Current Affairs for 05 February 2026

India–Kyrgyzstan Special Forces Drill: Strategic Deepening Through Exercise Khanjar-XIII

Why in News ?

The 13th edition of the joint military Exercise KHANJAR between India and Kyrgyzstan has begun recently at Misamari in Sonitpur district of Assam. The annual special forces exercise reflects the growing defence cooperation between the two countries and India’s strategic engagement with Central Asia.

Background and Context

• India and Kyrgyzstan share long-standing historical and civilisational ties, reinforced in the post-Cold War period through diplomatic, economic and defence engagement.
• Central Asia occupies a vital position in India’s Connect Central Asia Policy, due to:
  • Its proximity to Afghanistan,
  • Strategic location between Russia, China and West Asia,
  • Shared concerns over terrorism, extremism and regional instability.
• Defence cooperation, including training exchanges and joint exercises, has emerged as a key pillar of India’s engagement with the region.
• Exercise Khanjar, initiated in 2011, has evolved into a regular platform for strengthening military-to-military trust, interoperability and counter-terrorism preparedness.

About Exercise Khanjar-XIII

• Nature: Annual joint exercise between the Special Forces of India and Kyrgyzstan.
• Edition: 13th edition (Khanjar-XIII).
• Location (2026): Misamari, Sonitpur district, Assam.
• Host Rotation: Conducted alternately in India and the Kyrgyz Republic.
• Participating Units: Elite Special Forces contingents from both nations.
• Symbolism: Reflects deepening strategic partnership and shared security interests.

Objectives and Focus Areas of the 2026 Edition

1. Enhancing Interoperability

• To improve coordination between the special forces of both countries in:
  • Planning,
  • Execution,
  • Command-and-control during joint operations.

2. Counter-Terrorism and Urban Warfare

• The 2026 exercise focuses on:
  • Urban combat scenarios,
  • Counter-terrorism operations,
  • Hostage rescue,
  • Building clearance and close-quarter battle drills.
• These scenarios are designed in line with United Nations mandates, reflecting peacekeeping and international security norms.

3. Sharing Tactical and Operational Expertise

• Exchange of best practices in:
  • Special operations tactics,
  • Intelligence-led operations,
  • Use of modern weapons and equipment,
  • Mountain and high-altitude warfare experiences.

4. Strengthening Professional and Cultural Bonds

• The exercise fosters:
  • Mutual understanding,
  • Trust between troops,
  • People-to-people contact at the military level.

Strategic and Operational Significance

1. Strengthening India–Central Asia Defence Engagement

• Exercise Khanjar reinforces India’s role as a reliable security partner in Central Asia.
• It complements other defence initiatives such as:
  • Joint training,
  • Capacity building,
  • Defence dialogues with regional states.

2. Counter-Terrorism Preparedness

• Both India and Kyrgyzstan face:
  • Threats from transnational terrorism,
  • Extremist ideologies,
  • Radicalisation networks.
• Joint training enhances preparedness to respond to:
  • Terror attacks,
  • Cross-border threats,
  • Hybrid warfare challenges.

3. Regional Stability and Multilateral Security

• By aligning with UN mandates, the exercise supports:
  • Peacekeeping readiness,
  • Collective security norms,
  • Stability in volatile regions of Eurasia.

4. Operational Readiness of Special Forces

• Exposure to diverse terrains and operational doctrines enhances:
  • Combat efficiency,
  • Tactical adaptability,
  • Inter-service coordination.

Carbon Capture in India: Bridging Climate Ambition with Industrial Reality

Why in News ?

The Union Budget has announced an allocation of ₹20,000 crore over five years for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS), signalling a major policy push to cut emissions from hard-to-abate sectors. By backing CCUS technologies, the government aims to reduce industrial carbon footprints and support India’s long-term goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.

Background and Context

• India is the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, driven primarily by:
  • Rapid industrialisation,
  • Infrastructure expansion,
  • Rising energy demand.
• While India has committed to:
  • Reducing emissions intensity of GDP,
  • Expanding renewable energy capacity,
  • Achieving net-zero by 2070,
• Certain sectors such as steel, cement, power, refineries and chemicals remain:
  • Structurally dependent on carbon-intensive processes,
  • Difficult to decarbonise through renewable energy alone.
• In this context, CCUS has emerged as:
  • A critical “bridging technology”,
  • A necessary complement to renewables, energy efficiency and green hydrogen,
  • A key enabler for meeting long-term climate commitments without derailing industrial growth.

About Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) Solutions

1. Capturing Carbon Emissions

• CCUS refers to a set of technologies that:
  • Capture carbon dioxide (CO₂) released during industrial activities,
  • Prevent its release into the atmosphere.
• CO₂ is the primary driver of:
  • Global warming,
  • Climate change.

2. Storage or Reuse of Captured CO₂

• Once captured, CO₂ can be:
  • Stored underground in geological formations for long-term isolation, or
• Utilised by converting it into:
  • Chemicals,
  • Fuels,
  • Construction materials,
  • Carbonated products.

3. Not a Single Technology

• CCUS is not one technology but a suite of methods, covering:
  • Capture,
  • Transport,
  • Storage,
  • Utilisation.
• Different industries use different combinations depending on:
  • Process type,
  • Emission concentration,
  • Location and infrastructure.

4. Limited Deployment So Far

• Although CCUS technologies have existed for decades:
  • Deployment has been limited due to:
    • High costs,
    • Safety and liability concerns,
    • Scaling challenges,
    • Lack of supportive policy frameworks.
• Adoption has accelerated only in recent years.

5. Global Status of CCUS

• Most active CCUS projects are currently in:
  • The United States,
  • Europe,
  • China.
• Even so:
  • Only about 50 million tonnes of CO₂ are captured annually,
  • Less than 0.5% of global emissions.

6. Crucial for Net-Zero Goals

• With global emissions remaining high:
  • There is no credible pathway to achieving net-zero by 2050 or limiting global warming without large-scale CCUS deployment.
• CCUS is increasingly seen as:
  • An essential pillar of climate mitigation,
  • Especially for industrial sectors with process emissions.

Budget Push for Carbon Capture in India

India’s CCUS Journey So Far

• Since announcing its net-zero goal at the 2021 Glasgow Climate Summit, India has:
  • Accelerated development of indigenous CCUS technologies tailored to domestic conditions.
• Current initiatives include:
  • Pilot and demonstration projects in steel, cement and chemical sectors.
  • Mapping of potential large-scale capture and storage sites.
• Establishment of Centres of Excellence, such as:
  • IIT Bombay,
  • JNCASR Bengaluru,
  • Driving advanced research and innovation.

Policy and R&D Roadmap

• In December, the Department of Science and Technology released a CCUS R&D Roadmap for 2030, identifying:
  • Key technological bottlenecks,
  • Financial constraints,
  • Policy and regulatory gaps slowing adoption.

Role of the ₹20,000 Crore Budget Outlay

• The five-year allocation aims to:
  • Bridge the critical funding gap for field testing and scale-up.
• Many CCUS solutions:
  • Have demonstrated laboratory success,
  • But require real-world deployment to reach commercial readiness.
• The funding seeks to:
  • Raise technology readiness levels,
  • Enable systems to capture or store 100–500 tonnes of CO₂ per day.
• Experts expect:
  • Several CCUS technologies to reach commercial deployment in India within five years.

Economic and Strategic Benefits of CCUS

1. Decarbonising Hard-to-Abate Industries

• CCUS is crucial for sectors like:
  • Steel,
  • Cement,
  • Refineries,
  • Chemicals,
• Where emissions arise not only from fuel use but are:
  • An inherent part of chemical and industrial processes.
  • Switching to renewable power alone cannot eliminate these emissions.

2. Only Viable Decarbonisation Route for Certain Sectors

• In cement and steel:
  • Most CO₂ emissions come from chemical reactions, not energy consumption.
• CCUS is therefore:
  • The only practical solution to significantly reduce their carbon footprint.

3. Budget Focus on Major Emitters

• The ₹20,000 crore allocation is targeted at:
  • Power,
  • Steel,
  • Cement,
  • Refineries,
  • Chemicals,
• Together accounting for the bulk of India’s CO₂ emissions.

4. Boosting Export Competitiveness

• Indian exporters face:
  • Carbon-related trade barriers such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM).
• CCUS adoption can:
  • Lower embedded emissions,
  • Improve compliance with international climate standards,
  • Enhance the competitiveness of Indian products in global markets.

