UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 12 August 2025

National Sports Governance and Anti-Doping Bills Passed by Lok Sabha

August 12, 2025

Sports Governance Latest News

The Lok Sabha has passed the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025.

Introduction

The Lok Sabha has passed two landmark legislations, the National Sports Governance Bill 2025 and the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025, marking a major overhaul of India’s sports governance and anti-doping framework.
Union Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya described the reforms as the “single biggest sports reform since independence”, underscoring their role in building a transparent, accountable, and high-performance sports ecosystem as India prepares to bid for the 2036 Summer Olympics.

About the National Sports Governance Bill 2025

The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to transform India’s sports administration through the establishment of New Bodies:
- National Olympic Committee
- National Paralympic Committee
- National and Regional Sports Federations for designated sports
Creation of the National Sports Board (NSB):
- The NSB will grant recognition to national sports bodies, register affiliated units, and monitor compliance. It will have power to de-recognise federations that fail to conduct fair elections, mismanage funds, or commit gross irregularities.
National Sports Tribunal:
- A judicial body with civil court powers to resolve disputes involving selection, elections, or governance of federations. Tribunal decisions can only be challenged in the Supreme Court.
Accountability and Transparency Measures:
- All recognised national sports bodies receiving government funding will fall under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, with some exceptions, such as the BCCI, which remains outside RTI unless substantially funded by the government.
Leadership Provisions:
- Administrators aged between 70 and 75 can contest elections if permitted under international federation rules, a relaxation from the earlier age cap of 70 years.

About the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025

This amendment aligns India’s anti-doping laws with World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) requirements:
Operational Independence for NADA: The National Anti-Doping Agency will function without direct government oversight to address WADA’s concerns over autonomy.
Changes in the National Anti-Doping Board: The Board remains but without powers to oversee NADA or influence its operations, ensuring compliance with global anti-doping norms.
Alignment with UNESCO Convention: Strengthens India's commitment to international anti-doping standards while protecting athlete rights and ensuring fair play.

Significance of the Reforms

Olympics 2036 Preparation: The legislation is part of India’s roadmap to bid for the Summer Olympics, requiring compliance with the Olympic Charter and international best practices.
Addressing Long-standing Gaps: Efforts to create a robust sports governance law date back to 1975, with multiple failed attempts due to political hurdles. This Bill finally delivers on decades of unfinished reforms.
Promoting Gender Inclusion: Provisions ensure greater participation of women in sports federations and leadership roles.
Enhancing Performance: By enforcing accountability and reducing political interference, the Bills aim to improve India’s performance in global sports events.

Future Outlook

The reforms are expected to:
- Streamline governance in sports federations
- Build stronger anti-doping mechanisms
- Boost India’s medal prospects in international competitions
- Lay the institutional foundation for India’s Olympic bid
However, successful implementation will depend on effective enforcement, autonomy for sports bodies, and sustained investment in athlete development.

Source: IE | TOI

Sports Governance FAQs

Q1: What is the National Sports Governance Bill 2025?

Ans: It is a law to create a transparent and accountable sports governance system through a National Sports Board, new federations, and a sports tribunal.

Q2: How does the Bill address transparency?

Ans: It brings government-funded sports bodies under the RTI Act and mandates audited accounts and fair elections.

Q3: What changes does the National Anti-Doping (Amendment) Bill 2025 bring?

Ans: It ensures the operational independence of NADA in line with WADA’s global standards.

Q4: Why are these reforms significant for India’s Olympics bid?

Ans: They align India’s sports governance with the Olympic Charter and international norms, a requirement for hosting the Games.

Q5: Will the BCCI be covered under RTI after the Bill’s passage?

Ans: No, unless it is substantially funded by the government.

Supreme Court Orders Permanent Removal of Stray Dogs from Delhi-NCR Streets

August 12, 2025

Stray Dog Ban Latest News

The Supreme Court has directed Delhi, Noida, Gurgaon, and Ghaziabad authorities to urgently round up and shift stray dogs to shelters, stressing the need to protect children from rabies attacks.
The Bench emphasised that safety must outweigh sentiments and citizens should feel confident moving freely without fear of dog bites.
While the order offers relief to many, experts note that without making pet owners accountable, the problem may persist, as stray dog issues in India are largely linked to irresponsible pet ownership.

