Current Affairs of 6 April 2026

The World Trade Organization is Flailing

Context

• The global system of trade multilateralism is facing one of its most severe challenges since the Second World War.
• Increasing unilateral actions, particularly by the United States, have raised concerns about the erosion of foundational principles such as most-favoured nation (MFN) treatment.
• In this context, the fourteenth Ministerial Conference (MC14) of the World Trade Organisation, held in Yaoundé in March 2026, was expected to reaffirm the importance of a rules-based global trading order.
• However, instead of strengthening the system, the conference revealed deep divisions and structural weaknesses.

Failure to Achieve Consensus

• A major disappointment of MC14 was the inability of its 166 member countries to agree on a ministerial declaration outlining future priorities.
• Such declarations are essential for providing direction and coherence to global trade governance.
• The absence of consensus reflects widening differences among member states and highlights the WTO’s declining effectiveness as a negotiating platform.
• The so-called Yaoundé package, consisting only of draft decisions, further underscores the organisation’s inability to deliver concrete outcomes at a critical juncture.

Breakdown of Key Moratoriums

• E-commerce Moratorium
  • One of the most significant developments at MC14 was the lapse of the long-standing moratorium on customs duties on electronic commerce.
  • Since 1998, WTO members had agreed not to impose tariffs on digital transactions to facilitate global digital trade.
  • Its expiration now allows countries to impose such duties, potentially benefiting developing nations through increased revenue but also raising costs for businesses and consumers.
  • Additionally, 66 WTO members signed a separate e-commerce agreement prohibiting such tariffs.
  • This creates a fragmented system with parallel legal frameworks, one within the WTO allowing tariffs and another outside it prohibiting them, thereby weakening the uniformity of global trade rules.
• TRIPS Non-Violation Complaints
  • The second moratorium that lapsed concerned non-violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.
  • These complaints allow countries to challenge measures that may not violate trade rules but undermine expected benefits.
  • The removal of this safeguard raises concerns for developing countries, particularly regarding public health policies that could be contested by developed nations.
  • Although past cases suggest such complaints are unlikely to succeed, their possibility introduces uncertainty into policymaking.

Challenges of Plurilateral Agreements

• Another key issue at MC14 was the failure to incorporate the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) agreement into the WTO framework.
• Despite support from 129 countries, opposition from India prevented its inclusion. India raised concerns about the absence of clear legal safeguards for integrating plurilateral agreements into the WTO system.
• This highlights a broader dilemma: while plurilateral agreements can help advance negotiations among willing members, they may undermine inclusivity and create divisions within the multilateral system.

Lack of a Reform Roadmap and Implications for the Future of Global Trade

• Lack of a Reform Roadmap
  • Critical issues, such as restoring the appellate mechanism of the WTO’s dispute settlement system, remain unresolved.
  • This institutional paralysis weakens the organisation’s credibility and effectiveness.
  • Historical experience, particularly during the stagnation of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the 1970s, shows that such periods often lead to increased unilateral actions by the United States.
  • Measures like Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 exemplify how unilateralism can rise when multilateral systems falter.
• Implications for the Future of Global Trade
  • The failure of MC14 is likely to accelerate the shift toward alternative trade arrangements outside the WTO.
  • As countries increasingly negotiate separate agreements, the central role of the WTO in global trade governance may diminish.
  • This fragmentation risks creating a less predictable and more unequal global trading system.
  • To remain relevant, the WTO must adopt innovative approaches, such as developing a coherent framework for plurilateral agreements.
  • In this regard, India can play a constructive role by advocating for legal safeguards that ensure inclusivity while enabling progress.

Conclusion

• The WTO’s MC14 represents a missed opportunity to reinforce and revitalise the global trading system.
• The inability to reach consensus, the breakdown of key moratoriums, and the absence of a reform agenda highlight a deepening crisis in trade multilateralism.
• Without decisive action and strong political commitment, the system risks further fragmentation, with unilateralism replacing cooperation.
• Strengthening the WTO and preserving a rules-based order is therefore essential for ensuring stability and fairness in global trade.

The World Trade Organization is Flailing FAQs

Q1. What was the main expectation from the MC14 of the World Trade Organization?
Ans. The MC14 was expected to reinforce confidence in a rules-based global trading system.