Challenges and Constraints

• High costs of capture, transport and storage infrastructure.
• Energy penalty, as CCUS systems consume significant power.
• Safety and liability concerns related to long-term CO₂ storage.
• Lack of regulatory frameworks governing carbon storage, monitoring, and liability.
• Public acceptance issues, particularly around underground storage sites.

Way Forward

• Develop a comprehensive regulatory framework for CO₂ transport, storage, monitoring and liability.
• Promote public-private partnerships to accelerate large-scale deployment.
• Integrate CCUS with:
  • Renewable energy,
  • Green hydrogen,
  • Industrial electrification strategies.
• Invest in:
  • Indigenous R&D,
  • Skilled manpower,
  • Infrastructure such as CO₂ pipelines and storage hubs.
• Align CCUS deployment with:
  • India’s climate targets,
  • Industrial policy,
  • Trade competitiveness strategies.

Significance

• Climate Commitment Fulfilment:
  • Enables India to meet net-zero goals without sacrificing industrial growth.
• Industrial Sustainability:
  • Provides a realistic decarbonisation pathway for hard-to-abate sectors.
• Economic Resilience:
  • Protects exports from carbon tariffs and trade barriers.
• Technological Leadership:
  • Positions India as a global innovator in affordable and scalable CCUS solutions.
• Balanced Transition:
  • Supports a just and gradual transition to a low-carbon economy.

Denotified Tribes in India: Renewed Call for Constitutional Status and Census Recognition

Why in News ? 

Denotified, nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes have demanded constitutional recognition and a separate column in the 2027 Census to address long-standing political, administrative, and social marginalisation. The demand reflects growing frustration over continued invisibility in policy frameworks despite decades of post-Independence reforms.

Background and Context: Denotified Tribes in India

• Denotified Tribes (DNTs) are communities historically labelled as “criminal tribes” under colonial rule.
• The Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, empowered British authorities to:
  • Notify entire communities as criminal by birth,
  • Subject them to surveillance,
  • Restrict movement and livelihoods,
  • Institutionalise social stigma.
  • The Act was further amended in 1924, deepening discrimination.
  • After Independence, the law was repealed in 1952, and these communities were officially “denotified”.
• Since then, they have been collectively referred to as:
  • Denotified Tribes (DNTs),
  • Nomadic Tribes (NTs),
  • Semi-Nomadic Tribes (SNTs).
• However, repeal of the law did not translate into:
  • Social acceptance,
  • Economic empowerment,
  • Administrative inclusion.
• The stigma of criminality has persisted through:
  • Policing practices,
  • Social exclusion,
  • Institutional neglect.

Socio-Economic Status of Denotified Tribes

• DNTs remain among the most marginalised communities in India, facing:
  • Severe deficits in education, health, housing, and livelihood security.
• Many DNT communities:
  • Lead nomadic or semi-nomadic lifestyles,
• Lack access to:
  • Land ownership,
  • Ration cards,
  • Caste certificates,
  • Welfare schemes.
• Studies and official committees report:
  • Extremely low literacy rates among several DNT groups,
  • Negligible school completion in some communities.
• Economic survival often depends on:
  • Informal labour,
  • Traditional occupations,
  • Seasonal migration,
• This makes them highly vulnerable to:
  • Exploitation,
  • Police harassment,
  • Economic insecurity.

Administrative Classification and Policy Gaps

• Unlike Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs), DNTs:
  • Do not have a dedicated constitutional Schedule.
• Over time:
  • Some DNT communities were subsumed under SC, ST, or OBC categories,
  • Others were left completely unclassified.
• The Idate Commission (2017) identified:
  • Around 1,200 denotified, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities,
  • About 267 communities not included in any constitutional category.
• Even those included within SC/ST/OBC lists:
  • Often fail to access benefits due to:
    • Intense competition with relatively better-off groups,
    • Administrative hurdles and documentation gaps.
• This fragmented classification has resulted in:
  • Policy invisibility,
  • Lack of reliable national-level population data,
  • Inadequate targeting of welfare schemes.

