Current Affairs for 30 January 2026

New Aadhaar App Dedicated to the Nation

Recently, the Minister of State for Commerce and Industry and Electronics and Information Technology dedicated the new Aadhaar App to the nation, marking a significant milestone in the field of identity verification in the public interest.

About the Aadhaar App

Developed by the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the Aadhaar App is a next-generation mobile application designed to enable Aadhaar number holders (ANHs) to carry, share, display, and verify their digital identity in a secure, convenient, and confidential manner.

Applications

• Designed to be user-friendly for a wide range of users, the Aadhaar App supports a wide range of real-life applications.
  • Hotel check-in via QR code scanning by an Offline Verification Seeking Entity (OVSE)
  • Optional face verification
  • Age verification for cinema ticket bookings
  • Hospital entry for visitors and attendants
  • Verification of gig workers and service partners

Other Features

• The app also includes advanced features such as face verification for attendance proof, one-click biometric lock/unlock, viewing authentication history, and QR-code-based contact cards for easy contact details sharing.
• It allows the management of up to five Aadhaar profiles on a single device, realizing the concept of “one family, one app.” In addition to address updates, residents can now also update their registered mobile number through the app, with plans to introduce more update services in the future.

About the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI)

• The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) is a statutory authority established on July 12, 2016, under the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue Aadhaar (a 12-digit unique identification number) to residents of India.
• ​​Its primary objective is to prevent fake identities and manage Aadhaar enrolment, update, and authentication.

Writ Jurisdiction of the Enforcement Directorate

Context

• Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an important constitutional question. The question is whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has the locus standi to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• This question arises in the backdrop of a long-standing legal dispute between the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the state governments of Kerala and Tamil Nadu. The outcome of this case could have wide-ranging implications for central-state relations, federal balance, and the autonomy of investigative agencies.

Background of the Case

• This dispute has its roots in the 2020 Kerala gold smuggling case, in which gold was smuggled through diplomatic baggage from the UAE at Thiruvananthapuram airport.
• In this context, the ED registered a case under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). During the investigation, several senior officials of the Kerala government, including the then Chief Minister, were implicated.
• The ED subsequently approached the Kerala High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to access essential records and a writ of certiorari to quash a state government notification on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

Meaning of a Writ Petition

• A writ petition is a constitutional remedy through which an order is obtained from a High Court (Article 226) or the Supreme Court (Article 32) for the protection of fundamental rights or for the correction of legal errors.
• This remedy is generally resorted to when other legal options prove ineffective. It directs public authorities to act in accordance with the law or to refrain from illegal activities.

Major Types of Writs  

Exceptions

• According to Article 361 of the Constitution, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued against the President or Governor in matters relating to the discharge of their constitutional duties.

• Generally, writs are not admissible against private individuals or entities unless the allegation is that the State has colluded with a private party to violate constitutional or statutory provisions.

Central Constitutional Questions

Can the ED invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ?

• Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for “any other purpose.”
• Traditionally, this power has been exercised by citizens, juristic persons, and institutions with enforceable legal rights.

Can the Enforcement Directorate also be included in this category ?

High Courts' View (Kerala and Madras)

• The Kerala High Court (2021) and subsequently the Madras High Court held that the ED is a statutory body with independent powers.
• ED officers perform functions of a quasi-judicial nature. On this basis, the courts held that the ED cannot be considered merely a department of the Central Government and has the right to file a petition in court.

Arguments of the Kerala and Tamil Nadu governments (before the Supreme Court)

• The ED is not a juristic person (judicial body) but an administrative department of the Central Government.
• FEMA and PMLA do not explicitly authorize the ED to file suit.
• Allowing the ED to file a writ petition could undermine Article 131, which provides for the Supreme Court's exclusive original jurisdiction over central-state disputes.
• This would allow the Central Government to bypass constitutional safeguards.
• The Kerala government also argued that the High Court's dismissal of the ED's petition as a "minor technical defect" was unfair.
• They cited the decisions of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India (2012) and Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector (2003), which held that only juristic persons can file suits against governments.