Q2. Why is the role of the United States seen as a challenge to trade multilateralism?
Ans. The United States is promoting unilateral actions that weaken established global trade rules.

Q3. What happened to the e-commerce moratorium at MC14?
Ans. The e-commerce moratorium lapsed, allowing countries to impose tariffs on digital trade.

Q4. Why did India oppose the Investment Facilitation for Development agreement?
Ans. India opposed it due to the lack of legal safeguards for including plurilateral agreements in the WTO.

Q5. What is a major consequence of the failure of MC14?
Ans. The failure may lead to increased fragmentation of the global trading system.

Source: The Hindu

Transforming India’s Nuclear Power Landscape

Context

• India plans a massive expansion of nuclear power capacity—from 8,180 MW to 100 GW by 2047—backed by major policy reforms.
• The SHANTI Act (2025) marks a structural shift by ending the monopoly of the Department of Atomic Energy, allowing private (and potentially foreign) participation in building, owning, and operating nuclear plants.
• It also strengthens regulation by giving statutory status to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board and revises liability laws to attract investment, replacing earlier laws like the Atomic Energy Act (1962) and CLNDA (2010).
• However, achieving the 100 GW target will depend on effective implementation—especially timely framing of rules, regulatory clarity, and alignment with the reform-oriented vision of the Act.

Driving India’s Energy Transition: Growth, Net Zero, and the Role of Power Mix

• Twin Drivers: Viksit Bharat & Net-Zero Goals
  • India’s energy reforms are guided by two key goals: becoming a developed nation (Viksit Bharat) by 2047 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.
  • Economic development will increase dependence on electricity over traditional fuels like coal, firewood, and fossil fuels.
  • India’s per capita electricity consumption (1,418 kWh) is far below China, the US, and OECD averages—highlighting the need for massive expansion.
  • Currently, only one-fifth of total energy consumption is electricity, indicating a major transition ahead.
• Current Energy Mix: Capacity vs Reality
  • As of June 2025, India’s installed power capacity is 476 GW, with nearly 50% from non-fossil sources.
  • Renewable capacity stands at 227 GW (solar, wind, hydro, bioenergy), while nuclear is 8.8 GW and thermal (mainly coal) is 240 GW.
  • India aims to reach 500 GW renewable capacity by 2030.
• The Generation Gap: Renewables vs Thermal
  • Installed capacity does not equal actual power generation.
  • In 2024–25:
    • Total generation: 1,824 TWh
    • Thermal: 75% of generation
    • Renewables: 22%
    • Nuclear: 3%
  • Despite equal capacity share, renewables underperform due to dependence on sunlight, wind, and seasonal factors.
• Baseload Challenge & Storage Constraint
  • Thermal and nuclear power provide stable baseload electricity, unlike intermittent renewables.
  • Scaling renewables requires large investments in energy storage systems.
  • Due to these constraints, renewable expansion is slowing, with ~40 GW projects stuck without power-purchase agreements (PPAs).
• The Core Challenge Ahead
  • India must simultaneously:
    • Expand electricity access and consumption for development
    • Decarbonise power generation for climate goals
  • This requires balancing renewables, nuclear, and storage solutions while ensuring reliable and affordable power supply.

