Headline: Delhi HC Upholds Curbs on Telegram Amid NEET Row
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
- Court Upholds Ban: The Delhi High Court upheld the Centre’s temporary ban on messaging platform Telegram, holding that the government’s action was “proportionate and justified” in view of alleged use of the platform by organised cheating networks linked to the NEET (UG) 2026 controversy .
- Emergency Blocking Order: The order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act on June 16, 2026, to protect the integrity of the NEET re-test scheduled for June 21 .
- Broad Definition of “Information”: The court held that the Act’s broad definition of “information” encompasses software and computer programmes. Since Telegram is a “computer resource,” the government was empowered to block the entire platform .
- Targeted Takedowns Ineffective: The court accepted the Centre’s argument that repeated attempts to tackle the problem through channel-specific takedowns had failed, as operators were routinely creating mirror channels, backup groups, and successor accounts .
- Platform-Level Measure: The court concluded that “nothing short of a platform-level measure” would protect examination integrity during the critical period .
- Telegram’s Argument Rejected: Telegram argued it was being singled out while other platforms continued to operate, and that it had removed over 900 links using AI and manual moderation. The court held that emergent circumstances justified the intervention .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
- GS Paper II: Governance – IT Act, 2000 (Section 69A), Intermediary liability, Content regulation.
- GS Paper III: Internal Security – Cybersecurity, Online cheating networks, Examination integrity.
- GS Paper II: Polity – Freedom of speech (Article 19), Reasonable restrictions.
- GS Paper III: Science & Technology – Artificial Intelligence, Content moderation.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. Legal Framework: Section 69A of IT Act
| Aspect | Details |
| Provision | Section 69A (Power to issue directions for blocking public access to any information) |
| Purpose | Block content for sovereignty, security, public order, etc. |
| Procedure | Requires reasons in writing; emergency powers allowed |
| Definition of “Information” | Includes software, computer programmes, computer resources |
- Court’s Interpretation: Broad definition allows blocking entire platform, not just specific content .
B. The NEET 2026 Controversy
| Aspect | Details |
| Issue | Question paper leak; organised cheating networks using Telegram |
| Re-test | Scheduled for June 21, 2026 |
| Government’s Concern | Integrity of examination at risk |
| Targeted Takedowns | Failed due to mirror channels, backup groups |
- Court’s Observation: “Nothing short of a platform-level measure” would work .
C. Telegram’s Arguments
| Argument | Court’s Response |
| Provision allows blocking only content, not entire platform | Rejected; “information” includes software and computer resources |
| Government singled out Telegram | Rejected; emergent circumstances justified |
| Over 900 links removed using AI | Not enough; targeted takedowns ineffective |
| No application of mind | Rejected; government gave specific reasons |
- Court’s Finding: Telegram’s arguments lacked merit .
D. Government’s Reasoning Accepted
| Reason | Details |
| Circulation of Exam Papers | Purported papers were circulating |
| Fraudulent Activities | Targeting students |
| Recurring Violations | Existing measures failed |
| Mirror Channels | Takedowns ineffective |
| Proportionality | Least restrictive measure |
- Court’s Conclusion: “The government’s measures are least restrictive. It cannot be held that the order is disproportionate” .
E. Significance of the Ruling
| Aspect | Implication |
| Platform-Level Blocking | Sets precedent for blocking entire platforms, not just content |
| Broad Interpretation of Section 69A | “Information” includes software and computer resources |
| Emergency Powers | Government can act swiftly when needed |
| Examination Integrity | Courts support measures to prevent cheating |
| Intermediary Liability | Platforms must ensure compliance |
- Note: The ban was temporary, but the ruling has broader implications .
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
- Section 69A, IT Act, 2000: Power to block public access to information .
- Intermediary: Platform hosting user content (Telegram, WhatsApp, etc.) .
- Computer Resource: Computer system, network, software .
- Mirror Channel: Duplicate channel created to evade takedowns .
- Emergency Blocking Order: Temporary ban under Section 69A .
- NEET (UG): National Entrance-cum-Eligibility Test (undergraduate) .