Government Initiatives for Denotified Tribes

• The Union government launched the Scheme for Economic Empowerment of DNTs (SEED), covering:
  • Education,
  • Health insurance,
  • Housing,
  • Livelihood support.
• However:
  • Utilisation remains low due to:
    • Absence of proper DNT certificates issued by States and UTs,
    • Weak outreach and awareness,
    • Administrative bottlenecks.
• Between 2020 and 2025, actual spending under SEED:
  • Remained significantly below allocations,
  • Reflecting implementation failure rather than lack of need.

News Summary: Demand for Constitutional Recognition

• In the run-up to the 2027 caste-based Census, DNT, NT and SNT communities across northern India have renewed demands for:
  • A separate Census column and code.
• They argue that:
  • Without explicit enumeration, they will once again be statistically erased.
• The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has:
  • Recommended their inclusion to the Office of the Registrar General of India,
  • Which has agreed in principle to include them in the caste enumeration exercise.
• However, community leaders assert that:
  • Mere inclusion is insufficient without a distinct category.
• There is also a growing demand for:
  • Constitutional recognition through a separate Schedule, similar to SCs and STs.
• Leaders seek:
  • Sub-classification within DNTs to recognise “graded backwardness” between settled and nomadic groups,
  • Drawing support from recent Supreme Court judgments allowing sub-classification within reserved categories.

Significance of the Demand

• Accurate Enumeration:
  • A separate Census entry would generate credible population data, forming the basis for:
    • Targeted welfare schemes,
    • Budgetary allocations,
    • Political representation.
• Constitutional Justice:
  • Constitutional recognition would:
    • Acknowledge historical injustice,
    • Provide legal backing for affirmative action,
    • Strengthen access to constitutional remedies.
• Policy Coherence:
  • It would reduce fragmentation and ambiguity in classification, enabling:
  • Clear eligibility criteria,
  • Better coordination between Centre and States.
• Social Inclusion:
  • Formal recognition would:
    • Challenge the lingering stigma of criminality,
    • Promote dignity, citizenship, and belonging.
• Without these reforms, DNTs risk remaining:
  • Trapped between categories,
  • Unable to compete within SC/ST/OBC lists,
• Yet lacking an identity of their own.

Way Forward

• Introduce a separate constitutional Schedule for DNTs or amend existing provisions to ensure their distinct recognition.
• Ensure explicit enumeration of DNTs in the 2027 Census with a dedicated code.
• Develop a comprehensive national database on DNTs for evidence-based policymaking.
• Strengthen implementation of welfare schemes like SEED through:
  • Issuance of standardised DNT certificates,
  • Improved outreach and grievance redressal.
• Promote community participation, legal awareness, and access to justice to dismantle structural exclusion.

NDMA’s Landmark DVI Framework: Institutionalising Scientific and Humane Management of Mass Fatalities

Why in News ?

A series of major disasters struck India in 2025, exposing serious gaps in the identification and management of disaster victims.In response, the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has released India’s first comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for handling Mass Fatality Incidents (MFIs).The guidelines, titled “National Disaster Management Guidelines on Comprehensive Disaster Victim Identification and Management”, were released on Republic Day by the Ministry of Home Affairs, marking 25 years since the 2001 Gujarat earthquake.

Background and Context

• India is among the world’s most disaster-prone countries, facing:
  • Natural hazards (earthquakes, floods, cyclones, landslides),
  • Industrial accidents,
  • Terror incidents and transport disasters.
• While disaster response mechanisms have strengthened over time, mass fatality management has remained:
  • Fragmented,
  • Ad hoc,
  • Largely dependent on local capacities and improvisation.
• The absence of a nationally standardised framework has often resulted in:
  • Delayed or incorrect identification of victims,
  • Inadequate handling of human remains,
  • Prolonged distress for families,
  • Administrative and legal complications.
• The release of this SOP reflects:
  • A maturation of India’s disaster governance,
  • Alignment with international humanitarian and forensic standards,
  • Recognition of victim dignity as a central pillar of disaster response.

Need for these Guidelines

India witnessed at least five major mass fatality events in 2025, including:

• Air India crash, Ahmedabad (June)
• Chemical factory explosion, Sangareddy, Telangana (June)
• Gambhira bridge collapse, Vadodara (July)
• Flash floods, Dharali, Uttarakhand (August)
• Delhi car bomb blast (November)

In several of these incidents:

• Victims remained unidentified or were identified after significant delays.
• Families faced prolonged uncertainty, emotional trauma, and legal hurdles.
• Authorities struggled with:
  • Fragmented remains,
  • Lack of forensic infrastructure,
  • Poor inter-agency coordination.

