UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 16 September 2025

SC on Anticipatory Bail in Caste Crime Cases

September 16, 2025

Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act Latest News

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail in a caste crime case (Kiran vs Rajkumar Jivaraj Jain).
The Bench led by CJI B. R. Gavai ruled that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, bars anticipatory bail when a prima facie case exists. The case arose from caste-based assault, abuse, and intimidation connected to an electoral dispute.

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to protect members of SC and ST communities from caste-based discrimination, violence, and exploitation.
It criminalises a wide range of atrocities such as caste-based abuse, social and economic boycotts, land grabbing, sexual violence, and denial of access to public spaces.
The Act provides for special courts to ensure speedy trials, stringent punishments to deter offenders, and protective measures such as victim and witness protection, relief, and rehabilitation.
A key feature is Section 18, which bars anticipatory bail for offences under the Act, recognising the risk of intimidation and retaliation against victims.
Over time, amendments have further strengthened provisions by adding new offences, enhancing victim compensation, and placing greater accountability on public officials to prevent neglect of duties.

Background of the Case

In November 2024, a Scheduled Caste member, filed an FIR alleging that few persons attacked him and his family, abused using caste slurs, for refusing to vote as directed during Assembly elections.
While the Additional Sessions Judge at Paranda denied anticipatory bail citing casteist intent and corroboration.
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) overturned this, calling the case politically motivated and inconsistent, and granted bail — leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Why Anticipatory Bail is Barred under the SC/ST Act

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, expressly bars anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC (now Section 482 BNSS).
This safeguard was introduced by Parliament to protect victims from intimidation and ensure fair prosecution.
Relying on precedents like Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Vilas Pawar (2012), and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020), the Court held that atrocities under this Act form a separate class linked to systemic caste discrimination, and the bar is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21.
Courts, it clarified, must not conduct a “mini-trial” at the bail stage, but only assess if a prima facie case exists.
In this case, caste slurs, public assault, and an electoral motive placed the offence firmly within the Act’s ambit, ruling out anticipatory bail.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Bench clarified that insults and assaults occurring outside a complainant’s home, visible to others, qualify as acts “within public view” under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act.
It further held that targeting the complainant for his voting choice attracted Section 3(1)(o), which penalises coercion or retaliation in electoral matters against SC/ST members.
Independent witness statements, weapon recovery, and medical evidence reinforced the prosecution’s case, making the High Court’s dismissal of the FIR unsustainable.
The Court also cautioned High Courts against evaluating evidence at the pre-arrest bail stage.
Ultimately, it cancelled the anticipatory bail, terming the High Court’s order a “manifest error and jurisdictional illegality.”

The Way Forward

The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that the SC/ST Act is a substantive safeguard for the dignity and security of vulnerable communities, not a mere formality.
The strict bar on anticipatory bail is constitutionally valid as it prevents intimidation and retaliation against Dalit and tribal complainants.
Courts must uphold the legislative intent of Section 18 by applying the prima facie test strictly on FIRs, without engaging in evidence analysis or dismissing allegations as exaggerated.
The judgment also highlights that electoral retaliation against SC/ST voters undermines both democratic participation and social justice. By reinforcing accountability, it ensures the rule of law protects the most marginalised.

Source: TH | ML

Anticipatory Bail in SC/ST Act FAQs

Q1: Why did the SC cancel anticipatory bail in the caste crime case?

Ans: The SC ruled Section 18 of the SC/ST Act bars anticipatory bail when a prima facie case exists, ensuring protection for victims.

Q2: What does Section 18 of the SC/ST Act state?

Ans: Section 18 explicitly excludes anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, aimed at preventing intimidation and retaliation against Dalit and tribal victims.

Q3: Which precedents did the Court rely on?

Ans: The SC cited Ram Krishna Balothia (1995), Vilas Pawar (2012), and Prathvi Raj Chauhan (2020) to affirm the constitutional validity of Section 18.

Q4: What key observation did the SC make in this case?

Ans: The SC held that public assaults and caste slurs count as offences “within public view,” reinforcing that the case fell squarely under the SC/ST Act.

Q5: What broader message did the SC ruling convey?

Ans: The judgment reaffirmed that the SC/ST Act is a substantive safeguard, strengthening accountability and protecting marginalised communities against caste-based retaliation.

