It was first sung by Rabindranath Tagore at the 1896 Congress Session in Calcutta.
  • Vande Mataram, as a political slogan, was first used on 7 August 1905.
  • In 1907, Madam Bhikaji Cama raised the tricolour flag for the first-time outside India in Stuttgart, Berlin. The words Vande Mataram were written on the flag.
  • On 24 January 1950, the Constituent Assembly adopted Vande Mataram as the National Song of India.
• The National Song is held in equal reverence to the national anthem, but it is not mandatory to sing it at any given occasion.

About Baliyatra Festival:

• It is celebrated annually in Cuttack, Odisha.
• The term Bali Jatra literally means ‘Voyage to Bali’.
• It is celebrated every year on Kartika Purnima that marks the day that the seafaring traders departed for the Indonesian islands.
• Historical Significance of Baliyatra:
  • It is organised every year to commemorate the 2,000-year-old maritime and cultural links between ancient Kalinga (today’s Odisha) and Bali and other South and Southeast Asian regions like Java, Sumatra, Borneo, Burma (Myanmar) and Ceylon (Sri Lanka).
• Celebration of Baliyatra Festival
  • The celebration features grand fairs, elaborate rides, food and dance.
  • Indian women perform ‘Boita Bandana’, they make boats of paper or banana leaf (sholapith) with lighted lamps inside and float them down the Mahanadi as a part of the celebrations.
  • The Bali Jatra celebrates the ingenuity and skill of those expert sailors who made Kalinga, one of the most prosperous empires of its time.

About UN Water Convention:

• It is also known as the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakeswhich was adopted in Helsinki in 1992 and entered into force in 1996.
• History of UN Water Convention
  • It was originally negotiated as a regional framework for the pan-European region.
  • Following an amendment procedure, since March 2016 all UN Member States can accede to it.
• Features of UN Water Convention
  • It is a unique legally binding instrument promoting the sustainable management of shared water resources, the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, the prevention of conflicts, and the promotion of peace and regional integration.
  • It requires Parties to prevent, control and reduce transboundary impact, use transboundary waters in a reasonable and equitable way and ensure their sustainable management.
  • Parties bordering the same transboundary waters have to cooperate by entering into specific agreements and establishing joint bodies.
  • As a framework agreement, the Convention does not replace bilateral and multilateral agreements for specific basins or aquifers; instead, it fosters their establishment and implementation, as well as further development.
• The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe(UNECE), which services the UN Water Convention.
• Significance: It is a powerful tool to promote and operationalize the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its SDGs.

Context:

• As the Election Commission of India (ECI) conducts a new phase of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls across several states, Opposition parties have accused it of attempting a “backdoor NRC”, drawing parallels with the National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise carried out in Assam.
• The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) clarified that the second phase of the SIR would exclude Assam, which faces elections next year.
• He stated that citizenship verification in Assam, being conducted under Supreme Court supervision as per the Citizenship Act, 1955, is nearing completion.
• The situation raises questions about the ECI’s jurisdiction and overlap with citizenship determination, a process typically beyond the poll body’s constitutional mandate.
• This article highlights the controversy surrounding the ECI’s SIR of electoral rolls and the jurisdictional concerns it raises, particularly in Assam—a state with a unique legal and historical framework on citizenship under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955.

ECI’s Jurisdiction Questioned in Citizenship Verification

• A major criticism of the SIR in Bihar was that the ECI allegedly sought citizenship proof from individuals not on the 2003 electoral rolls, using limited documentation.
• This move conflicted with the ECI’s own guidelines, which require that cases of doubtful citizenship be referred to the competent authority under the Citizenship Act, 1955, rather than being decided by the Commission itself.
• Assam’s Exception and the Legal Dilemma
  • In excluding Assam from the current SIR, the ECI cited that citizenship ascertainment there was “about to be completed.”
  • However, critics argue this reasoning conceals a jurisdictional issue:
    • any fresh verification in Assam would overlap with the National Register of Citizens (NRC), already prepared under Supreme Court supervision.
    • This would require re-evaluating citizenship in a state where that process has legally concluded.
• NRC in Assam: A Completed Legal Exercise
• The final NRC in Assam was published on August 31, 2019, after five years of work under the Supreme Court’s direct monitoring.
  • Total Applicants:3.30 crore 
  • Included in NRC: 3,11,21,004 people
  • Excluded: 19,06,657 people
• The process was a constitutionally valid, large-scale verification of citizenship, making Assam the only Indian state to have completed such an exercise post-Independence.
• Why the CEC’s Justification Falls Short?
  • The Chief Election Commissioner’s claim that Assam’s citizenship verification is still underway is misleading, as the NRC process concluded in 2019.
  • Reopening the issue risks duplicating an already settled legal process and would exceed the ECI’s constitutional jurisdiction, effectively turning it into a parallel citizenship tribunal, which the law does not permit.
  • Subjecting Assam’s residents to another round of scrutiny would erode public trust, strain administrative resources, and disturb the fragile social fabric of the state.
  • The ECI should limit itself to its constitutional mandate — ensuring free and fair elections — rather than engaging in citizenship determination, a function that lies solely with authorities empowered under the Citizenship Act.