These recurring challenges underscored the urgent need for a uniform, scientific, and humane national protocol.

Key Objectives of the SOP

• Ensure: Scientific, coordinated, and humane identification of disaster victims.
• Enable: Dignified handling, documentation, and handover of human remains.
• Address: Institutional, logistical, and forensic gaps.
• Standardise: Roles and responsibilities of stakeholders across local, State, and Central levels.
• Align: Indian practices with international standards such as those of Interpol.

Salient Features of the SOP

1. Four-Stage Victim Identification Process

The SOP adopts a globally accepted structured approach:

1. Systematic recovery of human remains
2. Collection of post-mortem data (physical, dental, forensic details)
3. Collection of ante-mortem data from families (medical records, dental records, personal identifiers)
4. Reconciliation and identification, followed by dignified release of remains to families

2. National Dental Data Registry

• One of the most innovative recommendations.
• Recognises that:
  • Teeth and jaws often survive fire, explosions, and decomposition,
  • Dental records are among the most reliable identifiers.
• Aligns India’s approach with Interpol Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) standards.
• Aims to institutionalise forensic odontology as a core component of disaster response.

3. Use of Advanced Forensic Disciplines

The SOP integrates multiple forensic branches, including:

• Forensic odontology: Dental identification.
• Forensic archaeology: Recovery and identification of remains months or years after disasters, especially in landslides or buried sites.
• Forensic anthropology, pathology, and DNA analysis: For comprehensive identification.

This holistic approach brings together science under a single coordinated framework.

4. Humanitarian Forensics Approach

The guidelines explicitly recognise that:

• Mass autopsies may not always be feasible or culturally acceptable.
• Emphasis is placed on:
  • Sensitivity to community customs and religious practices,
  • Emotional support and counselling for families,
  • Dignity of the deceased over mere procedural compliance.

Institutional and Operational Framework

• The SOP clearly defines:
  • Composition of identification teams,
  • Roles of police, medical officers, forensic experts, administrative officials, and disaster response agencies.
• It promotes:
  • Multi-agency coordination,
  • Clear command and leadership structures,
  • Standard operating hierarchies at disaster sites.
• Acknowledges the reality of:
  • Overlapping jurisdictions,
  • Multiple responders,
  • High-pressure operational environments during disasters.

Challenges Highlighted in the Document

1. Operational Challenges

• Fragmentation and commingling of remains.
• Rapid decomposition in hot and humid climates.
• Charring in fires and displacement during floods and landslides.

2. Logistical Gaps

• Inadequate mortuary capacity.
• Lack of cold chain transport and storage.
• Absence of reliable passenger manifests or records in many disaster scenarios.

3. Institutional Lacunae

• Shortage of trained forensic manpower.
• Weak inter-agency coordination mechanisms.
• Leadership and command challenges during large-scale disasters.

Way Forward Suggested by NDMA

• Create: Dedicated organisational structures for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) across India.
• Train: Experts from all relevant forensic fields on a continuous basis.
• Form: Specialised DVI teams, ideally in every State.
• Fast-track: Implementation of the SOP on a “war footing”.
• Adapt: Interpol best practices, contextualised to Indian socio-cultural and administrative realities.
• Strengthen: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and post-disaster governance.
• Integrate: Science, technology, and humanitarian values in disaster response.
• Reinforce: India’s compliance with international forensic and humanitarian standards.

Significance of the SOP

• Institutionalisation of Best Practices:
  • Shifts India from ad hoc responses to a standardised national framework.
• Victim-Centric Approach:
  • Places dignity, identity, and family well-being at the heart of disaster management.
• Governance Reform:
  • Strengthens inter-agency coordination and accountability.
• Global Alignment:
  • Brings India in line with international forensic and humanitarian norms.
• Disaster Preparedness:
  • Enhances India’s capacity to respond to future mass fatality events with efficiency, compassion, and scientific rigour.

Supreme Court’s Hard Look at Meta–WhatsApp: Rethinking Consent, Competition and Data Ownership

Why in News ?

