UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 3 September 2025

One in 100 Deaths by Suicide: WHO Report on Global Mental Health

September 3, 2025

WHO Report on Mental Health Latest News

According to new WHO data, suicide caused one in every 100 deaths worldwide in 2021, claiming 727,000 lives. For every death, over 20 attempts occurred.
The reports — World Mental Health Today and Mental Health Atlas 2024 — also reveal that more than a billion people live with mental health disorders.
Country-wise profiles will be released soon as part of the updated Mental Health Atlas, factoring in the pandemic’s impact.

Top Mental Health Disorders: WHO Insights

Mental health is an integral part of health; it is more than the absence of mental illnesses.
It is the foundation for well-being and effective functioning of individuals. It includes mental well-being, prevention of mental disorders, treatment and rehabilitation.
Most Common Disorders - Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most prevalent, together making up over two-thirds of all mental health conditions in 2021.
Rising Global Prevalence - Between 2011 and 2021, mental disorders grew faster than population growth, raising the global age-standardized prevalence to 13.6%, a 0.9% increase in a decade.

Age-Related Trends

Young Adults (20–29 years): Largest increase in prevalence (+1.8%) since 2011.
Children (<10 years): Depressive disorders are rare.
Middle-Aged Adults (40–69 years): Depressive disorders surpass anxiety, peaking between 50–69 years.

Gender Differences

Males: More prone to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorders, and intellectual developmental disorders.
Females: More affected by anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.

Prospects for Reducing Suicide Rates by 2030

Suicide remains the leading cause of death among young people worldwide, but progress in reducing rates is insufficient to meet the UN’s target of a one-third reduction by 2030.
Current trends indicate only a 12% reduction will be achieved.
Experts stress that sustained financing, strong leadership, and effective execution of prevention programs are crucial.
Suicide is driven by multiple factors — including family history, vulnerable temperament, early trauma, stressful environments, isolation, stigma, and lack of accessible mental health services.
Tackling these risks holistically is essential for meaningful progress.

Burden of Mental Health in India

WHO estimates that the burden of mental health problems in India is 2443 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 10000 population; the age-adjusted suicide rate per 100 000 population is 21.1.
Economic loss: USD 1.03 trillion projected between 2012–2030 due to mental health conditions.

Policy and Legal Framework

National Mental Health Policy, 2014: Advocates a participatory and rights-based approach.
Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: Provides legal protections and aligns with UNCRPD principles.

Government Initiatives

National Mental Health Programme and Health and Wellness Centres provide care at the primary health level.
National Tele Mental Health Programme (Tele MANAS) A 24/7 national toll-free helpline providing accessible, free mental health support in various Indian languages.
The District Mental Health Programme (DMHP) - A component of the National Mental Health Programme (NMHP) providing decentralized, community-based mental health services.
Deaddiction centres and rehabilitation services further support treatment and recovery.

Challenges of Broad-Basing Mental Health Care in India

Limited Infrastructure and Custodial Approach
- India’s mental health institutions alone are insufficient.
- Experts stress the need for psychiatric beds in general hospitals and tertiary care centres staffed with multidisciplinary teams.
- The focus must shift from custodial to therapeutic models, with larger hospitals acting as academic training hubs.
Poor Funding and Associated Conditions
- Psychiatric hospitals often face underfunding, leading to poor living conditions, neglect, and abuse.
Scarcity of Trained Professionals
- There is a severe shortage of psychiatrists, psychologists, counsellors, nurses, and social workers.
- Interior regions lack access to professionals and essential medicines, leaving families unable to afford long-distance travel for treatment.
Accessibility and Economic Burden
- Even when families want to seek help, economic hardships—loss of wages and travel costs—become barriers.
- With 30 million Indians suffering from severe mental illnesses, the financial strain is immense as patients often become non-earning dependents.
Need for a Strong Chain of Care
- Mental healthcare requires continuity of treatment, reliable availability of medicines, and systemic support.
- Building a robust chain of care across rural and urban India is essential for effective mental health management.

Source: IE | WHO | PAHO

WHO Report on Mental Health FAQs

Q1: What does the WHO report say about suicide?

Ans: The WHO states that suicide caused one in every 100 deaths globally in 2021, with 727,000 lives lost and more than 20 attempts per death.

Q2: What are the most common mental health disorders?

Ans: Anxiety and depression are the most prevalent, accounting for over two-thirds of global mental health cases in 2021, with rising prevalence in young adults.

Q3: Can suicide rates decline by 2030?

Ans: Current trends suggest only a 12% reduction by 2030, far below the UN goal of one-third reduction, without stronger prevention and funding efforts.

Q4: What is India’s mental health burden according to WHO?

Ans: WHO estimates 2,443 DALYs lost per 100,000 population and an age-adjusted suicide rate of 21.1 per 100,000, costing $1.03 trillion between 2012–2030.

Q5: What challenges limit mental health care in India?

Ans: India faces poor funding, limited psychiatric infrastructure, scarcity of professionals, and high economic barriers for families seeking treatment in rural areas.