- Proportionality: Restriction must be proportionate to objective .
- Content Moderation: Platforms’ efforts to remove illegal content .
- AI Tools: Used by Telegram to detect and remove links .
Mains Question Framing
- GS Paper II (Governance): “The Delhi High Court upheld the ban on Telegram under Section 69A of the IT Act. Discuss the legal framework and the implications for platform-level blocking.”
- GS Paper III (Internal Security): “The NEET paper leak and use of Telegram by organised cheating networks raise concerns about examination integrity. Analyse the role of social media platforms in preventing such activities.”
- GS Paper II (Polity): “The court held that the government’s measure was the ‘least restrictive.’ Examine the balance between freedom of speech and reasonable restrictions under Article 19.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
- Examination Integrity: Recurring paper leaks (NEET 2024, 2026) .
- Platform Accountability: Intermediary liability under IT Act .
- Freedom of Speech vs. Security: Section 69A balances both .
- Emergency Powers: Government can act swiftly .
- AI in Moderation: Telegram used AI but still failed .
- Mirror Channels: Challenge for content regulation .
- Precedent: Blocking entire platforms may be used in future .
Conclusion & Way Forward
The Delhi High Court upheld the Centre’s temporary ban on Telegram, holding that the government’s action was “proportionate and justified” to protect NEET examination integrity. The court endorsed a broad interpretation of Section 69A, allowing blocking of entire platforms (not just specific content) since “information” includes software and computer resources. Targeted takedowns had failed due to mirror channels and backup groups .
The Way Forward:
- Platform-Level Measures: Government may use such powers sparingly .
- Intermediary Cooperation: Platforms must strengthen proactive monitoring .
- Legal Clarity: Section 69A interpretation now settled .
- Examination Security: Multi-layered measures needed .
- AI Tools: Platforms must invest in better detection .
- Judicial Oversight: Courts to review proportionality .
- Due Process: Ensure reasons are recorded .
As the NEET re-test proceeds on June 21, the judgment stands as a precedent for balancing examination integrity with platform freedom .
Headline: Walking on Footpaths a Fundamental Right, Rules Supreme Court
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
- Landmark Ruling: The Supreme Court declared that the freedom to walk on demarcated and well-maintained footpaths is a fundamental right that has priority over movement by motorised vehicles .
- Constitutional Basis: The court linked the right to walk to Article 19(1)(d) (right to move freely throughout India) and Article 21 (right to life), stating that walking is “inextricably connected to life” .
- Enforceable Duty: The court held that if a road exists, there must be a duty to ensure that a footpath is demarcated and maintained for walkers. “This is an enforceable duty” .
- Case Background: The judgment came in a case of a five-year-old boy crushed to death by a truck while walking to school with his father .
- Compensation: The court found the parent entitled to compensation of over ₹11 lakh .
- Broader Rights: The court observed that walking embodies expressional, congregational, and associational rights under Article 19(1)(a), (b), and (c) .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
- GS Paper II: Polity – Fundamental Rights (Article 19, 21), Directive Principles, Judicial interpretation.
- GS Paper II: Governance – Urban planning, Municipal duties, Pedestrian safety.
- GS Paper III: Infrastructure – Road design, Footpath maintenance.
- GS Paper I: Society – Urbanisation, Pedestrian rights, Transportation equity.
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. Constitutional Basis for the Right to Walk
| Aspect | Details |
| Right to Move Freely | Article 19(1)(d) – “All citizens shall have the right… to move freely throughout the territory of India” |
| Right to Life | Article 21 – walking is “inextricably connected to life” |
| Expressional Rights | Article 19(1)(a) – walking embodies expression |
| Assembly Rights | Article 19(1)(b) – walking is congregational |
| Association Rights | Article 19(1)(c) – walking embodies association |
- Justice Narasimha’s Observation: “Walking is not just motion, it certainly embodies expressional, congregational and associational rights” .