In a significant hearing, the Supreme Court of India sharply questioned the data practices of Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, suggesting that the extraction of user data may resemble “theft” rather than voluntary exchange.

A three-judge Bench observed that in markets dominated by a few digital platforms, user consent may be illusory, as individuals have little real choice but to accept data-sharing terms. The court indicated that market dominance can convert consent into coercion, raising concerns that go beyond privacy to challenge the very economic foundations of data-driven business models.

These observations signal a possible judicial rethink on how consent, competition, and data ownership are understood in India’s rapidly expanding digital ecosystem, with far-reaching implications for Big Tech regulation in the world’s largest internet market.

Background and Context

• India hosts over 500 million WhatsApp users, making it one of the world’s largest digital markets.
• Digital platforms increasingly operate on a data-driven business model, where:
  • Services appear “free”,
  • Users pay with personal and behavioural data,
  • Data is monetised through targeted advertising and profiling.
• This has raised fundamental regulatory questions around:
  • Informed consent,
  • Market power,
  • Fair competition,
  • Ownership and economic value of personal data.
• India’s regulatory framework has evolved through:
  • Competition law (Competition Act, 2002),
  • The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023,
  • Sectoral and judicial oversight.
• The Meta–WhatsApp case sits at the intersection of:
  • Privacy rights,
  • Competition law,
  • Digital economy governance,
  • Constitutional values of autonomy and fairness.

Meta–WhatsApp Regulatory Friction

Origin of the Dispute

• In 2021, WhatsApp introduced a “take-it-or-leave-it” privacy policy update.
• The revised policy enabled:
  • Greater data sharing between WhatsApp and its parent company, Meta.
• Although WhatsApp claimed that:
  • End-to-end encryption continued to protect message content,
• Regulators flagged concerns over:
  • Use of metadata,
  • Profiling,
  • Targeted advertising,
  • Business intelligence.

Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) Intervention

• The CCI viewed the update as an abuse of dominant market position.
• Key observations included:
  • For most Indian users, opting out of WhatsApp is not a realistic choice.
  • WhatsApp functions as India’s “digital town square”, making consent effectively coerced.
• Penalty imposed: ₹213.14 crore (≈ $25 million).
  • While modest for a trillion-dollar firm, it carried strong symbolic and regulatory weight.
• Meta challenged the CCI order before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT).

NCLAT’s Nuanced Verdict

• The NCLAT delivered a split decision:
  • Upheld the CCI’s finding of abuse of dominance,
  • Retained the monetary penalty,
  • Set aside the directive barring Meta from sharing WhatsApp user data with its other entities for five years for advertising purposes.
• The tribunal’s reasoning rested on:
  • A traditional view of corporate integration, treating intra-group data-sharing as common in the digital economy,
  • Concern that a five-year moratorium would be a disproportionate “structural remedy”,
  • Preference for privacy-specific legislation, rather than competition law, to govern data flows.
• With the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 in place, the NCLAT appeared inclined to defer questions of consent and data use to the emerging data protection regime.

Why Meta Took the Dispute to the Supreme Court

• Dissatisfied with:
  • The financial penalty,
  • The legal reasoning,
  • Meta appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
• Meta sought relief from what it perceived as:
  • Excessive regulatory interference,
  • Restrictions on its data-sharing practices and business model.

Supreme Court’s Emerging Jurisprudence on Data and Dominance

1. Hard Line on Market Dominance

• The Chief Justice remarked that:
  • Opting out of WhatsApp in India is akin to “opting out of the country”.
• This highlights:
  • Strong network effects,
  • User lock-in,
  • The erosion of meaningful consumer choice.
• The court reinforced the idea that:
  • Consent in monopolistic or oligopolistic markets may be illusory.

2. Shift from Privacy to the Economic Value of Data

• Justice Joymalya Bagchi reframed the debate:
  • Beyond privacy,
  • Toward the economic value of personal data.
• While the DPDP Act, 2023 protects informational privacy, it is largely silent on:
  • Rent-sharing — who benefits economically when platforms monetise user data.
• The court questioned:
  • If Indian users’ behavioural data fuels targeted advertising, who owns the profits generated from that data ?