Why India Avoids US Corn Imports

September 16, 2025

India US Corn Trade Latest News

US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick criticised India’s trade practices, singling out its refusal to import American corn.
He argued that India maintains high tariffs while enjoying access to the US market, making the trade relationship “one way.”
Lutnick said India, despite its 1.4 billion population, does not buy even minimal US corn, calling it unfair and contrary to the US vision of “fair and reciprocal trade.”

Why India Limits US Corn Imports

In 2024–25, India imported 0.97 million tonnes of corn, mainly from Myanmar (0.53 mt) and Ukraine (0.39 mt), while imports from the US were negligible at just 1,100 tonnes.
Two key factors explain this:
- India caps duty at 15% for up to 0.5 mt of imports, but any quantity beyond that faces a steep 50% tariff; and
- it bans genetically modified (GMO) corn, which dominates US production.
Also, India is the fifth-largest corn producer and largely self-sufficient, with production dominated by small farmers needing protection from corporate imports.
These restrictions frustrate the US, the world’s largest corn producer and exporter.
- US produced 377.63 mt and exported 71.70 mt in 2024–25 for uses ranging from livestock feed to ethanol production.

US Corn Export Push Amid China’s Retreat

For 2025–26, US corn production and exports are projected at record highs of 427.1 mt and 75 mt, with most output from Midwestern states like Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska.
The urgency to find new markets is driven by collapsing Chinese demand.
In 2022, China was the top buyer, purchasing $5.21 billion worth of US corn out of $18.57 billion in total exports.
By 2024, exports dropped to $13.70 billion, with China slashing imports to $331 million, far behind Mexico ($5.51 billion), Japan ($2.73 billion), and Colombia ($1.52 billion).
Between January–July 2025, amid escalating trade tensions, China imported only $2.4 million worth of US corn.
This steep decline explains the Trump administration’s aggressive push, reflected in Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s criticism of India’s trade restrictions.

India’s Rising Corn Demand and US Trade Hurdles

India’s growing population, higher per capita GDP, and rising consumption of milk, eggs, fish, and meat are expected to sharply increase corn demand.
The US Department of Agriculture projects India’s corn consumption to rise from 34.7 mt in 2022–23 to 98 mt in 2040 and 200.2 mt in 2050 under rapid income growth, requiring imports of 46 mt and 134 mt, respectively.
- Even with moderate growth, consumption could reach 93 mt by 2050, with 26 mt of imports.
The US, the world’s cheapest corn producer, is keen to tap this market, but 94% of its corn area is under genetically modified (GM) varieties, which India neither imports nor allows farmers to plant.
While a NITI Aayog proposal once suggested importing GM maize solely for ethanol production, it was withdrawn.

Current Outlook

Despite US pressure, India remains firm on protecting its farmers and food policies by rejecting GM corn and maintaining tariffs.
With assembly elections in Bihar, India’s third-largest maize producer (after Karnataka and Madhya Pradesh), the government is even less likely to relax tariffs or permit GM corn imports.
Price differences add another layer: US corn costs under ₹15/kg versus India’s wholesale price of ₹22–23/kg and MSP of ₹24/kg for 2025–26.
Hence, given domestic sensitivities, India is unlikely to concede, though the US continues to lobby aggressively.

Source: IE | IT | FP

India US Corn Trade FAQs

Q1: Why does India not import corn from the US?

Ans: India restricts imports with high tariffs and bans genetically modified (GM) corn, which dominates US production, to protect domestic farmers.

Q2: From where does India import most of its corn?

Ans: In 2024–25, India imported mainly from Myanmar (0.53 mt) and Ukraine (0.39 mt), with negligible imports from the US.

Q3: Why is the US keen to export corn to India?

Ans: China, once the largest buyer, has cut imports amid trade wars, pushing the US to find new markets like India for its record surpluses.

Q4: How much corn is India projected to consume by 2050?

Ans: Under rapid income growth, India’s corn demand could reach 200.2 mt by 2050, requiring up to 134 mt of imports.

Q5: Why is India unlikely to relax corn import rules soon?

Ans: With elections in Bihar, a key maize-producing state, and farmer protection concerns, India is unlikely to cut tariffs or allow GM imports.

India Secures ISA Licence to Explore Polymetallic Sulphides

September 16, 2025

Polymetallic Sulphides Latest News

India has secured a first-of-its-kind International Seabed Authority licence to explore polymetallic sulphides in the Carlsberg Ridge of the Indian Ocean.