B. Duty-Bearers and Enforceable Duty
| Aspect | Details |
| Duty-Bearers | Governments and local bodies (municipal authorities) |
| Enforceable Duty | If a road exists, a footpath must be demarcated and maintained |
| Priority | Fundamental right to walk on footpaths overrides the privilege of motorised vehicles |
- Court’s Statement: “This is an enforceable duty” .
C. Historical Context: How Walking Was Relegated
| Factor | Details |
| Urbanisation | Rapid growth relegated walking to an inconvenience |
| Motorisation | Cheaper motor vehicles dominated roads |
| Elitism | Machines with wheels were for the rich |
| Growth Narrative | Wide roads and expressways equated with growth |
| Pedestrians as Nuisance | Walkers treated as nuisance for drivers |
- Court’s Observation: “Moving on wheels have eclipsed human imagination” .
D. The Tragedy that Prompted the Ruling
| Aspect | Details |
| Victim | Five-year-old boy |
| Circumstances | Crushed to death by a truck while walking to school with his father |
| Compensation | Over ₹11 lakh awarded to parent |
- Court’s Statement: “Walking safely and carefree along wide footpaths… was the most basic of rights” .
E. What the Right Entails
| Requirement | Details |
| Demarcated Footpath | Wherever a road exists |
| Well-Maintained | Safe, accessible |
| Comfortable Space | “Easy and carefree walk” |
- Court’s Question: “How much does it take to create a well-demarcated footpath wherever a road exists?” .
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
- Fundamental Right: Right enforceable under Articles 19 and 21 .
- Article 19(1)(d): Right to move freely throughout India .
- Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty .
- Enforceable Duty: Legal obligation on state to provide footpaths .
- Motorised Vehicle: Cars, trucks, buses (their privilege is secondary) .
- Urbanisation: Growth of cities; often at cost of pedestrian infrastructure .
- Municipal Authority: Local body responsible for footpath maintenance .
- Compensation: ₹11 lakh awarded .
- Expressional, Congregational, Associational Rights: Article 19(1)(a), (b), (c) .
Mains Question Framing
- GS Paper II (Polity): “The Supreme Court has declared walking on footpaths a fundamental right. Discuss the constitutional basis and the implications for urban governance.”
- GS Paper II (Governance): “The court held that the fundamental right to walk on footpaths overrides the privilege of motorised vehicles. Examine the challenges in implementing this ruling in Indian cities.”
- GS Paper III (Infrastructure): “The ruling requires governments and local bodies to demarcate and maintain footpaths. Analyse the infrastructure and financial implications for urban local bodies.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
- Pedestrian Rights: Walkers are the most vulnerable road users .
- Urban Planning: Indian cities prioritise vehicles over people .
- Municipal Accountability: Local bodies must provide basic infrastructure .
- Public Health: Walking promotes health; lack of footpaths discourages it .
- Equity: The poor walk more; footpaths are a matter of social justice .
- Climate Change: Walking is sustainable transport .
- Article 19 Expansion: Court expands scope of right to movement .
Conclusion & Way Forward
The Supreme Court declared walking on demarcated footpaths a fundamental right under Articles 19(1)(d) and 21, holding that it overrides the privilege of motorised vehicles. The court emphasised that governments and local bodies have an enforceable duty to demarcate and maintain footpaths wherever roads exist. The ruling came in a case of a five-year-old boy crushed by a truck .
The Way Forward:
- Footpath Audit: Municipalities must audit existing footpaths .
- New Roads: Ensure footpaths are mandatory in all road designs .
- Maintenance: Regular upkeep of footpaths .
- Accessibility: Footpaths for elderly, disabled .
- Encroachment Removal: Clear illegal occupation .
- Pedestrian Zones: Create car-free zones in cities .
- Awareness: Educate drivers and citizens on pedestrian rights .
As the court noted, “walking is not just motion”—it is a right, a duty, and a measure of a city’s civilisation .
Headline : Four Glacial Lakes in Arunachal Pradesh Expanded Over a Decade: Satellite Study
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
Satellite Assessment: A geospatial analysis by Suhora Technologies found that four out of five high-risk glacial lakes in Arunachal Pradesh’s Tawang district expanded between 2016 and June 2026.
