Headline 1: SC Allows Regulated Use of ‘Green Fireworks’ in Delhi-NCR as a ‘Test Case’ for Deepavali
1. Preliminary Facts
- What: The Supreme Court has relaxed the blanket ban on fireworks in Delhi-NCR for Deepavali, permitting only the sale and use of ‘Green Fireworks’.
- Timeline:
- Sale: October 18 to 20.
- Use: October 19 & 20, from 6-7 AM and 8-10 PM only.
- Regulatory Bodies: Fireworks must be approved by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) and the Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organisation (PESO).
- Objective: The Court described this as a “test case” to balance festive traditions with environmental concerns.
This judicial order represents a nuanced shift from a prohibitive approach to a regulatory one, acknowledging the complexities of law, environment, and culture.
A. The Court’s Reasoning: A “Balanced Approach”
- Counterproductivity of a Complete Ban: The Bench noted that a blanket ban was counterproductive as it led to the smuggling and use of more harmful conventional fireworks. A regulated window for less harmful alternatives was deemed a more pragmatic solution.
- Evidence on ‘Green Fireworks’: The Court referred to its 2018 judgment (Arjun Gopal v. Union of India) and subsequent data, observing that green fireworks have led to a “significant reduction in emissions” compared to traditional ones.
- Data-Driven Monitoring: The directive to the CPCB and state boards to monitor air quality from October 14-25 shows the Court’s intent to base future decisions on empirical evidence gathered from this “test case.”
- Federal Consideration: The Court acknowledged the concerns of NCR states (Haryana, UP, Rajasthan), where a Delhi-centric ban disproportionately affected a large part of their territory and population.
B. The Detailed Regulatory Framework:
To prevent abuse, the Court established a strict framework:
- Source Control: Only NEERI-registered, PESO-licensed manufacturers can supply fireworks.
- Ban on Hazardous Types: Complete prohibition on ‘laris’ (series crackers) and e-commerce sales.
- Enforcement: Mandated joint patrolling teams (Police, District Administration, Pollution Boards) to ensure only permitted fireworks with QR codes are sold and used.
C. Broader Implications:
- Judicial Pragmatism: The move reflects the judiciary’s role in mediating between competing fundamental rights: the right to a clean environment (Article 21) and the right to practice one’s religion and culture (Article 25).
- Incentivizing Green Technology: This decision creates a market for environmentally friendly fireworks, encouraging innovation and investment in the sector.
- Precedent for Other Festivals: The Solicitor-General’s plea to extend this to Christmas and New Year’s Eve suggests this model could be replicated for other events, moving away from ad-hoc bans.
PRELIMS 360
Green Fireworks (Green Crackers)
Green Fireworks, also known as Green Crackers, are environmentally-friendly alternatives to traditional fireworks. They were developed by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research – National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (CSIR-NEERI) in India to reduce air and noise pollution, especially during festivals like Deepavali (Diwali).
✅ Key Features of Green Crackers:
- Reduced Emissions:
- They emit 30% to 50% less particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) compared to conventional fireworks.
- Contain no harmful chemicals like barium nitrate, which is usually responsible for the vivid green color in traditional fireworks.
- Lower Noise Pollution:
- Noise levels are kept below 125 decibels, which is within safe limits prescribed by law.
- Chemical Composition:
- Replace or reduce sulphur, potassium nitrate, and barium compounds with safe alternatives.
- Types Available:
- Safe Water Releaser (SWAS) – Releases water vapor to suppress dust.
- Safe Thermite Cracker (STAR) – Uses a thermite-based composition.
- Safe Minimal Aluminium (SAFAL) – Has reduced aluminium for spark effect.
- Identifiable Packaging:
- Green Crackers come with a QR code for verification, ensuring authenticity and compliance.
Headline 2: India’s Trade Deficit Widens Sharply in September Amid Services Export Slump
1. Preliminary Facts
- What: India’s trade deficit (the gap between imports and exports) widened by 93% in September 2025 compared to September 2024.
- Key Figures (September 2025):
- Exports: $67.2 billion (+0.8% year-on-year)
- Imports: $83.8 billion (+11.3% year-on-year)
- Trade Deficit: $16.6 billion (up from $8.6 billion in Sept 2024)
- Broader Trend (H1 FY2025): For the first half of the fiscal year (April-September), the overall trade deficit narrowed by 2.3%, indicating September was an outlier.
The data reveals a tale of two trends: a resilient goods sector facing external headwinds and a surprising slump in the otherwise robust services sector.