Central Government/ED's Position

• The writ petitions were filed by the Deputy Director of the ED in his official capacity.
• ED officers are not ordinary civil servants but are vested with independent statutory powers under FEMA and PMLA.
• If the ED were deprived of writ jurisdiction, it would hinder effective law enforcement and create unnecessary procedural hurdles.

Supreme Court's Observations

The Supreme Court held that the question was not merely technical in nature but had constitutional and federal significance. Therefore, the matter was admitted for detailed hearing.

Key Challenges

• Unclear federal boundaries between the Centre and the states
• Expansion of the ED's powers without clear legislative support
• Fear of executive overreach through constitutional measures
• Adverse impact on the specificity of Article 131

Potential Impact

• If the ED is allowed to file a writ petition, it will be placed at the mercy of other constitutional authorities like the RBI.
• If this permission is not granted, center-state disputes will be limited to Article 131, which will provide greater protection to state autonomy.

Way Forward:

• The legal status of the ED under FEMA and PMLA should be clarified.
• Clear guidelines should be developed regarding the locus standi of central agencies.
• Cooperative federalism should be further strengthened.
• Effectiveness of investigations should be ensured while respecting constitutional norms.

Conclusion

• The Supreme Court's final decision will have far-reaching implications for the scope of writ jurisdiction, the institutional role of central investigative agencies, and the constitutional limits of federalism and executive power.
• This case is not merely a matter of procedure, but raises a crucial question concerning constitutional discipline, the federal structure, and the balance of power.

ED’s Writ Powers Under Scrutiny: Redefining Federal Balance and Agency Autonomy

Why in News ?

The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a significant constitutional question: Does the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have the locus standi to file writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution?

The issue arises from a prolonged legal dispute between the ED and State governments (Kerala and Tamil Nadu), with serious implications for Centre–State relations, federal balance, separation of powers, and the autonomy of investigative agencies.

Significance of the Issue

• Constitutional Interpretation: The case requires the Supreme Court to clarify who can invoke writ jurisdiction, especially whether statutory investigative agencies qualify as “persons” with enforceable legal rights.
• Federal Balance: Allowing central agencies to approach High Courts against States may alter the constitutional scheme governing Centre–State disputes, particularly the exclusivity of Article 131.
• Institutional Autonomy and Accountability: The ruling will shape how far investigative agencies can independently access constitutional remedies without explicit legislative authorisation.
• Judicial Discipline and Procedural Integrity: It tests the boundaries between statutory authority and constitutional standing, preventing either executive overreach or undue procedural rigidity.

Key Components and Takeaways

Background of the Case

The controversy stems from the Kerala gold smuggling case (2020) involving diplomatic baggage from the UAE at Thiruvananthapuram airport.

The ED registered cases under:

• Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999, and
• Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

Allegations were made against senior Kerala officials, including the then Chief Minister. The ED approached the Kerala High Court seeking:

• A writ of mandamus to access State records, and
• A writ of certiorari to quash a State notification that allegedly obstructed its investigation.

What are Writ Petitions ?

Meaning: A writ petition is a formal request to a higher court (Supreme Court under Article 32 or High Courts under Article 226) seeking a constitutional remedy to enforce rights or correct legal wrongs.

Types of Writs:

• Habeas Corpus – Release from unlawful detention
• Mandamus – Commanding performance of public duty
• Prohibition – Preventing excess jurisdiction
• Certiorari – Quashing unlawful orders
• Quo Warranto – Challenging illegal holding of public office

Limitations:

• Under Article 361, writs cannot ordinarily be issued against the President or Governors for official acts.
• Writs generally do not lie against private parties unless State action or collusion is involved.

Core Constitutional Question

Can the ED invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ?

Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental rights and “for any other purpose.” Traditionally, this jurisdiction is exercised by:

• Citizens,
• Juristic persons, or
• Bodies with enforceable legal rights.

The dispute is whether the ED qualifies as such an entity.

High Courts’ Stand (Kerala & Madras HCs):

• The ED is a statutory authority with independent powers.
• Its officers exercise quasi-judicial functions.
• Therefore, the ED is not a mere department of the Union and has the capacity to approach courts.