3. Towards a ‘Data-as-Property’ Approach

• The court’s reasoning hinted at:
  • A data-as-property or data-as-economic-asset framework,
  • Aligning India closer to the European Union’s Digital Services Act model,
  • Rather than the more laissez-faire approach traditionally associated with the United States.
• By impleading the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the court compelled the government to reflect on:
  • Whether privacy protection alone is sufficient, or
  • Whether the economic value of citizens’ digital footprints warrants a new form of sovereign and regulatory protection.

What Happens Next ?

1. Court’s Growing Discomfort with the ‘Free Internet’ Model

• The court’s remark that users are “not only consumers, but also products” reflects unease with:
  • Business models built on invisible data extraction,
  • Targeted advertisements following private digital interactions.
• Such practices are increasingly viewed as:
  • Intrusions into autonomy,
  • Not merely innovations.

2. Transparency vs Real Understanding

• The court signalled that:
  • Formal consent does not equal informed consent,
  • Especially in a country with:
    • Uneven digital literacy,
    • Asymmetric bargaining power between users and platforms.

3. Ultimatum to Meta

• The Supreme Court has issued a clear warning:
  • Meta must give an undertaking to stop sharing personal data,
  • Or risk dismissal of its case and the imposition of “very strict conditions”.

4. Message from the Judiciary

• The judiciary’s stance is unmistakable:
  • Indian users are no longer passive data sources.
  • The long-tolerated model of invisible data extraction may be nearing its end.

Significance of the Case

• Redefinition of Consent:
  • Moves beyond formal acceptance to examine real choice and power asymmetry.
• Integration of Competition and Data Law:
  • Bridges privacy regulation with market dominance and economic exploitation.
• Economic Justice in the Digital Age:
  • Raises the question of whether citizens should share in the economic value derived from their data.
• Regulatory Precedent:
  • Sets the stage for stricter oversight of Big Tech in India’s digital economy.
• Global Implications:
  • Positions India as a potential leader in shaping rights-based digital governance frameworks.

Biopharma Shakti Initiative

Context

Recently, the Union Finance Minister announced the launch of a new initiative called "Biopharma Shakti" during Budget 2026–27. It aims to empower India's biopharmaceutical sector.

About the Biopharma Shakti Initiative

• Biopharma Shakti broadly translates to "Strategy for Healthcare Advancement through Knowledge, Technology, and Innovation."
• This initiative is designed to make India a major hub for global biopharma manufacturing.
• Under this initiative, a comprehensive and enabling ecosystem will be developed to promote domestic production of biologics and biosimilars.
• The program includes the establishment of a dedicated biopharma network, under which three new National Institutes of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPERs) will be established, while seven existing institutes will be upgraded to meet modern requirements.
• Additionally, the goal is to develop a strong network of over 1,000 accredited clinical trial centers across the country.

Financial Provision and Duration

• An investment of approximately ₹10,000 crore has been allocated for this initiative over the next five years.
• This investment will focus on building advanced biomanufacturing infrastructure, promoting research and innovation, and strengthening India's capabilities in high-value and next-generation medical technologies.

Objective and Strategic Importance

The primary objective of Biopharma Shakti is to build an innovation and manufacturing network that can effectively address India's changing healthcare needs. In particular, this initiative has been developed keeping in mind the increasing burden of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and autoimmune diseases.

What are Biologics

• Biologics are complex drugs derived from living cells or organisms.
• Their availability has traditionally been limited due to their highly complex manufacturing process, and their use has been confined primarily to high-income countries.

What are biosimilars ?

• Biosimilars are highly similar versions of original biological drugs.
• They undergo extensive analytical studies, as well as rigorous preclinical and clinical trials, to ensure therapeutic equivalence, efficacy, and safety.
• These drugs increase market competition by providing similar therapeutic benefits, helping to reduce the cost of biological treatments.

The UGC Equity Regulations, 2026 Issue

Context

The Supreme Court of India has placed an interim stay on the implementation of the UGC (Promotion of Equality in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026. The Court directed that the previous 2012 guidelines remain in effect until further orders. It also expressed concern that the language of the new regulations is ambiguous and could potentially create divisions in society.

Background of the Stay on the UGC Equity Regulations, 2026

Root Cause of the Controversy

This case involves the UGC's attempt to replace the 14-year-old equality framework with more stringent and legally binding regulations. These new regulations were intended to prevent caste-based discrimination on higher education campuses. However, the 2026 regulations sparked widespread dissent and opposition.