A. Disaggregated Analysis of Exports:
- Goods Exports Show Resilience:
- Despite the 50% US tariffs imposed on a significant portion of Indian goods, merchandise exports grew by 6.7% in September to $36.4 billion.
- This demonstrates the adaptability of Indian industries, potentially by absorbing some of the tariff costs to retain market share, as noted by the Commerce Secretary.
- Services Exports: The Unexpected Weakness:
- Services exports, which have been the bedrock of India’s export strength, contracted by 5.5% to $30.8 billion.
- This is a significant concern as the services trade surplus has traditionally helped offset the goods trade deficit. The reasons for this slump need investigation (e.g., global slowdown in IT/ITES demand?).
PRELIMS 360
Services Exports
- Services exports refer to the sale of services by residents to non-residents.
- These include IT services, business services, travel, education, financial services, etc.
- Counted in the Current Account of the Balance of Payments (BoP).
📈 India’s Performance in Services Exports
| Aspect | Data (approx., FY 2023-24) |
| Total Services Exports | ~$325 billion USD |
| Share in Global Services | ~4% (India is among the Top 10 global exporters) |
| Share of Services in Total Exports | ~40% |
| Trade Surplus in Services | ~$145 billion (helps offset merchandise trade deficit) |
Source: RBI, Ministry of Commerce, WTO
🏆 Top Services Exported by India
| Category | Description |
| IT and ITeS | Software development, consulting, cloud, AI, etc. |
| Business Services | Accounting, legal, management consulting, HR outsourcing |
| Travel & Tourism | Foreigners visiting India (leisure, religious, medical tourism) |
| Education Services | Foreign students studying in Indian institutions |
| Financial Services | Cross-border banking, insurance, investment services |
| Healthcare | Medical tourism, telemedicine |
💡 Importance of Services Exports to India
- ✅ Major Source of Foreign Exchange
- ✅ Trade Surplus Driver – offsets merchandise trade deficit.
- ✅ High-Value Employment – especially in IT, BPO, finance.
- ✅ Supports Start-ups & Innovation
- ✅ Strengthens India’s Global Soft Power – e.g., education, healthcare.
🌐 Government Initiatives to Boost Services Exports
| Scheme/Initiative | Description |
| SEIS (Service Exports from India Scheme) | Incentives to service exporters (now being restructured under RoDTEP framework). |
| Champion Services Sectors | 12 key sectors identified for focused growth (IT, tourism, healthcare, etc.). |
| India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF) | Promotes India’s services globally. |
| Digital India & Startup India | Enables innovation and tech-based service export growth. |
Headline 3: Supreme Court Summons Health Officials of 28 States/UTs for Laxity in Framing ICU/CCU Guidelines
1. Preliminary Facts
- What: The Supreme Court has taken a stern stance against 28 States and Union Territories for their “casual approach” and failure to comply with its order to frame uniform guidelines for patient management in ICUs and CCUs.
- Judicial Action: The Court has summoned the Additional Chief Secretary/senior-most Health official from each defaulting state/UT to appear personally on November 20 with a show-cause affidavit.
- Origin: The directive stems from a 2015 medical negligence case (Asit Baran Mondal v. [Respondent]), where the Court in 2016 first recognized the absence of standardized ICU/CCU treatment protocols.
This case highlights a critical failure in India’s healthcare governance and the judiciary’s role in enforcing accountability.
A. The Core Problem: A Governance Deficit in Healthcare
- Lack of Standardization: The absence of uniform ICU/CCU guidelines leads to variances in the quality of care across the country. This can result in medical errors, negligence, and violates the fundamental Right to Health, which is intrinsic to Article 21 (Right to Life).
- Non-Compliance with Judicial Directives: The failure of states to adhere to the Supreme Court’s deadline reflects a deeper issue of administrative apathy and a lack of seriousness towards judicial orders that aim to protect citizen welfare.
- Federal Implementation Challenge: Health is a state subject. While the Supreme Court can lay down a principle, its implementation depends on state governments. This case exemplifies the challenges of ensuring uniform national standards in a federal structure.
B. Significance of the Supreme Court’s Intervention:
- Enforcing Accountability: By summoning the highest-ranking health officials personally and barring them from citing “prior engagements,” the Court is adopting a zero-tolerance policy towards non-compliance. This personal accountability is a powerful tool to compel action.
- Judicial Activism for Public Health: The Court is moving beyond adjudicating an individual case to instituting a systemic reform. This is a classic example of judicial activism aimed at filling a legislative and executive vacuum in a critical area like healthcare.
- Setting a Precedent: This strong stance sends a clear message to all government departments that non-compliance with court orders, especially those impacting public welfare, will have serious consequences.