Location: The lakes are situated in the Mago Chu Basin of Arunachal Pradesh.
Risk Classification: The lakes have been categorized as “High Risk” or “Very High Risk” by the National Disaster Management Authority.
Largest Expansion: Sanhapo Lake expanded from 78.07 hectares (2019) to 88.81 hectares (2026), growing by nearly 10 hectares.
Key Concern: Expansion of glacial lakes may increase the risk of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs), although expansion alone does not imply an imminent disaster.
Technology Used: The assessment utilized imagery from ICEYE Satellite Constellation, PlanetScope Satellites, and LISS-IV.
Syllabus Mapping (UPSC Relevance)
GS Paper I
- Physical Geography – Glaciers and Himalayan geomorphology
- Climate Change and its impacts
- Natural hazards and disasters
GS Paper III
- Disaster Management
- Climate Change
- Remote Sensing and Geospatial Technology
- Environmental Conservation
Prelims
- GLOFs
- Moraines
- Himalayan glaciers
- NDMA guidelines
- Satellite monitoring systems
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis
A. What is a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF)?
Definition
A Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) occurs when water stored in a glacial lake is suddenly released due to the failure of a natural dam.
Causes
- Moraine dam failure
- Glacier retreat
- Avalanches
- Landslides
- Rockfalls
- Icefalls
- Earthquakes
Consequences
- Flash floods
- Loss of lives
- Damage to roads and bridges
- Destruction of hydropower projects
- Agricultural losses
B. Findings of the Study
| Lake Status | Observation |
| Four lakes | Expanded over the decade |
| One lake | Remained largely stable |
| Sanhapo Lake | Highest growth (~10 hectares) |
| Two “Very High Risk” lakes | Expanded by about 1 hectare each |
| Dharkha Tso | Recorded gradual growth |
Key Observation
The study found a broader trend of:
- Glacier retreat
- Increased meltwater accumulation
- Expansion of glacial lakes
However, the report emphasized that:
Lake expansion alone does not directly indicate a future flood event.
C. Why Are Expanding Lakes a Concern?
Glacier Retreat
Rising temperatures cause glaciers to melt and retreat.
Increased Water Storage
More meltwater accumulates behind natural barriers.
Moraine Dam Vulnerability
Many Himalayan lakes are dammed by moraines.
Potential Triggers
Even a stable lake can become dangerous if:
- A landslide enters the lake
- An avalanche strikes the lake
- A rockfall displaces water
- Intense rainfall weakens the moraine
Thus, risk depends on multiple factors and not merely lake size.
D. Expert Opinion
View of Glaciologist Anil Kulkarni
Anil Kulkarni emphasized:
- Expanding lakes require monitoring.
- Expansion suggests instability.
- Increase in area alone cannot determine risk.
- Hazard assessment requires studying:
- Moraine strength
- Slope stability
- Avalanche risk
- Geological conditions
Important observation:
“Mere increase in area cannot be the sole criterion for judging how dangerous a lake is.”
E. Importance of Satellite Monitoring
Challenges in Himalayan Regions
- Difficult terrain
- Remote locations
- Harsh weather
- Limited field accessibility
Advantages of Satellite-Based Monitoring
- Continuous observation
- Early warning generation
- Change detection
- Hazard mapping
- Cost-effective surveillance
Technologies Used
ICEYE
- Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR)
- Works even through clouds and darkness
PlanetScope
- High-frequency optical imagery
- Daily Earth observation
LISS-IV
- High-resolution Indian remote sensing sensor
- Used for environmental monitoring
Lessons from the Sikkim Disaster (2023)
South Lhonak Lake GLOF
In October 2023, a breach associated with South Lhonak Lake triggered a devastating flood.
Impacts
- Dozens of deaths
- Massive infrastructure damage
- Destruction of Chungthang Hydroelectric Project
- Economic losses
The disaster highlighted the growing threat posed by Himalayan glacial lakes under climate change.
Key Terms for Prelims
Glacial Lake
A water body formed by glacier meltwater.