Key Features of the 2026 Guidelines

• Classified Definitions: A clear distinction is made between general discrimination and caste-based discrimination, specifically highlighting Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.
• Mandatory Institutional Structure: The establishment of an Equal Opportunity Center (EOC) and the appointment of an Equity Ambassador and Equity Squad have been mandated in every higher educational institution.
• Strict Timelines: Initial response within 24 hours of receiving a complaint and completion of a detailed investigation within 15 days have been provided.
• Penal Provisions: Non-compliant institutions may face derecognition, denial of grants, and exclusion from UGC schemes.
• Direct Accountability: The Head of the Institution has been given the personal responsibility to ensure that the campus remains discrimination-free.
• Round-the-clock support mechanism: The operation of a 24x7 equity helpline and an online portal for lodging complaints has been mandated.

Need for stricter UGC regulations: Arguments

• Effective control of caste-based discrimination: The 2012 guidelines were merely advisory and lacked binding power, leading to continued exclusionary practices on campuses without accountability.
• Addressing the serious problem of student suicides: Structural discrimination often results in social isolation and academic marginalization, which requires prompt and timely intervention, not a slow grievance process. For example, in 2025, the Supreme Court linked a worrying pattern of suicides by Dalit students at IIT Delhi to institutional apathy.
• Financial justice and timely availability of scholarships: Delays in scholarships increase financial insecurity, pushing marginalized students into debt, dropping out, or experiencing mental stress. Example: In 2026, the Supreme Court set a four-month deadline for resolving pending scholarship cases, recognizing that financial stress could be a major cause of suicide.
• Reforming the formalized grievance redressal system: Lacking autonomy, SC/ST cells often refrain from taking action against senior faculty, which can undermine the effectiveness of the system as a whole. Example: According to Prof. N. Sukumar (2026), the lack of credibility in administration-appointed cells undermines student trust.
• Combating subtle and invisible biases: Beyond formal misconduct, bias can be present in academic processes such as evaluations, viva voce, and intellectual exclusion. Example: Some studies in 2025 found that the views of certain groups of students were systematically undervalued, highlighting the need for structures like Equity Squads.

Key Challenges to the Rules

• Limited Definition of Exclusion: The definition of caste-based discrimination excludes general category students, raising questions about equal legal protection. Examples: Citing graffiti such as "Brahmins Leave Campus" that have appeared at JNU (and other universities) several times since 2026, the petitioners argued that the 2026 Rules are inadequate to address such targeted harassment.
• Potential for Misuse: The lack of safeguards against false or malicious complaints leaves the Rules vulnerable to retaliatory use.
• Vague Language: The Supreme Court pointed out that terms such as isolation or mentorship groups in hostels are not clearly defined, making arbitrary implementation possible.
• No Mention of Ragging: Unlike the 2012 Guidelines, the 2026 Rules do not explicitly include ragging as a form of discrimination.
• Threat of social polarization: It was feared that these rules could institutionalize caste-based identities instead of promoting a caste-neutral educational environment. For example, the Chief Justice warned that if hostels or wards were interpreted differently, it could undermine the progress made in social integration over the past 75 years.

Way Forward and Suggestions for Improvement

• Inclusive Restructuring: The definition of discrimination should be universalized to provide protection to every student, regardless of caste or class.
• Expert Committee Review: The Supreme Court's recommendation to establish a committee of eminent academics and jurists should be implemented to clarify the language.
• Anti-Abuse Provisions: Confidence should be restored by including punitive measures for false or malicious complaints.
• Holistic Protection: Ragging, regional discrimination, and cultural bias (such as the North-South divide) should be reintegrated into the framework of equality.
• Sensitivity-Based Approach: Mandatory orientation and empathy-building programs for students and teachers should be prioritized over mere punitive measures.

Conclusion

The UGC Equality Regulations of 2026 are a well-intentioned attempt to provide a legal basis for social justice on Indian higher education campuses, but their legal structure suffers from glaring shortcomings. By banning these, the Supreme Court has sent a clear message that any protective law can only be effective if it is clear, inclusive, and non-divisive. The way forward lies in creating a balanced framework that provides genuine protection to disadvantaged groups without alienating the general student community.