About Juvenile Justice Board:

• It is formed under section-4 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which functions relating to children in conflict with law under this Act.
• It states that, the State Government shall constitute for every district, one or more Juvenile Justice Boards.
• Composition of Juvenile Justice Board:
  • A board shall consist of:
    • Metropolitan Magistrate or
    • A Judicial Magistrate of first class not being Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or
    • Chief Judicial Magistrate referred to as Principal Magistrate with at least three years’ experience
    • Two social workers selected in such a manner as may be prescribed, of whom at least one shall be a woman.
  • Powers of Juvenile Justice Board:
    • Under Section 15, special provisions have been made to tackle child offenders committing heinous offences in the age group of 16-18 years.
    • The Juvenile Justice Board is given the option to transfer cases of heinous offences by such children to a Children’s Court (Court of Session) after conducting preliminary assessment.
  • Functions of Juvenile Justice Board:
    • To ensure that the child’s rights are protected throughout the process of apprehending the child, inquiry, aftercare and rehabilitation.
    • It also ensures the availability of legal aid for the child through the legal services institutions.
    • The board undertakes at least one inspection visit every month of residential facilities for children in conflict with law and recommends action for improvement in quality of services to the District Child Protection Unit and the state government.

Why in news?

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) covers nearly 26 crore registered workers across 2.69 lakh gram panchayats. Over the past six months, around 15 lakh workers were removed from the database.

However, within just one month — from October 10 to November 14, 2025 — deletions spiked to 27 lakh, far exceeding the 10.5 lakh new additions during the same period.

This unprecedented rise in deletions coincides with the Union government’s intensified push for mandatory e-KYC verification to identify and remove ineligible or duplicate beneficiaries.

Concerns are growing that the verification drive may be excluding genuine workers who struggle with documentation or biometric-related issues.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Legal Provisions on Job Cards
• Government’s Rationale for e-KYC Push
• Methods of Worker Verification
• Link Between e-KYC Drive and MNREGA Worker Deletions

Legal Provisions on Job Cards

• Under Para 2 of Schedule II, Gram Panchayats must issue job cards within 15 days of receiving an application.
• Job cards must include a unique number, registration details, insurance details, and Aadhaar numbers (if any).
• As per Para 3 of Schedule II, job cards must be renewed every five years after proper verification.
• States, through Panchayati Raj Institutions, are responsible for issuance, verification, and renewal.

Government’s Rationale for e-KYC Push

• The Union Ministry of Rural Development has stated that verifying MGNREGA workers is an ongoing exercise, and e-KYC is an additional step to enhance transparency and efficiency.
• According to the Ministry, the digital verification process is intended to improve service delivery and reduce inclusion errors.
• So far, over 56% of active workers have completed e-KYC across States, indicating steady progress in the verification drive.

Methods of Worker Verification

• Before the introduction of e-KYC, the government relied on multiple digital and Aadhaar-linked verification measures to prevent ineligible beneficiaries under MGNREGA:
  • Digital Attendance (NMMS App): After a year-long pilot from May 2022, workers’ attendance had to be captured via the National Mobile Monitoring System. Mates/supervisors uploaded geotagged photos twice daily from worksites.
  • Aadhaar-Based Payment System (ABPS): Made mandatory in January 2023, ABPS required workers’ Aadhaar to be linked with job cards and bank accounts.
  • NPCI Mapping Requirements: Workers’ Aadhaar numbers and banks’ IINs had to be mapped with the NPCI database to enable Aadhaar-based payments.
• These steps aimed to tighten verification, reduce duplication, and ensure payments reached genuine workers.
• e-KYC Process
  • Under the e-KYC system integrated into the NMMS app, supervisors photograph each MNREGA worker at the worksite.
  • This image is then digitally matched with the worker’s Aadhaar database photo to verify identity instantly.
  • Since 99.67% of active workers have Aadhaar seeded, e-KYC provides a quick, accurate, and reliable verification method.