India’s Stray and Pet Dog Population: Scale, Risks, and Industry Growth

India has over 60 million stray dogs, many succumbing to disease and accidents.
Dog bites occur every 10 seconds, totaling 3 million annually, with around 5,000 fatalities.
Rabies alone kills at least two people every three hours.
Strays also pose environmental hazards, discharging 15,000 tonnes of feces and 8 million gallons of urine on roads and fields daily.
In contrast, the pet dog population stood at 30 million in 2024, growing 10-15% annually alongside the expanding dog food market.
The Rs 300 crore pet dog industry is set to double by 2030, with rising demand for luxury services like dog hotels, grooming parlours, and pet insurance from firms like Bajaj Allianz and Future Generali.

Why India’s Stray Dog Control Efforts Have Failed

India’s past attempts to tackle stray dogs—through killing by electrocution, poisoning, shooting, or clubbing—proved ineffective, as partial elimination only reduced competition and spurred breeding.
Since 1992, sterilisation under the Animal Birth Control (Dogs) Rules, 2001 has been the preferred method.
- Animal Birth Control (ABC) Rules, 2023 replaced the earlier 2001 rules.
However, without sterilising at least two-thirds of the canine population within 6–12 months, the effort fails.
With limited NGO capacity, cities rarely meet this target, and even when achieved, stray numbers may still rise due to abundant food sources.

How Irresponsible Pet Ownership Fuels India’s Stray Dog Crisis

With no national law mandating pet registration, sterilisation, or vaccination, many owners abandon unwanted dogs or let them breed with strays.
This uncontrolled breeding adds significantly to the stray population, turning most “Indian street dogs” into crossbreeds.
Experts suggest targeting pedigreed pets in Animal Birth Control (ABC) drives, offering incentives for registration and sterilisation, and imposing heavy taxes on breeding pets.

Feeding Strays Without Ownership Worsens Aggression and Attacks

The growing trend of feeding stray dogs without adopting them makes them territorial and aggressive, often leading to attacks on non-feeders.
Abandoned pets or proxy-fed dogs behave more aggressively than true strays, worsening public safety risks.
Experts link this behaviour to irresponsible pet ownership and stray feeding, urging accountability for both pet owners and neighbourhood feeders.
The Supreme Court has warned that anyone obstructing its stray dog removal orders will face legal action and may extend accountability to feeders in upcoming hearings.

Key Highlights of the Judgement

Mandatory Capture & Detention: Strays to be picked up from all areas, prioritising vulnerable localities; resistance will invite contempt of court.
Infrastructure & Personnel: Authorities must set up shelters/pounds for at least 5,000 dogs within 6–8 weeks, with adequate staff.
Sterilisation & Immunisation: All captured dogs to be sterilised and vaccinated.
Permanent Confinement: Strict CCTV surveillance of shelters; no dog to be released — violation will attract stern action.
Public Safety Focus: Emphasis on protecting infants and children from rabies; no sentiments to interfere with public safety.
Rapid Response Mechanism: Helpline to be created; all dog bite incidents must be acted upon within four hours of reporting.
Victim Support: Authorities to ensure immediate medical assistance and maintain data on anti-rabies vaccine availability and usage.

Source: TH | IE | N18

Stray Dog Ban FAQs

Q1: Why did the Supreme Court issue the stray dog order?

Ans: Due to rising rabies cases and fatal dog attacks, the court prioritised public safety, especially protecting children from stray dog threats.

Q2: What does the order mandate for stray dog handling?

Ans: Strays must be captured, sterilised, vaccinated, and permanently housed in shelters under CCTV, with no release back to public spaces.

Q3: How many stray dogs are in India?

Ans: India has over 60 million stray dogs, causing around 3 million bites annually and 5,000 deaths, mainly due to rabies.

Q4: Why have past stray dog control measures failed?

Ans: Partial elimination boosts breeding, sterilisation drives miss targets, and irresponsible pet ownership fuels uncontrolled breeding with strays.

Q5: What penalties exist for obstructing the order?

Ans: Any person or organisation resisting stray dog removal faces contempt of court, with strict legal action to ensure public safety compliance.

Google vs CCI Case: Impact on India’s Android Ecosystem & Digital Market

August 12, 2025

Google vs CCI Latest News

Recently, the Supreme Court admitted Alphabet Inc.’s appeal against an NCLAT judgment that partly upheld Competition Commission of India’s (CCI) findings of Google abusing its dominance in the Android ecosystem through anti-competitive practices.
The Court also admitted related petitions from the CCI and Alliance Digital India Foundation (ADIF), a coalition of Indian startups opposing Big Tech dominance.