India’s Nuclear Power Path: Capacity Expansion, Costs, and Future Options

• Rising Power Needs & Role of Nuclear Energy
  • India may need over 2,000 GW of electricity capacity to achieve Viksit Bharat levels.
  • Renewables like solar and wind are highly land-intensive (≈10× more than thermal) and intermittent.
  • With coal incompatible with net-zero goals, nuclear power emerges as the preferred baseload solution.
• Evolution of India’s Nuclear Programme
  • India’s first reactor began operations in Tarapur (1969).
  • Currently, NPCIL operates 24 reactors with about 8,780 MW capacity.
  • Reactor mix includes:
    • Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs) – oldest
    • VVER (PWR) reactors at Kudankulam (Russian design)
    • Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) – dominant and indigenised
  • PHWR designs have evolved from 220 MW to 540 MW and 700 MW, showing strong domestic capability.
• Cost Advantage & Investment Challenge
  • India’s 700 MW PHWR costs ~$2 million/MW, among the lowest globally.
  • To add 90 GW nuclear capacity, India needs over $200 billion (₹18 lakh crore).
  • Such scale is not feasible without private and foreign investment, despite steady public funding.
• Stalled Large-Scale Projects
  • Approval for 10 × 700 MW reactors (fleet mode) was granted in 2017, but progress is slow.
  • Major proposed projects:
    • Jaitapur (Maharashtra) – 6 × 1,650 MW (French EDF design)
    • Mithi Virdi (Gujarat) & Kovvada (Andhra Pradesh) – 6 × 1,000 MW each (US/Japanese designs)
  • These imported designs are costlier (~$5 million/MW) and remain under consideration for years.
• Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) & Industrial Demand
  • Government has allocated ₹20,000 crore to develop indigenous SMRs (5–200 MW) by 2033.
  • Industries with captive power plants (steel, cement, petrochemicals, data centres) show growing interest in nuclear options.
  • Existing 220 MW PHWRs can act as reliable, scalable units for faster deployment.

Three-Front Strategy for Scaling Nuclear Power in India

• Indigenisation of Large Reactor Technologies
  • Foreign designs (EdF, Westinghouse) are new and costly; indigenisation is needed to reduce costs.
  • China’s example shows that building a domestic supply chain can lower costs to below $2 million per MW.
• Advancing Indigenous R&D (SMRs and Thorium)
  • The DAE should accelerate research on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), especially molten-salt designs.
  • Focus on Thorium-based technologies using HALEU as an alternative to breeder reactors.
  • This can enable early utilisation of India’s thorium reserves.
• Scaling Indigenous PHWRs for Industrial Use
  • The 220 MW PHWR model can be modularised for captive industrial power plants.
  • Indian private sector firms already have design, fabrication, and construction capabilities.
  • Requires suitable financing models due to high upfront costs and long operational life (60 years).
  • Exclusion zone norms need modification for single-unit captive reactors.

Conclusion

• The SHANTI Act seeks to clearly separate strategic and defence-related nuclear activities from civilian power generation.
• Its success depends on transparent rules addressing key issues such as tariffs, fuel ownership, waste management, liability, dispute resolution, and establishing an independent regulator.

Transforming India’s Nuclear Power Landscape FAQs

Q1. What is the objective of the SHANTI Act?

Ans. The SHANTI Act aims to transform India’s nuclear sector by allowing private participation, strengthening regulation, and replacing earlier laws to accelerate nuclear capacity expansion.

Q2. Why is nuclear energy crucial for India’s net-zero goals?

Ans. Nuclear power provides stable baseload electricity with low carbon emissions, making it essential to complement intermittent renewables and reduce dependence on fossil fuels.

Q3. What challenges does India face in expanding nuclear capacity?

Ans. Key challenges include high capital costs, slow project execution, regulatory uncertainties, limited private investment, and the need for technological indigenisation and infrastructure development.

Q4. How do renewables compare with nuclear power in India’s energy mix?

Ans. Renewables have significant capacity but lower generation due to intermittency, while nuclear offers consistent baseload power, making it vital for reliable and sustainable electricity supply.

Q5. What is the significance of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)?

Ans. SMRs offer flexible, cost-effective nuclear solutions suitable for industries, enabling faster deployment, supporting decentralised power needs, and enhancing India’s long-term nuclear expansion strategy.

Source: TH

Expanding Digital Censorship in India - Concerns over IT Rules 2021

Context

• The blocking of a comedian’s (Pulkit Mani) video under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act highlights growing concerns over arbitrary online censorship in India.
• The episode reflects broader systemic issues arising from the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, and their subsequent amendments.

Background - The IT Rules 2021

• Notified (on February 25, 2021) through executive action, the repeated amendments of the rules have -
  • Expanded executive control over digital platforms.
  • Reduced procedural safeguards for users.
• Legal challenges
  • Various High Courts (HCs) have issued interim orders (partial stays, selective validation).
  • Final constitutional validity remains pending, allowing continued enforcement.