Link Between e-KYC Drive and MNREGA Worker Deletions

• Earlier digital measures — NMMS for attendance and Aadhaar-Based Payment System (ABPS) — were introduced to improve transparency but instead caused widespread exclusion.
• Issues included poor network connectivity, limited digital literacy, and technical failures that prevented attendance capture, leading to wage loss.
• Aadhaar Seeding and Data Mismatch Problems
  • ABPS required perfect matching of Aadhaar details with job cards and bank accounts.
  • Minor spelling differences in names or demographic discrepancies frequently caused workers’ records to be rejected.
  • During ABPS rollout, deletions surged by 247% between 2021-22 and 2022-23.
• Failures in NMMS Implementation
  • NMMS did not deliver the intended transparency. Problems included:
    • Uploading irrelevant or fake photos
    • Photo-to-photo capturing instead of live images
    • Large mismatches between actual and recorded attendance
  • To fix this, the government introduced a multi-level verification system, with 100% verification at gram panchayat level and reduced checks at higher levels.
• Introduction of e-KYC Due to NMMS Shortcomings
  • e-KYC was introduced partly because NMMS verification was unreliable.
  • The new system seeks to validate identity using live photo matching with Aadhaar.
• Government Denies a Direct Link
  • The government claims deletions follow a strict SOP issued in January, ensuring transparency and allowing appeals before deletion.
  • It rejects claims that e-KYC itself is causing deletions.
  • Despite government denial, States with high e-KYC completion rates are reporting massive deletions:
    • Andhra Pradesh: 78.4% e-KYC done → 15.92 lakh deletions
    • Tamil Nadu: 67.6% → 30,529 deletions
    • Chhattisgarh: 66.6% → 1.04 lakh deletions
  • This raises questions about whether the e-KYC drive is indirectly contributing to exclusion.
• Overall Assurance
  • The Ministry affirms its dedication to:
    • Protecting the rights of every genuine MGNREGA worker
    • Ensuring uninterrupted wage employment
    • Maintaining transparency, accountability, and effectiveness in scheme implementation

Why in news?

Chief Economic Advisor (CEA) V. Anantha Nageswaran has raised red flags about the changing nature of India’s initial public offerings (IPO) market. He warned that IPOs are increasingly being used as exit routes for early-stage investors rather than for raising long-term productive capital.

His remarks come at a time when India’s primary market is witnessing a surge in IPO approvals and record fundraising plans, prompting concerns over overpricing and retail investors entering at inflated valuations.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• IPOs Tilt Toward Promoter Payouts Instead of Capital Raising
• OFS Dominates Recent IPO Structures
• Overpricing Becomes a Red Flag
• Promoter Exits: Sign of a Maturing Market
• Retail Investors at Risk in an Overheated IPO Market
• IPO Market at a Turning Point

IPOs Tilt Toward Promoter Payouts Instead of Capital Raising

• Recent IPO data shows a worrying shift: instead of raising fresh capital for business expansion, most new listings are being dominated by offers for sale (OFS) — allowing promoters and early investors to cash out.
  • OFS is a mechanism on the stock exchange that allows existing shareholders, such as promoters or large institutional investors, to sell their existing shares to the public. 
• Between SEBI-approved and pending applications, over 200+ companies are seeking to raise nearly ₹2.8 lakh crore, yet the structure of recent IPOs reveals that:
  • LG’s entire ₹11,000 crore IPO went to the Korean promoter.
  • Tata Capital’s IPO: Over ₹8,600 crore went to promoter Tata Sons and early investors.
  • Lenskart: More than ₹5,000 crore was cashed out by founders and pre-IPO shareholders.
  • WeWork India: The full ₹3,000 crore issue was an OFS by existing stakeholders.
• In short, the majority of recent IPOs have become monetisation events rather than instruments for raising long-term growth capital.

OFS Dominates Recent IPO Structures

• A major share of recent IPO issue sizes comprises Offer for Sale (OFS), where existing shareholders — mainly promoters and pre-IPO investors — sell their stakes.
• OFS proceeds do not benefit the company, as the money goes directly to the selling shareholders.
• OFS is not inherently problematic, but when it overshadows fresh issue components and valuations appear inflated, it raises serious concerns.

Overpricing Becomes a Red Flag

• Market experts warn that overpriced IPOs are becoming a new systemic risk.
• They note that hype-driven valuations, heavy anchor investor activity, and unrealistic growth assumptions are creating a dangerous disconnect between market prices and actual earnings potential — leaving retail investors exposed.
• Companies - with modest profits, short operating history, or uncertain future cash flows - are demanding valuations that exceed even those of well-established, profitable listed firms.
• These valuations are often justified using optimistic projections and aggressive accounting to project stronger growth ahead of listing.