CCI’s Case Against Google

The CCI began investigating Google in 2020.
This was after getting complaints from app developers and industry groups alleging that the company was exploiting its dominance in the Android ecosystem to promote its own services and curb fair competition.
By 2022, the CCI concluded that Google engaged in several anti-competitive actions:
- Mandatory Google Play Billing System (GPBS): Developers selling in-app content on the Play Store were compelled to use GPBS, paying commissions of 15–30%, instead of integrating their own billing systems.
- Preferential Treatment to YouTube: Google exempted YouTube from these billing requirements, granting it a cost advantage over competitors.
- Bundling of Google Apps: Smartphone makers were required to pre-install Google apps (Search, Chrome, YouTube, etc.) to access the Play Store, limiting consumer choice and stifling innovation from alternative service providers.

Penalties and Directives

The CCI fined Google ₹936.44 crore and directed it to:
- Decouple GPBS from Play Store access.
- Ensure transparency in billing data.
- Refrain from using billing data to unfairly advantage its own services.

Google’s Defence Against CCI’s Findings

Google dismissed the CCI’s conclusions, stating its practices aimed to improve user experience, ensure security, and sustain the Android ecosystem.
It emphasised that Android is open-source and free for manufacturers, and OEMs can license the core platform without installing Google’s proprietary apps if they forgo Play Store access.
Pre-installing Google apps, it argued, was for efficiency and convenience, without restricting users from downloading alternatives.
Regarding billing, Google claimed the Google Play Billing System (GPBS) ensured safe transactions, reduced fraud, and offered developers global infrastructure, distribution reach, and regular security updates.
Commission fees, it said, were industry-standard. The exemption of certain in-house services from GPBS was presented as a reflection of different business models, not anti-competitive behaviour.
Google also highlighted that leading Indian apps like PhonePe, Paytm, and Hotstar had thrived on Android, indicating a competitive market.

NCLAT’s Partial Ruling in Google’s Appeal

In March, the NCLAT partly upheld the CCI’s 2022 order, agreeing that Google’s mandatory billing policy and bundling of apps constituted abuse of dominance.
However, it reduced the penalty from ₹936.44 crore to ₹216.69 crore, calling the original fine disproportionate.
The tribunal also struck down some behavioural remedies for being over-broad or lacking sufficient evidence.
Following a review in May 2025, the NCLAT reinstated two key directions — requiring Google to be transparent in its billing data policies and prohibiting it from using such data to advantage its own services.
This partial outcome left all sides dissatisfied: Google sought a full reversal, the CCI wanted the original penalties restored, and ADIF felt the tribunal was too lenient.

High Stakes in the Android Antitrust Battle

The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Google vs CCI case will shape the balance between platform control, market competition, and consumer choice in India’s digital ecosystem.

Impact on Consumers

A CCI win could increase app choice and lower prices by allowing developers to bypass GPBS for cheaper payment options.
It may also enhance privacy and fairness by limiting Google’s use of billing data.
However, reduced control could cause Android fragmentation, leading to inconsistent user experiences.

Impact on Smartphone Makers

An outcome favouring the CCI could give OEMs greater flexibility to pre-install rival apps and explore alternative Android versions without losing Play Store access — a potential boost for smaller Indian brands.

Impact on Startups and Developers

Indian startups could gain a level playing field, with more payment options and less bias in app promotion.
ADIF views this as a chance to curb Big Tech dominance and improve local companies’ bargaining power.

Impact on Google

Beyond India, a loss could inspire similar regulatory actions globally, forcing Google to unbundle services or open its billing system, altering its core Android business model.

Supreme Court Verdict to Shape India’s Digital Market Future

The Supreme Court’s hearings will assess whether Google’s practices constitute “abuse of dominance” under Indian competition law and weigh the economic dynamics of platform markets.
The ruling will influence how over 95% of Indian smartphone users access apps, make payments, and interact with mobile services.
A verdict upholding the CCI’s original directions could position India as a global leader in strong digital market regulation outside the EU, while a decision in Google’s favour would maintain the current market structure.

Source: TH | ToI

Google vs CCI FAQs

Q1: What triggered the CCI’s investigation into Google?

Ans: In 2020, complaints from app developers and industry groups alleged Google abused Android dominance to push its services and limit fair competition.

Q2: What were CCI’s main findings against Google?

Ans: CCI found Google imposed its billing system, gave YouTube preferential treatment, and bundled apps, limiting competition and consumer choice.

Q3: What was Google’s defence against the allegations?

Ans: Google argued its practices enhanced user experience, ensured security, offered global reach, and allowed OEM flexibility in using core Android without proprietary apps.

Q4: How did NCLAT rule in the case?

Ans: NCLAT upheld abuse of dominance findings, reduced the fine to ₹216.69 crore, and reinstated transparency and data-use restrictions after review.

Q5: Why is the Supreme Court’s verdict important?

Ans: It will define platform control limits, competition enforcement strength, and India’s role as a global example in digital market regulation outside the EU.