Key Provisions and Recent Amendments

• Arbitrary content takedown mechanism:
  • Section 79(3)(b) allows content removal without clear reasoning, opportunity for hearing, and transparent procedure, violating the principles of natural justice.
• Shrinking timeframes for compliance:
  • The most recent (February 2026) amendment of the rules reduced the takedown timeline to 3 hours.
  • No exemptions for parody, satire, or artistic expression. This may have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) due to over-compliance by intermediaries.
• Expansion of State surveillance infrastructure:
  • The earlier (October 2025) changes strengthened Sahyog Portal, enabling over 35 State police officers and 8 Central agencies to order takedowns.
  • Parallel powers under Section 69A of IT Act provides some procedural safeguards, but rarely followed in practice.
• Overlapping and opaque legal framework:
  • In addition, there is also the power for the Union government to block websites under the IT Rules, Section 69A, executive advisories, and SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures).
  • Issues are lack of transparency, no clarity on authority responsible, and users unaware of grounds for censorship.
• Proposed amendments:
  • The proposed amendments highlight the need for expansion of regulation to Digital news media, and even on individual social media users commenting on current affairs.
  • Seen as indirect implementation of the Broadcasting Bill, 2024.
  • Other changes are giving legal force to unpublished advisories/SOPs, and removal of a 3-month cap on data retention for intermediaries.

Major Concerns/ Challenges

• Violation of fundamental rights: Impacts Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression – restrictions may fail the tests of reasonableness and proportionality.
• Erosion of due process: No prior notice, hearing, and reasoned orders, undermining rule of law.
• Chilling effect on free speech: Fear of arbitrary action discourages satire, political commentary, and dissent.
• Executive overreach: Expansion via executive notifications, not parliamentary scrutiny, weakens separation of powers.
• Surveillance and privacy risks: Unlimited data retention - threat to Right to Privacy (recognized in Puttaswamy judgment), and potential misuse by state agencies.
• Regulatory uncertainty: Pending judicial review creates legal ambiguity, and uneven enforcement.
• Critically analysing government’s justification:
  • Government’s justification:
    • According to the MeitY, these measures are needed to combat Deepfakes, and AI-generated misinformation.
    • These projects India’s framework as a “global benchmark”.
  • Critical analysis: While misinformation is a genuine concern, measures appear disproportionate, lack institutional accountability, and risk of transforming regulation into censorship architecture.

Way Forward

• Strengthening procedural safeguards: Mandatory notice, hearing, and reasoned orders, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.
• Parliamentary oversight: Limit executive rule-making, and major changes should pass through legislative scrutiny.
• Clear and transparent framework: Single, streamlined mechanism for content regulation. Public disclosure of takedown orders, and responsible authorities.
• Judicial clarity: Fast-track constitutional adjudication of IT Rules. Establish clear jurisprudence on digital free speech.
• Safeguards for creative expression: Explicit exemptions for satire, parody, and artistic content.
• Data protection alignment: Harmonize with Digital Personal Data Protection framework, and reinstate limits on data retention.

Conclusion

• India stands at a critical juncture where the need to regulate digital platforms must be balanced against constitutional freedoms.
• The expanding scope of the IT Rules, 2021 risks tilting this balance towards unchecked executive power and systemic censorship.
• A transparent, accountable, and rights-based framework is essential to ensure that the digital public sphere remains a space for free expression, dissent, and democratic engagement—not control.

IT Rules 2021 FAQs

Q1. What are the constitutional implications of the IT Rules, 2021 on freedom of speech in India?

Ans. The rules risk violating Article 19(1)(a) by enabling disproportionate and opaque restrictions on online speech without adequate safeguards.

Q2. How do recent amendments to digital content regulation reflect executive overreach in India?

Ans. They bypass parliamentary scrutiny, expanding censorship and surveillance powers, thereby undermining the separation of powers.

Q3. What are the challenges posed by arbitrary content takedown mechanisms under the IT Act?

Ans. Lack of transparency, absence of due process, and overlapping authorities create a chilling effect on free expression.

Q4. What is the balance between tackling misinformation and protecting civil liberties in India’s digital governance framework?

Ans. While combating misinformation is necessary, current measures are disproportionate and risk eroding fundamental rights and privacy.

Q5. What reforms are required to make India’s digital content regulation framework more accountable and rights-based?

Ans. Ensuring procedural safeguards, judicial oversight, transparency, and legislative scrutiny can align regulation with constitutional principles.

Source: IE