PRELIMS 360
Judicial Review
📘 Definition:
Judicial Review is the power of the judiciary (primarily the Supreme Court and High Courts) to examine the constitutionality of legislative enactments and executive orders of both the Central and State governments.
📜 Constitutional Basis:
- Article 13 – Any law inconsistent with Fundamental Rights is void.
- Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies.
- Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs.
✅ Key Features:
- Strikes down unconstitutional laws.
- Protects Fundamental Rights.
- Ensures checks and balances in democracy.
🏛️ Important Case Laws:
| Case Name | Significance |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Established the Basic Structure Doctrine. |
| Minerva Mills (1980) | Reaffirmed supremacy of the Constitution. |
| I.R. Coelho (2007) | Laws in the Ninth Schedule are also reviewable. |
Judicial Review is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be removed even by constitutional amendment (as per Kesavananda Bharati case).
🔹 Judicial Activism
📘 Definition:
Judicial Activism refers to the proactive role played by the judiciary in protecting the rights of citizens, expanding the scope of justice, and filling legislative or executive gaps.
🔎 Key Features:
- Court goes beyond statutory interpretation.
- Often involves Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
- Promotes social justice, environmental protection, good governance, etc.
🏛️ Landmark Examples:
| Case / Action | Activism Demonstrated |
| MC Mehta Cases | Environmental activism (Ganga pollution, vehicle bans) |
| Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan | Guidelines for sexual harassment at the workplace |
| Shayara Bano case (Triple Talaq) | Declared practice unconstitutional |
| Right to Privacy (2017) | Declared it a fundamental right |
🔁 Judicial Review vs Judicial Activism – Key Differences
| Aspect | Judicial Review | Judicial Activism |
| Nature | Constitutional Power | Judicial Philosophy/Approach |
| Function | Tests validity of laws | Fills gaps, interprets rights widely |
| Scope | Limited to legality | Broader social, moral, and political implications |
| Initiated by | Affected party or suo motu | Court itself , PILs, or social groups |
| Aim | Uphold Constitution | Deliver justice proactively |
Headline 4: Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Prolonged Vacancies in National Commission for Minorities
1. Preliminary Facts
- What: The Delhi High Court has sought a response from the Union Government regarding long-pending vacancies in the National Commission for Minorities (NCM).
- Petition: A PIL highlighted that the posts of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, and all members have been vacant since April 2024.
- Legal Mandate: The National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 mandates a seven-member commission, with one member from each of the six notified minority communities (Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis, Jains) and a Chairperson.
- Court’s Stance: The court termed it a “very important issue” and urged the government to ensure “things start moving.”
This case raises significant questions about institutional efficacy, the rights of minority communities, and government accountability.
A. Implications of a Vacant Commission:
- Institutional Paralysis: The NCM is a quasi-judicial body with powers to investigate specific complaints regarding the deprivation of rights of minorities. Without its members, it is rendered dysfunctional, leaving a critical grievance redressal mechanism defunct.
- Violation of Statutory Mandate: The government’s inaction is a direct contravention of the NCM Act, 1992. A headless commission cannot perform its statutory duties, which include:
- Monitoring the implementation of safeguards for minorities.
- Conducting studies into problems arising from discrimination.
- Making recommendations to the central and state governments.
- Erosion of Minority Rights: The plea argues this leads to a “systematic incapacitation” of the institution meant to protect minority interests. It creates a perception of apathy and undermines the constitutional value of fostering an inclusive society.
B. The Judiciary’s Role as a Guardian:
- The High Court’s intervention through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring the executive fulfills its constitutional and statutory obligations.
- The court’s reference to a “prior order” where it had expressed dissatisfaction with similar delays indicates a pattern of non-compliance by the government, making the judicial oversight necessary.
PRELIMS 360
The National Commission for Minorities (NCM) is a statutory body constituted by the Government of India to safeguard the rights and interests of religious minorities in the country.
📜 Legal/Statutory Basis
- Set up under the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992.
- Came into force on 17 May 1993.
🧑🤝🧑 Who are Minorities in India?
As per the Government of India, the following 6 religious communities are currently notified as minorities under Section 2(c) of the NCM Act, 1992:
- Muslims
- Christians
- Sikhs
- Buddhists
- Parsis (Zoroastrians)
- Jains (added in 2014)
🔹 Note: The term “minority” is not defined in the Constitution. However, Article 29 and 30 provide rights to minorities.