Section 6A: Assam’s Distinct Citizenship Framework Upheld by Supreme Court

• At the core of Assam’s citizenship debate lies Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, introduced in 1985 under the Assam Accord.
• This provision established a special legal regime for Assam, setting unique cut-off dates for identifying and deporting foreigners — separate from the rest of India.
• In October 2024, a five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in In Re: Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, upheld its constitutional validity, recognising it as a special measure tailored for Assam’s historical and demographic realities.
• The Court held that Section 6A aligns with the constitutional value of fraternity and affirmed that Assam’s citizenship issues must be treated with distinct legal and political sensitivity, not through a uniform national approach.

Why ECI Must Tread Carefully in Assam’s Citizenship-Linked Voter Revision?

• Assam’s citizenship and migration issues have long been legally distinct from the rest of India, shaped by decades of court rulings and the unique framework under Section 6A of the Citizenship Act.
• Given this exceptional legal context, any Special Intensive Revision (SIR) by the Election Commission of India (ECI) in Assam that touches upon citizenship verification must proceed with extreme caution.
• While some argue that the NRC data—finalised in August 2019 under Supreme Court supervision after extensive stakeholder consultations—could be used to expedite the process, the ECI faces a complex dilemma.
• Using or disregarding the NRC could risk inconsistencies between the NRC and the voters’ list, potentially excluding eligible citizens and undermining public trust in electoral and institutional integrity.

Why in the News?

• Frequent disqualifications of candidates on procedural grounds have reignited calls for reforming India’s election nomination process to make it more transparent, fair, and citizen-friendly.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Election Nominations (Introduction, Legal Framework, Technicalities, Compliance, Global Practices, Way Forward)

Introduction

• India’s electoral process, the cornerstone of the world’s largest democracy, begins long before votes are cast.
• Yet, one of its most undemocratic aspects lies in the nomination scrutiny stage, where candidates can be disqualified on minor procedural grounds.
• From missing signatures to delayed certificates, technicalities often override democratic principles.
• The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, which governs this process, has accumulated layers of procedural rigidity, granting excessive discretion to Returning Officers (ROs).
• Experts now argue that this system needs urgent reform to uphold the spirit of free and fair elections.

The Legal Framework Governing Nominations

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951, along with the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, lays down the framework for candidate nominations.

• Section 33 - Specifies eligibility and procedure for filing nominations.
• Section 34 - Mandates security deposits by candidates.
• Section 36 - Grants the Returning Officer power to scrutinise nominations and reject them for “defects of a substantial character.”

• However, the term “substantial character” is undefined, giving ROs sweeping authority.
• Furthermore, Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars judicial review during the election process, meaning any challenge can only be raised after the polls, when the harm is already done.
• This combination of discretionary power and delayed remedy has made the nomination stage a potential chokepoint for political exclusion, often weaponised against opposition candidates.

Procedural Technicalities and Arbitrary Rejections

• Examples across India reveal how technicalities are misused to eliminate candidates even before campaigning begins:

• In Bihar, an RJD candidate was disqualified for leaving a few fields blank in the nomination form.
• In Surat (2024), opposition candidates were rejected after proposers allegedly denied their signatures, leading to an unopposed win for the ruling party.
• In Varanasi (2019), ex-BSF jawan Tej Bahadur Yadav’s nomination was rejected for failing to obtain a certificate within a day.
• In Birbhum, a former IPS officer’s form was invalidated due to a delayed “no-dues” certificate.

• Such rejections are legally valid under the current framework but morally corrosive to democracy. They expose how bureaucratic discretion can effectively curtail voter choice.

The Growing Burden of Compliance

• The Supreme Court’s ruling in Resurgence India v. Election Commission (2013), which mandated detailed affidavits on assets and criminal records, increased procedural complexity.
• Ironically, this created a paradox: false declarations don’t invalidate nominations, but incomplete ones do.
• Thus, a candidate who omits a minor detail in good faith can be rejected, while one who lies outright can remain on the ballot.
• Common procedural traps include:

• The Oath Trap: Candidates must take the oath after filing but before scrutiny—too early or too late renders it invalid.
• The Treasury Trap: Deposits must be made via treasury challans, often disqualifying candidates who pay via incorrect modes or outside the 3 PM filing window.
• The Notarisation Trap: Missing notarization of affidavits leads to automatic rejection.
• The Certificate Trap: Delay in “no-dues” or clearance certificates from government offices can eliminate a candidacy entirely.