GLOF
Sudden release of water from a glacial lake due to dam failure.
Moraine
Accumulation of rocks, soil, and debris deposited by glaciers.
Glacier Retreat
Backward movement or shrinking of glaciers due to melting.
Remote Sensing
Collection of Earth information using satellites without physical contact.
Hazard Assessment
Scientific evaluation of potential disaster risks.
Linkage to Broader Issues
Climate Change
- Rising temperatures accelerate glacier melting.
- Himalayan glaciers are retreating rapidly.
Disaster Risk Reduction
- Need for early-warning systems.
- Improved hazard mapping.
Water Security
- Glaciers act as natural freshwater reservoirs.
- Long-term glacier loss may affect river flows.
Hydropower Infrastructure
- GLOFs threaten dams and hydroelectric projects.
National Security
Many vulnerable glacial lakes lie in border regions of Arunachal Pradesh and require strategic monitoring.
Mains Question Framing
GS Paper I
“Discuss the impact of climate change on Himalayan glaciers and the increasing threat of Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOFs).”
GS Paper III
“Satellite monitoring has become critical for disaster risk reduction in the Himalayas. Examine its role in assessing Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) risks.”
GS Paper III
“Expanding glacial lakes are emerging as a major environmental challenge in the Himalayan region. Analyse the causes, consequences, and mitigation measures.”
Conclusion & Way Forward
The expansion of four high-risk glacial lakes in Arunachal Pradesh highlights the growing influence of climate change on Himalayan ecosystems. While lake expansion alone does not signal an imminent GLOF, it underscores the need for continuous monitoring, scientific risk assessment, and robust early-warning systems. India’s improved satellite capabilities have significantly enhanced hazard detection, but translating scientific knowledge into on-ground disaster preparedness remains the key challenge.
Way Forward
- Continuous satellite monitoring of vulnerable lakes.
- Installation of GLOF early-warning systems.
- Periodic hazard assessment and modelling.
- Strengthening NDMA and State Disaster Management Authorities.
- Improved glacier and climate research.
- Community-based disaster preparedness in Himalayan regions.
- Integration of GLOF risk into hydropower and infrastructure planning.
UPSC Prelims Pointer: Remember the trio—Glacier Retreat → Glacial Lake Expansion → Increased GLOF Risk (but not necessarily immediate disaster).
Headline: T.N. Assembly Opposes Mekedatu Project
Preliminary Facts (For Mains Answer Introduction)
- Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution: The Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly passed a resolution opposing the Mekedatu project, urging the Union government not to grant any form of approval (technical or environmental clearances) .
- Cauvery Basin Status: The resolution cited that the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) and the Supreme Court have observed that the Cauvery basin is a deficit basin , and total available water has already been apportioned among basin States .
- No New Projects: Since the water has already been apportioned, no new project can be undertaken in the Cauvery basin, nor can any additional water be utilised .
- New Tribunal Demanded: The resolution urged the Union government to constitute a new tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 .
- CWC Request: The Assembly requested the Central Water Commission (CWC) not to examine, process, or grant approval to the detailed project report submitted by Karnataka .
- Karnataka’s Position: Karnataka has been pursuing the Mekedatu project for drinking water and power generation .
Syllabus Mapping (Relevance)
- GS Paper II: Polity – Federalism, Inter-state water disputes, Constitutional provisions (Article 262).
- GS Paper II: Governance – Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, River boards.
- GS Paper I: Geography – Cauvery basin, Water resources.
- GS Paper II: International Relations – (Optional: Transboundary water disputes).
Deep Dive: Core Issues & Analysis (For Mains Answer Body)
A. The Mekedatu Project: What Is It?
| Aspect | Details |
| Location | Mekedatu (Karnataka), on the Cauvery River |
| Purpose | Drinking water supply to Bengaluru; power generation |
| Current Status | Karnataka has submitted a detailed project report (DPR) |
| Opposition | Tamil Nadu opposes the project |
- Tamil Nadu’s Fear: The project would reduce water flow to Tamil Nadu .