Promoters and PE Funds Cashing Out at High Valuations

• Promoters and private equity investors — who understand the company’s real financial health — often acquired shares at very low valuations earlier.
• The IPO gives them a chance to exit at peak valuations, transferring nearly all the risk to public investors.
• The biggest concern associated with this the is information asymmetry:
  • Promoters and early investors know far more about the company’s weaknesses and risks.
  • When they sell aggressively at high valuations, it raises the question: if the future is so bright, why are insiders exiting now?
• This makes public investors wonder whether:
  • the company really needed fresh capital, or
  • the IPO was simply an opportunity to encash a favourable market sentiment.

Promoter Exits: Sign of a Maturing Market

• Some experts argue that high promoter and private equity exits through IPOs reflect market maturity rather than malfunction.
• They note that many IPOs criticised for high valuations have later become multibaggers, including several new-age tech companies that have delivered ~50% average returns since listing.
• They emphasised that early investors take significant risk in backing young companies.
• They deserve viable exit routes to recycle capital into new ventures—exactly how mature Western markets operate.
• Many IPOs do very well, but investors forget that early funds also invest in many companies that fail. So, they need exits to recover money and keep investing.

Retail Investors at Risk in an Overheated IPO Market

• Retail investors often rush into IPOs believing they guarantee quick profits.
• While some stocks list with a big pop, many fall or stagnate once excitement fades and prices adjust to real fundamentals.
• As a result, small investors end up holding overpriced shares while promoters and early investors walk away with huge gains.
• Not All IPOs Are Bad — But Caution Is Needed
  • Several good companies have used IPOs responsibly. However, the current trend of inflated valuations, heavy offers for sale (OFS), and aggressive marketing has made the IPO space riskier than before.
  • Experts say transparency on pricing, profitability, and peer comparisons is essential to protect retail investors.
• Why Retail Investors Are Vulnerable?
  • Even though regulators have tightened disclosure norms, pricing remains market-driven.
  • When liquidity is high and sentiment is bullish, promoters and investment bankers naturally push valuations beyond fundamentals, leaving small investors exposed.

IPO Market at a Turning Point

• If IPOs continue to be used mainly as exit avenues rather than genuine fundraising routes:
  • public trust will decline
  • retail participation will shrink
  • and the market may face a sharp correction
• For a healthy ecosystem, companies must price more realistically, investors must look beyond narratives, and regulators must strengthen oversight.
• The bottom line: too many IPOs channel money to promoters instead of funding new projects or capacity expansion.

Why in News?

• At the 2025 G-20 Leaders’ Summit in Johannesburg, the host South Africa achieved the adoption of the G-20 Leaders’ Declaration by consensus—despite the U.S. boycott and attempts to block the text.
• This was the first G-20 Summit held in Africa, marking an important moment for the Global South, African development, and the evolving global governance architecture.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Adoption of the Declaration
• Key Themes and Priorities in the G-20 Declaration
• South Africa’s Bilateral Balancing with the US
• India’s Priorities and Contributions
• Broader Geopolitical Backdrop
• Challenges Ahead
• Way Ahead
• Conclusion

Adoption of the Declaration:

• Unusual early adoption:
  • The Declaration was adopted at the start of the Summit, not at the end—an unprecedented step.
  • Negotiated and finalised by Sherpas, enabling early clearance.
• South Africa’s stand:
  • Declared the adoption an “affirmation of multilateralism.”
  • Asserted that the G20 cannot be paralysed due to the absence of any single country, including the U.S.
• US opposition: The U.S. did not participate and attempted to block the Declaration. Boycott due to deteriorating Washington–Pretoria ties.

Key Themes and Priorities in the G-20 Declaration:

• Multilateralism and global cooperation:
  • Reiterated commitment to the UN Charter, international law and peaceful settlement of disputes.
  • Emphasised the African philosophy Ubuntu: “I am because we are.”
• Weak position on conflicts:
  • Minimal references to Russia–Ukraine war, Gaza conflict, Middle East tensions.
  • Single-line condemnation of terrorism - “Terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”
  • Still included a key line - states must refrain from use of force for territorial acquisition.
• Global South issues:
  • Strong emphasis on debt sustainability, development financing, inequality, African priorities.
  • India ensured Global South concerns, a continuation of India’s 2023 G20 presidency.
• UN Security Council (UNSC) reform: Called for “transformative reform” of UNSC. Sought increased representation for Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America & Caribbean.
• Women-led development: Reaffirmed commitment to empowerment of women and girls, removing socio-economic barriers, promoting women-led development, and recognising women as agents of peace.