🏛️ Composition of NCM
| Position | Details |
| Chairperson | 1 |
| Vice-Chairperson | 1 |
| Members | Up to 5 (including at least one woman) |
| Tenure | 3 years |
| Appointed by | Central Government |
✳️ Members should be from minority communities.
📌 Functions and Powers of NCM (Section 9 of the Act)
- Evaluate progress of development of minorities under Union and State governments.
- Monitor implementation of constitutional and legal safeguards.
- Look into complaints of deprivation of rights.
- Make recommendations for the effective implementation of safeguards.
- Conduct studies, research, and awareness programs related to minority rights.
- Suggest measures for socio-economic development of minorities.
- Submit annual reports to the central government, which are tabled in Parliament.
❗ However, NCM does not have judicial or quasi-judicial powers (unlike NHRC or NCW).
⚖️ Limitations / Criticism
- ⚠️ No enforcement powers – Only recommendatory.
- ⚠️ No definition of “minority” in the Act – leads to ambiguity.
- ⚠️ Overlapping with other bodies – like National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).
- ⚠️ Limited financial and human resources.
- ⚠️ Political appointments affect independence and credibility.
🔍 Related Constitutional Provisions
| Article | Provision |
| Article 29 | Protection of interests of minorities |
| Article 30 | Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions |
| Article 25-28 | Religious freedoms |
EDITORIAL 360
Addressing the Gender Imbalance in India’s Higher Judiciary: The Case for an All-India Judicial Service
1. Preliminary Facts
- Issue: Severe under-representation of women in India’s higher judiciary.
- Key Data (India Justice Report 2025):
- High Courts: Only 14% of judges are women.
- Supreme Court: Only 3.1% (1 out of 34 judges).
- Lower Judiciary: A relatively better 38%, due to competitive exams.
- Proposed Solution: Creation of an All-India Judicial Service (AIJS) with a national-level competitive examination, similar to the UPSC Civil Services.
The article presents a critical analysis of the systemic barriers to gender equity in the judiciary and proposes a constitutional solution.
A. The Problem: Systemic Bias in the Collegium System
- The “Elitist Club”: The author identifies the Collegium System as the primary bottleneck. It is described as a “highly networked elitist club” where women and other underprivileged sections are at a inherent disadvantage due to a lack of transparency and structural biases.
- Contrast with the Lower Judiciary: The success of competitive examinations in the lower judiciary (leading to 38% women) proves that a merit-based, open process is more equitable. The lack of basic infrastructure like separate toilets for women in district courts further highlights institutional apathy.
B. The Proposed Solution: All-India Judicial Service (AIJS)
- Constitutional Basis: The proposal is grounded in Article 312 of the Constitution, which empowers Parliament to create new All-India Services.
- The UPSC Model:
- Merit and Diversity: The UPSC model is cited as a proven success in ensuring both merit and diversity. The 2024 results are highlighted, with women securing the top two ranks and significant representation from OBC, SC, and ST communities.
- Transparency and Impartiality: A national exam would replace the opaque Collegium process with a transparent, objective, and uniform standard.
The All India Judicial Service (AIJS) is a proposed service (not yet implemented) aimed at recruiting judges for the lower judiciary (district judges) through a centralized examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), similar to IAS/IPS.
It is meant to standardize and reform judicial recruitment across India and improve the quality and efficiency of the subordinate judiciary.
📜 Constitutional Provision
- Article 312 (1) of the Indian Constitution allows Parliament to create an All India Service, including for the judiciary, if the Rajya Sabha passes a resolution supported by two-thirds of members present and voting.
🛠️ Proposed Structure of AIJS
| Feature | Details |
| Conducting Body | UPSC or a specially created Judicial Service Commission |
| Recruitment Level | Entry-level judges (Civil Judge/Junior Division or District Judge) |
| Service Cadre | Similar to other AIS like IAS/IPS, under Article 312 |
| Appointment | Centralised exam followed by posting to various States |
🎯 Objectives of AIJS
- ✅ Uniform recruitment process across states.
- ✅ Merit-based and transparent selection.
- ✅ Improve efficiency and quality of lower judiciary.
- ✅ Reduce vacancies in the judicial system.
- ✅ Encourage diverse and all-India representation.
📉 Current Issues in Judicial Appointments (Without AIJS)
- Varied and non-uniform recruitment processes by State Public Service Commissions or High Courts.
- Political or executive influence in some cases.
- Long delays and large number of vacancies (over 5,000 in lower courts as per recent data).
- Lack of nationwide mobility for judicial officers.
MAINS MOCK QUESTION
“The persistent non-compliance by states with judicial directives on public health standards points to a serious governance deficit. Analyze the causes and implications of this trend.”