RTE Act and Minority Schools: Supreme Court Questions Pramati Ruling

September 3, 2025

RTE Act and Minority Schools Latest News

The Supreme Court has cast doubt on its 2014 Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust judgment, which had exempted minority educational institutions from the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009.
A two-judge Bench, while ruling on whether the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) was mandatory for minority schools, referred the matter to a larger Bench for reconsideration.
The court noted that excluding minority schools from the RTE Act’s ambit may have compromised children’s fundamental right to quality education, raising concerns about equal access to standards of learning.

Supreme Court’s TET Ruling: Minority Schools and In-Service Teachers

The Supreme Court, while ruling in Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra, addressed two key issues:
- Minority schools & RTE Act: The Bench referred to a larger Bench the question of whether the RTE Act applies to minority schools, casting doubt on the 2014 Pramati judgment.
- In-service teachers in non-minority schools: Teachers with less than 5 years of service left may continue without clearing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET), but must pass it for promotions.
  - Teachers with more than 5 years left must clear TET within two years to remain eligible.
This nuanced order balanced continuity of service with the need to uphold minimum teacher qualification standards.

Supreme Court Flags Concerns Over Pramati Ruling

The Supreme Court criticised the 2014 Pramati judgment, calling it “legally suspect” and “disproportionate” for exempting all minority institutions from the RTE Act based largely on Section 12(1)(c), which mandates 25% reservation for disadvantaged children.
The Bench highlighted the conflict between Article 30(1) (minority institutions’ rights) and Article 21A (children’s fundamental right to education).
It stressed that both rights “must co-exist mutually” instead of treating Article 30(1) as an absolute override, as the Pramati ruling had done.

2014 Pramati Ruling: Key Takeaways

The five-judge Bench examined:
- 86th Amendment (2002): Introduced Article 21A, making education a fundamental right.
- 93rd Amendment (2005): Introduced Article 15(5), allowing the state to provide special provisions for backward classes, SCs, and STs in all institutions except minority schools.
The Bench upheld both amendments, recognising education as a right and permitting state intervention for disadvantaged groups.
However, it ruled that the RTE Act was unconstitutional for minority schools (aided or unaided) protected under Article 30(1).

Rationale for Exemption

The Court reasoned that imposing Section 12(1)(c) — reserving 25% seats for disadvantaged children — could dilute the minority character of such schools.
It emphasised that minority institutions have the fundamental right to establish and administer schools of their choice, and this must remain safeguarded.

Key Provisions and Spirit of the RTE Act

The Right to Education (RTE) Act guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14. It mandates:
- Free education in government schools and proportionate free seats in aided schools.
- 25% seat reservation in private unaided schools for disadvantaged children, with state reimbursement (Section 12(1)(c)).
- Minimum standards for pupil-teacher ratios, trained teachers, infrastructure, and libraries.
- A ban on corporal punishment and capitation fees, making all schools responsible for universal education.
According to experts, the Act is child-centric, not institution-centric, prioritising the fundamental right of every child over the administrative autonomy of schools.

Misuse of Pramati Exception and Renewed Judicial Push for Inclusion

A study by the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights showed that only 8.76% of students in minority schools were from disadvantaged groups, while 62.5% were non-minority.
This indicates that many institutions claimed minority status without serving their communities, yet benefited from exemption to RTE mandates.
After the RTE Act (2010), private and minority groups challenged the 25% quota.
While the 2012 ruling exempted unaided minority schools, the 2014 Pramati ruling extended this exemption to all minority schools, creating loopholes for elite private schools to adopt a minority label to avoid compliance.
Experts noted that such institutions ignored disadvantaged children, undermining the spirit of RTE.
They emphasised that the latest SC ruling rightly realigns with children’s rights, ensuring that students in minority schools also benefit from norms on libraries, pupil-teacher ratios, and qualified teachers.

Source: IE | IE

RTE Act and Minority Schools FAQs

Q1: Why did the Supreme Court revisit the Pramati ruling?

Ans: The SC felt exempting minority schools from the RTE Act jeopardised children’s fundamental right to quality education under Article 21A.

Q2: What was the 2014 Pramati judgment?

Ans: The five-judge Bench ruled the RTE Act unconstitutional for minority schools, citing Article 30(1) rights, though it upheld education as a fundamental right.

Q3: What are the key provisions of the RTE Act?

Ans: The Act mandates free and compulsory education for ages 6–14, 25% seat reservation in private schools, pupil-teacher ratios, trained teachers, and bans on capitation fees.

Q4: How has the Pramati ruling been misused?

Ans: Studies showed many private schools sought minority status to evade RTE quotas, with only 8.76% of students from disadvantaged groups.

Q5: What is the significance of the new SC ruling?

Ans: The ruling realigns education policy with children’s rights, ensuring minority schools meet norms on teachers, infrastructure, and inclusion for disadvantaged children.