South Africa’s Bilateral Balancing with the US:

• Balanced diplomacy: Acknowledged the economic importance of the U.S. which is South Africa’s second largest trading partner. Rejected U.S. claims of “genocide of white farmers” as baseless.
• Debt sustainability push: Highlighted issue of risk-parity - countries with same risk but higher interest rates.

India’s Priorities and Contributions:

• Reconsidering global parameters of growth:
  • The Indian PM argued current economic models have left many deprived of resources and caused over-exploitation of nature.
  • He stressed the need to rethink development, especially as Africa remains most affected.
• “Integral Humanism”:
  • The Indian PM promoted Deen Dayal Upadhyay’s Integral Humanism - holistic development of individuals and society through the integration of material and spiritual well-being.
  • It will provide an alternative to Western ideologies such as individualism, secularism, communism.
• Key initiatives proposed by India:
  • Global traditional knowledge repository: For sustainable, culturally rooted, eco-balanced lifestyles.
  • G20–Africa Skills Multiplier initiative: India to train 1 million Africans in skill sectors.
  • G20 Global Healthcare Response Team.
  • G20 Initiative on Countering the Drug–Terror nexus: Highlighted fentanyl, drug trafficking, and terror financing.
  • G20 Open Satellite Data Partnership: Sharing agriculture, fishing, disaster data.
  • Critical Minerals Circularity Initiative: Recycling, sustainable mining, strategic minerals.
• India’s diplomatic engagements: ACITI Partnership (Australia–Canada–India) launched for technology and innovation, AI, clean energy, supply chain resilience.

Broader Geopolitical Backdrop:

• Rising geopolitical fragmentation: Declaration notes trade wars (US tariff wars under Trump), geoeconomic competition, conflicts, inequalities, uncertainty in global economy.
• Absence of U.S.: First-ever G20 Summit boycotted by the U.S. Raises questions on global leadership transitions.

Challenges Ahead:

• Weak consensus on global conflicts: Almost no mention of Ukraine, Gaza. Makes it one of the weakest declarations in G20 history.
• Debt sustainability for developing nations: High interest rates for the same risk profile.
• Geopolitical fragmentation: US–South Africa tensions, rise of competing blocs.
• Inequality and resource deprivation: Current growth models unsustainable.
• Climate change: G20 responsible for the majority of emissions—yet slow collective action.

Way Forward:

• Strengthen multilateral institutions: Reform UNSC, empower Global South.
• Sustainable development framework: Integrate traditional knowledge, eco-balanced growth, and integral humanism.
• Gender-inclusive development: Remove socio-economic barriers, promote women-led governance.
• Digital cooperation and technology partnerships: Example, ACITI partnership, Satellite data sharing, etc.
• Counter Drug–Terror nexus: Multilateral intelligence-sharing; regulation of fentanyl, synthetic opioids.
• Climate action: Promote critical mineral recycling, clean energy supply chains.

Conclusion:

• The 2025 Johannesburg G20 Declaration marks a pivotal moment in global governance, with Africa asserting leadership, the Global South shaping priorities, and the G20 adopting consensus despite U.S. boycott.
• While the declaration is symbolically strong on multilateralism, it is weak on major global conflicts and hard security issues.
• India played a crucial role in embedding developmental, gender, and sustainability priorities and propelled new initiatives aligned with integral humanism and South–South cooperation.

Why in the News?

• The 30^th UN Climate Conference (COP30) in Belem, Brazil, ended with a political agreement, known as the Global Mutirao Agreement, that commits nations to prepare two major roadmaps: one to halt and reverse deforestation, and another to “transition away” from fossil fuels.
• While the forest roadmap received broad support, the final text avoided binding commitments on fossil fuel phase-out, underscoring sharp geopolitical divisions.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• COP30 (Major Outcomes, Divisive Issues, Power Shift, Other Agreements, Significance, etc.)

Roadmap Focused on Ending Deforestation

• The centre-piece of the conference was a strong political push to address global deforestation.

• COP30 President announced a dedicated deforestation roadmap, which countries will develop over the coming year.
• This aligns with host country Brazil’s emphasis that climate action must prioritise forest protection, biodiversity conservation, and indigenous rights.

• The roadmap is expected to mobilise:

• Additional finance for forest conservation,
• Cross-border cooperation to curb illegal logging,
• Long-term strategies for restoring degraded landscapes,
• Support systems for forest and indigenous communities.

• With COP30 held in the heart of the Amazon biome, the emphasis on forest protection carried both symbolic and strategic significance.