Arguments by Kerala and Tamil Nadu Governments

Lack of Juristic Personality:

• The ED is not a juristic person and remains a department of the Union.
• Neither FEMA nor PMLA explicitly grants it the power to sue or file writ petitions.

Violation of Article 131:

• Permitting ED writs undermines the Supreme Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction in Centre–State disputes under Article 131.

Judicial Precedents:

• Cited cases such as:
  • State of Andhra Pradesh vs Union of India (2012), and
  • Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector (2003),

which held that only juristic persons can sue governments.

Procedural Integrity:

• The Kerala government objected to the High Court’s dismissal of its challenge to ED’s maintainability as a “trivial defect,” arguing it strikes at constitutional structure.

Union Government and ED’s Defence

Official Capacity Filing:

• Writ petitions were filed by ED officers (e.g., Deputy Director) in their official capacity.

Statutory Empowerment:

• ED officers function as independent authorities under FEMA and PMLA, not merely as civil servants.

Operational Necessity:

• Denying writ access would obstruct investigations, create procedural deadlocks, and weaken enforcement of economic and financial laws.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The issue is substantial and constitutional, not merely technical.
• It involves federal structure, judicial discipline, and institutional balance.
• The Court has referred the matter for detailed hearing.

Challenges and Possible Implications

Challenges:

• Blurring of Centre–State boundaries.
• Expansion of ED’s authority without explicit legislative sanction.
• Risk of executive overreach via constitutional remedies.
• Possible dilution of Article 131’s exclusivity.

Possible Implications:

• If ED is allowed to file writs:
  • It may be placed on par with statutory bodies like the RBI.
  • Central investigative dominance could increase.
• If ED is disallowed:
  • Centre–State disputes may be confined strictly to Article 131.
  • State autonomy and federal safeguards may be reinforced.

Way Forward

• Legislative Clarity:
  • Amend FEMA/PMLA to clarify ED’s legal personality and litigation powers.
• Judicial Standards:
  • Develop clear jurisprudence on locus standi of Union agencies.
• Reinforce Cooperative Federalism:
  • Encourage institutional dialogue rather than adversarial constitutional litigation.
• Balance Enforcement and Constitutionality:
  • Ensure investigative efficiency without eroding constitutional discipline or federal structure.

Baramati Air Crash: Exposing Structural Gaps in India’s Aviation Safety Framework

Why in News ?

A plane crash in Baramati that killed Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar has reignited concerns over India’s civil aviation safety framework, particularly in the non-scheduled aviation sector. The tragedy closely mirrors warnings issued months earlier by a Parliamentary Standing Committee in its August 2025 report, which cautioned that India’s rapid aviation growth was outpacing regulatory oversight, safety enforcement, and institutional capacity.

The committee had specifically flagged vulnerabilities in private jets and charter aircraft operations, highlighting uneven compliance, weak monitoring, and structural gaps when compared to scheduled commercial airlines.

Significance of the Issue

• Public Safety and Trust: The crash has shaken public confidence in aviation safety, especially for non-commercial flights involving political leaders, business executives, and emergency travel.
• Regulatory Credibility: It raises questions about the effectiveness of India’s aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), and the implementation of Parliamentary oversight recommendations.
• Growth-Safety Trade-off: India is one of the fastest-growing aviation markets globally. Without proportionate strengthening of safety systems, regulatory institutions, and infrastructure, growth risks becoming unsafe and unsustainable.
• Policy and Governance Implications: The incident underscores the need for stronger institutional accountability, inter-agency coordination, and rule-based governance in high-risk sectors.