Supreme Court Directs DISCOMs to Clear Regulatory Assets

September 3, 2025

DISCOMs Latest News

The Supreme Court has ordered DISCOMs and regulators to clear regulatory assets within fixed timelines, capping their creation to ensure financial discipline in the power sector.

Introduction

The Supreme Court has issued a landmark ruling directing State Electricity Regulatory Commissions (SERCs) and power distribution companies (DISCOMs) to clear their accumulated regulatory assets within four years.
Any newly created assets must be liquidated within three years. The Court further advised capping regulatory assets at 3% of a DISCOM’s Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR), making transparency and financial discipline central to the ruling.
This judgment is a critical step toward addressing the long-standing issue of unrecovered costs in India’s electricity sector, which has placed enormous financial strain on DISCOMs, distorted tariff structures, and affected consumers in the long run.

Understanding Regulatory Assets

Regulatory assets represent the unrecovered revenue gap between the Average Cost of Supply (ACS) and the Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR) of a DISCOM.
- Average Cost of Supply (ACS): The actual cost incurred by a DISCOM to supply a unit of electricity.
- Annual Revenue Requirement (ARR): The revenue recovered from consumer tariffs and subsidies provided by state governments.
When ACS exceeds ARR, DISCOMs incur a loss on every unit sold. To avoid imposing sudden tariff hikes on consumers, regulators allow the revenue shortfall to be recorded as a deferred cost, termed a regulatory asset, recoverable in the future, usually with interest.
For example, if the ACS is Rs. 7.20 per unit and ARR is Rs. 7.00, the shortfall is Rs. 0.20 per unit. If 10 billion units are supplied, the revenue gap equals Rs. 2,000 crore.
Instead of an immediate tariff shock, this gap becomes a regulatory asset.

Reasons for ACS-ARR Gap

The persistence of regulatory assets reflects structural weaknesses in India’s power sector:
- Non-cost reflective tariffs - Tariffs often do not match actual supply costs due to political considerations.
- Delayed subsidy payments - States frequently delay compensating DISCOMs for agricultural and low-income consumer subsidies.
- Fuel price volatility - Sudden increases in coal or gas prices raise power purchase costs.
- Operational inefficiencies - High transmission and distribution losses worsen the financial stress.
The problem is systemic, with states like Tamil Nadu reporting regulatory assets of Rs. 89,375 crore in FY 2021-22, and Delhi DISCOMs collectively holding over Rs. 66,000 crore.

Impact on Consumers and DISCOMs

Impact on Consumers
- Initially, regulatory assets shield consumers from tariff shocks.
- However, deferred recovery later leads to steeper tariff hikes, including carrying costs (interest).
- For example, Delhi DISCOMs would need to recover Rs. 16,580 crore annually over four years, adding about Rs. 5.5 per unit to electricity costs.
Impact on DISCOMs
- Persistent regulatory assets create cash flow crises, making it difficult to pay power generators on time.
- DISCOMs often resort to borrowing, adding to their debt burden.
- With finances tied up in unrecovered costs, investment in grid modernisation, renewable integration, and consumer services suffers.
- This creates a vicious cycle of inefficiency and financial stress.

Measures to Bridge the Gap

To reduce dependency on regulatory assets, multiple reforms are necessary:
- Cost-reflective tariffs - Align tariffs with actual supply costs while protecting vulnerable consumers with targeted subsidies.
- Timely subsidy release - State governments must ensure punctual disbursement of subsidy payments.
- Automatic fuel adjustment - Mechanisms like Fuel and Power Purchase Cost Adjustment (FPPCA) can help tariffs reflect market changes quickly.
- Annual true-up exercises - Regular reconciliation of projected and actual costs prevents large backlogs.
- Regulatory discipline - SERCs must enforce transparent accounting, cap regulatory assets, and set strict recovery timelines.

Global Best Practices

Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model: Allows utilities to recover investments through tariffs with assured returns, providing long-term revenue certainty.
UK’s RIIO framework (Revenue = Incentives + Innovation + Outputs): Links revenues to performance targets like reliability, service quality, and carbon reduction, incentivising efficiency.
Digital infrastructure: Smart grids and India Energy Stack can improve transparency in asset management and efficiency-based recovery.
These models suggest that regulatory assets should remain exceptional tools rather than recurring features.

Source: TH

DISCOMs FAQs

Q1: What are regulatory assets in the power sector?

Ans: They are unrecovered revenue gaps between the Average Cost of Supply and revenue collected, deferred for future recovery.

Q2: Why did the Supreme Court intervene in regulatory assets?

Ans: To ensure DISCOMs clear accumulated gaps within a timeline and prevent financial distress in the power sector.

Q3: How do regulatory assets affect consumers?

Ans: They delay tariff hikes initially but lead to steeper costs later, including carrying charges.

Q4: What reforms can reduce regulatory asset dependence?

Ans: Cost-reflective tariffs, timely subsidy release, automatic fuel adjustments, and annual true-ups.

Q5: What global models can India adopt for power sector reforms?

Ans: The UK’s RIIO framework and Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model linking revenues to efficiency and innovation.