Fossil Fuels: The Most Divisive Issue at COP30

• Demands for a Phase-Out
  • Over 80 countries, including the EU and small island nations, pushed for explicit language requiring a phase-out of fossil fuels, the world’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • They sought a clear timeline and measurable commitments.
• Resistance from Developing Nations
  • Major developing economies, India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, opposed binding phase-out language. Their arguments included:

• National energy needs and development priorities,
• Concerns over inadequate climate finance,
• Rejection of uniform global timelines that disregard domestic realities.
• India and several BRICS members insisted that energy transitions must be nationally determined, not externally imposed.

• Outcome: A Non-Binding ‘Transition Away’ Roadmap
  • As a compromise, COP30 adopted:

• A broad commitment to “transition away from fossil fuels”, but
• No timeline,
• No mandatory reduction pathway, and
• A separate voluntary roadmap, announced by the President, outside the formal COP text.
• This reflects a politically negotiated midpoint, with developing nations effectively shaping the narrative.

The Emerging Power Shift in Climate Diplomacy

• A COP Without the United States
  • For the first time in three decades, the United States did not send an official delegation.
  • This absence dramatically changed the negotiation landscape, weakening the bargaining influence of developed countries.
• BRICS’ Ascendance
  • In the US vacuum, BRICS countries emerged as a decisive bloc. They influenced:
    • The removal of fossil phase-out language,
    • The insertion of flexibility for developing nations,
    • Greater focus on equity and economic justice,
    • Attention to trade-related climate barriers, such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).

• This marks a new era in climate governance, one where negotiating power is more distributed and multipolar.

Climate Finance: The Central Fault Line

• Finance remained one of the most contentious issues at COP30.
• A Two-Year Finance Work Programme
  • Countries agreed to launch a two-year programme to address global climate finance needs, including:

• Clearer methodologies for estimating finance gaps,
• Strengthening transparency on financial flows,
• Designing mechanisms for predictable and adequate funds.

• Adaptation Finance Commitments
  • COP30 highlighted the severe shortfall in adaptation finance and called for:

• Tripling global adaptation finance by 2035,
• Prioritising support to vulnerable nations.

• Paris Agreement Article 9.1 Reaffirmed
  • Developing countries secured a key recognition:

• Under Article 9.1, developed countries have a mandatory obligation to provide climate finance to developing countries, not voluntary or negotiated.

• This acknowledgement was a major diplomatic win for the Global South.

Other Agreements Adopted Under the Global Mutirao

• COP30 also adopted 10 thematic agreements, covering:

• Technology transfer,
• Loss and damage,
• Global Goal on Adaptation,
• Just energy transition and livelihood protection,
• Implementation and transparency frameworks.

• These agreements will shape negotiations leading to COP31.

Significance of COP30

• COP30 may not have delivered a dramatic breakthrough like a fossil fuel phase-out, but it represents an important political turning point.
• It rebalanced global climate negotiations, giving developing nations a stronger voice.
• It produced a realistic agreement centred on equity, rather than overly ambitious but unattainable targets.
• It reinforced the importance of forests, particularly the Amazon, in stabilising global climate systems.
• It highlighted deep divides on fossil fuels that will dominate future COP discussions.

About Doctrine of Clean Hands:

• The Doctrine of Clean Hands emphasises that those seeking justice must not engage in dishonest practices, ensuring that litigants approach the court with full transparency and integrity.
• It is an equitable principle that prevents a party from receiving relief or asserting a defense if they have acted unfairly or in bad faith concerning the very matter before the court.
• Essentially, a party seeking an equitable remedy must themselves have "clean hands" regarding the dispute to be granted relief.
• Simply put, the doctrine requires that “He who seeks equity must do equity.”
• The doctrine has its roots in the English Court of Chancery, which administered equity.
• Clean Hands Doctrine in Indian Jurisprudence:
  • In Indian jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has consistently emphasized that litigants must approach the court with “clean hands,” meaning full and honest disclosure of all material facts relevant to the case.
  • It would be trite that suppression of material facts implies disclosure of those facts which are essential to the decision-making process.
  • If such material facts are suppressed, the Courts have held that the same amounts to fraud on the court, misrepresentation, or abuse of process of law.
  • Such conduct disentitles the litigant to any relief, whether interim or final, and may attract exemplary costs, dismissal of proceedings, or even contempt actions.
  • The court has described this as a fundamental requirement for invoking equitable jurisdiction, particularly in writ petitions under Article 226 or special leave petitions under Article 136.