Key Components and Takeaways

1. Private and Charter Aircraft Safety Under Scrutiny

• Concerns over Maintenance and Safety Practices: The Parliamentary Committee noted serious deficiencies in maintenance standards, documentation, and operational controls among non-scheduled operators. Many charter firms operate with limited technical staff, weakening maintenance planning and safety assurance.
• Need for Stronger DGCA Oversight: The committee urged the DGCA to intensify surveillance through surprise inspections, frequent audits, and stricter enforcement of safety regulations.
• Gaps in Operational Support Systems: Unlike scheduled airlines, private operators often lack layered operational control centres that assist pilots during weather disruptions, diversions, or emergencies—an absence flagged as a major vulnerability.
• Mandatory Safety Management Systems (SMS): The panel recommended making fully functional Safety Management Systems compulsory across all non-scheduled operators, ensuring safety culture parity with commercial airlines.
• Flight Planning and Risk Assessment Deficiencies: Weaknesses were identified in weather assessment, alternate airport planning, and pre-departure risk evaluation, increasing exposure to operational hazards.

2. Aviation Regulator Under Institutional Strain

• Overburdened DGCA: The committee highlighted chronic manpower shortages and expanding responsibilities at the DGCA, which often force it into reactive rather than preventive safety oversight.
• Need for Capacity Building: Recommendations included strengthening technical staffing, enhancing inspector training, and adopting data-driven and predictive safety risk assessment tools.
• Mismatch Between Growth and Oversight: Rapid fleet expansion, rising aircraft movements, and the proliferation of airports require commensurate strengthening of surveillance mechanisms, failing which safety margins will continue to shrink.

3. ATC Capacity and Fatigue Risks

• Controllers Under Rising Workload: Air Traffic Control (ATC), the backbone of aviation safety, is under strain, especially at major airports where traffic density has increased without proportional manpower expansion.
• Fatigue and Human Error Risks: High workloads, long shifts, peak-hour pressures, and adverse weather conditions contribute to fatigue and stress, significantly raising the probability of human error.
• Staffing and System Modernisation: The committee recommended faster recruitment, improved rostering practices to reduce fatigue, and accelerated modernisation of communication, navigation, and surveillance (CNS) systems.
• Redundancy and Civil–Defence Coordination: Emphasis was placed on building system redundancy and strengthening civil–military airspace coordination to ensure safer and more resilient air traffic management.

4. Learning from Past Aviation Accidents

• Human Factors and Training Gaps: Accident investigations repeatedly point to human error, inadequate training, and flawed decision-making under pressure as key causal factors.
• Implementing Safety Recommendations: The committee stressed that safety advisories and recommendations from crash investigation reports must be systematically tracked, audited, and enforced, not merely recorded.
• Centralised Compliance Monitoring: It called for a centralised mechanism to monitor compliance with safety recommendations across airlines, charter operators, airports, and regulators.
• Upgrading Infrastructure at Smaller Airports: With expanding operations under regional connectivity schemes, smaller airports need better runway safety areas, navigational aids, fire and rescue services, and emergency response systems.

5. Growth Must Not Outpace Aviation Safety

• Safety as a Foundational Pillar: The Parliamentary panel warned that aviation expansion must be matched—if not exceeded—by investments in safety systems, regulatory capacity, and institutional accountability.
• Risks of Unchecked Expansion: Growth without strengthening oversight, ATC capacity, operator discipline, and safety culture—especially in private aviation—could heighten systemic risks.
• Balancing Market Expansion and Public Safety: The incident reinforces the principle that aviation safety is a public good and a non-negotiable prerequisite for sustainable sectoral growth.

Challenges and Way Forward

• Strengthening DGCA Capacity: Recruit more technical inspectors, enhance training, and institutionalise predictive, risk-based oversight models.
• Regulating the Non-Scheduled Sector: Introduce stricter licensing, auditing, and safety compliance requirements for charter and private operators, aligned with commercial airline standards.
• Enhancing ATC Infrastructure and Staffing: Accelerate recruitment, modernise CNS systems, improve fatigue management, and expand system redundancy.
• Institutionalising Accident Learning: Create a legally mandated, centralised system to track and enforce implementation of safety recommendations.
• Upgrading Regional Aviation Infrastructure: Invest in safety infrastructure at smaller airports, including navigation aids, runway safety areas, and emergency response capabilities.
• Embedding a Safety-First Culture: Promote organisational safety culture across airlines, regulators, and service providers through training, accountability mechanisms, and performance audits.