Introduction

India has taken a major step in its pursuit of critical minerals by securing a first-of-its-kind exploration licence from the International Seabed Authority (ISA).
The licence grants India rights to explore polymetallic sulphides in the Carlsberg Ridge, a geologically significant zone in the northwest Indian Ocean.
With growing global competition for rare minerals needed for clean energy technologies, the development is a milestone in India’s deep-sea mining ambitions.

India’s New Exploration Rights

The agreement, signed in September 2025 with the Jamaica-based ISA, permits India to explore polymetallic sulphur nodules spread across 3,00,000 sq. km in the Carlsberg Ridge.
These nodules are rich in manganese, cobalt, nickel, and copper, minerals critical for batteries, renewable energy infrastructure, and high-tech manufacturing.
This marks the first licence globally for such exploration in the Carlsberg Ridge, making India a pioneer in accessing this untapped mineral wealth.

Previous Exploration Efforts

India’s engagement with seabed exploration is not new. It had earlier secured exploratory rights in the Central Indian Ocean Basin (2002) for polymetallic nodules and later in 2016 for polymetallic sulphides along the Indian Ocean Ridge.
These contracts, valid until 2027 and 2031 respectively, laid the groundwork for India’s technological and institutional capabilities in deep-sea mining.
Over the years, multiple surveys have been commissioned, but large-scale exploitation remains constrained due to environmental concerns and the high cost of deep-sea operations.

Strategic Importance

The significance of these exploration rights extends beyond mineral acquisition.
With the increasing demand for critical minerals to support electric mobility, renewable energy storage, and advanced electronics, having secured rights ensures India’s strategic leverage in global supply chains.
Geopolitical competition adds urgency. Reports of Chinese vessels scouring the region partly prompted India’s 2024 application to the ISA.
Exploration rights are often as much about preventing rival claims as they are about extraction. In this sense, India’s licence serves both economic and national security goals.

Legal and Environmental Dimensions

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), countries can claim continental shelf rights up to 350 nautical miles (and in some regions, like the Bay of Bengal, up to 500 nautical miles).
Beyond this, resource-rich “high seas” territories come under the ISA’s jurisdiction.
While India’s exploration rights open vast opportunities, deep-sea mining remains controversial.
Scientists caution that disturbing seabed ecosystems could trigger irreversible biodiversity loss.
Internationally, debates continue on creating robust safeguards before commercial exploitation begins. India, while pursuing its strategic interests, will have to balance exploration with its environmental commitments.

Global Context and Future Outlook

Currently, 19 countries hold some form of seabed exploration rights under ISA agreements.
However, India’s Carlsberg Ridge licence is unique due to its scale and strategic location, forming the boundary between the Indian and Arabian tectonic plates.
Looking ahead, India is likely to invest in building indigenous capabilities in subsea technology, robotics, and environmental impact assessment.
As the global clean energy transition accelerates, securing reliable supplies of cobalt, nickel, and copper will be vital for India’s manufacturing competitiveness and energy security.

Source: TH

Polymetallic Sulphides FAQs

Q1: What exploration licence has India recently secured?

Ans: India has secured an ISA licence to explore polymetallic sulphides in the Carlsberg Ridge of the Indian Ocean.

Q2: Why is the Carlsberg Ridge significant?

Ans: It is a 3,00,000 sq. km stretch in the northwest Indian Ocean rich in critical minerals like cobalt, nickel, manganese, and copper.

Q3: How does this licence strengthen India’s position?

Ans: It enhances India’s access to critical minerals, prevents rival claims, and boosts strategic security in the Indian Ocean.

Q4: What earlier exploration rights has India obtained?

Ans: India secured ISA contracts in 2002 for polymetallic nodules in the Central Indian Ocean Basin and in 2016 for polymetallic sulphides.

Q5: What are the challenges of deep-sea mining?

Ans: High operational costs and environmental risks, including potential seabed ecosystem damage, are key challenges.

Supreme Court’s Interim Stay on Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025

September 16, 2025

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 Latest News

The Supreme Court of India passed an interim order staying select provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025, while refusing to impose a blanket stay on the entire law.
The Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 (passed in April 2025) had introduced sweeping changes in the management of Waqf properties, leading to widespread constitutional challenges.

Background - Challenge to the Act

Petitioners: Political leaders and organisations (including AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, TMC MP Mahua Moitra, RJD MP Manoj Kumar Jha, YSR Congress, and CPI). Around 65 petitions consolidated before the Supreme Court.
Grounds of challenge: Violation of Article 26 (right to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution and alleged infringement of the autonomy of the Muslim community in managing Waqf properties.
Test of constitutionality:
- Generally, no law is stayed in its entirety because the Constitution’s Article 13(2) clearly says that only the provisions that contravene fundamental rights are void.
- The bench did exactly this in the interim order and stayed a few provisions of the Act.