B. Tamil Nadu’s Legal and Constitutional Arguments
| Argument | Details |
| Deficit Basin | CWDT and SC have declared Cauvery basin a deficit basin |
| Water Apportioned | Total available water already allocated among basin States |
| No New Projects | No new project can be undertaken in the Cauvery basin |
| No Additional Water | No additional quantity can be utilised |
- CWDT/Supreme Court Position: The basin is deficit; water has been fully apportioned .
C. Tamil Nadu Assembly Resolution: Key Demands
| Demand | Details |
| No Approval to Karnataka | Technical, environmental clearances denied |
| New Tribunal | Under Section 4 of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 |
| CWC Intervention | CWC should not examine/approve Karnataka’s DPR |
| Centre’s Advice | Advise Karnataka not to build dam without basin State approval |
- Resolution’s Statement: “The Cauvery issue is a highly sensitive matter between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka” .
D. Karnataka’s Position
| Aspect | Details |
| Need | Drinking water for Bengaluru (growing city) |
| Power Generation | Hydroelectric component |
| Project Benefits | Water security for Karnataka |
| Legal Basis | Project within Karnataka’s territory |
- Conflict: Upstream (Karnataka) vs. downstream (Tamil Nadu) interests .
E. Legal Framework for Inter-State Water Disputes
| Provision | Details |
| Article 262 | Parliament may provide for adjudication of inter-state water disputes |
| Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 | Mechanism for tribunals |
| Section 4 | Constitution of tribunal |
| CWDT (1990) | Final award on Cauvery water sharing |
- Tamil Nadu’s Demand: New tribunal under Section 4 .
Key Terms (For Prelims & Mains)
- Mekedatu Project: Karnataka’s proposed dam on Cauvery .
- Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT): Final award on Cauvery water sharing (1990, amended 2007) .
- Deficit Basin: Water demand exceeds supply .
- Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Mechanism for resolving inter-state water disputes .
- Section 4: Provision for constituting new tribunal .
- Central Water Commission (CWC): Approves detailed project reports .
- Basin States: States sharing a river basin (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry) .
- Detailed Project Report (DPR): Detailed technical document for project approval .
Mains Question Framing
- GS Paper II (Polity): “Tamil Nadu Assembly has passed a resolution opposing the Mekedatu project, citing the deficit basin status and the finality of the CWDT award. Discuss the constitutional and legal framework for inter-state water disputes.”
- GS Paper I (Geography): “The Cauvery basin is a deficit basin. Analyse the challenges of water sharing between riparian States and the role of tribunals.”
- GS Paper II (Governance): “The resolution demands a new tribunal under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. Examine the effectiveness of the tribunal mechanism in resolving water disputes.”
Linkage to Broader Issues & Debates
- Federal Tensions: Centre-State and inter-state conflicts over water .
- Climate Change: Cauvery basin drying up .
- Urbanisation: Bengaluru’s water demand .
- Tribunal Mechanism: Slow and ineffective .
- Constitutional Provisions: Article 262 and the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act .
- Supreme Court Role: Final arbiter on water disputes .
- Centre’s Role: Mediator between States .
Conclusion & Way Forward
Tamil Nadu Assembly passed a resolution opposing the Mekedatu project, citing that the Cauvery basin is a deficit basin and water has already been apportioned by the CWDT and Supreme Court. It urged the Centre not to grant clearances, to constitute a new tribunal under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, and to advise Karnataka not to proceed without basin State approval .
The Way Forward:
- New Tribunal: Constitute under Section 4 for comprehensive adjudication .
- Centre’s Mediation: Facilitate dialogue between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu .
- CWC’s Role: Ensure DPR is not approved without basin State consensus .
- Water Conservation: Promote efficiency and rainwater harvesting .
- Climate Adaptation: Address deficit basin challenges .
- Legal Clarity: Supreme Court may need to clarify CWDT award .
- Federal Coordination: Strengthen inter-state water mechanisms .
As the resolution noted, “the Cauvery issue is a highly sensitive matter.” The Mekedatu project is not just about water—it is about federalism, livelihoods, and the future of a river that sustains millions .