• These conditions reward bureaucratic precision over democratic participation, turning the process into a test of procedural compliance rather than popular legitimacy.

Learning from Global Best Practices

• In contrast, other democracies treat election officials as facilitators, not gatekeepers.

• United Kingdom: ROs help candidates correct minor errors before deadlines.
• Canada: Provides a 48-hour window for corrections post-scrutiny.
• Germany: Mandates written notice of deficiencies and opportunities for remedy.
• Australia: Encourages early submission to allow corrections and appeals.

• These systems recognise that elections should promote participation, not exclusion.

Way Forward

• Experts suggest several structural reforms to make the nomination process more democratic and accountable:

• Codify Clear Classification of Defects:
• Technical Errors (missing signatures, blank columns, typos) should not justify rejection.
• Authenticity Issues (disputed signatures, false documents) should require verification.
• Statutory Disqualifications (age, dual citizenship, corruption convictions) should lead to outright disqualification.
• Guarantee a Correction Window:
• ROs should issue a written notice detailing the defect, citing the legal provision violated, and allow 48 hours for rectification.
• Mandate Reasoned Orders:
• Every rejection must include the specific grounds, evidence considered, and justification for why the defect is “substantial.”
• Digital-by-Default System:
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) could develop a unified digital portal integrating voter rolls, affidavit submissions, proposer verification, and deposits.
• A public dashboard could display the nomination status, ensuring transparency and minimising human discretion.

Why in News?

• The Union Environment Ministry’s Forest Advisory Committee (FAC)—the body responsible for evaluating proposals for diversion of forest land—has given certain recommendations.
• The FAC has recommended uniformity and rationalisation in the penal provisions applied under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (formerly Forest Conservation Act, 1980).
• This step aims to ensure consistency, fairness, and proportionality in penal actions related to forest land violations.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Understanding the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 1980
• Penal Compensatory Afforestation (CA) - Concept and Evolution
• Introduction of Penal Net Present Value (NPV)
• FAC Recommendations
• Way Forward
• Conclusion

Understanding the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980:

• The Act mandates prior approval of the Central Government before using forest land for non-forest purposes, including -
  • De-reservation of forests
  • Non-forest use or leasing of forest land
  • Clear felling of trees
• Violation occurs when these activities are undertaken without prior approval.

Penal Compensatory Afforestation (CA) - Concept and Evolution:

• Definition:
  • Penal CA involves restoration or afforestation activities ordered in addition to the legally mandated CA for non-forestry uses such as infrastructure or industrial projects.
  • It acts as a punitive restoration measure to offset ecological loss due to unauthorized forest land use.
• Earlier practice:
  • Penal CA was earlier imposed equivalent to twice the violated forest area, especially when no other monetary penalties existed.
  • However, after the introduction of monetary penalties and penal Net Present Value (NPV) guidelines, the practice became inconsistent and case-specific.

Introduction of Penal Net Present Value (NPV):

• Concept:
  • NPV quantifies the economic worth of environmental services provided by forest ecosystems.
  • Under the Van Adhiniyam Rules 2023, penal NPV (up to five times the standard NPV) can be levied for violations.
  • This system emerged from Supreme Court directions (2017) that aimed to strengthen environmental accountability.
• Need for rationalisation:
  • The FAC noted overlapping provisions of penal CA and penal NPV, leading to inconsistent enforcement.
  • It therefore recommended rationalising both measures to ensure uniformity and proportionality across cases.

FAC Recommendations:

• Uniform penal structure:
  • Charge penal compensatory afforestation equivalent to the violated forest land area (1:1 ratio).
  • Ensure alignment between penal CA and penal NPV mechanisms.
• Detailed violation reporting: States must submit detailed reports to the regional offices or ministry headquarters, including the nature of violation, officials responsible for approval or negligence, and action taken under the Act.
• Committee formation: A dedicated committee of regional officers and FAC members was constituted to -
  • Examine past violations
  • Recommend uniform penalty structures
  • Submit a consolidated report
• Integration with 2023 Amendments: The recommendations are in sync with the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, which introduced streamlined and consolidated guidelines for forest diversion and penal actions.

Way Forward:

• Codify uniform penalty guidelines to eliminate ambiguity and ensure proportional punishment.
• Integrate digital monitoring and reporting systems to track forest land violations in real time.
• Enhance inter-agency coordination between the FAC, regional offices, and state forest departments.
• Capacity building of enforcement officials to ensure accurate assessment of violations and penalty computation.

Conclusion:

• The FAC’s recommendations signify a shift towards transparent, consistent, and scientifically grounded enforcement under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.
• By rationalising penal compensatory afforestation and NPV provisions, India seeks to balance developmental needs with ecological integrity, ensuring that forest conservation remains central to environmental governance.