Supreme Court’s Interim Relief

Powers of District Collectors (Section 3C):
- Provision stayed: District Collectors’ powers to declare a Waqf property as government property during inquiry.
- Reason: Prima facie arbitrary and contrary to the principle of separation of powers.
Interim safeguard:
- Property to retain Waqf status during inquiry.
- Waqfs not to be dispossessed.
- No third-party rights to be created until final decision by a Waqf Tribunal.
Inclusion of non-muslims in Waqf Boards:
- The new law allowed for a non-Muslim majority in Waqf boards and the Central Waqf Council.
- Direction issued by SC to avoid ambiguity:
  - Central Waqf Council, which has 22 members, shall not consist of more than four non-Muslim members.
  - State Waqf Boards, with 11 members, shall not have more than three non-Muslim members.
- Rationale: To prevent violation of a community's right to religious self-management.
Five-year rule for practising Islam:
- Provision stayed: Requirement that only a Muslim practising Islam for at least 5 years could create a Waqf.
- Condition: Stay will continue until the government frames rules specifying mechanisms to determine religious practice.

Provisions not Stayed

Abolition of “Waqf by Use”:

- Background: This long-standing principle meant that land used for Muslim religious or charitable purposes for a long time could be deemed to be a Waqf even if it was not formally registered as such.
- Petitioners’ argument: They had strongly opposed the omission of the concept of “Waqf by use”.
- Government stance: The government had argued that this concept was being misused to encroach upon government lands.
- Court’s view: The court did not find a prima facie case to stay the prospective abolition of this concept.

Applicability of the Limitation Act:

- Earlier law (1995 Act): It had specifically excluded the application of the Limitation Act, which allowed Waqfs to act against encroachments on their properties without any time limit.
- Amendment (2025 Act): The 2025 law removed this exemption, meaning legal claims against encroachment must be made within a specific period.
- Court’s observation: This corrects earlier discrimination; provision not stayed.

Significance of the Interim Order

Balances community rights with government’s regulatory powers.
Prevents arbitrary dispossession of Waqf properties while ensuring disputes are adjudicated by Waqf Tribunals.
Provides clarity on non-Muslim participation limits in Waqf bodies.

Broader Concerns

Property rights vs. religious law:
- The court upheld the exclusion of non-Muslims from creating Waqf, despite historical precedents.
- For example, in Motishah v. Abdul Gaffar (1956), the Nagpur HC upheld the right of non-Muslims to create a waqf.
- Critics argue it infringes property rights and limits philanthropy for secular causes (schools, hospitals, roads).
Secular state dilemma: Allowing officials to judge “good Muslims” vs “bad Muslims” challenges India’s secular and liberal democratic framework.
Comparative lens: Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and Jain endowment laws have their own limitations, raising parity questions.
Missed opportunity: The Act could have been a step toward Uniform Civil Code (UCC) covering all religious endowments.

Conclusion

The matter remains sub judice, with the stay operative until final adjudication of constitutional validity.
The case will test the balance between religious freedoms under Article 26, secular state oversight, and property rights.
A final ruling will have significant implications for the governance of Waqf properties, minority rights, and the principle of separation of powers in India’s constitutional framework.

Source: IE | IE

Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 FAQs

Q1: Why did the Supreme Court stay certain provisions of the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025?

Ans: Because the provisions granting wide powers to district collectors and restricting Waqf creation were found prima facie arbitrary and violative of Article 26 rights.

Q2: How did the SC balance community rights and state powers in its interim order?

Ans: It protected Waqf properties from arbitrary dispossession while allowing inquiries, limiting non-Muslim participation in Waqf bodies, etc.

Q3: What constitutional right did the petitioners invoke against the Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025?

Ans: They invoked Article 26 of the Constitution, which guarantees religious denominations the right to manage their own affairs in matters of religion.

Q4: Why did the SC not stay the abolition of ‘Waqf by use’?

Ans: Because the Court accepted the government’s argument that the concept was being misused to encroach upon public land.

Q5: What is the significance of applying the Limitation Act to Waqf property disputes?

Ans: It introduces a fixed timeframe for legal claims against encroachments, ensuring parity and reducing indefinite litigation.