Context

• As India’s wealth gap widens and technology outpaces policy, the nation faces converging crises, automation-led job losses, gig economy precarity, and climate-driven displacement.
• Amid this turbulence, Universal Basic Income (UBI), once deemed utopian, now demands serious policy attention.
• The idea offers not just an economic cushion but a way to restore dignity, stability, and citizenship in a rapidly changing society.
• Therefore, it is important to analyse how the argument for UBI in India unfolds through economic, moral, administrative, and political dimensions, positioning it as a foundation for a renewed social contract in the 21st century.

Economic Inequality and the Moral Imperative

• India’s widening wealth inequality underscores the moral urgency of UBI.
• While official narratives celebrate 8.4% GDP growth (2023–24), the benefits remain concentrated at the top, the richest 1% own 40% of national wealth, and the top 10% control 77%.
• As Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz warns, GDP alone cannot measure equity, sustainability, or well-being. India’s 126th rank in the 2023 World Happiness Report reveals the disconnect between economic output and social health.
• Against this backdrop, UBI is framed as both an economic stabiliser and a moral response.
• It ensures a basic income floor for all citizens, empowering them with autonomy and security.
• By simplifying welfare into a direct, unconditional transfer, UBI bypasses the leakages and exclusions that plague India’s targeted schemes.
• The measure not only redistributes income but also recognises unpaid care work, especially by women, which sustains the formal economy yet remains invisible in national statistics.

Universality as Administrative and Philosophical Strength

• The essay identifies universality as UBI’s greatest strength. Unlike traditional means-tested welfare systems, a UBI ties entitlement to citizenship, not poverty.
• This eliminates stigma, bureaucracy, and corruption, making welfare delivery efficient and inclusive.
• Philosophically, universality transforms UBI into a rights-based guarantee, not a political favour.
• It aligns with the vision of a modern welfare state, ensuring that social protection is streamlined, unconditional, and resilient to shocks such as automation and climate change.
• By anchoring welfare in citizenship, UBI redefines inclusion, making every citizen a rightful stakeholder in the national economy.

Economic Rationale and Practical Evidence

• Empirical evidence strengthens the case. The SEWA-led pilot in Madhya Pradesh (2011–13) showed that unconditional cash transfers led to better nutrition, school attendance, and productivity.
• Similar trials in Finland, Kenya, and Iran found improvements in mental health, food security, and economic stability, disproving fears that UBI discourages work.
• With automation threatening up to 800 million jobs globally by 2030, India’s informal and semi-skilled workforce is especially at risk.
• UBI provides a transition buffer, allowing workers to upskill and adapt. Thus, it is not a welfare expense but a strategic investment in resilience and human capital.

Reconstructing the Citizen–State Relationship

• Beyond economics, UBI carries a profound philosophical and political significance.
• It challenges India’s transactional welfare politics, where parties exchange short-term freebies for votes.
• By decoupling income security from political patronage, UBI empowers citizens to evaluate governments on systemic outcomes, education, health, justice, and sustainability, rather than material handouts.
• This marks a shift from consumer-as-voter to citizenship-based democracy.
• UBI transforms the citizen–state relationship from one of dependency to one of rights and accountability.
• When income security is guaranteed, voters can demand good governance instead of negotiating for subsidies.
• Thus, UBI becomes a tool of democratic renewal, replacing the politics of paternalism with a rights-based social contract.

Funding and Implementation Challenges

• The biggest challenge is UBI’s fiscal and logistical challenges. A modest income of ₹7,620 per person annually, roughly the poverty line, would cost about 5% of India’s GDP.
• Financing such a scheme demands tax reform, subsidy rationalisation, or phased rollout. Yet the essay reframes the debate: the question is not Can India afford UBI? but Can it afford the cost of mass insecurity?
• A phased introduction offers a realistic path, starting with vulnerable groups like women, the elderly, and persons with disabilities.
• As India’s digital infrastructure (Aadhaar, DBT, Jan Dhan) matures, these systems can facilitate seamless delivery.
• However, gaps in digital literacy and access, especially in remote areas, must be bridged to ensure true universality.
• Crucially, UBI should complement, not replace, existing safety nets like PDS and MGNREGA, particularly in the early stages of implementation.

Conclusion

• UBI is more than a fiscal proposal, it is a vision for equitable citizenship in an age of automation and inequality.
• It embeds dignity, autonomy, and security at the heart of welfare policy, offering India a new social contract for the 21st century.
• By ensuring a minimum level of income for all, UBI promotes both economic stability and democratic vitality. It reframes welfare from charity to citizenship, from transaction to trust.
• The true question is no longer whether India can afford a UBI, but whether it can afford the democratic cost of leaving millions behind.